Hal.

These arc episodes have only happened twice , the other time being when I got off a bus one day and the arc suddenly appeared . Within 5 minutes I went into an opticians and they looked at my eyes with cameras . I went through colour contrast shade tests and afterwards they said they found nothing wrong . A third event was without any arc when I gradually noticed that the left side of a television picture at approximately 4 metres was disappearing . I thought of doing the mirror test on this occasion and I couldn't see the left side of my face but could see perfectly well the right side with my right eye .

Swansont , my post that was moved applies just as much to this thread about radiometric dating , for which it was intended , as it does about the thread it was moved to , for which it was never intended .

The first sparkly meteoritic effect I describe as being a common occurence never happened at the same time as the second arc effect . Here are the best details I can give after reading the information in the previous posts . Bear in mind I am not manufacturing a situation based on what I've read , it just helps me to collate information . An arc appeared from approximately the 6 o'clock position to the 12 o'clock position in the left peripheral field of vision of the left eye . The arc was large in diameter compared to it's width and consisted of a multicoloured zigzag which moved as I tried to centre it in my vision . When I stood up and looked in a mirror I couldn't see my leftside of my face but could see the right side . It lasted approximately 20 minutes .

There is a standard science community way to describe what a theory is . In these forums that is the way it is and that is the way it is widely in science . Then I perceive a superset of all meanings for and uses of the word theory . It's a bit like learning to drive using a set of standard rules and learning to drive just by getting in the car and doing whatever makes that car move .

Is this not consistent with your view Matt ? From your point of view , nobody , other than yourself , can answer your question . So , their answers always end with additional problems . I didn't imply you were mental before , so , I couldn't be implying you are mental again . This is what you are explaining to us . I am throwing around your question in my mind to understand if there was a mistake made in it's comprehension . If there was it was also made by others , so , I am in good company . We have answers to our understanding of your question and if you could change your understanding of your question to our understanding of your question you would be all the wiser . Matt , you must admit , you sound like you had one too many a few posts ago , be good .

That sounds serious Marat . I'll just say that I think I am talking about the common term ' seeing stars ' which are small sparkles like meteorites of vision . And Marat , this is not a joke question , do you have an opinion on what could cause the temporary vision of a rainbow covering 180 degrees of the outer peripheral vision happening to one eye ?

Matt880 , there are a lot of people who can tell you your problem but there is only one person who can answer your question .

This phenomena has probably happened to a lot of people . When a person is sitting down and then stands up sometimes he/she sees small stars or sparkles for a few seconds whizzing across his/her view . How does this happen ?

I read a few years ago in a U.S. army fitness training manual that caffeine increases the human bodies efficiency at taking energy from food . And , tomatoes are great with ham on brown bread and a glass of orange juice !

Brainteaserfan , I looked at the Wiki and I think a new article would have to be started to include the definition of ' Intercept ' which is in the book I quote from . There is a wizard at the Wiki which helps account holders to make articles but it requires a certain Wiki Etiquette for the formatting . An article can be sent to a human editor to be viewed and checked before it is published on it's own Wiki page . This is the only time I ever looked at writing Wiki articles , I think I would go through the learning curve for article writing for something a bit more important than an ' Intercept ' . But , it is very important at times , a contradiction appears !

P#32 Ref 1. : Radiometric dating : http://en.wikipedia....iometric_dating P#32 Ref 2. : Isotopes of Carbon : http://en.wikipedia....topes_of_carbon P#32 Ref 3. : Radioactive Decay : http://en.wikipedia....dioactive_decay P#32 Ref 4. : Dendochronology : http://en.wikipedia....Dendochronology P#32 Ref 5. : Creationist : http://en.wikipedia....iki/Creationist P#32 Ref 6. : Evolutionism : http://en.wikipedia....ki/Evolutionism P#32 Ref 7. : Evolution : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution P#32 Ref 8. : Charles Darwin : http://en.wikipedia..../Charles_darwin P#32 Ref 9. : DNA : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA P#32 Ref 10. : Scientific Method : http://en.wikipedia....ientific_method P#32 Ref 11. : Organic Chemistry : http://en.wikipedia....ganic_chemistry P#32 Ref 12. : Periodic Table : http://en.wikipedia..../Periodic_table P#32 Ref 13. : Scientist : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist P#32 Ref 14. : Age of Earth : http://en.wikipedia....ki/Age_of_earth P#32 Ref 15. : Time : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time P#32 Ref 16. : S.I. system : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_system P#32 Ref 17. : Richard Dawkins : http://en.wikipedia....Richard_dawkins

I thought it was maybe a default date of birth contained in the form upon registration .

Danny , I'm sorry if I can't see it , but pyromaniac is working with Sodium salts . Are you using Potassium salts ?

35 member(s) have a birthday today Paracat (22), Astrobuff (42), Deschapms (40), FreidaDarrello (26), Greameuserb (25), alenaomilina (45), Keneteagevy (39), aashop (51), CariarkGazott (43), TrumpetPlayer (28), HerpetologyFangirl (21), erichardy (23), dollieeth (23), wilderyz (23), quintith (23), hadylin (23), valeswift (23), tonyjoye (23), davidwao (23), joselarry (23), rosacindy (23), clarajaz (23), tonyavera (23), tonyalisa (23), emersont (23), clarajos (23), robinjazz (23), kavinjone (23), cheryleth (23), henryboth (23), peteryah (23), katzjame (23), ritchieth (23), byrnedam (23), bernales (23) This data is from the front page for today 9 June 2011 . 24 of the 35 people who have a birthday today are 23 years old . Happy birthday to you's ! That's strange ! Any remarks ? Was there a lot of natural selection in the fall of 1987 ?

Swansont , I personally think Radio Carbon Dating does work . I have noted it's applicability in Archaeology in particular with interest . That is not the statement I am calling false . Unfortunately , Post #22 from John Cuthber says , " As a chemist I object to this whole thread. It has nothing to do with organic chemistry. It should be somewhere else. ". Post #23 from me then says , " The whole is the sum of the parts . Would we include or exclude op's op as organic chemistry ? " Should the original posters original post be deemed having organic chemistry content , then , it's implied reference must be excluded from the statement , " It has nothing to do with organic chemistry. ". Thus , the objection to this part of the whole thread would be invalidated . Therefore , the suggestion it should be somewhere else would be baseless . By extension , the objection to the whole thread being here is also . Am I substantive while being qualitative ? If substantiveness be based on quality , I'll assume I am . The OP see's how things work , who is who , knows why his posts are being chewed up and spit right back at him , has had time to realise that the advice he is being given is from a person well educated in the topic and I doubtless could not add anything to that intellect . If at any time , I would like to make a short statement or ask a short question , while watching from the sidelines as two people debate , then that is my prerogative . Do I have to choose between being an Evolutionist and a Creationist ? No ! I 'm just here to view the technical discussion of Radio Carbon Dating .

It's in the perfect place it should be ! The see saw is falling over ! Somebody had a great one liner at the end of each of their posts . In essence it went , It doesn't matter how many people agree with a false statement , it is still false .

The whole is the sum of the parts . Would we include or exclude op's op as organic chemistry ?

Some people have those nice little animated avatars with their post's . Does anybody know how to make them ?

http://artzone.daz3d.../azproduct/4062 http://www.google.ie...sx7g-msx1&uss=1 http://www.google.ie...l1894l0.2.2.2.1 I would try to think of ways to attach coconuts as spherical wheels with drilled holes in either side , to bamboo ( inner axle and outer bearings , cooking oil for lubricant ) and attach this to a strong bamboo frame and attach a pumpkin to that . The arty , decorative part is left to the imagination , I might have gone somewhere on the structural part though . I hope I helped .

Markearthling , good luck !

That's not religion ! It's meditative keep fit and yuppie liberalism !

Edit : I had an opinion and question but I now see my point of view has been considered already .

So , if let's say we wanted to freeze water at 100 degrees celsius , what pressure would be needed ?

Marketearthling , how would you improve the technique of carbon dating ?

Mooeypoo , Can water be made to freeze at a higher temperature than usual by manipulating the pressure ?