John Cuthber

"Also boiling as a phase change, molten metal to become a vapour, were electron shareing disappears." Not at the temperatures and pressures in a star.

You need to explain what you think you mean by "an even more solidified object" and "super solid substances" You also need to explain why you think there is anything odd about the fact that liquid nitrogen boils when poured into a container that's a lot hotter than the boiling point of nitrogen. It would also help if you knew what the word "theory" means in a scientific context.

It will certainly run out (or at least become to expensive to burn) but the time-scale is a bit uncertain. That fact is obviously foreseeable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicting_the_timing_of_peak_oil It's interesting to note that peak oil happened in the US about 1980 so Carter wasn't as wrong as he looked.

I mean all those nice sequences are meaningless because they only apply to individual atoms. Since, as I said, they don't mean anything, I didn't bother to finish the one for iron atoms. Have you ever seen iron atoms?

Overtone, I'm familiar with the convention. Your use of it implies you were citing John 5746 But he didn't say what you are asserting. (except,arguably, in the case of those who most people think have forfeited their right to a gun or never had such a right anyway "And it doesn't mean that right cannot be taken away from an individual, like a felon, mentally unstable or wife beater." (and he has posted the note above as I was typing this.) So, for the 3rd time. Who's that?

The effect of neighbouring nuclei, even with iron at normal temperatures and pressures, is big enough to merge the atomic orbitals into molecular ones so the 2,8, 14 sequence is meaningless.

False dilemma. A plausible alternative explanation is 1970s science. "Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House, Regan removed them (why?)." It was a message from his sponsors.

Arc, since the OP is asking about temperatures near 200C, why are you suggesting testing with a blowtorch that will get to nearly 2000? Jelowry, perhaps it would be better if you tell us what you are trying to do?

Once again,"And notice that we have another example of a gun control advocate actually favoring a coerced reduction in gun prevalence " Who's that?

All the properties of the ultra-heavy elements were made up because you certainly didn't measure them. Saying they were not made up just makes you look silly. BTW I think this "i have noticed there are 3/4 members who have not the capabilities to think any new thoughts, they just enjoy putting down those who are able to think outside the box, and have original thoughts." is probably a breach of the rules.

There are plenty, but "nonsense" has the advantage of being polite. "Do you disagree with the extended periodic table? Have you read it?" Yes, and yes respectively. You have extended it it by making stuff up. That's not science.

Not in any accent I have heard.

Did it occur to you that any attempt to answer the question which forms the title of the thread is also an educated guess? Anyway, an answer to your question might be to dig holes at random and see what fraction of them yield oil. You can then extrapolate from that to the total reserves. More realistically, while you might not know where to dig for oil, the geologists have a pretty good idea.

And notice that we have another example of a gun control advocate actually favoring a coerced reduction in gun prevalence - i Who's that?

Some democracy.

Not if he takes a few months over it.

I think you may find that the people vote in representatives who do what the people want- otherwise they tend not to get voted back in. that's the point of a representational democracy. Whether the process is "direct" or not doesn't matter.

Probably about the same time they realise that biodiversity is good for humans too.

http://www.nist.gov/calibrations/upload/78-1476.pdf Page 11 gives the tolerances for class S But I have the feeling that that system may have been overtaken by newer standards .

False arrest rhymes with balsa vest. That's not going to help much outside of a "bad poetry" competition.

As I said http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67895-yay-guns/page-28#entry735769 And, once a majority of the voters in 3/4 of the states hold that opinion, the "fact" of the constitution goes away.

"It can only be changed by certain actions, as described. Actions are not opinions." For (Insert deity's name)'s sake. That's true to the extent that you elect representatives and their actions don't represent your opinions. If it's significant the elect better representatives. Seriously, if everyone in the US woke up tomorrow with the opinion in mind that it would be a good thing to change the constitution then that "fact" of the ban would change. All it needs is a change of opinion and a bit of time. " If according to your affirmed beliefs confiscation is a necessary feature of what you are advocating," But it is documentedly not so, and misrepresenting my views as if it were is dishonest. It's a matter of record that my view is that we can address this via education http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67895-yay-guns/page-30#entry741989 We explain to people that having a gun is more likely to harm them (and their family) than help. So, since I already said what my agenda was, and it's being misrepresented, that kind of suggests that you are resorting to a strawman. People with a valid argument don't need to do that.

"No it can't. It can only be changed by a constitutional amendment that is passed by a two thirds majority in Congress and then ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the states." So if 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states had the opinion that it should change, then it would be changed. So the US constitutional right to bear arms is a "fact" that can be changed by opinion. Which is what I said... "That's the argument the NRA is currently making in the US - that since nothing can be done about the loonie and villain gun violence without confiscating everyone's guns, such must be the agenda of the gun control advocates." But it's not a valid argument is it? I'm not advocating confiscation. So, they are lying about my agenda.

"Comes to my next thought: There has to be a metal that cools down when it feels heat." No there doesn't.

That's not a vegan diet is it? "I would never shoot Bambi...it is Bambi's Mom or Dad I am looking to shoot and eat." the practical outcome of which is that, deprived of his mother's milk, Bambi would starve to death. How nice of you. "A person will not only survive but THRIVE by just drinking MILK." No they would not. There's no fibre for a start and the balance of fats , proteins and carbohydrates is wrong for anything other than a a baby.