John Cuthber

Pretty much anything that blocks visible light will block UV. A black cloth would work fine.

Surely Occam's razor works the other way. We know there's more CO2 in the air and we know it traps IR. So, it's like saying that we put another blanket on the bed and we are warmer. The simplest explanation is that the blanket is why it's warmer.

Cardboard (especially if it's black) would be a good way to block UV, but if you want to be really sure use aluminium foil.

There were plenty of options http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_thermal_weapons perhaps more interestingly the question in the OP "Could plasma one day be used for actual guns?" asks if the plasma could be used for guns, rather than for ammunition. A gun made from plasma would be a challenge to hold and aim.

Perhaps I should clarify something. If I say someone does something because they are "following the word of God", I mean that they are failing. If it is the right thing to do then they should do it because it is right. If it is the wrong thing to do then they should not do it no matter what the "word of God" is. So, there's no way that my view can be construed as defending maniacs who harm others in the name of their religion. That applies to terrorist murderers like those responsible for 9/11 and it also applies to those who seek to damage the learning of children by coming up with BS like the creationists. Now, the point about religion is that it's what you believe because you were taught it by people variously labelled as priests or whatever- rather than because of (indeed, often in the face of) the evidence. Just because you think that some group has misunderstood (deliberately or accidentally) the word, that doesn't mean that their belief is not religious. From their point of view, it's you who has got it wrong.

Plasma weapons have been in use since the ancient Greeks (at least).

I would also define things like preaching as harmful, yet they are the mainstay of religion. It seems that the normal use of religion is improper.

Lots of words, but no real answer. Are all things in pairs or not? If the answer is yes then there are two Gods. If not then you (and the Koran) were wrong to assert that all things were paired. It certainly has nothing to do with freedom of speech, and if it's an error then the error is on your part, not mine.

So, for example, when they are used to get money from people to pay for self promoting clergy? What about when religion is used to, for example, rep-lace rational thought or mislead people?

That would help, dovetailing them would help even more, but it would make it more difficult to assemble.

Bosons are real. Light, for example, consists of photons which are bosons, so are the carbon nuclei in your body: it's just that you cant draw pretty pictures of them. I could try to explain how things work, but there's a lot of it and others put the point across better. I suggest you start with any reputable science text book. Of course, you could just look at the Bible again and spot all the errors in it- that would prove that it is not and can never be a good textbook (of physics or of anything else). In any case, if you still make errors like saying "the boson is theorectical" it tells me that you don't know enough about science to make valid comparisons between the Bible and the real world.

1 It is fraud, well spotted. 2 Why assume there's a creator? 3 They can't all be right, but they might all be wrong- for example, there may be no God. 4 Well, I try my best to talk people out of these false beliefs. The trouble is people are very stubborn and don't listen to reason about these sorts of things.

Have you seen this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_scrubber In any event, the limiting factor might be how much the hydroxide costs and what does it cost to get rid of the carbonate/ bicarbonate produced.

1 which one? and how? 2 You do realise that isn't a real picture: it's just an artist's impression? 3 No it isn't. If it were real then it might be interesting. A different artist would have drawn something else and it would have been just as right or just as wrong.

Imagine grabbing the right and left edges of those tiled planes and pulling. Without some sort of glue it will come apart with very little strength.

The point is not how well I could explain it, but that I could make a much better job of it than God has if He wrote the Bible as a textbook. Why did God write a book that's inconsistent with itself and science and also deliberately cryptic? 1 Reality doesn't care what you feel or how strongly you feel it. 2 You are the only one who thinks that way.

Well done on missing the point there. Just giving them a computer wouldn't help them (there's nowhere to plug it in). But I could explain physics to a child from 6000 years ago just the same way as i could explain it to a modern child. If all else fails, remember that the bible teaches you that you shouldn't try to understand things. Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your understanding. You see, God doesn't want you to understand things. If that doesn't persuade you to abandon your search for physics in the Bible fair enough: but it won't be meaningful until you can make a testable (almost certainly numerical) prediction based on the Bible which can be verified by experiment. Get back to us when you have sorted that one out.

. Oh well, I guess it doesn't matter because man (in his guise as a neutron) only has a half life of about 15 min so we will all have vanished by this time tomorrow. You seem to have missed out a step or two. Firstly, why would anyone have tried to explain modern physics to a cave man? What would have been the point. Secondly, as far as I understand it, there is no significant biological difference between the people from, say, 6000 years ago and those born today. If I can take a modern child and explain physics to them (and I can) then I could have taken a child from Christ's time and explained it to them. So, at best, the Bible is a bad textbook that says things that simply are not true (It's no better with biology since it thinks bats are birds) and which was aimed at a bunch of people who, if it had been explained properly (and you would think God would be able to do that) would have understood it, but probably not been able to make any use of it (because their technology wan't up to it). I strongly urge you not to waste any more time on this idea.

The Bible contradicts itself: physics doesn't. Therefore, the Bible is not a physics book.

Why do you think that only 1 pulley means there's no mechanical advantage? Consider the case when I'm pulling myself up and my feet are off the ground. The pulley is frictionless so the tension in both halves of the rope is the same. The rope in my hands pulls up on my hands and the rope round my waist also pulls up on me. So the total force pulling me up is twice the tension in the rope, but that total force must also equal my weight. So the tension in the rope is half my weight. So I only have to pull half of my weight to get clear of the ground. If I was just climbing a rope I would need to pull with a force equal to my whole weight. The mechanical advantage of the pulley system is 2.

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? And, perhaps you might care to explain the ad hom, while you are at it.

Still waiting.

I presume that you mean that when you said this "One becomes a Christian by practically leading a life based on the principles of Christ and becomes a Muslim by following and implementing the principles of Muhammad in his life." you defined what it means (to you) to be a Christian or Muslim. but the problem is that we don't really know what either of those prophets taught. The books they left are riddled with contradictions and it is simply absurd to describe them as having "no ambiguity". So, in effect, what you are saying is that a "True Christian" is someone who acts in the way that you interpret the Bible as saying that a "True Christian" should behave. That does make it a "true Scotsman" argument and, therefore, invalid. Also it's slightly absurd, and very much an ego trip, to say that you "scholarly evidence" is better than that available to the Council of Nicea rather closer to the original events. Even if you are right, it still leads to the question of the authenticity of the rest of the Bible. How can you know that further "scholarly evidence" will not turn up and contradict what you believe? If it does will people who were previously "True Christians" suddenly stop being so? You are picking and choosing from among the evidence to get a definition of "True Christian" that meets your own personal expectation. (Not a rare trait among the religious, and not realising that they do it is one example of the "brokenness" referred to earlier.)

Interesting, Is it just a coincidence that they come up with c as the answer or does it follow from their other errors?

I realise that this isn't quintessentially on-topic but I thought you might find it amusing. I was watching that video when there was a knock at the door. I answered it, and there were a couple of God-bothers with some leaflets about creation. I'm afraid I just started laughing at them. They went away.