John Cuthber

"I wonder if I can get this pinned?" probably not. "You can effectively travel as fast as you like" How would you go about travelling to the moon in under a second?

re. "How can there be several ∞ in any of Cantors work? " Since you clearly don't understand Cantor's work, perhaps you should realise why you can't use it as a basis for some strange theories about God. " 1 can explain them all " No, it can't. "I'm just giving you an equation, that explains something Absolutely unrestricted. Beyond number 1 and mathematics." If the equation is "beyond mathematics" then i's clearly not a mathematical equation. What sort is it exactly? Do you realise just how little sense you are making here?

"his later works such as solving the Ultra-Violet Catastrophe" That wasn't Einstein. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe The phrase was coined in 1911 The special theory was already published by then. However his work on the photoelectric effect (which shows the quantisation of energy) was published 1905 He was ahead of the game on quantum physics before he published relativity. To some extent his ideas were a product of their time: if he hadn't made the leap, someone else would have, and probably fairly soon.

It might help to point out that the atoms from which the surface is composed will be vibrating more strongly when it is hot. If the gas is cold and the solid warm then the gas molecules that hit it will be bounced off faster than they were moving before they hit it.

Just for the record, it is known (and reasonably well documented) that bones, because of their high phosphate content are good at scavenging uranium from the soil they are buried in. The same phenomenon is a problem for the phosphate fertiliser industry where they have to strip uranium from the phosphoric acid they make. Radioactive skeletons are not evidence of anything apart from the insolubility of uranium phosphate. Re Icke's smarttness, the discussion reminded me of this exchange from the comedy sho Blackadder "Percy: You know, they do say that the Infanta's eyes are more beautiful than the famous Stone of Galveston. Edmund: Mm! ... What? Percy: The famous Stone of Galveston, My Lord. Edmund: And what's that, exactly? Percy: Well, it's a famous blue stone, and it comes ... from Galveston. Edmund: I see. And what about it? Percy: Well, My Lord, the Infanta's eyes are bluer than it, for a start. Edmund: I see. And have you ever seen this stone? Percy: (nods) No, not as such, My Lord, but I know a couple of people who have, and they say it's very very blue indeed. Edmund: And have these people seen the Infanta's eyes? Percy: No, I shouldn't think so, My Lord. Edmund: And neither have you, presumably. Percy: No, My Lord. Edmund: So, what you're telling me, Percy, is that something you have never seen is slightly less blue than something else you have never seen. Percy: (finally begins to grasp) Yes, My Lord." "There's credible links that say Trinitite can easily be the by-product of an atomic blast, that's essentially DIRECT evidence that an atomic blast of some sort is possibly responsible. " Or not, since there is (as I explained) no credible explanation of an atomic blast. You might also wish to consider the basis on which the Oklo phenomenon was recognised as being the site of an ancient reactor. The first one was the presence of a disturbance in the isotope ratio for uranium. They subsequently looked and found other consistent patterns of elements that are produced by such a reaction. This sort of thing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_product_yield Now, just as soon as you show us something like that for the glass in India, you will have some evidence of nuclear fission. Until then you have no evidence. (and citing Icke as a credible source should have a law named after it like Godwin's law).

The moon will certainly move away from the earth- but the earth won't move away from itself.

"One is the identity of mathematics." No, it's an identity in maths, but so is zero. "It is such a perfect number that any variations on the 100% value of 1, is an imperfection" and any deviation from exactly 16 2/3 is also an "imperfection". That's not unique to the number 1. "Hence Cantors proclaimed Absolute Infinity is restricted by the number 1" No For a start, infinity is rather bigger than 1- by inspection. More importantly the use of the word "hence" implies some sort of causal relation. but there isn't one. "Absolute Infinity must be boundless and endless and defined in Mathematical language as ∞" Which infinity? There are, as Cantor pointed out, several. I'm not going to go through the rest of the post because it's all that bad. It's full of false assertions. Implicit causations that are not there and general mumbo jumbo. It is, on the whole, just word salad.

Did you read that after you posted it? It's full of control characters and it's unreadable. I'm not sure it will be worth reading when you fix that, but at east people might look at it.

It's easy to investigate science, You start by objectively collecting evidence, and then you look at what might ave caused that. So you look at the (rather flaky) record of a lot of people getting sick and dying and you say "the sad fact is that for most of human existence, plagues, poisonings and such mean that was quite a common event" You don't start by asking if it was due to some intrinsically improbable event like a nuclear explosion for exactly the same reason that you don't assume it was due to an attack by a herd of unicorns. If there's evidence of a bog explosion then you look at the realistically probable causes of explosions. At that time a meteor "strike" would be the only real candidate. So you see if the evidence fits that- and it does. Then you look at the radiation levels and you note that "normal" radiation levels are enormously variable and it's perfectly reasonable to think that the high levels in that area are natural. And, you seem to have missed my point when you say " what your saying doesn't rule out that that atomic explosion could have happened, ". Actually, it does rule it out. You can't enrich the uranium.

"and on top of all that, there's still some evidence that suggests there was some kind of atomic explosion." No there isn't. Anyway, I thought it was obvious why it was impossible. Stellar nucleogenesis doesn't give a good mix of isotopes of uranium for an explosion. Geological processes can't do isotope fractionation. They also can't reduce the uranium to the metal and remove all the impurities that would stop an explosion- not least because some of those impurities are produced by nuclear decay and so geological processes are too slow to clean up the uranium before it makes itself impure again by decay. Any meteor made of uranium with a high enough isotope ratio to cause an explosion when it crashed would probably cause one when it was launched. "the topic is "what can cause an atomic explosion on Earth besides nuclear weapons?". Do people just not like reading these days or what? " Nope it is not. The topic is clearly written at the top of the page. It says "Radioactivity in the past" and I already quoted the OP. The answer to the new question is "nothing: that's why there's no evidence of one having happened."

What you said in the OP was " so my question is: is it plausible that a meteor with high uranium content struck the Earth and become compressed enough to cause an explosion? Or is it plausible from tectonic activity that enough uranium ore could have been compressed to trigger the reaction? " And those to questions have been answered. No it is not plausible and no it could not. Yet you keep going about it as if it still real possibility. Why is that? BTW, what do you mean by "You downgraded mine and upped your own"?

There are machines that measure viscosity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscometer

Something like this? http://www.richard-seaman.com/Fungus/Phallic/index.html

Indeed: we are meant to have enough class to provide evidence. You have said that you can - but you don't. You use circular arguments and other logical fallacies instead.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how someone can cite a graph that shows a clear acceleration in the rise in sea level and then say there's no evidence for an acceleration. If I had access to the data from which the graph is plotted I could do a full statistical analysis on it, but even a cursory glance shows it is steeper on the right.

This idea has already been peer reviewed. The peers though it was hogwash.

You should get the doctor who prescribed them, or the pharmacist who supplied them, to ask the manufacturer how long they will last for. Some medications will last for years- others won't.

Unless you are accusing someone of handing it out, there's no way I could smell the crap is there? That's my point. You are contradicting yourself. So, lets get this straight Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out? Who is doing it? What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)? I predict a non-answer- go on- be a devil- prove me wrong and actually answer the questions.

" I'm not accusing anyone of doing anything wrong. But something has to be done quickly to erase this stink." What "stink"? What is it that stinks but isn't an accusation of someone doing something wrong? You seem to have contradicted yourself.

No. We want you to actually discuss the problem, rather than digging up some irrelevant video clip from years ago. If you suddenly feel that has become urgent, start another thread for it. But, in this thread, answer the questions you have been asked instead of changing the subject.

The first line is very wrong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aeolipile_illustration.JPG the second line is also very wrong. Secondary and tertiary education are expensive and also the cost of R and D is high. It's high whoever does it but there are some aspects where only a government can sensibly take the risk. There is not usually an obvious return on the investment (according to the evidence, rather than your assertion) and so not many companies can afford to invest. Well, I have gone to the rouble of touching a moon rock.

Pointing out that another older reference gives a plausible story isn't really relevant to the bible's version unless you can show that the bible is really a bad copy of it. Of course, if it is, then the bible isn't much use, it's certainly not anything like "the word of God". If, on the other hand, the bible version is original and it's plainly impossible (and hence wrong) then the biblical account is still not very useful. The Gilgamesh story may be of some use as a historical record of some sort of flood- A tsunami seems as good a bet as any- but it's difficult to interpret after all this time. I still think that a physical record from the geology is a lot more likely to tell us the details of any ancient flood.

Logically, this thread will keep it's title. Swansont says "I will change the title if pcalton (and only pcalton) has an appropriate suggestion" However I also have an appropriate suggestion for the title which falsifies the clause that "only pcalton has an appropriate suggestion". So there's no point in me telling you all what that suggestion might be.

Since it's about the only use I can imagine being made of this post, could anyone tell me what the backing music to that video was?

It's often not. It's also difficult to say whether an alloy is a mixture or not. Some are clearly defined inter-metallic compounds.