John Cuthber

"we are at great peril of returning to the pre-antobiotic era due to our wide misuse of antibiotics resulting in the rise of antibiotic resistance bacterial strains." http://xkcd.com/285/ The evidence is that we are learning to use antibiotics more sensibly (which is progress, not a brick wall) and that we are inventing new antibiotics (which, again, isn't a brick wall.)

I have an idea. Lets get someone else to pay for the experiment. Let's use some bits of metal in a vacuum that someone has already paid for. In particular, lets use the GPS satellites. Now, when they are in the shadow of the earth they cool down and when they are in sunlight they heat up. If their weight changed it would affect their orbit and they would give the "wrong" answers for people using them for navigation. They don't, or at least, if they do the effect it tiny. It was a nice theory while it lasted. Incidentally, gravity isn't a constant, for example it's about 6 times less on the moon. A good analytical balance will let you measure the difference in gravity between the top and bottom of a tall building. So this bit "You can not have two constants on one side of the equation and a variable on the other " doesn't make sense.

Is it actually possible to parody Palin more than she does herself? I agree that her party is better off without her: I wonder if she made that decision for herself or if it was made clear to her by others.

Have you actually tried reading about this, or even thinking about it? Are you just hoping that someone will spoon feed you the answer?

Do you know that ammonia is not nearly as strong a base as sodium hydroxide?

What do you know about ammonia and sodium hydroxide?

What about plants? The only carbon source they need is CO2 and that's generally considered to be inorganic. The other things like sulphate, phosphate nitrate (or ammonia) etc are not organic.

Then it's funny how it works so damned well isn't it?

No, because you can't get a rocket to 230km/s

The problems listed in reply to your previous post http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/58644-when-can-i-expect-to-live-off-this-extremely-healthy-product/page__p__617696__hl__carbohydrates__fromsearch__1#entry617696 still apply.

Either God is deliberately misleading us or "young earthers" can't count (tree rings) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology

The problem is the confusion between Calories and calories (one has a capital c). The calories that are the heat needed to warm a gram of water by 1 degree are the small sort. The Calorie (also known as the great calorie or kilocalorie) as used in calculating the energy in food are 1000 times bigger. It is a damnably stupid set of units. So, if I drink half a litre of ice water and, in due course, pee it out at 37C I have spent 37 *500 i.e 18500 calories heating it up. However if I drink a half litre of soft drink I consume (hastily checks label on tin in bin) 205000 calories. In fact it's a bit more complicated than that but drinking lots of cold water has a slight effect on body weight, but mainly because, if you are full of water, you are not hungry. The direct effect works out at about 2 litres of ice water to use up the calories in just one biscuit. The overall effect is a bit less because the body has systems in place that regulate temperature bt doing things like closing down blood vessels near the skin. Also drinking lots of water isn't good for you anyway.

This is an assertion of personal opinion "I am convinced that the male and female brains are typically different" (while it is stated as a personal opinion, it is also backed up by research on the effects of testosterone (in particular) on brain form and function.) So is this "I think this maybe to do with our early evolution and that men needed to understand the world and engineer better more effective ways of hunting" And, since the OP asks why there are lots of men and few women in engineering, this "Men seem to be drawn towards science, engineering and similar more than women." seems to be accepted as true. If you want some empirical evidence there were no women in my physics A level class at school. Only one of the 10 of my college mates who studied chemistry was female. So, not really "just so" stories.

"I could fill my tank with petrol and probably make it most of the way from Melbourne to Sydney. Even with the most efficient battery technology to date, how far would you get with a full charge.......in a standard passenger vehicle. " Who cares? OK, it's going to be a pain in the neck swapping battery packs (recharging them is too slow to be a sensible option) but it's not that big a deal. OK so you have to stop a bit more often. Does that matter? It's something like 900Km and 10 hours. Are you not going to stop for a pee anyway? The problem is that we don't have the infrastructure or technology set up yet.

The bugs change. You can get salmonella poisoning lots of times just like you can get a cold lots of times.

I'm intrigued. How come you need to know what UV Vis spectrophotometer is? Most people get through life without having heard of one.

Good luck. If you haven't tried this sort of thing before you will probably make a mess of it. Still, at least you probably won't burn the house down.

"With the nail attached is the magnet less magnetic?" yes. If you get a horseshoe magnet and lower it towards a paperclip on the table you can measure the height at which the clip jumps up to the magnet. If you put a nail across the poles of the magnet and repeat the experiment you will find the magnet has to be nearer to the clip to pick it up.

True, it's real, but it isn't relevant. The important issue here is that 1+1=2 It's still true if one of them has negative mass

Not just painful, but dangerous. The shock of the pain could kill you.

"Two thing make nothing as I explained." No, you did not explain it; you stated it, but that is not the same thing. In reality, two things do not make nothing.

"where does that energy come from? " The electricity that they put n the magnet in the first place. Also, when you move that big lump of magnetised metal near the coil you change the current in it (and the inductance) so you reduce the stored energy

It's impossible to say without a better defined problem. The point remains that it doesn't matter. There's only so much energy you can get from the block and, at best, that's the energy you put into it in he first place. If any is lost to the emission of radiation (and it will be) then you have wasted your time.

I don't want to get drawn too far into this for fear of lending it credibility that it plainly lacks but the first assertion in that box simply isn't true. A positive mass thing surrounded by a negative mass thing is not nothing. It's two things. Sure it ends up with no mass but that proves nothing. A photon has no mass, but if they didn't exist you wouldn't be able to read this. Before we can address the issue of whether or not this "theory" is of any use, the first thing to check is whether or not it is correct in the sense of being internally consistent. It isn't so that is the end of it. (And, for the record, the rest is word salad)

Why do you feel that you can maintain credibility while both offering to answer the question "Is there a God?" and also saying "don't ask for maths" on a science forum?