John Cuthber

FTIR isn't good with complex mixtures either.

You need to define what you mean by "measuring effective philosophy" What effect is philosophy meant to have? How might you measure that?

Weird. The placebo effect is very well documented and supported. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo I have seen it demonstrated on TV shows.

Chromium (VI) covers lots of chemicals, they are all carcinogenic so you might as well treat them all as a single group. Ammonium dichromate is one of that group.

"do you think "Zombies" will ever exist?" No I don't. "Pr-Ir-Fe-Cr alloy can create a nice Durable knife," I doubt that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praseodymium "Thank you for that link." you are welcome.

That's pretty much what I think. I might be tempted to say something about rules to protect the young people from their own foolishness, but perhaps that's a job for parents.

Guys, can we get back to the bombs please? (There's a phrase I never thought I would post) It seems that the consensus is that it's more practical to prevent the distribution of uranium than the distribution of information. That's not too big a shock. The fundamental difference is that I can give you information, but still keep it for myself, so it's much harder to track. You can't audit information. It is much too late to lock down the information on bombs anyway: plenty of people know about them legitimately and it's unreasonable to hope that they will not discuss that information with others. But, even if you could, as has been pointed out, some materials which are actually used for other things are explosive- Acetylene is a notable example. And it isn't possible to handle those materials safely without a basic understanding of the fact that they can explode. It doesn't take much imagination to realise that the property of "being explosive" could be used to make a bomb. A first attempt at a bomb might well work quite well, even if you had no background information. A bit of experimentation would get a pretty good bomb quite quickly if someone chose to. The other issue is that of the difference between blowing up nitrogen triiodide for kicks and giggles vs blowing up people. If you can't tell what the difference is there, you shouldn't be allowed out on your own anyway. Sport shooting and just "playing with guns" is ( in my opinion, ill advised but ) in the "kicks+ giggles" category. The question is one of intent. If you plan to harm someone or their property then it's a crime. If not , then it (probably) isn't (OK it is criminal if you do it so often as to be a nuisance to your neighbours). These same issues apply to knives or even rocks. The idea that the web made a difference seems very odd,

018540-29-9 Chromium (VI) compounds 1 49, 100C 2012

You need to say what "fading waves" are.

The exact specs are classified because they include details of maximising the yield. But if all you need is an nuclear explosion then it's not very difficult if you have the right fissionable material.

That's impossible. Not all carcinogens are know, However, this http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/ClassificationsAlphaOrder.pdf is a list of a lot of the known carcinogens.

Lots of us have done this demonstration with much larger amounts of ammonium dichromate, and possibly with less care.. We are still here. Stop worrying

No, that won't do at all. I asked you to explain what you were referring to. You didn't. I'm asking again. You said "You looked in Google and you found many sources, which are all in line with my new theory – one even word for word! There was only one what said no with an older date - and you copied only this line. - and you claim this is realyty. You put the world upside down! To suppress 99% of scientific statements is not a lie? Supporting this is not dictatorship?" Please clarify exactly what you are referring to. . What do you claim I looked for in Google and ignored the results?

This is probably safer than the bomb instructions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_formula On the other hand, those instructions can be found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon#Types "Just because the Russians and a few other countries figured it out does not mean any state can accomplish it. That is why only a few countries can build an a-bomb." No, that's because obtaining plutonium or enriched uranium is difficult. But my point was that the Russians didn't "figure it out" they got the secret from a spy. That's the evidence behind my claim that nothing stays secret for long. The key to nuclear weapons was, at the time, the most closely guarded secret in the world, but it leaked. "Tell us all about all the top secret projects that exist. You can't." I could tell you a few, but it would trash my career. How much money can you offer me?

No, the evidence does that- if you ever present any. Would you like to clarify exactly what you are referring to? When others have asked you say it's to do with something I wrote earlier but it's written in a direct reply to the first post I made in this thread so there's nothing for it to refer to. What do you claim I looked for in Google and ignored the results?

Why won't you understand that the reason you were turned down by that journal, and the reason that your idea was trashed here is simple. It's wrong. Anyway, I think you should know better than to insult Drs Kelly and Nutt.

There are a-bomb instructions on the web. But, since you can't get enriched uranium on eBay, we don't have home made nukes. Even before the 'net, the Russians didn't have too much difficulty finding out how to build a bomb. Nothing stays secret for long and you ought to base your policy on an acceptance of that fact.

All good points, but I think you missed out "change the system so it doesn't piss people off and leave them with the idea that the best they can do is fill a pressure cooker with gunpowder and blow up some runners.". Information is very difficult to control. I can tell you how to make a bomb in a few seconds. If nobody hears me then there is no way to prove that I told you, and no way to tell that you know. It makes more sense to try to restrict access to the critical materials, (that's pretty much impossible too, but at least , if someone has a garage full of gunpowder, you can prove that they have it.)

"You claim you get prosecuted by a scientific statement here?" no. "But I can imagine that your colleges will ask you why did you destroy a discussion with a good idea?" if that were to happen then my colleagues might take a dim view of it, but it hasn't happened. I did rubbish a bad idea. They would approve of that. "And you have no answer." Those who know me realise that I always have an answer. In this case my reply is "answer to what?" "Never did hear in England are scientists prosecuted, because of a scientific statement." I said persecuted not prosecuted. There's a difference. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8334774.stm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert) "You are ashamed of what you did to me!" I have done nothing to you. I have pointed out some failings in your idea- but your idea isn't you. "You looked in Google and you found many sources, which are all in line with my new theory – one even word for word!" Nope. You won't get very far making false assertions. "There was only one what said no with an older date - and you copied only this line. - and you claim this is realyty. You put the world upside down! To suppress 99% of scientific statements is not a lie? Supporting this is not dictatorship?" Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about there. "In your writing to me you showed your real intention, you want to police this forum and reality that's what you decide." I can't remember if it has happened on this forum or not, but some fora, I have been asked to become a moderator and I have declined. Policing fora isn't something I'd want to do. Again, you really need to stop making false statements, you risk looking foolish if you carry on.

I just thought that I would mention that I post under a pseudonym. While I'm at it , Wolfhart, have you thought about setting up your own forum- you can have whatever rules you like there. You can even insist on people using their real names. Of course, there may be problems with that. For example, I won't be able to post there because I work for a government department that wouldn't approve of some of the things I say here. I'd risk persecution by the authorities if I used my real name. You might want to think about that for a moment.

Airbrush is obviously right. We should go back to the days before the internet when there were no bombs. Everyone knows that the first and second world wars were fought with pointed sticks and by dropping really really big rocks from aircraft. Putting some sort of restriction on the sales of gunpowder might help, but nobody would take that seriously.

One useful facet of man's knowledge is that you should believe the evidence- especially if you are tying to gain further knowledge. Belief in God doesn't really tick the right boxes.

"I am only concerned by the ones that can't be attributed as physically "man made" by someone on the ground" So, that's none of them then. Could be a short thread.

In which case it is clearly inferior to the accepted theory which does permit quantitative predictions of the lifetimes of excited states. Though, as you already accepted, the case is closed.

It would be a good start. Do you understand that many variations on the theme of religion are at odds with that idea? The Bible tells us that we were doing fine until we sought the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Many scientists (and others) have been persecuted over the years for investigating truth. So, it seems to me that a good way to make progress towards the goal of improving knowledge would be to get rid of religion.