John Cuthber

It's important to realise that the natural world includes everything around us; the earth, life, love, the human mind, everything. That's what science seeks to explain, and religion is trying to explain what's left over i.e things that don't exist.

It reduces scattering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattering

How good are you at practical chemistry?

Do you really think that "they have not yet got to the destination" is the same as "they have made no progress"? Read up a bit on gene therapy. They are working on those diseases- it's just that it's quite tricky.

"Is a part of God or God entire inside every photon? " Define God. I have heard that "God is everywhere", on the other hand my personal belief is that He's only in peoples' imagination.

Vole Oh, no, sorry, that's an anagram, not an antonym.

Rather famously, they address the issue by refusing to look at images. They claim not to need to because they know what is out there- the bible tells them. Ask Urban the 8th

I checked with IUPAC, Re really does stand for rhenium. http://www.iupac.org/ There's a vague convention about using Ln as a symbol for a general lanthanide. There's also a trend away from calling them rare earths because they are not earths and they are not (generally) all that rare. The question isn't really clear. They may mean 20% m/m or possibly 20% mol/mol. I guess the two ways to find out are to ask the people to whom you are referring, or to try the experiment.

You need at least 27 bar pressure (g) across the membrane if you want to drive fresh water out of sea water. Putting a vacuum on one side wouldn't help a lot ( you would still need to supply 27 bar (a)) and the water would evaporate into the vacuum so you really wouldn't help things.

Ask for your money back. If they don't give you it, post their name here so we can all have a good laugh at them. (It may also inform other people's decision about giving them money.)

I really don't believe that you have even looked for any papers about my theory concerning Unicorns. Why should we look for papers concerning your ideas? However This might help a bit. Here are some notes about calibration of DSC. http://www.sump4.com/publications/paper011.pdf Among other things they use metals. It's not in vacuuo but that won't matter much. The systems they use mean that the sample and the oven it's in are at similar temperatures so the effect of convection currents will be minimal. Since they do this sort of thing to quite high accuracy, there's not much room for your suggestions.

Why is your post full of stuff about rhenium?

"One of the major influences on our earths atomic structure is the sun." Nope, because we know that the atoms of other stars and (so far as we can tell) planets have the same structure. "If the earth spin is slowing down then what is causing this slowing down?" Tidal drag, not that it matters. If your calculations come out exactly correct today then they will be wrong tomorrow. If they are not exactly correct today then they are not a basis for a theory.

Having read this "It's basicly nanomaterials that adjust to certain situations. They change shape to withstand blasts, become invisible (reflect light), increase speed et c. and they connect to the nerval system. You controll it with your spine et c. " I still think the answer is creative writing. The exoskeletons that people are researching and that Napoleon has linked to are nothing much like the ones the OP is asking about.

Just out of idle curiosity, could you make this statement "I as much as disregarded AGW either trumping or competing with any of it because--and I'm sure we can agree on this much--we've already arrived at thin territory in the way of the Known vs Unknowable discussion by this juncture asis," any less clear and concise?

Imagine the uproar if that were some other religion apart from what can loosely be called Christianity.

Define "seen". Atoms are too small to see, but it's possible to get pictures of them by using electron microscopes or x ray holography.

Lets see if this link works. Oh Good! it seems to direct to the right wiki page now. Incidentally, http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110901132620AATlFPK

"What field would be more likley to give you the chance to work with stuff like this? " Creative writing.

What on earth was the point of that double post? Nobody has used miles, parsecs yards etc in this thread. Anyway, what you are doing seems to be numerology which has nothing to do with science.

The actual layer of skin that acts as a "barrier" to chemicals is about as thin as the plastic film used to wrap food with. There are plenty of cases of things that diffuse through it. Here's some work on toxicity of relatively large chemicals getting through it http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/6/391.full The process is reliable enough to be used quite widely in medicine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transdermal_patch If your dermatologist isn't aware of this sort of thing then he shouldn't be working in health care

"The truth is the link between temperature and weight has not been thoroughly investigated and further experiments are required." Actually the truth is that it has, but you don't understand the experiments. However, the truth of the link between temperature and unicorns has not been thoroughly investigated. I am disappointed, but not surprised that you have not found a single paper addressing this issue. Have you even tried? What you are putting forward "In my theory weight reduction depends on heat particles added to the sample." looks a lot like the phlogiston theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory which was dropped many years ago because it didn't work. Why are you trying to resurrect it?

Oddly, nobody seems to complain about percentages. They get used a lot for strengths of drinks etc. well, 1 ppm is 1% of 1% of 1%. There's no difference in principle (it's also 1‰ of 1‰ or one per mil of one per mil, but that's a bit obscure.) If you are looking at , for example, the amount of lead in water to see if it's drinkable then moles don't really have anything to do with it. However if you divide the amount of lead that's tolerable by the volume of water you drink then you get an acceptable concentration. That concentration comes out in units of mass per volume or mass per mass. With water the numbers are the same for both. Unless there's toxicity data for LD50 in moles per Kg bodyweight somewhere then converting the concentration to moles would be pointless, you would have to convert it back again. Also, for things like As. Pb and Cd there's relatively information the counter ion so the molecular mass is poorly defined. Is the lead in the water present as PbCl2 or PbSO4? If you don't know you can't assign a proper molar mass so you can't convert to moles anyway. Similarly, if you tell a mining company that some ore body contains 1ppm of gold then they know it's 1 gram per tonne. Why would they care about moles? Moles are useful if you are doing reactions where the stoichiometry is important, but otherwise they don't help much. It's no more a matter of precision of measurement or sampling than it would be for a percentage. If I buy a bottle of wine labelled as 13.2% I expect that to be an accurate measurement of the alcohol content. If they chose to write it as 132000 ppm the accuracy would be just the same. The idea that these units are used by "technicians" is at best patronising. There are plenty of legal standards where, for example, 10 ppm is legal and 10.1 is not. There may be difficulties sampling and measuring to that precision, but it's not got anything to do with the units. Incidentally, the other common usage of ppm is for gases where it refers to ppm by volume which is equivalent ( to a good approximation) to ppm by mole ratio.

There would not, in principle, be anything to stop a bat flying supersonically. It would be impractical and take a lot of energy, but it's perfectly feasible.

"What I was reallty trying to find out is whether or not anything really penetrates the skin and reaches painful joints or muscles." yes.