John Cuthber

Good point, but the rest of us are discussing the issues so it's a discussion with added... something-or-other.

Anders, you seem to have posted those videos in the wrong discussion. They belong in a thread about publication bias. They illustrate how some subjects are easily influenced by emotional appeal rather than logic, particularly where "the other side of the coin" doesn't make videos. Seriously, If you want to make that look like a balanced debate, you now have to find thousands of videos for women who terminated pregnancies and got on with their lives. You might also want to address the effect that banning abortion has on crime rates and poverty.

So, when you talk of bursting my bubble you mean that I hadn't replied to a post you made. Well, now I have and, as I pointed out, your definition of God makes him rather less powerful than a pizza delivery driver. I really don't think I had a bubble there, and I'm even less convinced that it's burst. Anyway, like Kelvin, it has nothing to do with the topic. I'm quite happy to learn but, so far, you have offered nothing but word salad and I see no point to learning that.

If you were a scientist then, rather than insulting me, you would explain why I'm wrong or accept that I'm right.

Actually, I think society would have already gone down the pan if you were permitted to stick wires into someone's brain in order to steal their ideas.

From ET's point of view, I'm an alien. Does that make me a God?

From my point of view, you are hypothetical: are you fictional?

Well, here's the definition “On God” begins with some deceptively simple definitions of terms that would be familiar to any seventeenth century philosopher. “By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself”; “By attribute I understand what the intellect perceives of a substance, as constituting its essence”; “By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence.” It's so general as to be meaningless (as Pwagen noted) It was so clearly counter to the common view of his people at the time that he was thrown out of the church for it. It's a variation on this theme http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument and isn't generally accepted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Criticisms_and_objections My favourite answer to the ontological argument is that I can easily imagine an entity which is greater then the current "God"- specifically, I can imagine one that provides me with a pizza. Since no God-given pizza is available to me there is no "perfect God" (any God which does exist is clearly imperfect since I lack pizza). If you define your God as "the sum of all things" then He includes pizza delivery. There is no pizza: ergo there is no God. It's a piss-poor God who can be outdone by a pimply youth on a moped with a box on the back. So, I stand by my assertion that it's a weird definition of God.

OK, maybe it's poor translation but the German "expert" says that light is not bright, it's diffuse and that means the colour rendering is awful". Brightness depends on the power as much as anything so, if it's not bright enough, use a brighter bulb. It will still not take as much power as an ordinary tungsten light. Almost all the ordinary tungsten lights I have seen have had frosted glass bulbs because people prefer the diffused light. So she is citing, as a problem, something that was thought of as a solution before. That's clearly nonsense. It's not the diffusion that gives poor colour rendering, it's the choice of phosphor. Wouldn't it be better to get an "expert" who actually knows what they are talking about? And that was just the first 32 seconds of a 28 minute video. Is it worth me watching the rest of it? On a final note, were all the Germans (who, btw, qualify for a capital letter) asked or is the video a reflection of what some fraction of them think? Do we know what the majority view is? Since Germany is notionally a democracy, if most Germans didn't want this, how did it happen?

"bubble this gas (warning: This stuff is pretty toxic and smells terrible) into NaOH solution, making sulfur and water." No it doesn't.

Lord Kelvin's inventions are old. None of them breaches the known laws of physics. You can not cite them as a reason to ignore those rules. So they are not relevant. You have shown nothing. You have not put forward a shred of evidence to support your ideas and you have repeatedly ignored problems that I and others have pointed out. You also have not truly investigated anything: you have simply made up some stuff. I have looked critically at what you have said, and I have pointed out some problems with it. If you were a scientist, you would thank me and address the problems. Are you going to do that now? I'm not aware of having any bubble in the religion forum, burst or otherwise. Please cite a post. I'm not from a boys' school, though I was rather pleased to see the whitewash yesterday. My feathers remain unruffled so your comment makes no sense. I visited the states last Summer: very nice it was too. Lots of friendly people and the weather was glorious, On the other hand, like Kelvin's coffee pot, it's hard to see what that has to do with anything except, perhaps that he was very much an establishment figure who went to an old boys' school.

Am I the only one who looked at this today and thought "What? - Oh, yeah April fool"?

It might be easier if you told us what the product is and what the NMR looks like.

Your offering is not a hypothesis, it's barely a suggestion. Whether I agree or not is entirely beside the point. Does reality agree? Do you have any experimental data? I told you why it wasn't possible and others have repeated that point (and they too have given reasons). My answer to your specific question is no. The rest of your post is essentially rambling: you are no Kelvin, and his ability to invent the coffee pot has nothing to do with gravity (or anything much else). For what it's worth, the lack of a rest mass removes the need for inertia.

"Is it really all meaningless nonsense, ACG52? arent we past that. Doesnt the history have some value for you or help you in any way to see where im coming from? Im not here to stroke my ego Im trying to get feedback on my thoughts and maybe learn something from it." You got feedback and you ignored it. In particular you didn't address the questions raised. And we won't get past calling your stuff word salad until you come up with evidence that it is meaningful. "Do you agree that its possible for gravity to act as the 3rd and 4th components of a transverse wave as inertial reactions to oscillation?" No, apart from anything else, gravity doesn't go negative in the way that electric fields do. Why is it that you acknowledge that you don't know anything about gravity waves"Can anyone else enlighten me on the origin of gravity waves? Can you tell me how they are produced?"; but you are prepared to pontificate on what they are "Take away the 1st and 2cnd components of the transverse wave, the em component, and you have a wave of pure kinetic energy, the gravity wave" Do you not see the contradiction there?

Can your gut answer the points which have been raised? Can the rest of you?

"The key point is that at any scale gravity is always present".Moot point. lights still work in free fall. At best, it's like saying that all photon sources that we know about are with about 15 Bn light years of me, so I must be important to the production of light. "I am trying to demonstrate a geometric model of the relationship between gravity and photons from source to observer." You might be trying to demonstrate that, but you have yet to provide any evidence for such a link. Furthermore, as I and others have said, there really doesn't seem to be any link. You can gave gravity without a lot of photons- you don't float away from the floor when you turn the lights off. And you can have light without a lot of gravity- for example, in free fall. "The key point is that at any scale gravity is always present. This leads to the postulation that gravity has some inherent geometric structure represented by the way energy flows through it." No it doesn't, or at least, not to me. Can you show why you think that is the case? How does it lead to that postulate?

Incidentally, the fact that for small distances the nuclear forces are stronger, but for long distances the gravitational effect is stronger proves that, whatever the form of the nuclear force may be, it isn't an inverse square law. So, if anything, this shows that (at any distance) the gravitational and nuclear forces are very different things.

"So in this way gravity is a natural initiator of photon production." So are the back ends of fireflies. So what? And this ". Since gravity obeys the inverse square law, at planck scales it is easy to see the association of gravity and the strong nuclear force." is word salad again. Also, you have yet to explain what you mean by phrase "expanding light"? If you don't tell us what you think you mean, we can't really comment on it beyond saying it's unclear to the point of being gibberish.

Unless you can find a dictionary that agrees with you the idea that "God is the sum of all that exists", it's an odd definition.

It's weird. Why do you think we have the word "universe" to mean everything if "God" is the same thing?

So, you have now realised that the strong nuclear force is what causes the reaction. That's a good start. (Actually, it's generally an electric field that does the work of accelerating the particles in the experiments, but that's not really the point.) Why did you say it was gravity when it's actually the strong force? Now can you try to explain what you think you mean by the phrase "expanding light"?

"God is the sum of all that exists." That's a weird definition.

No, I'm not implying it, I'm stating it quite categorically. And I can prove that gravity isn't the cause of the nuclear reactions because the same reactions happen in high energy physics labs where the gravity is vastly less. Now, do you plan to learn to actually understand science 101 any time?

What is happening in the centre of the sun is a nuclear reaction. It is not driven by gravity. Gravity doesn't expand things so your assertion that it "expands light" is not correct. that's what I meant by "no it doesn't". And I think you would do better to read and understand science 101 before you carried on with this thread.