John Cuthber

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_the_Jewess

Well, if that's true then there's no point in you posting is there? BTW, rather than telling me that I need to look at the context in which you tacitly assert that your otherwise absurd assertion makes sense; why not tell me what you think that context is.

I don't understand the hate towards football hooliganism in this thread. Scientists should be respectful of football hooligans since there is football hooligans who have no interest in science but still have an interest in being part of a group. Hence following football hooliganism serves them even though they don't believe in everything about football hooliganism. All in all.. football hooliganism is excellent form of free therapy.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why you quoted this "As Eugene Scott said "You start with the revealed truth and that governs your reflection upon the empirical world"." even though it's clearly not true. As I said, as infants, we all learned about the empirical world before we had any truth revealed to us.

One thing that will help. The proper container is one that's full to the brim so there's no air space to lose H2S to.

No, you do not. And putting it in bold text does not make t true. We all made empirical observations about the world before we had the language skills to have any truth "Revealed" to us. Why cite obviously nonsensical quotes?

According to the WIKI article about it, "The noumenon pron.: /ˈnuːmɨnɒn/ is a posited object or event that is known (if at all) without the use of the senses." And, yet, as long ago as Descartes' time, we knew that we only know about things via our senses. So, you are talking about the set of things which we don't know to exist. That's made up stuff.

OK, the rock came in at about 20,000 m/s A 30 foot square is about 10 metres by 10 metres. That's about 100 times more area than in the quick calculation I did earlier. And, of course, it's sweeping out about 100 times more air in a given time, so the force is 100 times bigger and the net effect is that the pressure is roughly the same. You say the rock will stand 14MPa in compression which is in the same ballpark as the figure I gave for concrete (it's a bit lower than the bottom end of the range I used) You get 400 K Pa for each thousandth of an atmosphere of air pressure so, you need about 35 thousandths of an atmosphere You say it broke up when the pressure was about 1/25 atm i.e. about 40 thousandths. That's about as good an agreement as I could have hoped for. The rock broke up just where science predicts. On the other hand, if the aliens were trying to help us, they should really have hit it sooner. So the actual data scores one for the science and nil for the alien conspiracy nutters. BTW, the daily mail isn't really a newspaper: it's a bit like Fox News.

A couple of points, if connecting one rat's brain to another via wires is "telepathy" then so is using a mobile phone. Also re "For example, workers in high risk environments could control their equipment using their brain, so there will be a faster response time and less margin of error (think fighter jet pilots)." They tried this. Here''s the problem Don't think of an elephant. Now imagine that I said " don't think about launching the ejector seat"...

Well, we may not have used quite the same maths, but we came to the same conclusion. Air resistance would have produced enough force to shatter the meteor. No need for aliens. Why did you say they were involved? Incidentally, measuring the bits of the meteor which "survived" will obviously overestimate the strength of the thing as a whole, but we don't know by how much.

OK, lets think about this. Imagine a concrete cube a metre on each side approaching the earth at 20km/sec. At it travels through the vacuum of space nothing much happens. In the outer reaches of the atmosphere it reaches a point (Somewhere near the outer reaches of the stratosphere I think) where the air is about a thousand times less dense than at sea level- about 1 gram per metre cubed. It has to push that air out of the way. Consider what happens in the next millisecond. It moves forward 20 metres and, in doing so it sweeps a 20m3 volume of air out of its way. To do so it accelerates that air to roughly the speed of the block. (It's an approximation, but I think we can live with it.) So, it accelerates 20 grams of air to 20,000 m/s in 0.001 seconds The momentum transfer is 400 kgm/s (20,000 *20 but divided by 1000 to convert the air mass from grams to kilograms.) And the rate of change of momentum is 1000 times that (because the transfer takes 1/1000 sec) So the force is 400,000 newtons That's quite a big number but it's spread over the whole surface of the block so it's the equivalent of just 4 times normal atmospheric pressure. It's 400KPa in SI units As the rock carries on the rate at which it has to shove air out of the way rises with the density of the air. Once the air density reaches 10 grams per cubic metre the pressure has increased to 4000 KPa and when the block is travelling through air with just a tenth of the density of normal air at the surface the pressure on the windward face is something like 40MPa Now, according to this website http://www.cement.org/tech/faq_strength.asp the compressive strength of concrete is (depending on the mix etc.) of the order of 15 to 140 MPa. And, of course, that's measured at normal temperatures. If the block were travelling through air of normal density- the stuff we are breathing, the forces on it would be at least 3 times higher than it's compressive strength (measured at normal temperatures). In essence the arse end of it would be trying to overtake the front end and the stuff in the middle would get crushed. So, Semjase, why in the name of all that's holy do you think that anything needed to shoot it to make it break up? Never mind aliens, high school physics is able to explain this.

Actually, science has come to terms with them. As you might guess, those terms don't involve aliens.

I just checked. A chisel gives pretty much the same results, which is no great shock. The situation is still pretty much like Michel drew it, and the outcome is the same. So does a penknife. 5 min 17 sec

We have seen that before. They say "Christ came “...not to abolish, but to fulfill.” Jesus did not come to this earth for the purpose of acting as an opponent of the law. His goal was not to prevent its fulfillment. Rather, He revered it, loved it, obeyed it, and brought it to fruition. He fulfilled the law’s prophetic utterances regarding Himself" It's an interesting word play to say that Christ meant that he was here to fulifil the prophecy that he would turn up and that's all. But have a look at what he said as well as that he came to fulfil the law. "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law" That's not a statement that he's turned up in accordance with the predictions. It's a clear statement that the laws stood just as they had before and always would. If the law predicts that JC turns up, and he does, then that's the law fulfilled- once and for all. There's no sense in saying that the law will continue to be true forever and until the end of time.. The alternative would be silly: Christ would have to suddenly revert to a state of never having been here. Not just died or left: never having appeared. So, that page is a bit of creative interpretation designed to draw attention from what Christ (reportedly) said, and which you described as "the Christian-bashing mantra" . Once you are describing Christ's reported words as Christian-bashing, it's time to accept that you are wrong.

"When stone monoliths start to look like a theoretical impossibility..." If and when they ever do, I will seek another explanation. In the meantime it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they were done by lots of people working together. This is a particularly insulting argument from ignorance. it could be argued to be a breach of the rules since it insults those people who built these things. And, in broad terms, here's how they might have done it. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/egypt/dispatches/ no aliens needed.

"Komanev also claimed there was a spike in the number of UFO sightings in the days before the meteor lit up the skies over Chelyabinsk." They were probably looking for the other meteor.

Vegetarians don't eat meat and I assure you that this behaviour does not ward off body odour. The "hippy" movement was known for a number of things, one was vegetarianism.... Who cares about vegans: they weren't under discussion ? "A vegan or vegetarian diet substantially alters the human colonic faecal microbiota" No S**t? So does drinking beer. If anyone had said that it didn't then that would be relevant. "You are wrong about human evolution because meat lacks omega 6's." No I'm not. I might have been had I said that people were obligate carnivores, but I said we are omnivores. "Our brains have been shrinking." "Royal we" I guess.

Then you need to watch better documentaires.

"Christ's new commandment to love your enemies pretty much overruled most, if not all, of the "bad things" in the OT. There's also dietary laws in the OT that Christ overruled" He overruled them by saying “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law" which isn't really overruling (or changing them at all) really is it? So "There's no dilemma, there's no cherry picking,"? I think it's very clear that there is.

Meanwhile, back on planet earth. Does he explain who reset all the satellite TV dishes? Does he explain who redrew Galileo's pictures of the moon? Does he explain who rebuilt Stonehenge? If not, there's no real point watching is there?

This is just silly. "I understand your point but meat causes body odor" I suspect that many of us know some vegetarians who disprove that. Humans are "designed" as omnivores. In the past our diets had a lot less meat in, but there was always some and that's where we got a lot of B12 from. So saying "if you actually read the journals, not paleo diet made-up nonsense, you would see that the diet of our predecessors was high in plants and that current day humans are fortunate to have this amount of meat available to them." doesn't tell anyone anything. "Calories doesn't equate to a bigger brain and neither do Omega 3's directly." Nope, but without access to calories it doesn't matter how big your brain is: you are too busy eating to do much thinking. Eating meat let our ancestors get a lot of calories relatively quickly. That left them time to develop a society. "I never said it wasn't. Aminolevulinic acid is not found in sweat. What are you talking about? Aminolevulinic acid is the first intermediate molecule in the heme/porphyrin/chlorophyll pathway." So, it's the first step in the synthesis of B12, but you say that happens in sweat (thanks to bacteria) but that there's none of the precursor ALA. What are you on about? Come to think of it, I have another idea. Lets just pretend that the last 5 pages didn't happen and that you started here with a post that says something like Human biochemistry isn't able to make B12 But we need to get it from somewhere. The commercial process uses fermentation, in particular it uses a bacterium propiobacterium acnes. As you might guess from the name, that bug is found in the sebaceous glands. Is it possible that part of the human requirement for B12 might be derived from those bacteria on our skin? In particular could there be some sort of symbiotic relationship dating back to the days of our vegetarian or, at lest, more nearly vegetarian ancestors. If the body is in some way doing this deliberately then you might expect the skin to contain carrier proteins for B12. You might also expect to find that other materials which the bacteria would use would be present in sweat. Now, if you can fill in references that back up some bits of that (and are not from crackpot sites that preach that meat is bad for you) then you might, possibly, get some recognition, as long as you lose the attitude and don't fill in posts with cobblers about evolution not being real.

Does he explain who reset all the satellite TV dishes? Does he explain who redrew Galileo's pictures of the moon? Does he explain who rebuilt Stonehenge? If not, there's no real point watching is there?

Dear internet, My 'phone has gone on the blink so I assume that the world has tilted its axis. I realise that such a tilt would affect everyone's 'phone but I don't see that as a reason to change my point of view. Sincerely A Nutter.

"You need to read the wikipedia page... In kidney failure, urea and other waste products, which are normally excreted into the urine, are retained in the blood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uremia" I did. I read the word "and" in there. Incidentally, other materials are excreted in the sweat so, even if you ignore the toxicity of urea, the point still stands. Sweat is, among other things, an excretory pathway. Discoloured sweat is, for example a documented side effect of l dopa. If you studied evolution (the word means change) you would know that our ancestors were omnivores. If they hadn't been then they wouldn't have been able to pick up enough calories (and other nutrition) to spend time doing anything but eat. The whole rise of humanity depended on eating meat. It let us leave the grazing to other animals while we got on with the clever stuff. And re. ALA being "definitely not toxic", here's a clip of the side effects of using it. " Check with your doctor if any of these most COMMON side effects persist or become bothersome when using Aminolevulinic acid Solution: Burning; crusting; flushing; itching; loss of skin color; redness; scabbing; scaling; skin blisters; skin wasting; stinging; swelling; tenderness." So, it's not toxic- unless you get a solution of it on your skin.

OK Semmjase, set aside the GPS ones for a moment (though, you still need to give a proper explanation). What about all the "geostationary" satellites - the ones that retransmit TV shows. If the earth's axis moved then they would all be in the "wrong" bit of the sky. Did somebody go round and shift everybody's dishes while they were not looking? How come all the amateur astronomers didn't spot it? Why has the moon not changed its appearance in 400 years? How come Stonehenge is still lined up with the sun at the equinox? And, perhaps most importantly, do you want to buy this bridge? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_Bridge