John Cuthber

How did you find yourself wondering about this? Anyway, if you add up the numbers of atoms present and come up with a molecular formula then Google might be able to help you.

The police ought to be able to tell ignorance from malice. If they can't then they are probably not worth reporting things to.

I think it's worse than that. I'm fairly sure that the wavelength of the µwaves is related to the spacing of the electrodes in the magnetron cavity. So, what you are actually doing in that experiment is indirectly measuring the size of a bit of metal by measuring the space between blobs of melted chocolate.. However, if you have a really good frequency counter and can verify the µwave frequency it's a valid measure of c and, if you don't, it's still an excuse to buy lots of swets.

The sharpness of the IR absorption bands depends on the rotational levels within the vibration bands, not on whether they are singe or double bonds. .

"Did that 5-8 seconds do much damage?" No. For a start, electrolysis of salt water is as likely to produce oxygen as chlorine. There's also a good chance that whichever gas was produced, some of it will have reacted with the aluminium. At 850mA for 8 seconds, at most 68 Coulombs of charge will have been transferred. That's enough to make (at most) 0.0007 moles of chlorine atoms or 0.00035 moles of chlorine That's about 8 ml of gas. Diluted into a garage- I'm guessing it's bigger than about 2.5 by 3 by 2 metres or 15 cubic metres that would give about 0.5 part per million of chlorine (by volume). The limit for people working is 0.5 ppm for 15 mins, and you weren't exposed for that long

But it's more fun to use a microwave and a tray full of marshmallows.

Realistically, unless someone who has actually done this turns up and answers, the only way to find out is to try it.

Also, water, as a non- linear triatomic, has more IR active vibrational modes than CO2 which is linear and symetrical.

Well, I guess it's progress that you accept that there will be changes. Now check out the effect of a 3 degree change in the mean, on the probability of an extreme (pick a few values and see what happens). And, of course, it's not going to get warmer everywhere. So, if the gulf stream shuts down and the UK cools by a few degrees on average, look at what that does to the growing season. Then start losing sleep again. Consider Tuvalu, where the highest point is only about 15 feet above sea level and see what that "knee high" water will do.

"Just to add a slight curve-ball to the equation - what if the false police report is made in good faith" Then they can explain to the police that that's what happened.

Dbaiba, before you go, Do you understand that, not only do we not need to look at the stuff that you have posted but that we should not do so? If I say "Fred told me that 'The Koran says that you should eat babies ", it is not evidence of what the Koran says. It may be evidence of what Fred says- but Fred may be an idiot. So that's why we keep asking you to cite the parts of the Koran which claim what you say it does. In scientific circles it's called an appeal to authority (Fred would be the authority here). In legal circles it's called hearsay and it is not accepted as evidence. No group who deals with evidence would accept it. We don't accept it. Please stop rehashing it. You have also failed to explain why the Greek had science before the Koran was written. So, let's see a nice short post (as I said earlier- it might be in Arabic) that shows what the Koran says about science. Not some guy on youtube. Not a page on someone's Blog. Not a quote from someone trying to sell a book. Show us where the Koran talks about science or accept that, at best, you have been misled.

Water vapour isn't just common, but it has a broad absorption so it's less readily saturated too. However as the concentration of it is very variable and temperature dependent it can't be considered in the same way as the other gases. You could also argue that ozone is oxygen oxide* and it's a strong absorber too. * you could argue that, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Not sure if this is the right place and I guess it would depend on how many new posters we get in a day, but is it possible to only let new users make one post initially, then have that vetted and only if it's legitimate, permit further posting? It won't work if there are many new posters because there wouldn't be the capacity to check the posts but it would stop someone signing up and spreading ads across the whole site.

There's a big effect from oxides because they are common. Also, a lot of other compounds which would be potent greenhouse gases, like methane, are degraded in the air by oxygen. That fate isn't possible for things like CO2. However there are other compounds with much bigger effects Sulphur hexafluoride is a notable example - something like 32000 times more effective than CO2 or nitrogen trifluoride with a potency 17000 times that of CO2.

I don't know about anyone else, but I post here under a pseudonym because my employer (part of the UK government) might not agree with some of the things I say.

Dbaiba, As often seems to be the way, you missed a bit. I said "If, on the other hand, supernatural things exist, please let me know what they are" If you are so sure they exist, why didn't you say what they were? However, it's still fair to say that , unless Dawkins talks about them in his book, they are off topic. Whatever holes there may be in my logic (and you only think you have pointed them out- it's a lack of understanding on your part really), there are much bigger ones in your evidence. So, lets get back to the topic. You say "First of all, Dawkins crosses the boundaries of science on many occasions by implicating science in metaphysical matters where science does absolutely not belong and does have nothing to say about : metaphysical matters are way out of the "jurisdiction " of science" I don't believe that to be true, and I have read the book. I'd like you to cite some passage from the book where Dawkins does this. because, lets be clear about this. If you can't do that you have no evidence to back up your assertion. And, since you repeatedly fail to answer this question, it looks like you are not able to. And that, in turn may suggest to some people that you are a liar.

"because there are other valid sources of knowledge as well" Really? Like what? Anyway, back at the topic. In the book Dbaiba says that "First of all, Dawkins crosses the boundaries of science on many occasions by implicating science in metaphysical matters where science does absolutely not belong and does have nothing to say about : metaphysical matters are way out of the "jurisdiction " of science" I don't believe that to be true, and I have read the book. I'd like Dbaiba to cite some passage from the book where Dawkins does this.

That works if the guy is rational. He's a guy who thought it was a good idea to lie to the cops. I wonder if a better approach would be to say to the officer that you understand he's just doing his job and that he might be talking to "Joe Bloggs" about wasting police time later. If the officer knows that the original call came in from "Joe Bloggs" then he might look into it.

I'm not sure the supernatural exists. If not then I'm right: the things excluded from scientific study are non existent so everything which does exists is not supernatural and is, therefore open to investigation.. If, on the other hand, supernatural things exist, please let me know what they are, however, in order to be relevant to the thread, they need to be things in Dawkins' book. Of course, there are plenty of things for which we don't yet know the scientific reason. But, if that were taken as a reason not to study them it would be self defeating. After all, we didn't understand fire until we studied it. At some point in the past it would have been "supernatural" by this definition I found on-line "(of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." but it's now well understood It seems reasonable to me that work along these lines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet may well explain "God" If we don't study it, we will never find out. .

OK, In the book Dbaiba says that "First of all, Dawkins crosses the boundaries of science on many occasions by implicating science in metaphysical matters where science does absolutely not belong and does have nothing to say about : metaphysical matters are way out of the "jurisdiction " of science" I don't believe that to be true, and I have read the book. I'd like Dbaiba to cite some passage from the book where Dawkins does this. In the mean time I will answer his question. He asked "Just tell me this : is science qualified to say anything about metaphysics, about morality and ethics ,about God , about the existence or the non-existence of God ,about the. revelation....?" And I think the answer is quite clearly yes, for two reasons. Firstly I don't see any reason why science can not apply to any aspect of life. Secondly, the scientific study of "right and wrong" i.e. ethics is well established and has been for sometime- it is (among other things) an aspect of game theory. If one considers "good" (as opposed to "evil") to mean the greatest common benefit or doing unto others as you would have them do unto you then Dawkins is able, and qualified to speak on the subject. I don't think that one needs any particular qualifications to speak of morality. It is, much like ethics, the classification of intent or action into two classes- good and bad. If Dawkins feels that, for example, offering your wife and underage daughter (rather than his guests) as a sexual partner to a group of strangers is imorral then he's entitled to make that point as he sees fit. The fact that the Bible doesn't agree with him is(if anyone's) the Bible's problem. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s=O&utm_expid=13466113-5&search=Genesis%2019&version=KJV&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biblegateway.com%2Fpassage%2F%3Fs%3DO%26search%3DGenesis%252020%26version%3DKJV If people say that they get their morality from a book, but he shows that their morality is not the same as that shown by the book, then he has- by use of evidence- shown them to be wrong. That's legitimately part of science. In the same way, it is perfectly legitimate to apply the methods of science to questions about the nature and existence of God. For example, it is widely claimed that God is omnipotent and can do anything. However logic dictates that such a claim is false. Can God set Himself a task He can not accomplish? If not then He can't do everything. If He can, then He can't do that task. Either way, He's not omnipotent There is not reason why logic should not be applied to such issues and so it is legitimate for Dawkins (or others) to do so. Again, it's reasonable to question the existence of a God who, while said to be a God of love, Did nothing for the first 95% of mankind's existence and then suddenly turned up with a set of rules, then a couple of millennia later or so, decided to restate the rules (people who think Christ's arrival changed the rules need to read what he said about it) http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s=O&utm_expid=13466113-5&search=Matthew+5:18&version=KJV&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biblegateway.com%2Fquicksearch%2F%3Fquicksearch%3Djot%2Bor%2Btittle%26qs_version%3DKJV) So, on the whole I think the matters covered in the book are well within the realm of science. Can anyone think of a logical reason why they are not? Equally, can anyone think of anything in the God delusion that is not a candidate for scientific study?

Presumably, it would rhyme with perpole, if that was a word. On the other hand it wouldn't rhyme with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burple When I googled that, I was expecting to find this joke. http://anti-joke.com/anti-joke/random/what-is-the-color-of-a-burp----burple BTW http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gurple

. OK, the teachings of Islam follow from The Koran. Please cite or quote the verses that show that it is responsible for the scientific method. How about "The Qur'an that considers the seeking of knowledge in the broader sense , the use of reason, common sense , experience , observation ....as religious duties , as forms of worship of God ." Can you quote the bit which says that? More of a problem would be to show that religion was the origin of the scientific method rather than religion just happened to be there at the time. Can you show cause and effect? Otherwise it's like saying that me listening to bad pop music gave rise to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Sure, they happened at the same time- but one didn't cause the other. Then you have to address the issue that science had its origins in the teachings of the Greeks many years before the Prophet wrote the Koran. How did it do that?

Lets give him a chance to cite an example of where "Dawkins crosses the boundaries of science on many occasions by implicating science in metaphysical matters where science does absolutely not belong and does have nothing to say" or to admit he made it up.

"Do you have any idea about the volume of the Qur'an ?" Yes, I have read it. And I don't remember it saying anything about scientific methods of study. So, stop messing about and quote the verses Don't repeat the youtube and quotes. That's just silly. They were not good enough before so they are not good enough now. Or, of course, you can not quote them You will lose any credibility- people will just assume that you were lying. Is that what you want? Are you seeking to undermine Islam by making claims on it's behalf that are not true? So, is your next post going to be a handful of lines- possibly in Arabic or is it going to discredit your purported faith. Your choice: choose wisely.

I can't discuss it like a grown up unless you act like one so, as I said before: re. "First of all, Dawkins crosses the boundaries of science on many occasions by implicating science in metaphysical matters where science does absolutely not belong and does have nothing to say about : metaphysical matters are way out of the "jurisdiction " of science" Please cite an example. If I ask a question, and you don't answer then it's not going to be a grown up discussion, but that won't be my fault. The outcome will be simple. We will simply assume that you are lying and were not able to answer. So, do you wan't to have your point of view discarded or do you want to answer? The choice is yours.