John Cuthber

Can we change the tread title to "God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream pseudoscientific Physics"

Q) How many times can you take half an orange from a box containing 6 oranges. A) 12 Divide in half isn't the same as divide by half. Confusing those is just sloppy English.

"I have noticed I tend to be prejudice against atheist and other religions." It may help if you learn the difference. "I've noticed some atheist tend to be prejudice against religious people as well." How can you be sure this is prejudice isn't it just a judgement based on information? If I was biassed against someone who believed in Father Christmas or the tooth fairy would you consider that a bad thing? Equivalently, would you trust such a person to make important decisions- would you be happy to have them as your doctor for example? "We both need to work on this and not judge until we get to know the person." How much do you need to know about a person before you form an opinion? There are two issues there. The first is that forming opinions almost instantly is instinctive and, therefore unavoidable. The other issue is that it's not unreasonable to make a snap judgement in some cases. BTW, you might want to remember what else the Bible says about travellers and strangers. That's the group from whom you should select your slaves. Am I "allowed" to be prejudiced against a group whose religion tells them who they should enslave?

Are you happy? That's nice but it's got nothing to do with your writing style. You aren't " an action, expression, manner, etc" so 2 is out too. 2b is a matter of opinion. Care to set up a poll? Oh, BTW, I'm putting in a pre-emptive strike about the "mantle of Galileo".

I suppose I should point out that making statements of the form "if so and so is true then whatever" is a logical minefield* but I really don't see that as the big problem in this thread. * they get messy when you try to prove them false. So, for example if 1 = 2 then I'm Elvis. Just as soon as you can come up wit circumstances where 1=2 then I will need to prove that I'm the King- until then you can't prove that the assertion is false. On the other hand, this silly idea of yours has been on the web for a while. If it were true then it would have been picked up by the mainstream media and I would already have heard of it. I haven't, so it isn't.

It's not a non sequiteur. I'm not saying that it follows from anything else written here.There's no implied or stated causal relation. I'm simply saying it's true. Incidentally http://bit.ly/151fUsC By whom were you chosen and/ or who do you please?

Unhelpfully, the theoretical answer is that you never rinse out all the acetone. It gets more and more dilute, but there's always some left. It's probably better to air dry the condenser first or even to rinse it with some of the alcohol before you distil it (then throw away the mixture).

If the assertion in the title of this thread was true I wouldn't have read about it in a badly written post on a discussion forum.

Does this count as ESP? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroconvulsive_therapy

Your example was a man walking down the street which he considers to be static. But it is clearly moving (WRT) him. GR shows that nothing is truly stationary in an absolute sense because there's no absolute reference frame. So, either the road is static in the frame of reference he's referring to (probably the planet earth's surface) or his assertion that it (seems) static is totally without meaning. My guess would be that 1) he can distinguish these two points of view and 2) he means the former. So, what he "believes", i.e. that the road is stationary is, in fact true, because of his choice of reference frame. The road is not moving WRT the nearby fields and houses. My frame of reference is different from his.so, what we accurately say about the street differs. It remains the case that, in order to seek to prove your point, you altered what I said. That's not a valid way of making progress. OK, now lets have a look at your "proof" "With general relativity, using Lemaitre coordinates, neither you nor the street are static right now. You are far from it. It wouldn't be a good enough approximation to get the job done." The job I'm doing is sitting on a chair. I'm getting that job done. Any and all approximations which I'm currently employing are, therefore "a good enough approximation to get the job done." If Lemaitre coordinates say otherwise, then they are either wrong or being misapplied. My money is on misapplication. You may not have noticed, but, for most people, GR is a bit obscure. I'm not moving WRT my chair at a significant fraction of the speed of light, nor am I in spitting distance of a black hole. So, to a good approximation, I can ignore the relativistic corrections to Newtonian physics. It is, as I said before, a good enough approximation to get the job done. That's the point you miss. I'm not labouring under the false belief that I'm stationary. I'm just well aware that I'm near enough stationary to ignore the tiny corrections. I'm not, therefore, deluding myself about some absolute frame or reference. so, could you please explain why you think that voluntary, deliberate self delusion is part of the human condition.

Is this the first time you have noticed a government being stupid? Also, most of the things you have cited there are nothing to do with ESP.

" It wasn't wrong, then, according to their beliefs." You seem not to be prepared to accept that the slavery was wrong then and their belief that it was right was also wrong. They were mislead- not least by Holy scripture like the Bible. There are absolute moral truths and the Bible sums them up as "do unto others as you would have others do unto you". Unless you think everyone would be happy to be a slave, the Bible contradicts itself (nothing new there). In case you are interested, the "Scientific" variation on that theme is that your behaviour should be an evolutionarily stable strategy in things like a repeated prisoner's dilemma test. " It doesn't change the FACT that slavery was an accepted social mores at the time." The FACT that it was accepted was never in dispute, so putting it in CAPITALS is a bit silly. However, the point remains; they accepted something which is wrong.

Windevoid, What you said here " They threw it out before peer review. " isn't true. The editor, who is one of the peers threw it out because it was dross. Not least among the problems was that you have no idea what you are talking about hence "Although it now seems the capacitor may have been a thermistor. " At best, you are just making a fool of yourself here. You are certainly not adding to the thread.

This is going to work a whole lot better if you actually tell us what you have done. If, for whatever reason, you can't tell us then this thread isn't going to achieve much.

Re the people who did things: you have mistaken the Church (which is deeply conservative) for some individuals within it (who made discoveries). The Catholic church is still in the business of making profoundly anti-scientific statements. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIMsPyFNxGg

Division is subtraction. Q) How many times can you take away 2 oranges from a box initially containing ten oranges? A) five times 10/2 =5

The timescale is wrong. People say that ESP is immediate across long distances with people who have not recently been in contact. There's no way for that to tally with the speed at which microbes are passed from one person to another. Also, they may say that the evidence for ESP is good. Why don't they claim the million dollars then? http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

No you haven't.

A few minor points: Nobody said that acetone was water, but I think you will still get the same order of magnitude of solvent transferred to the oven. What you actually wrote was "You could wash out the water with acetone and put in an oven" without any mention of waiting, airing or whatever. Here is a picture of the sort of oven I'm talking about. The thermostat is entirely within the oven. http://www.sciquip.co.uk/store/products/leec-drying-cabinets/ It does say that a spark free option is available- which tells you them most of them are not spark free. Ovens certainly cause explosions from time to time http://www.ilpi.com/dchas/2009/20091021e.html http://stao.ca/resources/safety-info/LBA%20Index%20of%20Accidents/Solvent%20explosion%20in%20laboratory%20drying%20oven%20Nov%202004.%2010.pdf So, whatever you say, by way of reply, I'd like to think that anyone reading this thread will rinse stuff with water before putting it in an oven.

As I see it, the annoying bit is not talking to those who don't know, or even those who have innate trouble understanding. I'm aware that any frustration I face in explaining things is nothing to the frustration they experience in many aspects of life. There are, however, two groups who really get up my nose. Those who refuse to learn and those who think they already know everything because the once saw a video about it on you-tube. Those two groups overlap so there are people who don't really know what they are talking about, yet refuse to learn any better. Death's too good for them.

The explosive limits for acetone in air are about 3 and 12 % by volume. Imagine that you have an oven that's a cube 40 cm each side. That's 0.064 cubic metres or 64 litres. A mole of acetone is 58 grams and it has a density of 0.79 g/ml OK, 3% of 64 litres is 1.92 litres The molar volume is about 24 litres so you need 0.08 moles to fill the oven with an explosive mixture. That's 4.64 grams or about 5.9 ml It takes about a teaspoon full of acetone to blow up an oven. The thermostat will provide the spark to initiate the explosion so there's no point worrying about what temperature it's set at . You might get away with one condenser in the oven (though Graham condensers have a lot more surface area to hold up liquid than straight ones) but if you put a few bits of glassware, wet with acetone, in an oven you have made a bomb. (I just checked- I rinsed out a 1 litre RB flask with water and it gained about 5 grams) Heating the gas mixture will widen the explosive range so it's even easier to blow up. It is common practice, and from time to time it blows up. If you plan to oven-dry the glassware then you might as well rinse with water- it's cheap and non flammable. Another approach is to put the glassware away still wet. If it has dried by the next time you need it then there's no problem. If it's still wet, then rinse it with acetone followed by whatever solvent you plan to use it with.

Does trashing the environment to a point where you risk wiping out your entire species count as evidence of low intelligence? If so, then I think I may know a good candidate for dumbest species.

Ask a doctor/ physician. We don't do medical advice here.

The simple answer is no.

No. Don't put flammable materials - especially volatile liquids- in an oven. Rinse it with water and leave it to dry.