John Cuthber

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.

Is his wife still alive?

I studied for BA in chemistry (technically, I don't have a degree because I never went and collected it but I did the courses and passed all the exams.) I assure you there was a lot of maths and physics in it. You just can't really do chemistry without them. Also, "I don't want to do this physics (not that i don't like physics nor is it that i can't - just not interested in taking the classes)." suggests that you are not willing to put the effort in. You shouldn't get any degree without working for it and I doubt that you will. I'm not sure I'd want a pharmacist with that outlook.

I strongly suspect that, in general, once food has been chewed it's cool enough to eat without any problems. I also suspect that "an upset stomach" is the most common psychosomatic problem recorded/ repotrted.

Among the things it adds to the discussion is an example of the double think that religion forces people to engage in. You said "It was true at the time." that slavery was appropriate. I pointed out that wile people at that time may have believed it to be right, it wasn't actually right (in much the same way they once thought the world was flat- but they were wrong) You are muddling up two things The truth (slavery is wrong) and belief-in this case, what it says in the BIble (slavery is right). That's the sort of additional cognitive load you carry as a result of religion.

Well, it looks like I was right. You can't do what he said, i.e. " the velocity of galaxies and stars can be computed by just assuming an electron orbiting a proton" Even to get "close" you need to add all these data as well. "hubble=4.675e-17' Hubble constant rh=1.0973731e7' Rydberg constant plank=6.626e-34' Plank's constant c=3e8' Velocity of light in meters shell1v=2.188e6' Velocity of electron in shell 1 v1=shell1v*velfact' Modified velocity of electron in shell 1 m=.911e-30' Mass of an electron facte7=1e7' 10 to the 7th power facte9=1e9' 10 to the 9th power facte20=1e20' 10 to the 20th power" And adding things in randomly till they give the answer you were looking for is numerology, not science.

The answer to the question which forms the title of this thread is no. That's why there's a prize on offer.

Long ago, people thought that the world was flat and they thought it was right to keep slaves. T The world isn't flat. Slavery isn't right. They never were. The belief has changed (in spite of Christianity, I might add). The facts have not. (Don't bother arguing about when, or even if, ancient people thought that the world was flat- it's beside the point)

Happy to help. I remind you that you actually asked. Specifically you asked if this "you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you" was true. It's not.

That's because you haven't asked the questions that would rule them out.

I think it's an opportune moment to bring a little levity to the discussion, so here's a reminder of one of my favourite comedy films. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5IQnQhzMSI

Probably a few reactions but the easy one is this CO2 + 2 R-NH2 + H2O --> (RHN3)2 CO3 I.e. the reaction to give the carbonate. The bicarbonate is also a possibility if there's a lot of CO2 and I wouldn't rule out the formation of carbamates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbamate

Indeed, and this one isn't "mine". However a thread where only one person posted would be a bit silly wouldn't it? So, what exactly was your point?

If it's more ridiculous than magic, you should stop relying on a God that must have done it. Your thread was closed because it was redundant. The other thread (in which you posted quite recently) is still open and is a better place to discuss the failures of the fine tuning argument. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69816-the-fine-tuning-argument-is-dead/page-2

A man who says that "fine tuning is simply a scientific fact" is not someone in a position to criticise other for use of metaphor. "We don't mean the worldwide web when we are talking about life... LOL" Nobody said that we did, so what, exactly, are you laughing about? He has, I suspect deliberately, missed the point. If the universe were different then life would be different. It's amusing to contemplate a comparable universe to our own where some guy is on you tube saying "We know that you can't make life out of carbon" because, in their universe, you can't. He would have fallen into the same trap of assuming that "ours" is the only way to do it. And, if he also forgot (or ignored) the fact that you can change more than one parameter at a time, then he would be a fool or a liar.

You keep missing the point and I think it's deliberate, but here we go again "Like the video said, the universe can't cause itself," Yes the video says that. Saying something doesn't make it true- not even if you put it on youtube. Do you accept that? Also As has been pointed out, you have not sensibly addressed the problem that I can equally well say " the universe God can't cause itself," And it is every bit as valid as the assertion about the universe. (please don't waste time with Bible quotes or special pleading here- they are logical fallacies and just make you look silly) So the important difference is that we have evidence of the universe but no evidence of God. Also you seem not to have understood the multivariate analysis you need to do, so you say "for example, the strong nuclear force were 1-2% stronger than it is, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium." without adding unless the electrostatic force were a bit bigger- in which case they would behave in much the same way as they do in this universe and we wouldn't know any different.. But, anyway, it would be better if you left that argument in the thread about the "fine tuned" universe (which isn't really very finely tuned at all when you remember that you can change more than one parameter at a time)

Then you are not in this universe, but in the other 50% of cases, you are a winner. That's the point. The "fine tuning" argument said that you couldn't change anything without killing the universe. However, you can change things if you change more than one thing at at time. Re " He even admits his "oversimplification" " ​Anyone who doesn't admit it's a simplification is kidding themselves or lying to their audience.

In the presence of strong acid (H2SO4 or others) the phenylethylamine will not absorb CO2. So counting the CO2 absorbed on it will be pointless (you will get little or none).

Can we , at least, sort out the slavery thing. Yes, slavery was common at the time. It was also profoundly wrong at the time. Normal doesn't mean good. So, a Bible which advocated it was morally wrong. The proper way to deal with slaves isn't to treat them slightly better than other slave owners. The proper way to deal with them is to free them. So, the answer to you question "Are you really saying that wasn't a truth at the time?" is a very resounding no. It wasn't true that you should take and keep slaves then (the details don't matter) This "you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you" is not true. You shouldn't take pagans as slaves. Nor is this true. "Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession" .You shouldn't take immigrants or travellers as slaves. Your question was "Are you really saying that wasn't a truth at the time?" It wasn't true then: it isn't true now. Are you not ashamed of yourself for asking?

It gives you the right answer. Imagine you are making a car. You change just one thing- say using metric thread nuts, rather than imperial and it doesn't work. You conclude- wrongly, that it's impossible to use metric threads. But multivariate analysis lets you change more than one thing at a time. You change the nuts, but it also lets you change the bolts. So, if you pick randomly for metric or imperial for both buts and bolts you get a 50% change of getting the same thread- and it works. Now consider all the bits of a car. You can't generally swap parts from a a Ford to a Volkswagen so uo would say that it's only possible to build the Ford. You would clearly be wrong. Changing more than one parameter at a time lets the effects cancel out. It shows that the universe may be "finely tuned" but lots of other universes also would be.