John Cuthber

The packet of biscuits in front of me tells me that each biscuit gives 292000 Joules. The energy stored is roughly the equivalent of 3 or 4 biscuits. (less if they are chocolate.)

I can calculate the speed of light from the measured properties of a vacuum.* How can I have a speed WRT a vacuum? I can't. So those properties must remain constant, no matter how fast I travel. So, no matter what my speed, I calculate that same value for c *Here's how http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations#Relation_between_electricity.2C_magnetism.2C_and_the_speed_of_light

Irregardless isn't a propper word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless Anyway, if your house was on the moon it would be easier to lift, so lifting it by one metre would store less energy. Here on earth the strength of gravity (near the surface) can be considered as equivalent to an acceleration of about 9.8 m/s/s So to calculate the stored energy you multiply the mass by the local value of the acceleration due to gravity 9.8*110000 That gives 1078000 Newtons of force Work is force times distance, the distance is just 1 metre so the energy stored is 1078000 Joules Power is work/time There are 28800 seconds in 8 hours so the power is about 37 Watts

I think it would have been nice if they had carried on just a little longer. Perhaps more importantly they could have chosen not to add the high explosives to the gift packages. It would still have been cheaper. Incidentally, some people may consider it important that none of the 9/11 hijackers was from Afghanistan. Most were Saudi.

Sure about that? Anyway. Push both guards through their respective doors. Go through the door without screams.

I sometimes wonder what the outcome would have been if, rather than dropping bombs on Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban, the West had dropped food and water supplies.* Ignoring the humanitarian aspects of the choice, food is cheaper. At the time, someone in the West made the decision that the bombs were a better bet. I wonder why the Afghans (and their brothers in their faith) think that the West is evil? * just dropping a little food would have been worse than useless, those with guns would get all of it and the rest of the people would feel even more hard done by. You would need to provide enough to feed the population and then some. That would still have been cheaper. It's not a long term solution but I think it would help with what's called "the battle for hearts and minds".

I think it's an interesting, if poorly designed, experiment into the way in which the human mind works at the so-called subconscious level. Are demons in people's heads? If so, is the ouija board a way to contact them?

Is it just me who looked at the title and thought that the answer was "How do you spend your time? On the internet".

So a "diabetic death" isn't related to diabetes. Sorry, misunderstanding there on my part. You seem to be arguing against yourself. Lots of deaths that arise from diabetes are not recorded as such but are lost in, for example, the deaths from heart disease. You can't say if that's more or less than 5% because, as you say, they are not recorded. Yet you claim that they are less than 5% (which are definitely due to diabetes - but also to "overtreatment").

With a reasonable low current you should get copper plate and a silver sludge, at least initially. If you were to add a little salt then any silver that did go into solution would precipitate out as the chloride. (silver sulphate isn't very soluble, but I think the amount of silver that would oxidise would be small and would dissolve unless you added something else to precipitate it..).

Ringer, if ESP works then you won't need to read it. On the other hand, if it doesn't work, then there's no point reading it. I didn't bother.

The universe isn't something for which "belief" is a valid concept. "Monday" is a valid notion and so is the idea of "being in bed" but "Monday is in bed" doesn't make sense Belief is real, the universe is too, but "I believe in the universe" doesn't really make sense; what else could you do?

So, when you said that there was a 20 minute delay between the insulin reaching the blood (by injection or release from the pancreas) and it having an effect, you were wrong. I accept that the normal natural process for control is a whole lot better but if you are diabetic then it's not an option. "4% to 6% of all type 1 diabetic deaths are due to hypoglycemia. So the side-effects of the treatment are today actually killing more people every year than the disease itself, " Seems like a non sequiteur to me. If only 5% of the deaths are due to too little sugar i.e. too much insulin; then the other 95% are due to some manifestation of the disease. Last time I checked 5% wasn't more people than 95%

It seems that, with the given definition of atheist, there are at least 3 atheists. The assertion that forms the title of the thread is disproved.

A man with a sign saying I will burn in hell isn't insulting me, he's just asserting his opinion. Since I'm sure his opinion is wrong I don't worry about him.

Since practically everything that Just the facts writes in this forum is unsupported by any experimental evidence it is no surprise to me to see that he doesn't want to see anyone spending money on experiments that will generate real data. He just doesn't seem to understand that you can't advance science without experiments. He seems to think that the way to "prove" a theory is to write bits of it in CAPITAL letters and call all the people whose work shows him to be wrong nasty names.

In Just The Facts' world "Gravity has No connection or effect on light," In the real world it does http://www.windows2universe.org/the_universe/Lensing.html It's odd how often Just The Facts hasn't got the facts at all.

OK, since the speed of light is actually constant whereas the theory says it isn't then it follows from "One wouldn’t exist without the other first being true." that the electric universe of which you speak doesn't exist. Can we forget about it now? The scientists of the 19th c had the sense to believe the evidence. Like them, we will if you can provide any. What experimental evidence can you offer that the speed of light varies as a function of the intensity of the source? Trust me, that's going to work a lot better than inappropriate use of CAPS LOCK.

I don't know, or care, if anyone here can mathematically model the ripples on water but I know that they guys who make computer generated graphics can. You seem to think that, just because you don't understand something, nobody else can. That's an absurd idea.

If this assertion "Light waves have physical properties and moves at variable speeds depending on the strength of the source," was true then Fizeau would have spotted it back in the 19th century. He didn't. It isn't. The effect would also have shown up in countless experiments since then. The speed of light (in air or a vacuum) is, experimentally, known to be constant You can stop pretending that this is science now.

"you could make a private contract with someone to be your slave, but if you tried to enforce that contract in the courts of almost any jurisdiction, the contract together with all its obligations and penalties for breach, would be declared a nullity. " The only way to try to enforce that contract would be by threat of violence or some such. That threat would be unlawful anyway. The contract would not be void because it contravenes the HR act, but because it would be impossible to enforce. Any attempt at legal redress (like suing them for breach of contract) would fall flat because it is a breach of the contracts act (which requires contracts to be "reasonable"). The contract here on this forum is different. It's perfectly simple for the owner of the website to block someone and delete their postings if he wishes to do so. Most jurisdictions would permit me to eject someone from my house for saying something I didn't like. In the same way, they would let me throw you off my website if I didn't like what you said.

A couple of points, Deer have no gall bladders and I rather suspect horses don't either; not many people know that and that's why I chose that particular property to ascribe (or not) to a unicorn. Secondly, a Diabolist might chose to ascribe an entirely different set of properties to "The Supreme Ruler" compared to, for example, a Christian. What properties your God has are entirely up to you. If I were to manipulate the genes of a horse and a rhino to get something that was basically a horse, but with a horn, I don't think it would count as a unicorn because, one of the defining properties of unicorns is that they don't exist. For that definition this "To deny the existence of a Unicorn one must have a fairly clear conception of what a Unicorn is defined as " simply doesn't hold true. I can deny their existence on the basis that they are mythical (WIKI says so, therefore it must be right); anything that you or I say about the unicorn is impossible to disprove.

"Remembering the First Year of the War... In 1941, my mother and I were living..." What about 1939 and 1940?

The rules don't breach the law on human rights because you can always leave the forum. It is commonplace for local rules to infringe on what would normally be seen as rights. For example I have seen plenty of pubs where wearing football colours is forbidden. Perhaps a more widespread example is that, I believe, you need to wear a uniform if you work in McDonald's.

Outside of maths, has anyone proved that there is no proof of a negative? If so, is that proof of the non existence of such proofs?