John Cuthber

Since the direction is random the point remains. The OP is wrong.

The photon is emitted as the electron falls to a lower state. Those "two events" are always simultaneous. But the emission of a photon is random- you don't know when it will happen. The decay from an excited state is also random- you don't know when it will happen.

Sorry, I seem not to have made myself clear. the word "realise" doesn't only mean "to make real", it also means to understand". You still need to understand that, in general, it's impossible to write down a set of equations and say that they will happen just because you want them to

Yes really. Excited states are characterised by a half life. The photon gets emitted eventually but exactly when is determined by probabilities.

Got this far "Let me start by saying that inorder to understand this, clear your mind for now and don't rationalize" and stopped reading. Thanks for the advance warning that it wasn't rational.

Can you please learn the difference between infer and imply or, alternatively, stop using words that you don't know the meaning of (see discussion of "brief" and "beak" above.) If you allow people to interpret the law as they please then you have introduced arbitrary justice. Re. "just calmly, coolly and quietly set about taking the appropriate legal redress." Have you forgotten that the business of newspapers is to report matters of public interest (for example the authorities apparently abusing their power). ​It would be negligent of them to take the action you have suggested.

"The clear bias of stellar fusion results in the creation of highly electro-negative elements." OK, lets have a look at some facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis Stellar fusion starts by making helium which is not electronegative, "This is results in an electrical asymmetry where a net effective positive charge is the result of this process. " No it doesn't. "This results in stellar and galactic charge gradients which account for the fact that 99% of the visible universe is in a PLASMA STATE!!! Most of the visible universe is plasma but that has nothing much to do with electronegativity, it has a lot to do with the fact that the matter concerned is very hot. "This means that the electric force is the dominant force in the cosmos and that gravity is much less important" Nope, on the large scale gravity is more important because it's always additive while electrical effects fall off as the third or sixth power of distance. "Your body is 66% oxygen which gives it a negative charge bias" drivel Please cite some actual evidence (peer reviewed rather than just a questionable website)

"And inherently less logical because whether the universe began in a magical, physics defying explosion " It doesn't defy physics- it's just that we don't yet fully understand that physics. So " But that's faith, just like any religion." is wrong, because the science wants to change and get better but faith refuses to change. You need to accept that difference "And john, I'm sorry, I don't mean to attack you as a person. " Then don't. I know nothing about you. But it's a pretty reliable rule that when people go out of their way to harass and insult other entire groups solely based on misinformation about those groups.... There is generally something personally traumatic about that person's past. It's beyond disagreement. OK, but I didn't go out of my way, this is a science site and Crispy Bacon turned up and made an unevinced assertion. I'm not insulting anyone- just pointing something out. I'm not peddling misinformation. I am not the one who said "Your "religion kills children" claim is pretty much dead. " I'm not the one drawing up strawmen. I'm not the one who says "Since their belief structure is so obviously superior and unquestionable that any who question it must hate freedom and kittens." "Then call foul when someone points out bow transparent your attacks are." I didn't do that- it's another of your strawmwen. I pointed out that you had made a logical error- use of a strawman. You, on the other hand, keep making unsubstantiated allegations about hatred, phobias etc. Unless you can prove it (and you won't because it's wrong) you are talking nonsense. Get yourself a mirror

Reminded me of this http://xkcd.com/927/

I rather suspect that the new prince has no teeth and no speech. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_George_of_Cambridge

Stop making up stuff about me like previous trauma, hatred and phobia. Everyone reading this thread knows that you don't know me and you are not in a position to make those claims. You just look silly. Re "As for your opinion that pastors mandate people reject all medical treatment and solely pray" Your claim is a strawman. Did you not realise that putting the word "all" into it meant that it was no longer what I had said? (and, BTW, that's "bearing false witness") What I actually did say was supported by this "The doctors and health professionals reported a variety of cases: Some said they had dealt with parents who felt under pressure to stop giving their young children their HIV medicine - and some had actually done so"from the web page I cited earlier The two children mentioned here are much more dead than the assertion that religion kills children. http://jonathanturley.org/2013/04/24/faith-healing-parents-arrested-after-second-child-dies-from-lack-of-medical-care/

"Presumably you know all this." It's a matter of record that they knew in advance and even contacted government officials in the UK and US and discussed it. So, the idea that they didn't have time to get a warrant isn't tenable. Once you rule that out you need to look for other explanations for their actions. Feel free to offer one. As for withdrawing my assertions , no thanks, I'm sticking with a "fair comment" defence on the basis that I have reasonable grounds to believe that they are true. There are investigations underway at the moment looking into what happened. Perhaps we should wait until those are concluded. "On a general point, I for one have no problem with authorities acting in whatever way they need to protect the nation, its citizens at home and abroad, its agents and all those involved in obtaining information hazardous to its citizens." Nor have I, but that's not what they were doing in this case. " but should they stretch the rule of law on occasions (I'm not saying that in this case), within limits, I've no problem with that. " So, you have no problem with people whose job is to enforce the law not sticking to the law themselves. Well, I guess you are entitled to that opinion.

Perhaps someone should add a smiley to the thread's title

You still need to realise that, in general, it's impossible to write down a set of equations and say that they will happen just because you want them to

Why do Dogs spend so much time Sleeping ?Because they can.

There are two problems with that, the first is that there is no evidence of the supernatural. The second is that the truth is not just "Well, there is zero 'scientific' evidence to support as fact the existence of deities. " but that there is no evidence of any sort to support the existence of deities. There are old books and mistaken or deluded people- but those aren't evidence. If you really think that there is evidence of any sort for the existence of God the present it and we will (I'm willing to bet) show that it's not evidence ofanything

" it would be quite irrational to look up into the night sky, or into the microscope, contemplate the wonder and immensity, complexity and beauty of it all, and conclude that you had nothing to do with it, or it, with you." Indeed, the universe caused me. No God needed. OTOH religion tries to teach me that all that wondrous stuff is for our benefit. How rational is that? "but belief in God is not broken, is very rational, and is very evidence based, if such belief is referring to that about the universe that is consistently true, across the board." Also true, as is the idea that belief in God is not broken if you assume that such belief is referring to "chocolate biscuits". However it doesn't hold for any of the more traditional definitions of God

Oil has leaked from holes in the ground since well before people were interested in it. It was "eaten" by bacteria- otherwise we would be up to our ankles in it by now. Taking those bacteria and making sure they get to places where there's an oil spill is just helping nature along a bit. What's the "scare story" here?

So, still working on faith and personal belief rather than evidence then? OK fine, that's not a problem: but it does mean that your beliefs are more religion than science

"I didn't say 'valid' evidence. I said evidence to satisfy a brief. That's a mile away from 'valid' evidence." Not from the brief's point of view. And, btw, it's not a brief you need to convince, it's a beak. "Gathering evidence presumably has to start somewhere, possibly following up suspicious activity. But if the consequences of that suspicious activity is subject to time (changing planes for example. Or a bomb likely to go off), then it seems to me that time is of the essence." They knew about his travel plans in advance. While he was on the flight in to the UK they would have had plenty of time to get a warrant. But, because they knew that their purpose was harassment, rather than law enforcement, they didn't do that. "And regarding the current news event, I understand that according to latest media reports the custodians of the law are considering criminal acts." The custodians of the law were committing criminal acts (in my opinion- that issue is still sub judice) so I guess it's fair to say they considered them first. " If that's the case (yes, I know news reports are only news reports), then the suspicions were correctly founded and the security of the nation was at risk." The security of the nation is plainly at risk if the officers of the law are acting illegally. I guess we will have to wait for the outcome of the legal process before we know that. Incidentally, the police may well demonstrate that the guy had "classified information" or whatever. That's a whole different kettle of fish from proving that he was intending to publish it (which would, of course, be a criminal offence) Incidentally, here's how the story is panning out so far "Lord Justice Beatson and Judge Kenneth Parker issued an injunction blocking the government from using or sharing material seized fromDavid Miranda at Heathrow on Sunday in a criminal investigation – half an hour after a Metropolitan police lawyer announced the force had launched such an investigation." "The Met said it was pleased by the ruling." Yeah, right.

If refusal of blood transfusions was the only stupidity in which they engaged and if avoiding transfusions was always possible then that might be a valid point, except that medical practice didn't change for the benefit of a few JWs. And, of course, there's no cruelty involved with blood transfusions so that's a bit silly too. In the meantime you seem to have distracted yourself from my questions. Why did you falsely assert that I was demonstrating hatred? Why do you think there is evidence for prayer? This is a scientific discussion forum: you are expected to provide evidence for your claims. Are you unable to do so?

"You asked what sort of hate I was referring to.... While demonstrating it. " Who do you think I hate and do you really think that I'd not notice? Are you acting under the delusion that you know my mind better than I do? How broken is that? Or is it just some bit of dogma you have picked up somewhere? For the record, I'm laughing at the irony. On the other hand, you seem so riled that you can't type properly. Might be hate, might be anger, might be something else, but it's not helping you put a message across. " This happens for many reasons, and is not caused by religion. " Yes it is caused by religion, that's well documented. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23729684 Ignoring such evidence is, shall we say, "broken". Thinking that this "Some people also take too many drugs and suffer as much. " has anything to do with the question isn't rational either. "First you have a false dichotomy that assumes people must choose between prayer and medicine." Nope, the pastor does that. " Second, id bet you ignore any evidence to support prayer " Show me some and we can find out. Better yet, show these people and get a million dollars. http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html Similarly, if you have any evidence then please provide it, otherwise this "If you can't pray for God to pop up on your terms, you assume it to be evidence that prayer has no effect. Thing is, God's a bit smarter than you and doesn't have to give you what you want how you want it when you want it. " is pointless drivel. .

Yes, You also need to realise that, in general, it's impossible to write down a set of equations and say that they will happen just because you want them to. It's just about possible to spall off neutrons but it's a rare event compared to capture.

Tanks are heavy.

If you have valid evidence you can get a court order pretty quickly. However in this case they had plenty of time to do the right thing (if they thought he had sensitive information illegally, they should have arrested him for getting it ) But they chose, premeditatedly, not to do that, but to abuse their authority. But read through what you said again " if you believe someone has possession of material "..."but there's no evidence to satisfy a brief or..." Well, if the counter terrorist authorities believe stuff for which there's no valid evidence then perhaps they should be locked up- for their own safety. "Ultimate power has to be available; if it's not we lay ourselves open who knows what." Yes, for example someone could introduce arbitrary arrest by pretending its a counter terror precaution. "who knows what" has already arrived. BTW, have you seen the other half of this story? Form http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-schedule7-danger-reporters "And so one of the more bizarre moments in the Guardian's long history occurred – with two GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian's basement just to make sure there was nothing in the mangled bits of metal which could possibly be of any interest to passing Chinese agents. "We can call off the black helicopters," joked one as we swept up the remains of a MacBook Pro." We are leaving decisions about national security to people who think destroying a hard drive (from which they know that the data has already been transferred) will achieve anything.