John Cuthber

There are two separate aspects to the latest bit of this discussion. I cannot verify someone's asserted credentials. I do not care. If I claimed to have a Ph.D. I could probably get away with it. People might very well believe it. It works both ways. If someone says something dumb, it really doesn't matter if they have a Ph.D. or not.

Any evidence that this might ever happen?

I could answer that but aiding a suicide isn't legal.

Does Matthew have anything to say about self righteousness? "I did put evidence. If I didn't then that was in another topic. Tell me if I did put it in another topic." Stop being all talk and no trousers and cite that evidence (again if you cited it before). Please note that the bible is not evidence. "Good post. I'm not sure how someone could press the minus. " I worked it out.

Reliably pointing a telescope in the right direction would also be a bit tricky.

OK, I deserved that. Now, can anyone tell me what OEI means in the context of this thread?

Nope, sorry. 72 is my IQ. And I think stringjunky has a point.

I'm not sure, but I think it might be a more efficient way of finding the number of factors of a number than the obvious (find them all then count them). However, finding the number of factors of a number is not something I have ever had occasion to do. (As opposed to finding what the factors actually are which is relatively useful) For example for a large number that is of the form 2^n X 3^m where n and m are large, it's quicker to find n and m than to try to divide the large number by all integers less than it's square root (though there must be better algorithms than that). It seems to work best for number with a few prime factors raised to large powers- and those are rare.

There are a number of rules here. If you break them then the mods point it out. What did you expect? That's what you signed up to. Had you forgotten- or did you think the rule about "no preaching" didn't apply to you? (On a related matter, what part off "do not reply to this modnote" did you not understand? It's not a thing about religious people- there are plenty of them here. It's a thing about the utter waste of time that arises when "believers" keep on stating their opinion as if it's a fact and don't (or won't) realise that no book is evidence. It just degenerates into a childish argument "It Is!" "No it Isn't!" so it's sensible to ban it from the start.

Some of that investigation might not take long "Beginning in 1975, Meier says he began his official contacts ("official" in that evidence was to be provided publicly, unlike earlier contacts), communicating both directly (face-to-face) and by telepathy with a core group of the Pleiadians/Plejaren, or Errans as he also refers to them (Erra being their home planet), who gave their names as "Ptaah", "Semjase",[9] "Quetzal" and "Pleja",[10] among numerous others. According to Meier himself in the video documentary 'Contact', he says that his first contact with extraterrestrials began on January 28, 1975." from Wiki

Do you plan, at any stage, to criticize the liar who started this thread by making a false allegation, then casting aspersions on our maturity? The victims of that slur are PEOPLE too.

What is a "Flux compression event"?

The fact that it seems to have been created as a jpeg file shows that, at some time, it was a digital image. The thing about digital images is that they may have little or nothing to do with reality. Someone could have just messed about with photoshop and some pictures to make something "mysterious". How much effort s it worth spending on this?

FFS there are hundreds of things in the bible that do not make sense. Here's just one of the first mentioned on that web site. EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen. So is God a God of peace or a God of war. He can't be both. How about MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. Who was Joseph's father? Was it Jacob or was it Heli? Again, they can't both be correct. That's not an issue of miracles- it's bollocks. And those are just 2 of the first examples among hundreds. How can you pretend the Bible doesn't contradict itself Re. "Exactly. Later you say that just writing stuff down doesn't make it evidence. So where?" From observation. For example the observed way in which the horizon recedes as you get higher up shows that the earth is round, provided that you can understand the maths. You plainly don't, or won't understand what an un-evinced statement is. Saying "Only a god could have done it" is not evidence, never mind proof. You need to explain why it could only have been a God. "You can't see that far because of the fog. How can you see that the earth is round, if you can't see far enough to see it recede? " How far is the horizon from ten feet up? You can calculate that from the equations in WIKI. Now, since in that picture you can clearly see further than that before the fog obscures things your argument is just plain wrong. If you won't actually think about this sort of thing there's not a lot of point to you posting here.

What does OIE mean?

Indeed, so you just made the problem 20,000 to 1,000,000 times worse by using radio waves. You now need a mirror 1,000,000,000,000 metres across to "see" the earth with a 1 m resolution from Pluto using 50cm radio waves. And Pluto is a lot closer than most of us might expect to find any little green men. Essentially the numbers get silly here because the resolution is comparable with the wavelength- so the size of the mirror has to be comparable with the distance. Can we go back to visible light please? For visible light- say half a micron, and a resolution of 1 metre the ratio of the (Earth to "ET with a telescope") distance to the "size of his telescope" is something like 2,000,000 If he's a kilometre away he needs a telescope with an aperture of about a 2millionth of a kilometre to resolve a 1 metre object. - about half a millimetre aperture. Our eyes have pupils something like 10 times that so we should theoretically be just about able to see a 1 metre object at 10Km. Sounds like roughly the right order of magnitude- perhaps a bit optimistic but our eyes are not perfect. If Mr ET is near alpha centauri he would need a 'scope with a mirror about 4X10^10 metres across. And he would need to make it the right shape to an accuracy of better than about 0.5 of a micron across that whole surface. That's quite a challenge.

Only as far as the diagram.

With a fobbing drink you are trying to let gas through, but not liquid. That's a solved problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gore-Tex But that still leaves the problem of how to drink the product. You would need a second path as Swansont says. And that leaves the question of stopping that opening from fobbing. BTW, is a Nisky alum like chrome alum?

OK, for a start I already showed you where. It's really helpful if you look at things. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#contradictions This "Science is true, but it could not have come with out a god"is an un-evinced statement. It doesn't get close to counting as evidence. Science can, perfectly easily be true without a God. I said it because it answers your question. Yes, I see it gets foggier as you look at stuff that's further away. And that has nothing to do with the issues. The fact is that you have chosen to show the view from a tall building because, unless you are high up, you can't usually see far enough for that fogging to be visible. You have just proved my point. You can see further from higher up. The way in which the horizon recedes as you go up is dependent on the curvature of the earth. Have a look here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon So, by studying how far away you can see things ( of known heights) you can tell not only that the world is round, but how big it is. As I said, you have done the experiment- but you didn't understand the answer. Perhaps you have not spent enough time reading the right books. I am still waiting for the paragraph that rebuts my view that it's silly to believe a book that claims to be the work of God, just because it says it is. And, though the questions were not really directed to me. Who gets to decide which beliefs are respected and which are not? Re. "Evidence from where" Anywhere. You just need to realise that simply writing something down doesn't make it evidence. So the bible is not evidence any more than Lord of the rings is evidence of trolls, magic rings etc.

I don't think that using mercury would work. Under any conditions where mercury reacts with oxygen (i.e. rather hot), the mercury oxide would react with hydrogen and give water. This pair of reactions would give out heat and would soon cause the gas mixture to explode. Some sort of membrane separator would be the way to go but the "traditional" way to do it is to use a hot palladium membrane and that would catalyse the reaction of H2 and O2 to form water. Part of the problem you face is that mixtures of H2 and O2 are damnable dangerous= people try to avoid producing them so relatively little work will have been done on separating them.

loc cit Failure-of-Rossis-Energy-Catalyzer-Caught-on-Video http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/Failure-of-Rossis-Energy-Catalyzer-Caught-on-Video.shtml There's not a lot you could add to that.

I think it is dross. It gets as far as the second sentence before saying something that's clearly false i.e. "To most people, it was an established fact that the earth was flat and sitting on a tortoises' back. Travel far enough and you'd fall off the edge.". This bit "They don't tell us the purpose of the sun or have an explanation for the stars" is also nonsense. The Sun doesn't need a purpose and we do have a good explanation of the stars.

Not considered by some, but it's the whole point of the post I wrote. However, notwithstanding the fact that I asked about a bridge that was built on top of the North pole it was answered by saying "Assume that you built it on the Equator in a west East direction". Imagine it's built on the North pole, straight out, tangential to the earth. Stand on top of it and start walking. The whole earth is "below" you, so gravity will always tend to pull you "down" onto the bridge rather than away from it. Ignoring questions of oxygen and temperature I can walk up a slope provided that I can get enough grip on it. (in the limit, I can climb a vertical ladder) I did mention a handrail so, as long as I don't get too tired, I can drag myself up using that. Am I right in thinking that, if I go far enough, I get thrown outwards by centrifugal force? (As an aside, does that happen at the point where I reach the height of a geosynchronous orbit?) The further I get from the centre of the earth, the lower my weight gets. The further out I am, the faster my (tangential) rotational speed gets and the bigger my radial acceleration gets. At some point surely, one overtakes the other and I "fall" outwards.

The unhelpful but accurate answer is that it depends. For both the compounds the resolution will depend on flow rate in agreement with this sort of thing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Van-deemter.jpg Without knowing a whole lot of other things about the situation it isn't possible to know where you are on that plot, so it's not possible to know if you would be better moving to the right (faster) or the left (slower). Realistically, the only way to tell is to try it.

The OP thinks there are only 4 sorts of people. LOL