John Cuthber

Which part of "No!" takes 3 pages to explain?

I love this idea. "these pretty strings and extra dimensions have never been proven, why even mention them??" None of the suggestions put forward to explain the results has been proven. It's going to be a rather short and disappointing program if you get to edit it. And this one is even better. "The presenter quoted Einstein saying that "time is not a constant, instead it changes depending on how fast you are moving, the faster you travel the slower time passes"...I am tired of listening to this. Time doesn't exist, " OK, so what stops you telling me next week's lottery numbers? In my understanding it's because the draw hasn't happened yet, but that only makes sense if time is real. You don't believe that so...

He asked a question that was too vague to answer and I'm pretty sure he asked it in the wrong part of the forum because I think it was a homework question. Hypervalent iodine asked him to clarify that question, and he did. I could have just given him an answer- but then so could a textbook or Google. Instead I tried to get him to think for himself. In my opinion that's a valid teaching method. The problem is that it only works if the student is prepared to put in some effort. He didn't seem to have put in a lot of effort, so I gave him another hint. He still seemed unwilling to bother trying to help himself so I gave up. That's the only judgement I made- I judged that he wasn't putting any effort into finding out- so why should I do all the work. I'm quite happy to help people but, let's face it, I don't get paid for this. Why should I do all the work?

"I can see how that works, but c-12 is still the most abundant form of carbon in the universe, I still have to consider that. " Yes, it's very abundant. Massively more so than C14. So what? We can still measure it. We can measure changes in it, and we can do both of those accurately. So what's the issue?

It would need to be a big book.

Sorry, sometimes I forget I'm, a demigod. I don't have the "terminate with extreme prejudice" button. I think that's only on the Linux versions. On the other hand I have a crystal ball on my desk at work. In accordance with our audit policy, it is labelled "Iindicator only. Not calibrated" It's about as likely to work as the idea in this thread.

LOL You have got it the wrong way round. if you can show some evidence then you might convince us that it is science.

"Here in Ottawa, Canada, exists an Elvis Sighting Society. I will ask them about Shergar. " That's only a little bit odd. Here in the UK we have a group who believe that the world was made in 7 days about 6000 years ago by some invisible "sky fairy" who keeps an unnaturally close eye on what you do in bed (and with whom) but can't seem to stop millions of believers being killed by earthquakes, tidal waves and so on. Incidentally, they think he's everywhere, but invisible and, just to add to the fun, he carefully evades any test that you can come up with for testing his existence. In spite of thet they have an edict saying that you shouldn't try to test him anyway. Even more frightening are some of the people who believe in him. They think their weird thoughts are a just basis for killing people, even though one of the clearest instructions attributed to the entity is that you shouldn't do that. Nowt so queer as folk as they say round here. And, Questionposter, I didn't just say a spaceship did I? No. I said a ship with Elvis and shergar in it. Do you see what you have done there? What you have done is misrepresent what I said by something that's not valid, then use it to question the validity of what I said. It's called straw-manning, and you shouldn't do it.

It's my understanding that the locally applied creams can provide the same pain relief with a lower dose than a pill because the material is applied locally and is not diluted so much as it would be if you took a pill. The other point is that you accept that some chemicals relieve pain locally- like the local anaesthetic creams, but not other- like diclofenac gel. How do they know which group they are in so they can act correctly? Unless you can explain how they know what to do, it's not sensible to assume that they act differently.

We distinguish between two sorts of tumours, benign and malignant. The names arose from their properties, not the other way round.

"A friend of mine who is strong in mathematics, once said to me, if a single constant could be calculated by using the velocity associated the cosmic environment then that could be classified as just a coincidence. If two constants could be calculated by using the velocity associated the cosmic environment then it is not necessarily a coincidence and recommended that it should be investigated further." Your friend underestimated your bloodymindedness. If you are prepared to spend enough time forming random combinations of constants then you will find that some of them are nearly the same as other constants. So what? And you are continuing to ignore the point made elsewhere Your "constants" change. you should say "Rse = approx sun/earth radial distance = 149,600,000,000 meters at the moment, but it's ill defined because the orbit is elliptical (roughly) and also it's changing continuously over the aeons." So, this week, and for one week only "Big G = ((9,000/ (1836.151))/600,000)^2 = 6.673x10-11" It has not always been true, and it will not be true in the future. It just happens that I live at a time when this coincidence occurs. Do you understand that?

The point does mean something; unfortunately you don't understand it. There was a lot of carbon 14 in the in the atmosphere. Then we started burning fossil fuel which has no carbon 14. We diluted that carbon 14. We can measure the extent of that effect. The extent of the dilution tallies with the rise in CO2 which shows that the CO2 rise is due to the release of ancient, i.e. fossil, carbon. We also have a fair idea of how much fossil fuel we burn (if for no other reason than that we get taxed on it) and so we can compare that to the rise in CO2 levels and to the dilution of the carbon 14. The numbers agree with the obvious suggestion that by burning a lot of coal and oil we have put a lot of CO2 into the air. We also know that the temperature of the earth has risen. So the "Anthropogenic global warning doesn't exist" supporters are saying "We know we put another blanket on the bed, and we know that we are now warmer; we just don't think there's a link between the two facts."

"Would you doubt a PHD if he says he has translated a tablet found burried in the sand of Babylon? " It would depend what he claimed it said. If he said it was a record of some dull stuff about who had paid their taxes that year then I'd probably believe it. But if he claimed it said "a big spaceship came down piloted by Elvis riding on Shergar" then I wouldn't trust the translation without a lot of other evidence.

In the very real sense that topical glyceryl trinitrate patches or ointment affect the heart because the heart is just under the skin. Of course they penetrate the skin. Even if what you say were right, they could only do it by penetrating the skin to reach the nerves.

Probably only by someone able to understand what "off topic" means

Since nobody was aware of my life for at least the first few weeks it's clear that they didn't matter.

"Using mathematics as the sole source of information has led the scientist to follow a merry dance into illusion" It's just as well that they used experiments as a source of information too then.

where do I get ether? You probably don't. That's my point. It simply isn't very practical unless you are prepared to spend a lot of time and effort learning the ins and outs of chemistry. A more interesting answer than usual to the question could be that you can reduce the Cr(III) to Cr(II) with zinc and acid then precipitate it as the acetate.

"According to Mayan prophecy, the year 2012 marks the end of civilization as we know it." Best hurry up and get a book deal then.

"Its an inconvenient truth to report that many times, they aren't. " Unsupported assertion. "The rational mind which created science and deducted thinking came to the rescue and solved the problems of the plague. Instead of focusing on superstitious beliefs, a systematic study revealed that rodents were responsible." Not for several centuries they didn't. "The atom was being discovered and was the building block of the lowest level of consciousness within the matrix." Nobody really knows where consciousness comes from, but if all it takes is an atom, then every time I fart I set free another billion billion conscious entities. An alternative is that you are talking bollocks. "Likewise Saturn was the barrier in the macro world and afforded the upper level of consciousness." Is it just me or has nobody really noticed Saturn getting in their way? Unless I'm the really lucky one, that assertion is just more bollocks. I'm bored of this so I will stop with just one last thought " I conducted industrial research for fifteen years, retired and studied Metaphysics, such areas as Astrology, Numerology, Alchemy, I Ching, Cabala, and Tarot. " I can understand why you did research. I can understand why you retired. Why on earth did you you then start studying bullshit?

Oops!, I misread KWH as KW. To get that much energy stored as a normal fuel you would need about 25 litres of oil. I think the delete button should be at the bottom of the post about ..................................................................................here. Have another look

Unless you have the background and a fair amount of equipment it's going to be tricky. The major components of stainless steel are iron, nickel and chromium so let's focus on them. Start by dissolving the metal in hydrochloric acid. That's rather slow unless you heat it. So you want to boil the acid under reflux with the metal. I'd strongly recommend using the azeotropic concentration (about 20%). You would also need to do this outside or in a fume hood of some sort. That will dissolve the metals as (mixed) Cr(II) and Cr(III), Ni(II), and Fe(II) salts. Carefully add H2O2 to the solution to oxidise the Fe and Cr to the (III) ions, then boil the solution to destroy excess H2O2. Boil off most of the water then remove most of the remaining water on a steam bath or a rotary evaporator. Take the salts up into solution in conc HCl and extract with ether repeatedly to remove Fe(III). Evaporate off the ether from that phase and you will get FeCl3. If you want to convert that to the element then you can do so by dissolving it in water, adding ammonia solution to precipitate "Fe(OH)3", drying that and heating it in a stream of hydrogen. The Ni and Cr will still be in solution in the aqueous acid. Is it really worth my time typing up how to separate them?

Displacement reactions like that are only marginally effective. What often happens is that the zinc will react with the water to produce hydrogen and zinc hydroxide. Of course, if there is excess acid present (as you have suggested) then the zinc will react with that, so you will just get a solution of the mixed chlorides and hydrogen. In any event, you won't get MgCl because Mg doesn't have a stable +II oxidation state.

"How then to explain that a ray of light in water, such as red, green or otherwise, does not change either its color or direction, and does not depend on the water temperature " It does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_spectroscopy

Johnd There's a delete button. Anyway, this statement "Any chemical process should be ruled out for producing 25 kWh from whatever is in a 50 cubic centimeter container." is demonstrably false by at least 3 orders of magnitude every time someone sets of a big firework. If that's their "scientific evidence" then we can just lock this thread now. It's about a fraudulent or delusional claim and so it will never achieve much.