John Cuthber

Nobody who read your document will have any doubt if your ability to make up words. Ascribing a meaning to them seems to be your failing.

"I think that you guys can draw inferences on the topic from the name." The inference I drew was that, at best, you chose a name that looked like you got the spelling wrong.

Seriously, and "old" prophecy about e? And this is now in the wrong section, it's not maths any more.

There isn't any doubt. You proved it yourself. Your way led to a contradiction.

"There's a prediction that one day an error will be found in the longest calculated value of pi." There may well be a prediction that it will rain frogs in London tomorrow. But the predictions are probably not correct. ​On what basis is the prediction made?

OK, i admit it was a deliberately impolite way to express the idea. It was also deliberate. You see, the polite way to explain my point was to remind you that arguments by authority are a logical fallacy and are therefore not permitted. So, if I had been polite about it one of the mods might have spotted that you were using logical fallacies again and banned you. I wanted to get my point across but you refuse to listen You didn't answer the question: you just repeated the fallacy. Now, for what might well be the last time before you get banned. How can you do an experiment to prove that reality (which includes the experimental apparatus) doesn't exist? (Incidentally, winning the Templeton prize is evidence of being roughly 2000 years behind the rest of us, but that's beside the point) Answer the question. If reality doesn't exist, what do you make the experimental apparatus from? (and I want a real answer not more logical fallacy)

Seriously? You were wondering if Google used something infinite? I mean, I know they are big, but infinite? In all sensible probability they have just stored the numbers for pi and e in the calculator. All you are looking at are rounding errors.

No, but an aeroplane was attached which rather puts it outside of the scope of the OP.

That would make sense if the measurements did't show evidence of a temperature rise. They do. Why did you say it?

"So... "physically impossible" then?" Unless you can evolve mylar and carbon fibre composites, yes. "I ACCEPT that OP can't "grow" wings and fly around like a bird!" Good, since that's what the thread is about, you accept that it's impossible. Now, can you explain why you are arguing with those of us who not only said it's impossible, but explained why? On second thoughts, don't bother. "Any engineering advancement could be considered science fiction before it's made. That doesn't mean it can't be done." Not really, no. That's why people make advances in engineering. On the other hand, some things really can't be done. You can't make the combustion chamber of a transatlantic jet plane from styrofoam. And it remains true that "you need flight muscles" or, as I pointed out you have not really mastered flight- just falling with style.

Nope, that won't do at all. You said "That's a cop out to escape from the facts of nature." and when I asked what facts you said "The fact that what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind" in answer to You and you said you could prove it. Do so. I contend that you can not, and never will be able to, show that your (obviously absurd) belief is true. So, once again, what experiment could you do (and by the way I want an experiment, not the words of some professional windbag) to show that the real world isn't here?

I could call it a lot of things.

Immortal, sorry, I missed the bit where you told me what imaginary equipment you used to do an experiment to show me that real things don't exist. Can you explain it please? The thing is that you said there were real facts that show that reality isn't real and I'd like to know how that can be true- even in principle. How do you prove this? "The fact that what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind"

I just want Immortal to explain what the equipment is made of if nothing (including that equipment) is real.

Quite. So you can tell if something is wrong by dimensional analysis, but you can't tell what is right. Also, you can not, for example, tell what particular mass "m" is. For all you can tell from the dimensional analysis, it might be the mass of the experimenter's mother.

But that pointer is part of the reality which you say does not exist. If you are right then this experiment is a figment of your imagination. It's a dream. You can't base any conclusions on it. So, once again, if reality doesn't exist, what experiments can you do to prove it?

Immortal, will you please answer my question Exactly how could you, even in principle, do an experiment that showed that reality didn't exist? If reality doesn't exist then what do you make the equipment from? On what do you record the results?

So, once you accept as a "fact" something which is plainly untrue, you are not far from realising something that there is no evidence for. Exactly how could you, even in principle, do an experiment that showed that reality didn't exist? If reality doesn't exist then what do you make the equipment from? On what do you record the results? Saying reality doesn't exists is a cop out: studying reality is not.

"You don't need extra power to take off. You can glide off a tree (there are animals that do) or a hill." And I saw the links about human powered flight. If you are a super-fit young adult with lots of training (and probably male) then you can indeed fly- for a short while. Provided that you can "grow" the high performance composites and thin light weight films used in things like the gossamer albatross. Of course, unlike that vehicle, you might want to make more than a handful of flights without needing the equivalent of major reconstructive surgery between each one. That's why I wrote what I actually wrote,which was "Anything that pretends that we can do this is pretty much science fiction". Anyway, re "What, exactly, do you plan to hitch the flight muscles to?" I'm still waiting for a relpy.

I think the IIPAC "purists" would disagree about "You could, and normlly would, also replace 1-methylethyl with isopropyl and the 2-methylpropyl with isobutyl" However they seem more concerned with following their holy book than actually conveying information.

Immortal, please don't get so lost in the discussion of double standards that you forget to answer my earlier question. immortal, on 09 Feb 2013 - 18:08, said: "That's a cop out to escape from the facts of nature." Exactly what facts are those?

"For example, I am thoroughly against slavery, sex trafficking and capital punishment of anyone. When the Illinois governor abolished death row, it brought me to tears, and I thanked him with an email. Any atheists here do that (even without the tears)?" so, when a secular government finally decided to ignore the biblical idea that the state should murder its own people- in spite of the Biblical requirement of an eye for an eye etc, you were happy. Did you realise that you were commending the guy for explicitly following a morality that goes against the Bible? "Atheists probably have difficulty understanding repentance because they believe in judgment/punishment in the here and now. If your child is truly repentant, would you exact punishment? Apparently atheists would," Oh look, a couple more lies about what atheists do. I remind you that such slurs are against the rules here. "I don't know whether morals or religion occurred first. I'm far from sure as to whether it matters." You don't understand cause and effect? Whichever happened first (and it's probabaly morality) can not have been caused by the one that came afterwards (probably religion). So it's clear that religion didn't give us a sense (or the details) of morality. Far from it, our morals require us to ignore the teachings of the Bible. "Maybe their morality came from a sort of science: Smoking volcano + Virgin = No eruption. " Do you think this passes the "do unto others..." test? What if the virgin concerned was you? And, if it were "some sort of science" then they really ought to have checked that it worked by no throwing people in (not to mention noting the eruptions even when they did. That's one of the differences between science and religion. If they threw a virgin in next time and the volcano erupted anyway, then science would accept that OK that didn't work. The religion would say " we didn't throw in enough virgins (or he wasn't one) because we know that the 'virgins+ volcanoes' bit is correct because it's written down in a Holy book". "Please cite the OT verse about slavery." What, again? OK I will copy and paste it from where I wrote it yesterday "Leviticus 25:44 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves." " As far as I can tell, it wasn't looked favorably upon." What, you think "you may buy slaves" isn't looking favourably on the slave trade. Never mind not reading the Bible,you didn't read what I wrote, did you? "Joseph being sold into slavery in Egypt was portrayed as wrong, and that was in Genesis," Nope, his sale into slavery was portrayed as part of God's plan that he would end up in a position of power advising the Pharaoh. " the first book of the Bible, actually ¾ of the way through.Genesis." I know. Not only may the devil quote scripture, he might have played the Pharaoh in a school production of Joseph and the amazing technincolour dream coat. "It's all there in chapter 39 of Genesis" from http://www.elyrics.net/read/a/andrew-lloyd-webber-lyrics/potiphar-lyrics.html

Because of spontaneous neutron production by uranium, it's possible that C14 will be present in ancient fossils. But it won't be C14 that was present when the organism was alive.

"You do not need extra structural support for the ribcage. The wings could be very light (most are, whether natural or man-made). The body can be supported by its skin alone. It would take very little additional connection between wings and skin to either support the wings, or to have the wings support the body." What, exactly, do you plan to hitch the flight muscles to? It's not a matter of " jump straight to the most problematic scenario and then treat it like it's the only way" It's a matter of physics. The power needed to take off is dictated by the bodyweight. That power needs to be provided by consumption of fuel. that needs oxygen Our lungs are not built to deliver that much oxygen: they are fundamentally differently designed compared to bird's. Which of those is a " [some ridiculous made-up requirement]"? Anything that pretends that we can do this is pretty much science fiction. " but it's entirely conceivable to create lightweight wings that could fold up to the size of a backpack, and could be surgically connected to metal piercings on the back, could be useful for gliding in favorable conditions, could be controlled by the arms for steering and perhaps some lift, and could accompany some other form of lift or propulsion maybe connected to the legs." Or you could stop messing about with piercings and get a hang glider. But that's not what the OP was asking about is it?

Exactly what facts are those?