John Cuthber

That is entirely consistent with there not being any deity. It is also inconsistent with a deity that it's worth praying to. (If I pray for a miracle and I see a miracle then I have viewed something in the cosmos that proves the deity's existence, but that's forbidden by the idea that "Nothing we can view in the cosmos would prove a higher Deity. ") If we can't show that God exists, He might as well not exist.

It's not so much that he has to demonstrate that the density is a million times bigger (though that would be good). What he has to do is explain why the measurements of the density are a million fold wrong. Incidentally, re "So why don't you just ban me now, and make my good & interesting posts go elsewhere." You have not made any good or interesting posts.You just post rubbish like the sun's surface is denser than iron, it's where fusion takes place and the sun produces iron. All of those ideas are gibberish. There may be a few psychologists who find your posts interesting, but that's it.

I already saw it. I noted that it didn't actually address the issues I had raised. Looking at it again won't change that. Please actually answer my points as required by the forum rules. Incidentally, Moontanman: don't forget the false beard with which she is usually portrayed.

Only just conductors in some cases. CrO2 is a rather poor conductor. Anyway, isn't the answer to the original question that the coefficient of friction for smooth metal on smooth metal is fairly low: 0.1 or less. It's easier to slide a book along a table than it is to lift it.

Are these materials just by-products or do they act as adjuvants? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjuvant You might end up with a vaccine which can't possibly provoke a food allergy- but doesn't actually work. At that point you are back to a "vaccine vs no vaccine" debate and we agree about the outcome of that discussion.

Half a mole of (NH4)2SO4 will react with 1 mole of NaOH. But if you need someone to explain that, you probably shouldn't be doing the synthesis.

You seem to have failed to read or to understand what I posted earlier. Here it is again. Let's just clarify something here " Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. " OK, I guess that's true, but unicorns are not invalidated by the known laws of physics. It doesn't make them real. And this bit "No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter." is still plainly wrong. Stop repeating it- it shows you up as a liar. There are refutations- notably those cited in the wiki article quoted in post # 8 of this thread. I have slightly more credibility than Tipler's work if I assert that I have the biggest willy of all humans on the planet. Let's see you find a refutation of that-. "within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter."

"The Sun’s surface is so crushed that the Hydrogen is now denser than Iron on Earth. " No it isn't. The density of the photosphere is about 0.0002 kg/cubic metre The density of iron on the earth's surface is about 8000 kg/cubic metre. You are wrong by a factor of about forty million. We know this from spectroscopic studies. Why don't you stop posting nonsense and try learning stuff instead?

"Is Current Electricity Theory Wrong?" Apparently not

Devoidwind, Do you also post on linguists' sites saying " I don't know anything about Swahili but you are wrong- it doesn't have anything like that many cases"? Is it just science where you feel that a total lack of understanding doesn't inhibit your freedom to post rubbish? How about knitting? Do you turn up on "knittingforums" and say " but using pearl takes 12345.67 times as much wool as reverse stockinette stitch" without being troubled by the fact that you have absolutely no idea what you are on about?

" I would tell you that western medicine itself is dangerous, and that using prescribed medications or entrusting your health to anyone outside of yourself or a qualified holistic healer is probably going to kill you in the long run, because you choosing a system which is based off of death instead of the forces which are harmonious to life..... all synthetic medications are coming from the destruction of the natural world and the rape/pillage of the earth..." Plainly nonsense since we live longer than we did before we had modern medicine. " I believe ayahuasca can cure many psychological diseases such as depression and anxiety.. " But Belief doesn't cut it any more in medicine, what do the double-blind studies say? This thread should be in "religion" since most of the claims are nothing to do with science. (In most cases, you could replace the use of drug(s) by "the power of prayer" and have an essentially identical thread). The answer to the question which forms the title of the thread is, I suspect, "Both" like alcohol,

Zorro, Have you actually got anything right yet? Almost all of the stuff you have posted has been at odds with accepted science and not backed up by any sort of evidence. You have, from time to time, cited stuff and called it evidence, but it never actually supported your point. You seem to think that posting nonsense is, in some way, helpful. It isn't. For exampl you say that you first post is "stunning" Well, here it is "My thought is that we need a Fusion reactor with processes similar to the Photosphere of the Sun where temps are only 7,000 dK." So, what you want is a fusion reactor with processes that simply don't work. Why is that "stunning" to " the general reader who buys Forum Advertisers stuff" It's not stunning, it's silly.

Zorro, Have you actually got anything right yet? Almost all of the stuff you have posted has been at odds with accepted science and not backed up by any sort of evidence. You have, from time to time, cited stuff and called it evidence, but it never actually supported your point. You seem to think that posting nonsense is, in some way, helpful. It isn't. For exampl you say that you first post is "stunning" Well, here it is "My thought is that we need a Fusion reactor with processes similar to the Photosphere of the Sun where temps are only 7,000 dK." So, what you want is a fusion reactor with processes that simply don't work. Why is that "stunning" to " the general reader who buys Forum Advertisers stuff" It's not stunning, it's silly.

"If you chance to read me once in a while I spoke of going from Si to Fe but not directly; then gave a cut of a large Star " So not the sun, which isn't large as stars go. And, even that picture shows the outer layers (where the photosphere is) as non-burning So your whole thread is wrong because you didn't read properly. That would explain why you can't provide evidence and are talking nonsense.

Feel free to increase both our bank balances by writing me a cheque for more than twice as much money as you have in your account. (assuming, of course, that both bank balances are currently real and positive)

Nope, you have forgotten something, well quite a lot of things really. Unless they were condensed down into metallic iron, they never were magnetised so they never had the magnetic energy to lose. If they had then that energy is (as I pointed out, but you didn't seem to understand) tiny compared ti the thermal energies involved. "Which leads to the $64,000 question, what is the Photosphere composed of and what state are they in ???" The answer is in the box just to the right of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Characteristics Which leads to the $64,000 question, what is the Photosphere composed of and what state are they in ??? The state is a plasma at about 5000K and a density of about 2E-4 kg/m^3 Can I have my 64,000$ now please?

So, Unity, you don't mind if I persecute you today just as long as, when it's perfectly obvious to everyone that I was wrong to do so, I apologise (long after you are dead of course)? Get a grip. At the time, Galileo was stopped from doing science by the Catholic church and they are still in the business of preaching anti-science. "Also, this is also a cultural issue, as he states that “They come with readymade solutions. They don’t ask. They know what is right for us as Africans and the condoms are part of that arrogance.” " To be blunt, a condom doesn't know what colour penis it's on. They work just as well in Africa. They do a demonstrably good job of reducing transmission of infection (and keeping unwanted pregnancies down isn't a bad thing either.

So, still the dark ages then? Because here's the church interfering with the progress and dissemination of science. http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14929 And this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair wasn't in the dark ages either. Since you asked, http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf

I can think of lots of lower numbers that meet that criterion. All of them are zero or less.

The sun ism in a sense a big dynamo. However that has nothing to do with iron (which is just as well, there's not a lot of iron there). You need to look more carefully at the idea of a triple point, it's got next to nothing to do with a curie point. Hot iron simply isn't magnetic at any high temperature (regardless of pressure) because the thermal energy is much bigger than the energy associated with the domain dipoles. Also, any iron in the sun is in a fluid state, (the distinction between plasma liquid and gas is a bit fuzzy, but it doesn't matter). Fluids are, at best, paramagnetic so iron would have no advantage over, for example, hydrogen which is also paramagnetic under those conditions. Perhaps, you should stop making any new unsupported assertions until you have come up with some semblance of evidence for those you have already made.

Just checking, you do know that iron isn't magnetic once it's above about red hot,don't you? So making dynamos out of it in the sun would be silly. "Something in the Photosphere is containing the energy from core. What; ..... we don't know??" No it isn't. If it was the sun wouldn't shine. We don't need to speculate about what causes an effect that doesn't happen. The sun follows the laws of physics as we know them. If you want to show otherwise, please start with finding out what those laws predict, then show how reality differs. (that requires you to learn the physics first)

No, The nonsense you said (among others) was "Their interest is Weapons and not a Electric utility." I was pointing out that the scientists are not interested in making weapons (which we already have) as much as they are interested in getting fusion power (which we don't have). BTW, very few things have meaningful "insulating properties" under those conditions: photons and electrons are capable of carrying lots of energy about and the presence of a scrap of iron won't make any difference.

No Zorro, You need to explain why you think that fusion to create iron can happen at lower temperatures than the fusion of H to He. We know the Fe formation happens at high temperatures and pressures but you keep saying that it's formed in the Sun. Well, the Sun simply isn't hot enough so you need to explain why you think it's forming iron. (Much of the rest of what you said was also nonsense (for example, we already have weapons, but we don't have a reliable energy supply), but I'm running out of patience with pointing it out in detail.)

That's the problem. You don't understand why a belief in the Sky Fairy should not be given the same respect as science. Where, on the scale of "respect" do you think that Zeus should be, or Ra or the FSM? Do you consider them all equal? I think most atheists do so, when it comes to a lack of respect, at least I'm consistent. I respect evidence. Incidentally, there was a discussion earlier about arrogance and atheism. Well, I'm an atheist and I'm arrogant. But I'm not arrogant enough to think that the entire Universe was created for the benefit of me and my species.

"Science's perplexity with this concept is that the scientific axiom is that matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed." No, it was an axiom but we discovered that it's a deduction. Noether's theorem shows it to be true as a consequence of Symmetry- specifically symmetry with respect to time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem#Example_1:_Conservation_of_energy But, time did not exist before the big bang so the symmetry breaks down at that point and there is no expectation of conservation of energy or mass at that point. Science hasn't got a theoretical problem with the creation of the universe. On the other hand, can you similarly explain the creation of God?