John Cuthber

Possibly as low as zero. As far as I can see he has started 2 threads and they are both still open (thus far). http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/63870-i-can-see-you-all-have-a-sense-of-humor/page__pid__656146#entry656146 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/63850-cohesiveness/page__pid__656144#entry656144 It seems the OP can't count to zero.

They spent 2 or 3 minutes telling me that views change when new evidence becomes available which I already knew. Then they said "only electric currents create magnetic fields" which is false so I stopped watching. I'm not wasting over an hour watching a video that's that clearly wrong. Does it actually say anything interesting later? If so, could you give us a précis?

Defkalion's page is interesting enough. But it's all framed as "this will happen (at some unspecified point in the future)". There's no evidence of anything having been done in the past. It might as well be science fiction.

Is there a point to all that? I glanced through it and the thing that struck me was that "So ((Thought ^1/2) * Space)/(limit Sky -> Absolute of Forward)." is clearly bollocks.

I think that most of the evidence about the fact of the existence of gravity is clear to everyone. While it is strictly speaking speculation to say that if I throw a ball in the air it will come back down again, it's a fairly robust assertion. There are something like 7 billion people on earth and most of them are aware of gravity so I think that saying it's 85% theoretical is missing something. So gravity isn't moved to speculation. Is there any experimental evidence for plasma cosmology?

I tried calculating 73! but it's too big for my calculator. I think you could do the same trick in binary, but you need to get them to choose 5 digit numbers and the corresponding "magic" numbers are 11 and 1011.

You seem to have forgotten to 1 tell us what you are on about and 2 answer ajb's question

There are lots of sorts of catalysis so there are lots of ways they reduce energy barriers. One of them is illustrated here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterogeneous_catalysis Another here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_catalysis and so on. Did you have any particular catalyst in mind?

I think that much of science journalism shares this trait.

"This being the 21st century, wouldn't it change the previously 300+year old paradigm of gravitational theory with electric universe theory?" No. This is the 21st c because we choose to start counting from a date about 2000 years ago. It has nothing to do with models of gravity.

My guess is that it's true that " it has accompanied the human race since it beginnings." but I think you are mistaking cause for effect. As a species we seem remarkably imaginative about where we put our dicks. If our ears were big enough we would probably screw them too. The size of the rectum is going to be pretty much determined by it's primary function. Anal sex has nothing much to do with procreation so it's not a trait that evolution will be interested in. (If anything it is selected against)

"I actually disagree with this. Being all powerful does not mean that you have to do everything, only that you can do everything. Using this it actually becomes a trivial thing to understand how God could create a goal he could never reach: He just decides that He won't try and reach it. Thus He creates a goal He would never reach. But then He could change his mind and then achieve it (if He wanted to). " Sorry Edtharan, but that doesn't cut it. I asked if He could set a task He can't do, not can He set a task and then not bother to do it. It's not even close to the same thing. You have supposed that "Thus He creates a goal He would never reach. " is the same as "Thus He creates a goal He could never reach. " The problem is that the two words really are not the same and do not have the same meaning. So, as far as the logic and evidence go, the concept of omnipotence is a non starter. So an omnipotent God" is also impossible. Would you like to try again?

So you are delusional then? Have you discussed this with your doctor?

Have you done the experiment you propose in the diagram? If so, what were the conditions and results (and how did you exclude things like convection currents) If not then you are speculating and shouldn't complain when this is put in speculations. Now, do you actually have any evidence?

Even further off topic but... Way back the different states of the USA had their own currencies. They decided to amalgamate. As far as I can tell the OP didn't really make sense. It's like asking "Are democracy and sustainability incompatible given that the vast majority of the general public don't know how to make marmalade?" If the only thing preventing their compatibility was a lack of understanding then that's a relatively easy thing to deal with.

This would be an obvious place to start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires

I have, on occasions, used straight bleach to remove ink stains from my fingers. It's not big and it's not clever, but it works. Most skin will stand up to bleach for a short while. Having said that it would be a bloody stupid experiment to do. Much of the skin on the body is less resilient than the hands. There are, shall we say, some rather sensitive bits. It would be very easy to splash the stuff in your eyes which would be very bad news. The stuff is alkaline and alkaline solutions make skin very slippery.

It asks me for a password. When all is said and done, I rather doubt I'm missing much.

You seem to have somehow misread "amateur science" as "creative writing"

The claim that we only use 10% of our brains has already been discredited.

The link doesn't work.

They finally realised that " I have Sociology degree: I spent 3 years and £27,000 studying Mr +Mrs Beckham" won't get you a real job. Never mid the Mickey take about sociology. "It seems that the number of students applying for a university place in England has gone down 9.9% as compared to last year." Check the number of places planning to charge £9000 Compare that to last year. Look at the current cabinet who say " we are all in this together". Have another look. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1280554/The-coalition-millionaires-23-29-member-new-cabinet-worth-1m--Lib-Dems-just-wealthy-Tories.html

"How would one dissolve lactose, cornstarch, talc, and magnesium stearate and spare the antidiarrhea drug we love called loperamide?" One would do it ill- advisedly.

"A great many people will not be educated, fundamentalist muslims and Jew for example." At the risk of being shot by the PC police, religious fundamentalists are generally inconsistent with democracy. As I said, I don't think scientific illiteracy is the only issue. I'm a scientist, but I know little about economics. Should I be permitted to vote on questions like the UK's possible membership of the Euro?

"Sweet is the property of sugar. What is sweetness? Define sweetness. " OK http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sweet Though I'd be tempted to throw in something about the effect on certain receptor cells on the tongue of humans and (I think) most animals. Obviously it's also used metaphorically (love is sweet). And it's used to describe the pattern of electrical activity in the brain associated with the stimulation of sensors on the tongue. "What properties does a property have?" It depends on the property. Some properties, like hot, have the property of having a well defined opposite (cold in this case. Some don't- like sweet which might be the opposite of sour, bitter, unsweetened or something else, depending on circumstances. "when you say 'I' have this property of existence, upon close introspection you'll see that the word 'I' refers to your body." On slightly closer introspection (or just copying M. Descartes) I will find that it's my mind I'm referring to, rather than my body. "Long time back I saw in National Geographic Channel that some people have Synesthesia, one form of synesthesia is the Lexical --> Gustatory Synesthesia in which the subject can experience tastes when they hear specific sounds. For example:- The sound of your name might produce an experience of a specific taste in those individuals. This shows that things like sweetness and other properties are only mental qualias, they exist only in our minds seperate from the objects to which they are associated with." Not really, the sensation of sweetness is a pattern of activity in the brain. That might be induced by sugar or it might be cross talk from an adjacent area of the brain. If the best example of one of the mysterious "qualia" that you can come up with is a neural wiring problem then I don't think they are that important "Similarly Existence is a property and it exists on its own without a body to associate itself with," once again, I think you need to see M Descartes' work.