John Cuthber

The difference is that while it was science (after a fashion) that invented Phlogiston, it was also science that checked on it and found that it was wrong. They came up with the idea but they didn't believe in it so they tested it. That's essentially the opposite of religion where they come up with an idea that can't (usually) be tested and then cling to belief in it even when it's as fishy as anything. The idea of phlogiston, flawed though it was, at least explained some observed facts. the idea of God doesn't explain anything because "Goddidit" isn't a reason.

I think you would also have to trap the sulphur compounds before you burned the stuff of the SO2 produced would contribute to pollution and acid rain.

Well, I also wish you had a better aptitude for science. If you had then perhaps you would actually address the point I made (albeit implicitly). What real difference is there between my not believing in God and my not believing in fairies at the bottom of my garden? There is, I might remind you, no evidence for either. I'm just pointing out that people's ignorance of God is exactly the same as their ignorance of fairies. You seem to think that that nobody understands one, but they somehow understand the other.. What extraordinary proof can you supply for that extraordinary claim?

Xmas 2020? Anything like decent whiskey takes years to mature. The raw product is borderline undrinkable.

I don't believe that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden (ditto: God). For some reason Rigney thinks that's too profound for anyone to cope with.

3 miles per hour isn't an acceleration, it's a speed. It's known that little old ladies can deliver enough torque to snap the necks of birds so I guess a strong adult could snap someone's neck this way http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6601/Queen-bloodsports-row.html

Did you die 60 years ago? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_length

When it emits radiation it experiences a recoil force so the most you can know where it was,but not where it is.

Make 2 copies of the list you have of 32 combinations. Prefix one set with "True" and the other set with "False". You now have a list of 64 Make 2 copies of that list...

If there's a creator He has a lot to answer for. Re sickle cell disease + malaria. One of the things He has to learn is that two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't know and I don't care how it's different to a moved goalpost. The point I made was that you accuse him of dishonesty and, as far as I can see, you have not put forward any evidence for that ad hom. what evidence do you have that he is putting forward anything other then his earnestly held beliefs?

Maybe they considered it to be at eqm before they put a weight on it and pushed it down by L. It's not possible to be certain but at least that interpretation would mean that the formula might be right. In any event, it's spectacularly ill described.

"By the way; you want an unbeatable penetrating fluid ? Plain transmission fluid + acetone 50/50." Perhaps you would like to tell us how you did that testing.

Probably the most notable thing about that quote is that it's plainly wrong, but people still cite it as if it's meaningful. It's also interesting to consider whether Churchill's policies would be viewed as conservative or liberal by today's standards. I understand that an examination of Obama's policies found them to be to the Right of Ronald Reagan. That's a much shorter interval for attitudes to change.

I can't read his mind so, unlike you, I can't be sure if he's being honest or not.* However, I can say that I think that people who believe in God are just as broken as adults who never grew out of believing in Santa and the tooth fairy. * BTW, if you can't read minds then your post is an ad hom.

Billy Graham believes he will understand God, but he may well be mistaken. If there is no God (and it's not a suggestion you can rule out) the he has spent his whole life learning nothing. If we all die then none of us is immortal so the question is meaningless if taken literally. If it's taken figuratively, then I think that in a hundred year's time more people will know about Hawking than about Graham. As Woody Allen said, "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it by not dying."

Or you can do it the easy way.

If it's displaced down by L as a result of mg then it's a different kettle of fish. However, it is ridiculously ill stated, so it's difficult to tell.

But the conversion from radians to degrees is just multiplication by a pure number. They are both dimensionless.

It's a very poorly stated problem but I suspect that the spring constant might cancel out of the second system. L is related to the spring constant.

Doesn't that mean that they are mappings between numbers and, in that case, does it not apply to any unary function- logs for example?

It doesn't sound plausible to me. In particular, this bit "The thought being that grassland and lowland savannas by nature tend to allow sound to travel further and more accurately." seems at odds with reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbo_Gomero_language

No, there can't be. At least not for any length of time. You could use something like a wax that melts and absorbs heat, but you would have to keep supplying it with solid wax to keep it cool.

I can do that with just 1 mirror (and at this time of year I can find the right sort of mirror quite easily). Come to think of it, I can do it without any mirrors.