John Cuthber

Exactly what "simple visual inspection" lets you observe the change in the earth's motion?

So, you got conned by the spam advertising in the top right corner.

You reread it and didn't notice that this "place" in which one must purchase a license and insurance to possess (not "purchase") a firearm of any kind " isn't the same as "A list of which states require purchase permit / owner's license / registration for firearms" And cited this " wikipedia page 'gun laws in the US by state'." Which is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state and doesn't mention insurance at all. No wonder you think the CDC is a B-movie conspiracy: you just aren't paying attention to the world.

"The Coriolis effect causes water to spiral down and out of a draining sink." No it doesn't, but that's not the point. The world spins the other way to compensate.

Or perhaps the artist who drew it didn't understand that the thickness of the wire was important. Nobody said it was a two stage pump. The air that enters the cylinder from the atmosphere hasn't been compressed, So it still has quite a large volume. so it needs a big hole to go through quickly so it needs a big valve. The essence of this thread seems to be "The main valve in question (#44 in the illustration at the top of the "compression" cylinder) has no rocker arms or valve lifters to mechanically open the valve. On the contrary it is held closed by, what looks like a rather strong valve spring. This is the air intake.". It may look that way to you, but it doesn't to me.

Once again Mr Obama's plans are being talked about. One thing he did was remove the block on research into gun safety that was introduced by the Republicans. They introduced it with the backing of the NRA. If guns are so safe and useful, why not allow the research to prove it? Or perhaps they were worried that they had something to hide. In any event, since we are scientists here, I'm sure we all agree that the best way to find out what we should do is via research. So, does everyone support the reinstatement of the CDC's budget for research in this field? http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729013.000-a-shot-at-the-truth-about-gun-violence.html

Ask an optician.

"Guns are only guns until they are in the wrong hands and then they are killing machines." Really, what are they for in the right hands: opening beer bottles, scaring birds, lighting cigarettes?

"Perhaps then I wonder why you have posted the same first study you linked, 10,000 times which states that there is a strong inverse correlation between religousity and societal health? What is it, that you wish to imply?" It seems likely that he wants to imply a correlation. Do you realise that correlation isn't the same as causation? Of course, it's possible that there is causation, but it works in the opposite direction.

It's not really possible to tell from the diagram but, for a given wire size, a longer spring is weaker (i.e. deflects more under a given load) and I think a spring with a larger diameter is also weaker. More importantly, I don't think the drawings are "to scale" in that way. The inlet valve is bigger because it's handling a bigger volume of gas (since it hasn't been compressed yet).

"You guys need to understand about the divine light rays that I speak of in my OP in order to understand the secret of the Vedas." No, we don't. However, you need to understand the note from the moderator, In particular this "Why shouldn't I tell that to you guys when all evidence is in favour of my position?" is exactly what you were warned about.

You have missed the points. This "" if agnihotra works in bringing rain to regions affected by drought then start taking the existence of these gods seriously because without Agni there cannot be Agnihotra."" is still begging the question and this "because without Agni there cannot be Agnihotra." is still like saying that without Father Christmas, there can be no ritual of leaving cookies out for him (and carrots for Rudolph too). And as for "Why not read some thing about theurgy and do a controlled study by invoking the gods and an another trial without invoking the gods and figure out the truth for yourself?" Well, the simple answer is that it's not my job. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You made the claim, so it's your job to supply the evidence. These are faults of logic, not of theology. Start producing some evidence. Old books are not evidence People writing about old books are not evidence A few anecdotes of events in uncontrolled conditions are not not evidence.

Part of the problem is that Mr Rayon has "heard" some strange things in the past. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69674-are-there-any-health-benefits-for-men-who-undertake-semen-therapy/?p=707840 Strictly speaking he hasn't said that he thinks that premarital abstainance leads to a reduced chance of divorce, but he has said that he heard that it's true. If he thought it was nonsense I doubt he would have posted it. Perhaps he will come back and clarify the matter. However, as I pointed out, there's no way anyone will get that past the ethics committee. The work will never be done. So, whoever said " it is better to not have pre-marital sex so that when you do get married, your chances of divorce will be lower." made a non-sequiteur and Mr Rayon has copied it. Strictly, it's not his personal belief that it agrees with, but that of whoever wrote the original assertion. I think it's reasonable to assume that it agrees with his belief too.

"Yes i agree, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise." Then you agree that it's a non sequiteur. It does not follow logically. It's like saying "Cows eat grass so the sky is blue." Both parts are true, but there's no causal relation. In the case of the link between pre marital sex and divorce, no one is going to do the experiment. You would need to get people who were predisposed to have premarital sex, prevent them from doing so, and then see what their divorce rates were like and you would also need to get a group of people who would normally abstain and force them to have premarital sex and see if that altered the divorce rate. Good luck getting that past the ethics committee. Th fallacy is that the OP presumes that the outcome of such an experiment is known and that it agrees with his personal belief.

"what looks like a rather strong valve spring." Why do you think that?

No, nobody said that, so it's a strawman, and, as such, a breach of the site's rules. The point is that people say they need guns for defence. Piers pointed out that you certainly don't need an assault rifle for defence, in much the same way you don't need a machine gun. Machine guns are banned because they have no legitimate civilian use. Assault rifles should also be banned for the same reason. The (slightly questionable) link is that an assault rifle makes it easier to kill lots of people in a hurry. Banning them would make massacres less likely and less lethal.

I guess this "How many people have successfully defended themselves with an ar15?" was the wrong question. He should have asked "How many people have successfully defended themselves with an ar15 who could not have used a different gun instead?". Because that question makes this "How many people will successfully defend themselves with an ar15 if they aren't deprived of having one? " redundant. the issue here was the particular type of gun, rather than any gun.

The conclusion "so that when you do get married, your chances of divorce..." does not follow from the premise ".is better to not have pre-marital sex". Whether or not you have pre marital sex does not determine the probability of divorce. Whether or not " 'better, never to get divorced' is a non sequiteur or not, it's not actually shown to be true, so it can not be used as the basis of making any other logical decision.

If you use "AAAAAAAAAAAAAA" as the start command, how do you code what "AAAAAAAAAAAAAA" would code for?

Cold, as expected. Global warming does not mean that everywhere gets warmer. Anyway, could you please answer my earlier questions Why do you think I should start my own thread so you can explain an apparently off- topic post which you made in this thread? Why do you think Australian weather variations from day to day have anything much to do with the net energy flux of the whole earth? Do you understand that the heat that people use is tiny compared to that received from the sun?

The statement "...is better to not have pre-marital sex so that when you do get married, your chances of divorce..." implies that there is a causal relation ship between a lack of premarital sex and reduced chance of divorce. However there is no plausible mechanism for it, and I doubt that anyone has done the experiment that would be needed to check if it's true. There's quite probably a correlation between the two factors, but I think that will be produced by confounding factors rather than causation.

"I have heard that it is better to not have pre-marital sex so that when you do get married, your chances of divorce will be lower." that's quite a spectacular non sequiteur.

Unfortunately, several dozen decades of observation says "bollocks". Do you actually have any evidence?

Well, for a start, I'm a trade Union Official, a scientist and a staunch atheist. Can you explain why on earth you think there's a "religious-trade-union-church AAAS" to worry about?

Th e effect of eddy currents is to hold the magnet "back", as if it's dragging on the metal. Copper is diamagnetic. You probably won't detect the small diamagnetic effect if the metal an magnet are moving, because the eddy currents will have a bigger effect.