John Cuthber

"acceleration has no equivalent for tidal forces, which gravitating bodies produce. " Not really. Here's a rough approximation to tidal forces caused by acceleration. To get something more like a tide would need an acceleration gradient which is an unusual state of affairs except for rotating bodies.

Colour is a function of perception. It doesn't have an independent existence. The eye very clearly gets things wrong. As I said, we call these things optical illusions. Once again, here's a nicely illustrated example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion Why are you trying to pretend otherwise? An instrument doesn't need to be exactly right. It just needs to have a well defined error margin. They eye has such wide margins as to be pretty useless for some thing. (Of course, it's very good at the things it's usually used for).

"Of course the instrument here is always the human eye," Well it should not be. The eye is known to get things wrong. We call them optical illusions. To do proper science we don't rely on things that are known to give the wrong result. Earlier this evening I saw the moon in the sky. Because it was seen against the blue background of the sky it looked a bit yellow. It's now rather later. The night sky is essentially black and the moon looks white against that background. My observations directly contradict those in the OP. Before we seek to explain the assertions made in the OP we ought to try to repeat them. I tried, and it turns out that the observations are simply not right. End of story. BTW, this has little if anything to do with QM. QM doesn't do "colour".

For the record, I post here under a false name.

It seems that a lot of pictures disagree with you. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=moon&hl=en&prmd=imvnsua&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=jdxlUN30FYGm0AWM5oHgCg&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=899 The moon seems to be just about any colour. As has already been ppointed out, colour perception depends on the background (among other things). You may recall that the last time you raised this idea it was to dsitract attention from the mistakes you had made about black body radiation. You were subsequently condemned for writing off those who showed your error as "grunting" Here's the thread. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69003-the-second-black-body-problem/page__st__20 Perhaps you should address the criticism there rather than starting a new thread to rehash the same mistake.

"He sends on his mobile the 20 digit number to the special number" More than 70% of the world’s population have never heard a dial tone. Many , if not most counterfeit drugs are sold in places where mobile phones are a bit thin on the ground. Also, Anything you can print, I can copy.

"The church is the body of Christ " I'm not swallowing that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_bread "The term Pleroma represents the totality of God's powers which we call the Aeons. Its very clear and precise. That's how the term should be understood." So, based on the experimental evidence, it is equivalent to this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set It would have been much easier if someone had said that in the first place.

Then find a better paper. Even this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Toxicity is probably an improvement.

This is a grandiose thread for someone who doesn't actually understand QM as witnessed by the mistake in the first post here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69003-the-second-black-body-problem/

Not my field, but I think a sketch would help.

"There is no ambiguity in what the term pleroma means, pleroma means the totality of divine powers (Aeons) which make up the body of Christ. Is that clear to you? " No. The body of Christ was mainly water, some proteins and fats some salts and quite a lot of calcium phosphate as the skeleton.

"The thought never seems to flit past the window of your mind that there is something that you do not know, that there may be whole fields of study that you are not aware of." Once again, it seems that way to you, but not me. I know there are plenty of things I don't know. But that doesn't stop me pointing out that People are not green and, since they use ATP there's no link between being green and ATP. Chlorophyll doesn't do anything much with green light (though it does absorb red light quite strongly. There are well documented mechanisms for the synthesis and use of ATP in the cells. It doesn't stop me pointing out that you were totally wrong about them. "but I assure you that people on this forum are perfectly capable of judging your character for themselves" "We are not to engage in name-calling debates" How fortunate then, that I didn't call you any names. If you want to get back to talking about why the moon changes apparent colour then perhaps you should do so in the original thread. It's the one where you made silly comments about black body radiation because you simply didn't understand it and where the last entry was from one of the mods telling you to stop using personal insults because you described someone's rebuttal of your ideas are "grunting". Here it is http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69003-the-second-black-body-problem/page__st__20 "but I assure you that people on this forum are perfectly capable of judging your character for themselves" That goes both ways.

There area gold based drugs that contain (complexed) gold ions If those didn't pass through cell membranes then they wouldn't work (unless the site of action was the cell membrane itself). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_salts#Medical_uses

According to this http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articles/PMC544180 "Meroacid is defined in this review as the long α-alkyl chain of mycolic acid that is released as a meroaldehyde by pyrolytic cleavage and is oxidized by a separate reaction to the fatty acid " They seem to be pretty obscure.

"You don't seem to have solved my 'white moon' riddle " It only seems that way to you. Why do you keep making strongly worded blanket statements that turn out to be nonsense? ("This statement is an erroneous conclusion by someone: The energy release by ATP in the body is not in the form of electromagnetic radiation. ATP is used in endothermic chemical reactions (reactions which take in heat rather than produce it) - ie it provides the energy for many cellular reactions and biosynthesis that otherwise could not take place. Elsewhere in the body the energy in glucose is used to recreate the energy rich ATP ready for when it is needed. " would be an example) Would it not be better to start of by accepting that you don't know a lot and ask, rather than make false statements that make you look silly?

I think the law forbids gambling on events which have already taken place. The non-existence of the ether was proven a while back (1887) so nobody is really allowed to bet on this.

Anyone taking bets?

What a drag.

" they have no working mechanism. " Yes they do. Here's a small part of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mechanism_of_Pyruvate_Carboxylase,_5-15-2010,_sswilson7.png Please stop talking nonsense. I already asked you to actually do some research and I'm asking you again. In the meantime, since "I'm not going to accede that that is right. It's the very statement which caused me to see that the Kinase part of the processes was misunderstood," is a total departure from anything like mainstream science you ought to only refer to it in posts in the speculations forum. Please don't clutter up the other fora with this moonshine.

One possibility would be removal of HCl from the trike to make 1,1 dichloroethane, followed by polymerisation to PVDC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyvinylidene_chloride Probably a mixture of products.

I never said it would be my answer.

You need to learn to ride properly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvrRRwJVrSA

Well, I guess that's progress, now all you need to do is remember that chemical reactions are reversible and do the research ( a few minutes with wiki) to see that biology uses the same pathways (in reverse) to use ATP that it uses to make it. Then you will realise that this "The energy release by ATP in the body is not in the form of electromagnetic radiation. ATP is used in endothermic chemical reactions (reactions which take in heat rather than produce it) - ie it provides the energy for many cellular reactions and biosynthesis that otherwise could not take place. Elsewhere in the body the energy in glucose is used to recreate the energy rich ATP ready for when it is needed. " is right.

Do you understand that the patent office(s) doesn't care if the invention works? Patenting it still won't prove that the ether exists. On the other hand, it will cost you money. I rather doubt that a prototype will ever be made. If it's made, it won't work.

In my experience as a kid, the combination of me and the bike stayed upright fairly well I stayed upright without the bike. The bike without me fell over (even if it was moving) I conclude (with no great surprise) that the answer to the question "What exactly causes a bicycle to stand upright?" is The Rider.