John Cuthber

"one thing bothers me most is PC radiation/cellphone radiation. it is obviously harmful for us." It's not obvious to me and it's not obvious to the people whose job it is to know about that sort of thing. "This expert group concluded that there was no clear scientific evidence of harm to health from exposure to mobile phone signals." from http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/Radiation/UnderstandingRadiation/UnderstandingRadiationTopics/ElectromagneticFields/MobilePhones/info_HealthAdvice/ Similarly, "On the basis of current evidence, the HPA does not consider there to be a problem with the safety of WLAN. " "There is no consistent evidence to date that exposure to RF signals from Wi-Fi and WLANs adversely affect the health of the general population."

You are mistaken in thinking that you can have a solar wind composed mainly or solely of one form of charged particle because it would either be a violation of charge conservation or it would lead to a net charge building up on the sun which would produce a potential gradient which would pull those particles back. You have not provided any evidence at all. You have based a lot of speculation on a flawed premise. Stop wittering about the way in which people rebut your ideas and either justify them with evidence or stop wasting bandwidth.

I'd not try anything as flammable as steel. 600C is above the safe working temperature for most lab glass. http://www.camglassblowing.co.uk/gproperties.htm Wrapping an electrical heating element round a metal container is a recipe for blowing the fuse and/ or electrocution. If you don't know what you are talking about you should keep quiet.

"They certainly are evidence of what they contain, by definition. " Yes, but they are not evidence of the accuracy of what they contain. So, for example, they are not evidence that their original content has not been changed. They don't provide much evidence of when they were originally written, because they have been copied, translated and changed over the years. And they don't provide evidence of who said what- at best they provide evidence of someone having asserted that someone said something. "This is a bunch of nonsense, in part because you're making the mistake of applying standards appropriate to evaluating evidence of a recent event to an event of the ancient world. " Yes, it's called science. "You take for granted the historicity of many ancient events for which there is vastly less record than those described in the New Testament, and for which the ancient records were written more distant in time from the events. " Quite possibly, but if we fail to get the right answer about how many ships were launched by the face of Helen of Troy, it doesn't matter. There's no question that, for a lot of "history" we simply don't know the truth. "You're making a special pleading." Not really, the people who think we should live our lives according to a bad record "because it's the Word of God" in spite of the fact that it contradicts itself are the ones doing special pleading. I'm just as happy to say we don't have proper evidence for a lot of history/ archaeology as I am to say that the bible isn't proof of anything.

You do realise that the texts can't be evidence of their own accuracy, don't you? The major rewrite a few hundred years later is well documented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Not really. the scientific community really is disinterested in things like " possible corruption of the Bible during the translation process from the original languages they were in? " There may be psychologists who study why people change the meanings of books and there are linguists (barely a science but...) who look at the way language changes. But the scientists will realise that there's nothing special about the bible. Also, it is hard to see how you could do an experiment in this field or see how it is repeatable. In any event, http://www.dailywritingtips.com/disinterested-not-the-same-as-uninterested/

Do you not understand that this "You keep making these grunts I refered to in the other post. If you ceased using these grunts and actually communicated in some form of language, or at least stop making these grunts things would be much better. But you entirely insist in make personal remarks and grunting, so the problem is entirely on your part." is a collection of personal remarks?

For the record, there is a protocol for communication here. It's the forum rules. They forbid making personal remarks.

The image isn't visible. Does it look like a space hopper? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_hopper

Lemon juice removes permanganate stains and, in my personal opinion, smells better than vinegar.

" I have degrees in Chemistry, all the way up to medicine doctor to practical medicine. " Study all the chemistry you want: you don't qualify as a doctor of medicine, so the guy is a nutter or a liar.

Colour perception never was perfect. Here's a more down to earth example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion The eye isn't very good at judging things in isolation from their background. Not much QM involved there. It's related to the Rainbow. This one?

OK, here's an independent method to check whether or not you are talking nonsense. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Pt wire isn't going to do a very good job as a catalyst. It doesn't have enough surface area.

"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich poor man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich poor man to enter the kingdom of God"

I think you may be asking the wrong question. I wonder if something stopped the gold dissolving in the first place. As a simple example, imagine the ore had lots of limestone in it. The limestone would react very quickly with the acid and there would be none left to dissolve the gold. Also, how do you know there is gold in the ore?

That is frightening.

I don't know what "calculus 4" covers, but there's a lot of maths in chemistry.

Just a thought. How can colour be so important when many animals don't have it at all. Some people and plenty of animals of people have different colour perception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy#Possibility_of_human_tetrachromats or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monochromacy And in poor lighting we all have pretty much monochrome vision? What is so bloody marvellous about a simple side effect of the way in which a tiny, and arbitrary, portion of the electromagnetic spectrum interacts with a handful of molecules that we happen to synthesise in the backs of our eyes? That's what makes your post word salad. The fact is that the radiation from hot objects is very well understood by modern (and by that I mean 20th C) physics. Do you really think you have anything to add? http://xkcd.com/675/

"What is the position of the scientific community regarding possible corruption of the Bible during the translation process from the original languages they were in? " Disinterest.

That's still gibberish and you were still wrong about what a hole in a heated box looks like.

A tube will work a lot better than a rod. Also, you need to give us some idea of how fast you want to scan things. It is simply impossible to answer the question without that.

No, it was not a communication failure. You got your message across well enough. The problem is that what you said was plain wrong. Nothing to do with me or my compatriots. The problem lies entirely with you. You need to realise that.

"You must read and understand the original papers and Planck's in particular to understand that this is a genuine puzzle " Are you saying that, if I read those papers, the sun changes colour? If not then you are still flat out wrong about the assertion that the hole in the box will look red. You can't expect to get "the 'accepted theories' into a seamless whole" by ignoring reality. As for "Please respect me on this." Why, what have you done to earn our respect to the extent that we should let you ignore the rules?

What you said was "Do either of you know who the most cited person in all of Physics is. Philip Warren Anderson." I think that's simply not true. I know Google isn't God but "Albert Einstein" gets 10 or 20 times more hits than "Philip Warren Anderson". You also said " You will see that the inside of the box is a dark red, which is exactly what it should be by the Planck Equation. " which is also not true. Being careless with names isn't a big deal, but being careless with facts is.