John Cuthber

LOL Maths isn't plural, if it were I'd have written "maths don't..." rather than "maths doesn't..." Learn the difference before you try to "correct" others. The rest of your post also didn't make sense. For example you say ". Science cripples itself without acknowledging the one who set forth all of reality to be discovered." What has science been prevented from discovering? (please don't cite things that don't exist.) ​Also, as others have said, you claim that religion increases understanding of science. Again- cite examples.

"Natron is sodium *carbonate* decahydrate." No it isn't, it's a mixture of carbonate and bicarbonate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natron Copper can be precipitated as a carbonate/ hydroxide with such a mixture. Also copper forms complexes with carbonates so a lot of natron may keep the copper in solution. With added salt you might get mixed chloride/carbonate/ hydroxide compounds that are insoluble and green. It's not really possible to say without more detail.

If I get a nice, old fashioned (i.e. uncompensated) pendulum clock, and a modern quartz watch I can use the "clock" as a reasonable thermometer (provided I'm patient and not trying to measure rapid changes in temperature). So, since pendulum clocks don't measure time (they measure temperature) it's no shock that they don't behave in the way that GR expects a clock to behave. Equally, I could use the "clock" together with a means to measure the time, to measure the local value of g. If I put the "clock" in orbit I could verify that it stops. Big deal.

OK, what about the other social animals? Did scientists dupe bees into cooperating? Yes, briefly until he gets beaten up fr breaking the rules. Also, a person on their own can't really achieve much. We work much better as teams. answer if the to ignore even a of rules- those of becomes grammar.apparent few think decides someone the I

No, I'm afraid I don't. Please explain why you think maths doesn't work but science, which is largely based in maths, does work. Also, it might be easier if, rather than just quoting my questions, you answered them So, once again, what do you think that quote meant?

A pendulum clock in a swimming pool also won't work. Fact. So what? "But it belies common sense. There is no physical mechanism that can be imagined within the mind of a rational human being." But graviton exchange "can be imagined within the mind of a rational human being.".

Not my field, but if you can say "the Omo remains are essentially part modern, part archaic" surely there isn't a specific "cutoff" for modernity so the question of when did it happen is meaningless.

But what if you only gave it 4 O2 molecules? What about some number between 4 and 19?

There isn't a single formula. How incomplete is incomplete?

" John... You're comfortable with saying that the big bang "doesnt defy physics, we just don't understand it yet".... But people are inherently foolish/broken for applying the same logic to a different source of a universal explosion of creation? Do you see the fundamental flaw?" Yes, the fundamental flaw is that some people don't understand that there's evidence for the big band, but none for God. Strictly change isn't the purpose of science, but it's the method. Religion's method is to refuse to change if at all possible. That too is a fundamental flaw You say "Science without religion is lame." It seems to walk just fine to me. What did you think that quote meant?

This should be in religion.

Stable isotopes do not decay.

If I had a litre of liquid helium in a beaker at 2K (let's assume I'm somewhere really cold), how thick would the 3He layer be?

Goodbye Leif. Just on the off-chance you read this, I don't actually need to have a better idea in order to point out that your ideas are wrong. After all, you say things like "the nobel gases are reactive elements when in a solution of water." which is plainly false. However, if you want to know what my "better model" is, read a good science textbook. Come to think of it, read one anyway.

My culture used to believe in slavery, but we grew out of it.

"Would you mind addressing the goat herder specifically and tell me why he is broken?" I would, but I'm sure it was discussed earlier and I don't want to make this thread longer than it needs to be. The point is that the goatherder isn't posting here so, no, he's not broken- just the victim of fraud (directly or by proxy). "Religion doesn't think. People do." Thinking religiously is a pretty broken way to think.

Well, for a start "But take John Lennon's song "Imagine" and put everybody naked in field, loving each other...which is a nice thought, until everybody realizes that nobody brought any bananas, and its time for lunch."wins the non sequiteur of the week award. Imagine that there was a religion, and that everyone was too busy going to church to buy any bananas. There's no reason to think that any sort or religon or lack of it has anything to do with having an organised society.

But the rules I'm working to are called logic. In most areas of life, if you start ignoring the rules of logic you will quickly get thought of as "broken". If you can claim "an old book says so" is evidence then you can write something down and it's veracity will start off as zero but rise to the point of being "revealed truth" with time. But truth doesn't work that way. The rules of scientific evidence pretty much coincide with the legal definitions; both of them are broadly based in the rules of logical inference. But religion is allowed to simply ignore them and, by proxy, to ignore logic. That's a pretty broken way to think.

OK let';s look at electronegativity - acording to wiki. Electronegativity, symbol χ, is a chemical property that describes the tendency of an atom or a functional group to attract electrons There are lots of scales for it and no two agree so it's obviously a bit bogus. Now let's look at the actual data for how well atoms attract electrons (which is actually relevant since the elements in stars aren't doing chemistry) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_affinity#Electron_affinities_of_the_elements It's near zero for the inert gases. Re."except that the nobel gases are reactive elements when in a solution of water." No they are not, and the word is noble, btw. re "You put no effort in, then I give you little effort in return...do your own research!" Actually I have put in a fair bit of effort over the years a few years as a student and a few decades as a scientist- that's how I know things like why most of the visible universe is plasma. You ask "And so gravity is well known to be an incredibly weak force...so how can you indicate otherwise in good faith?" Well, the simple answer is that I know what I'm talking about. Gravity is a weak force, but it's always attractive. half the time electrostatic forces repel so, on the large scale they pretty much cancel out. "Also I think it is a fact that your body has a negative charge and this knowledge is 70 plus years old now. The fact that the earth's crust is highly negatively charged goes back over a 100 years now and is found to have originated with Tesla!" I'm a fairly good conductor and I'm not isolated from earth so I will have little if any net charge. Tesla said a lot of things: not all of them were right. OK, if you don't like the word drivel, how about a phrase that Copernicus and the clergy would all have understood. "Your body is 66% oxygen which gives it a negative charge bias" non sequiteur Oh, and claiming that something is due to something else, when it isn't, is drivel. "I do not see where that gets you with Helium in a non-earth environment where there is no liquid water." well perhaps you shouldn't have introduced water into the discussion (wrongly). "I think it obvious that gravity and electricity follow the same inverse square law " I don't, because most of the time, with electrical effects you are talking about dipole- dipole interactions which vary as the cube of the distance or induced dipole-induced dipole interactions which vary as the sixth power (as I said, but you didn't read or understand) But that's just reality- you choose to believe that something which is wrong, is obvious. Fine, but it's not science. " What you should do is research some of these new concepts and find your own conclusions. I am sure that you have never given consideration to any of this thought before...am I right?" No.

" It decays through neutron emission with a half-life of (1.39 ± 0.10) × 10−22 seconds" So, where do you plan to get it from?

It would be tricky to prove but I rather suspect that people realised it was sensible to be nice to eachother before there was any clear idea of a God. There is evidence that some other primates* have a "sense of fairness", but I haven't seen them setting up churches. http://www.livescience.com/26245-chimps-value-fairness.html this sort http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate rather than this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate_(bishop)

There isn't a 4H so, no it 100% won't work. Go and learn something before posting more nonsense.

His assertion at about 1 minute 30 seconds that desertification only happens when we create bare ground is clearly false. Deserts were made before we were here.

Neutrons still do not do what you want them to. This bit will work 2H2O---electrolysis--->O2 + 2H2 but the rest won't.

What do you mean by "belief in a universal idea"? Do you mean belief in an idea that everyone believes or do you mean belief in a universe? In either case there's a clear difference from belief in God. If there's an idea in which everyone believes, then I believe in it by definition. I believe there's a universe. So, by either definition, I have "belief in a universal idea". But I don't believe in God/ So, yes, there's a difference if I have understood you properly.