John Cuthber

OK, so the reaction between a potassium atom and a chlorine atom (in the gas phase) is physics? ( the reaction kinetics indicate that the mechanism is the transfer of an electron to form two ions, followed by combination of the ions.) And I think the good Captain, has distinguished science from technology or engineering as much as he has split chemistry from physics.

Well, here's my take on it.

Your idea does not count as a theory in the scientific sense. Also your use of theology strongly suggests that it never will be a real theory. So it's not in theoretical physics.

http://xkcd.com/687/ Just because the units of some combination of constants are the units of velocity, doesn't mean it's actually the speed of anything. You have introduced "V ether" in there as a matter of faith, not science.

If the second law was not a law then it wouldn't mater if life breached it, but life doesn't anyway. So it doesn't matter that it doesn't matter.

No, it affects it. http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/style-and-usage/affect-effect-grammar.html

A quick look at that suggests that he answer might be anywhere from 1 to 430km/s With that much scatter it's hard to say you could rule out zero as also within the error bounds of the experiment. Can you show data that strictly rules out zero? If not then you haven't disproved the nul hypothesis and you are not likely to be taken seriously.

"You have to go at the Chapter 5 of the link" No I don't. I don't have to do anything of the sort. But if you can bring a summary of it here I might read it.

"There are a lot of experiments made in the past that proved an existence of Aether" Nope, there are not. Indeed there's a famous one that proves that there is no aether. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment So, unless you can answer my earlier points I'm certainly not going to waste any time reading the rest of your material.

OK, let's cut to the chase. Do you have any verifiable predictions based on your ideas (if not the are not science) and do they solve any problems that current theories don't (if not they are not useful)?

"A photon carries both an electric and magnetic oscillation, but why does it have both? " Because electricity and magnetism are both aspects of the same, electromagnetic, force.

The colour scheme might be better, but the physics problems still remain. Why should something which makes mistakes like life being a breach of the 2nd law be a physics textbook?

If it's chemistry, can someone please tell me what the reagent is and where I can buy some? Seriously, mucking about with the electrons is chemistry. Fiddling with the nuclei is physics.

I'm not certain, but I think the fundamental difference between the ANDs and ORs one one hand and the IFs and THENs on the other is that computers have a "clock" that tells them what order to do things in, while the gates act (in theory) immediately.

Let me get this straight. You start the thread by saying "It has been said that I accuse of moderators doing things they do not do, and from my point of view, moderators have accused others of doing things they might not be doing. For example trolling, and preaching. " (The emphasis is mine) Then you say that " It is about the importance of public trials and juries, but it keeps getting taken off topic, by people who insist I am attacking mods." Well, do you realise that people are doing that because they see your first post in the thread - the one that says "moderators have accused others of doing things they might not be doing" - as an attack on the mods? Anyway, as you say "The best way to handle this is to talk about what is happening in this thread, and compare it to the historical Star Chamber." OK, let's do that. The start chamber could torture you to death. The mods can stop you posting in this one tiny corner of the internet (but they have not).

Well, this is the sort of test you need http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_trial but I don't think you will get very far. Ayurvedic medicine is not accepted as having any real basis so you would be proposing to test a treatment which is practically certain not to work. How could you justify that ethically?

Personally, I'm more worried by the sprinkling of theology than the stuff from the Discovery Channel. This sort of thing "Yet it further states in the word, that God is the center meaning that the very center of creation is the center to the break down of what we see as a chemistry distilation flask. In 3 parts God. Father, Son, Holy spirit. To what we see as the basic of the properties on this earth." belongs in religion or as has already been suggested, the dump. I can see one possible reason for keeping it: it serves as an example of how unhelpful it is to try to mix science and religion.

I don't know about you but, speaking as a terrestrial vertebrate, I object to being called a creeping creature. However, as has been pointed out, a book of old myths isn't really evidence of much and isn't relevant to the thread.

Also an anagram of Me Now. Women have been practising birth control since at least the time of the Romans. Obviously, their science and technology were not that good, so it wasn't brilliantly effective, but they did their best. One factor that reduced the effectiveness of this was the fact that a misogynistic church sought to outlaw it. It looks like some things never change.

Nothing written in magenta on black should be in a textbook.

The impact of a nuke depends not so much on how much plutonium you put in, but how much of it undergoes fission and thus releases energy. The only way it will explode is if it's all in close proximity to the other bits. Once it gets blown apart the reaction stops. So, one nuke going off next to a bunch of others wouldn't set them off- it would just make a mess. Questionposter, at 100,000,000 degrees (give or take a few zeros) you don't have to design something to evaporate: you don't have any choice in the matter. The casing is designed to be heavy (and also to back-scatter neutrons). If you had an enormously strong casing, it would increase the yield. In reality, you can't. In fiction you can, and nobody minds.

That's probably the most remarkable, and least comprehensible bit of word salad I have seen in a while. On the other hand, the last line gives me an excuse to remind people of this, which is one of my favourite pieces of music.

What makes a word "real" is having a meaning. One of the properties of gravity waves is that they are hard to detect. Because the universe is not difficult to detect it cannot be made of gravity waves. What properties do "energy waves" have that would allow us to make predictions/ deductions like that?

There's a very simple reason for wanting 196Hg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_of_precious_metals#Gold_synthesis_in_a_nuclear_reactor but, unless you happen to have a nuclear reactor...

"By applying 0.1 Volt to electrodes in a solution of multiple compounds, as a murky river; would only one or a few elements be collected ? If the voltage is increased to 0.2 V, would additional others join and get deposited ?" The simple answer is yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltammetry but it's quite complicated.