John Cuthber

Consider yourself duly censured for saying "but I simply will not tolerate any more mind numbing stupidity". Unless you actually plan to do something about it, you plan to tolerate it. Ignoring it may well be the best thing to do. Also, I personally feel that you are being unfair to kangaroo farts and disadvantaged armadillos.

That's still mainly word salad.

What is the science of improving the brain called? Education.

My best guess is that people who live in developing countries are more used to death and suffering so they are less troubled by sentencing people to it. Also, I'm fairly sure that London (for example) is more crowded now that it was 100 years ago when we still had the death penalty so I don't think overcrowding is a major factor.

Meet my friend B He's a base. He's also quite lipophilic. If there are lots of protons about, he pairs up with one to form BH+ BH+ isn't lipophilic at all. In acid conditions the absorption of basic drugs is slower.

Actually, my point was that, from any given point of view, an electron has only one velocity and, because of that, it has one frequency (I'm presuming we are talking about the fact that if it has a velocity it has a momentum, so it has a wavelength and it therefore has a frequency). It only has one velocity. It only has one frequency. There are no combination tones or overtones. So the answer to the question "what overtones are there?" is none.

" What we see is the reflection of light that is absorbed by our theoretical view of atoms. " What? Was that meant to mean something? My theoretical view of atoms is a very abstract concept. It doesn't absorb light. Any light that was absorbed by it would be destroyed by that absorption- it wouldn't be reflected. Having been absorbed it wouldn't be there to see.

Try it. Get two magnets, some glue, a sheet of paper and some iron filings.

As another remarkable example of Dovada's ignorance "If the use of infra red technology was available 100 years ago do you think we would be having this conversation, I doubt it." It was. IR was discovered more than 100 years ago. So, Dovada doubts that we are having this discussion. "What if it contains all three velocity vectors" Then its velocity is the vector sum of those three. It only have one velocity from any given point of view. "what harmonics are available? " None (generally, but it depends on the field through which the electron is moving)

Yes.

Obviously!

Because you can tell me last week's numbers and the only difference between them is time.

"I tried to explain time throughout this thread in my own way, if it doesn't help, I can't do anything else for you. " Yes you can; you could answer the points that have been put to you. Why can't you tell me next weeks lottery numbers?

I'm fairly open minded, as long as someone is prepared to provide me with evidence and as long as their idea is not at odds with my past experience. I know that buildings made, essentially from rock, fall down. They get old and worn out. Anyone who wants to can verify this: you just need to look at an old building and see that the corners are not as sharply square as they used to be. In particular, I can see it all too well with my garden wall. Your idea is that they (or at least the pyramids) get stronger over time. Since I know that they don't do that, I know that you are wrong. It's not something I can be open minded about because the evidence tells me the truth. As I have said many times on this forum, if your ideas don't agree with reality then it's not reality that is wrong.

As I understand it, he didn't. He had no means of measuring the mass of the earth so he had no way of calculating the value of the constant. However, the relation (i.e. the inverse square law) gives rise to predictions about the orbits of planets. Those predictions agreed with the measured data (in a manner already described mathematically by Kepler). so the law was (perhaps tentatively) accepted. It was rather later that Cavendish actually measured the constant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment Anyway, you are still not answering the point that your "constants" change. Failing to do that means that you are failing to do science.

Methyl nitrate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methyl_nitrate is horrid, but who cares? The reactant here is nitromethane which is fairly well behaved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitromethane It has been ages since I did any synthetic chem so I won't comment on the rest of the proposed method except that it looks OK at first glance.

Did he still pay her?

To be fair, he can only answer them after you ask them and, since he doesn't believe in time, he doesn't know what "after" means. Perhaps he will answer the questions I asked yesterday at Easter.

I forgot to mention that I hate sweeping generalisations.

"I should have said the only thing that can know that they are greater than God. Humans.." It seems entirely possible to me that there are others in the Universe with the same viewpoint.

I think this "Reflection of light off of copper surfaces? Impossible considering the degradation of UV reflection off of copper. " counts as "not even wrong". Why in the name of all that's holy would you give a damn if your mirror cannot reflect (UV) radiation that nobody knew about till 1801? I mean, seriously, did you think about that or did it just fall out of your brain my mistake? Incidentally, since most glass absorbs UV quite well and the light reflected from a normal mirror has to go through it twice, most modern mirrors don't reflect UV very well. It may have escaped your notice, but they still work. " No residue has been found on the interior ceilings to suggest the use of torches." Did it cross your mind that, since this was, from their point of view, the everlasting house of their God, they might have cleaned up before they left?

I still want to know next week's lottery numbers. Failing that I want to know why you can't tell me them. you can tell me last week's. If the only difference is time, and time doesn't exist then you should be able to help me out here.

I disagree with the initial assertion made in the title. I think many things are greater than God, for example my dinner is greater than God. My dinner exists.

Just a thought about the thread title. No, it's not urgent. We have about 5 billion years before it's of any practical importance to us. (of course, that presupposes that your idea is helpful anyway.)

"Göbekli Tepe built before Bronze Age, immediately after the last glacial period, before humans discover the wheel, before first human civilization, before human metrology/mathematics." How do you know? Were you there at the time? It's kind of difficult not to invent the wheel- a round rock or fruit will give you the idea. What most people fail to account for is that a wheel is approximately sod-all use. Inventing the wheel is easy. Inventing a road is the key. That's only helpful if you need to shift more stuff than you can carry in a simple bag. These people didn't need to carry a bus pass, Iphone, make up and so on. Wheels wouldn't have helped them much. (if you don't believe me, get a wheelbarrow, put a few bricks in it and then try wheeling it through wooded land off the beaten path.) "If early humans were capable of intelligently engineering and constructing massive stone structures" Early humans still do , in a sense, we call them children and we give them building blocks to play with. It's really not that difficult to make a pyramid; ask at the local creche. "why would they fabricate myths about these structures being constructed by extraterrestrials? " Because you can't really make up good myths about humans- after all humans can't make planets- so you need a myth about someone else, bigger than humans, to explain the earth. Since those "superhumans" are clearly not still here, they must be somewhere else. That makes them extraterrestrial. "And why do all early accounts of extraterrestrials describe at least two opposing factions with opposite intentions for humans?" Because it would be a dull story otherwise, and it wouldn't make sense. The typical stories are something like "why is there food for us" "because the good superhumans made it for us." "Why is there sometimes a famine " (pause for hasty thinking) "There are some bad superhumans too- they sometimes fight the good ones" "Is it really so far fetched that we are the product of advanced genetic engineering that even we ourselves are on the verge of achieving?" Who cares how far fetched it is; there's no justification for it.