John Cuthber

Is that a way of saying "Too thick to realise that they are thick" in such a way that they don't realise you are saying they are thick because they are too thick to realise it?

Is "I don't know and I have more sense than to make a fool of myself by guessing" a valid answer?

"It's what the Chlorophyll 'sees' that the plant uses." Specifically, it 'sees' red light. That's why it's green. The green light you see reflected from plants is the light they are not using. They don't use green light.

In the ordinary way of things on a science website, there's no way your mother could be right. However, after a few hash brownies and a case of "the munchies" she may have a point.

" All the cellulose I have around me is white, almost the definition of white. " Obviously, yes, cellulose is white and, equally obviously, nobody said it wasn't. The fact remains that chlorophyll doesn't do anything with green light. So , when you said "It's pretty obvious that Chlorophyll has a scattering resonance in the Green part of our visual spectrum." you were talking bollocks. You now have two choices You can admit that you were talking nonsense, or you can try to pretend that you were not. I rather doubt that you will get away with bullshitting here so I think you should accept that your ideas are moonshine. "There are two processes here, transfer energy to ATP, get energy from ATP to do some kind of work. And it has to be done rather quickly because ATP is not very stable." Here's how the actual evidence (rather than talk of magic and rainbows) shows that it's done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_phosphorylation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyruvate_kinase

Don't be silly- he has a man who does that for him.

"No energy is needed to sustain the resting condition. If you concede that a charged sphere would normally move excess particles of the polarity of charge to its outer limits..." There's the problem. The sun is surrounded by conducting ionised gas. There isn't a "limit" to the extent to which the charge could be pushed outwards. It would be pushed out until the sun reached neutrality. Maintaining a field in a conductor (like the one round the sun) requires energy. Stop pretending it doesn't. Your doing so is among the reasons why imatfaal can write "Make stuff up and describe the evidence contrary to your imaginings as flawed and those who argue against you as dogmatists - is that seriously how you think the scientific method works? "

"It's pretty obvious that Chlorophyll has a scattering resonance in the Green part of our visual spectrum." Not really. The green colour of plants is due to scattering by cellulose etc. The chlorophyll absorbs a lot of the red light but it has little or no interaction with the green light. Chlorophyll has nothing to do with the way the body uses ATP. We are not green.

Not really my field but... If you have two variables for example height and weight and you measure lots of people and calculate the correlation coefficient and find that, for example, it's 0.8 the you can find R^2 easily enough: 0.64 . That tells you that 64% of the variation in weight is "due to" the variation in height. The rest of the variability must be due to other factors.

Go and see a doctor. Any other advice that anyone here can give you is less important than that.

While it is true that many grey/green moulds are penicillium species it is not true that most of them produce penicillin. Many fungi produce a whole array of toxic chemicals- some quire remarkably so,. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aflatoxin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochratoxin_A Is produced by a mould that looks pretty much like bread mould. http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6651/1/1/3/figure?id=toxins-01-00003-f002 So brewing up bread mould tea might get you penicillin, or it might get you Octhratoxin. There's no easy way to know which.

The best answer is to ampoule it. How good are your glassblowing skills and do you have some test tubes and a blowtorch?

No From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_arc "An electric arc is an electrical breakdown of a gas which produces an ongoing plasma discharge, resulting from a current through normally nonconductive media such as air." No gas: no arc. You can get discharges in low pressure systems, but not in a strict vacuum. I don't think a fairly good vacuum would carry enough current to heat the electrodes far enough to get significant thermionic emission.

"If one preserves these statements then Christianity will live forever. Colossians 2:9" No, not really. Imagine it were preserved in this script. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_C It's also hypothetically possible that Christianity will be proved wrong. Either the non existence of God or the proof of the correctness of some other faith would do this. The text could still be preserved but Christianity would no longer exist.

"Conduction is not a problem. Macroscopic electrostatic formations are self-sustaining." What's the power source, how is it coupled?

Check the date.

Sorry, but it looks like fraud to me.

Ask a 3rd year.

Funny how this "idenotintriphosper" that he worked on only appears in variations of this same story (in a few languages) and not anywhere else on the web.

It's possible that in the fairly near future, science will show why people believe in God. Experiments like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet and research in areas like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_lobe_epilepsy#Temporal_Lobe_Epilepsy.2C_Neurotheology_and_Paranormal_Experience will explain why some people insist on believing in an ancient myth that no longer provides any answer to any questions. I rather doubt that it will affect some people's belief, even if we were able to prove it down to the cellular and molecular level that there is a scientific explanation for belief in things that are not there.

The research about bees is a very strong argument not to use nicotinoid pesticides. The organic food movement uses the prototype nicotinoid. There are other insecticides that are not implicated in the problems the bees are suffering from. The Organic Farming movement doesn't permit them. It seems to me that it would be better to stick to conventional farming but change the product used rather than to support a group who choose to use a product that's very similar to the one causing the problem.

The neonicotinoid pesticides that are implicated as the cause have the same basic toxicity as the nicotine they are named after. Nicotine is permitted as an "organic" pesticide. This isn't a good reason to buy organic foods.

EC, How would you feel if someone at 8pm yesterday had read you post acted on it, and hurt themselves before I had spotted your stupid post and corrected it? Compared to that " I carried this wrong idea with me all my life" is a vast improvement. "Keeping quiet is often a larger recipe for disaster than speaking up. " Perhaps, but the best approach is to ask questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_number#E100.E2.80.93E199_.28colours.29 E173 Al isn't very toxic unless you are unfortunate enough to be allergic to it. "Ebsen also played Fess Parker's sidekick in Walt Disney's Davy Crockett miniseries (1953–54), and was cast as the Tin Man in The Wizard of Oz (1939) until he fell ill from an allergy to the makeup." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Ebsen It clearly didn't end his career.

"Accepted physics is embedded with dogma sustained by such as you. " No Accepted physics is embedded with dogma sustained by evidence "I defy you to even suggest by what mechanism nuclear fusion within a positive core could annihilate any electrons. " Synthesis of nuclei that undergo K capture, not that it's relevant. As for "The downward-pointing electric field understood for the earth and sun ", it is still begging the question. Before you can base things on the assertion that there is understood to be such a field, you have to show that such a field actually exists (and also that it is believed in by anyone other than you). It's difficult to sustain a field in something that conducts. Ionised gases conduct. The sun is surrounded by (and made of) ionised gases.