DrP

Never? I'm at work so can't look that up - but feel I need to... I thought they used to believe this. If they believed it and changed their minds it doesn't say much about the 'infallibility of their scripture or their pope or indeed the god that was supposed to have written this. Why did god allow it to go into the book if it is factually wrong? I used to be a Christian and made the same argument about it being 6 time periods myself... but so what? It's still nonsense. The book is full of holes and contradictions - which wouldn't be there if what the book claims is true. What about the talking animals, the 900 year old people, the impossible boat with all the animals on it etc.. why would the god allow a book to written which is so obviously untrue and expect everyone to believe it? You are Catholic yea? Going by your willingness to quote the catholic church as an authority on the matter... the catholic church has a book of recorded miracles.... it's a total joke - not one of them can be properly confirmed and they are all shit. If the book was real then where are the seeing blind, the walking dead or the healed people? Every claim of it turns out to be false, made up, or unprovable when scrutinised by anyone other than a catholic priest - it's worse than misunderstanding... it is a total lie. ...er - they claim to be absolute truth. They claim that they are above science and that any discovery made by science that contradicts their faith must be wrong. The bible claims the existence of a god that rules over all - they claim this to be true.... it is clearly nonsense. There is a lot of stuff they claim that is totally ridiculous and contrary to rational thinking and observation.

Would make sense - the foaming would give a porus cell like structure internally that would trap air and probably improve the thermal insulation of the bulk material.

Yea - I know it is for the ideal case, sorry I might not have been clear. I mentioned it because it shows a relationship between molecular movement (temperature) and pressure. ... This box in space brings me back to PV=NRT. No gravity, but pressure on the walls of the box from the molecular collisions of the air. Increase the temperature and the molecules move faster and impact the walls harder with more force and thus more pressure. It shows that as temperature increases (and the molecules move and vibrate faster) then so does the pressure.

When you drop a ball on this planet, presuming a normal ball of usual material and normal STP..... when you release the ball from your hand it falls to the floor. This we know based on it falling to the floor the past 20 zillion times we tried it. It falls to the floor with the same acceleration every time. Every time. EVERY TIME. Can we use these observation to predict that next week, when I drop my ball, it will fall to the floor at around 9.8m2/s? .... it finds the most repeatable, best explanation we can make with the information we have accumulated. If new data turns up then whatever model that went before is revised to better reflect reality. How was he NOT a scientist if he went to Med school? So did most people go to church in those days - the human race knew no better explanation at the time other than what was in the bible, which we now know to be factually wrong. ... no - it works not because we say so but because it does actually work. Look at the ball dropping.... EVERY TIME it does the same thing unless new or outside forces act on it. Look at our satellites - they work because we put Einstein's theory into practice. If it didn't work then nor would our machines and devices that are based on theories that came out of science. ... No - It doesn't work like that. This misconception explains a lot. Either you know this and are deliberately trying to be misleading or maybe your lack of understanding of what science is or does is the problem here - if you think this statement of yours is true then you need to start from scratch and just learn some science to see for yourself how it works. Do/did you study it a school? What level are you at?

Maybe you could start with Silicon Nitride and dope it with Molybdenum or something. Although this would probably not be called SiMoN - more likely Molybdenum doped Silicon Nitride or something like that. Sorry - SiMoN isn't really a thing... although as I said - you could probably dope a silicon nitride wafer with Molybdenum as they do dope it with other metals in semiconductor manufacture.

Because early 20th ccentury the fashion was pink for boys and bluw for girls. It was thought pink was more manly than the blue. That fashin changed in the 1940s and stuch around for most of the time since with a slight relaxation in the 1970s. Some other countries and cultures have different colours to pink and ble - its just a culture or a retail thing - no 'biological predilection' there. Well there isn't a 'God exists scientific theory. Because the theory they are accepting as scientific fact completely contradicts chapter 1.

I think it depends on the silicone (functional groups, MW etc... ). But I think it has a pretty low thermal conductivity compared to other building materials. The value will vary though depending on the product and the supplier. I had a quick look and the silicones from Wacker, say, range in thermal conductivity from 0.3 to 4.3 W/mK according to one brochure I looked at... it suggested that the figures were normally below 0.8 W/mK but have been improved with 'modern advancements' - which I assume means more optimised cell structure and porosity, functional group selectivity and so on.

Is it worth pointing out PV = NRT. ? I always saw pressure as the weight of the molecules pushing down.... I have always associated the speed of the molecules and their collisions with temperature rather than pressure - which from PV=NRT would increase the pressure anyway from the ideal gas relationship. Like - if I was in a tower full of plastic balls above me - I would feel more pressure the more balls loaded on - the 'speed' of the balls would be zero and wouldn't be relevant but there would still be pressure. As molecules are not stationary in the air due to them having energy and moving around this probably adds to the pressure from weight alone. Higher temperature means more energy and faster moving particles... and by PV=NRT more pressure too. In the case of the plastic balls in the tower - imagine they were all battery powered vibrating balls - the experience would be more uncomfortable the more balls there are as well as if they were vibrating faster with it. In my ball example they have no motion - it is purely the weight that would give the pressure... add in motion on top of that and it increases. Sorry if this is superfluous - I thought it might be worth pointing out this in respect to PV = NRT.

that's my point - 'the enemy'? You are all citizens of the same country - we all share the same world.... we should be talking about solutions to problems not pointing out enemies amongst your own to demonise and vilify imo unless they are an actual threat. It is sad... and I mean the 'boo hoo' type of sad.... it is shameful and disheartening that the world is so backward that we find and make enemies everywhere rather than work together for the common good of mankind. for example - If Clinton was guilty - why isn't she locked up now? If she was innocent - where is the outrage at false accusations and campaign cheating (by lying about crimes committed that didn't happen)? - it is just normalised and expected.... which leads to the shame of the people that fall for such disgusting debating tactics imo.

Because they listen to and believe the toxic rambling lies of the opposition campaign?

I agree - I hate all that. Politics should be about politics/policies, not attacking your opponent personally and casting doubts about their integrity (unless there is proper proof they are a criminal or fraud or tax dodger). All this shouting 'lock her up' and other such appalling nonsense should shunned and ridiculed as school boy/yard tactics and considered poor play and totally unacceptable... although it seems the American public disagree as they lap it up and vote them in.

I think the answer is no. I think Carnelian is a red coloured gemstone which gets it's colour from Iron oxide impurities. All the different coloured quartzes arise from different impurities. By burning silicon you won't get a gemstone - you will get a silica ash (if you get the fire hot enough for combustion to progress).

Ha ha - thank you. I was just trying to see where he went wrong as he clearly believes what he/she is saying. - it isn't my field, but I have studied some physics to degree level so thought I'd have a look. I think he maybe overlooking that you have to do work to draw in the string when going from 1 m to 1 cm.... I can't remember - of course the energy will be higher if it is spinning faster. Someone like Swansont will probably just know off the top of his head without having to look this up... I might have to look it up and think longer though. I was hoping someone would know and point it out. It is probably more complex than just the centripetal force that you need to overcome to draw in the string from 1m to 1 cm that I mentioned. I am at work and can give no further time to it.

I didn't like the title - it sounded a bit axe grindy as thought the conclusions drawn were going to be the same what ever you observed. Hated the Abstract. - It explained nothing about what the 'paper' was about and just looks like an attempt to ridicule when it actually looks like you have probably missed something or drawn a wrong conclusion. The intro doesn't introduce anything other than your claim. I nearly gave up after the first line of the intro. Why state that you are not an academic - is that so you can just shrug it off if pointed out that it is wrong or something? 10000 / 1 = 1000000%? What do you mean? For a reduction of string length from 1m to 1 cm there would be a huge centripetal force required to keep it going - what am I missing?.... or - what are YOU missing do you think? ;-) (EDIT: - I think you are adding the energy yourself when you shorten the string - you have to pull it in by force). I think you are missing something or have made an error somewhere - Why in line 21 is v1 = v2? There was no explanation of what you were doing - just a list of equations and relationships. Again - you have probably made a logic error somewhere that someone can point out to you. I didn't like the sarcasm about solving an energy crisis by installing a professor with a string and a ball in a village. If you were serious you would avoid any attempt at humour. If your paper was to change the way scientists thought about something so well thought to be kwon then you would want to do it humbly and respectfully and you would be held as a marvel -- as it is you look like a crank. You need to explain the conclusions - not just expect people to see where your list of equations contradict reality. It is a bold claim and needs explaining - I expect you have made a mistake somewhere or misunderstood something being honest (and I am being kind). Spoon feed me it. Although I expect someone will just see a flaw in the logic somewhere. I mean - I expect work is done or something like that when the radius in shortened... Someone will spot it.

OK, maybe I don't know enough about it - I was under the impression it was part of the extended theory around the subject and the theory of evolution. It seems like it to me but I could be wrong. It is clearly closely related... and seems to be useful to some people.

The word has different levels of understanding attached to it depending on the context. The language isn't perfect maybe. Of course we 'know' some things (to the best of our knowledge). There are many things that are considered facts. There are many things that were once considered facts which we now 'know' not to be in light of updated evidence. That's what we have been doing over thousands of years of learning - updating our understanding.

How is the conclusion not part of the theory?

Which response about which remark? Spell it out - there are three pages of discussion here - how can we know which response to which remark you are talking about. How can you expect people to follow or understand what you say when you are not clear like that? Quote me where I didn't understand you - don't just make the claim like that. So what - millions of people have beliefs like that. Religion for one - people are convinced that they KNOW their religion is correct, that they KNOW their god.... but people of other religions think what they are saying is correct also - they can't both be correct. The beauty of science is we don't claim to KNOW - we claim to have tested and report what happens. Sometimes the test throw up new mysteries and show us our own ignorance. Very often the results of such tests prove that people do not actually KNOW what they are talking about and that people think they know all sorts of things which just aren't true. What's your point?.... that science is also a religion and a belief system?... we have been through all that already - it changes it's 'beliefs' as new evidences come to light - which many religions don't do. What is you point? Are you sure you'e understood him properly?

I read recently that the micro plastic found in water purchased in bottles were mainly from the caps being unscrewed. The abrasion between the bottle and cap as it unscrews cause very fine micro shavings apparently (that or the seal being broken cause flakes, one or other or both, can't remember) - I can't reference that right now - I read it in an online article somewhere. ... maybe IFLS or New Scientist or somewhere like that.

Don't know what that is sorry. yea - I wouldn't fancy that either. Apparently you can get monomer or plasticizer leaching out of some plastics, yes. I believe that this is why we don't use polystyrene cups for tea anymore (you still get them at stalls at some fairs, but most are card or plastic now). You can taste the styrene monomer. A postgrad at our uni when I was there done some Mass Spec on his tea before and after it had been put into a polystyrene cup (he didn't like the taste and suspected something was up) and found styrene monomer had leached into his tea from the polystyrene cups that held hot tea. It would depend on the plastic I reckon.

It doesn't expire. I suspect the manufacturers of the water drinks in bottles put a best before date on the bottle to cover them selves in case of bacterial growth in the water or something like that. That's my guess anyway.

I asked before but it got lost in text in another thread. Is it common for year 1 philosophy students to be sent out on campus to find science students to engage in such arguments as 'trees falling in woods not making sound if anyone is not around'? Back when I was a first year undergrad we myself and several other chemists and physicists were approached to 'discuss' the topic. You probably know how the argument goes.... it can go round in circles and has no definite conclusion as it just gets into definitions of words and sophism imo. After some time we found out that their lecturer had sent them out to actively start these conversations as he wanted them to practices their debating skills - He know there was no conclusion to the argument and his set goal was not for them to win the argument but to keep the conversation going as long as possible (even if it made the arguer look foolish it seemed to us). Is this or do you know if this is a common practice that every year one philosophy student gets told to do everywhere or did it just happen at our university? It reminds me of this thread because their arguments always reduced down to just 'yea - but how can you truly know that' when given a logical progression of stating that 'of course it makes a sound - if you go by the dictionary definition of 'sound''. The whole argument to me is as daft as asking 'do the people behind you really exist if you turn your back on them - how can you really KNOW they are there'. As eager young scientists we all bit and argued heatedly for hours..... which was the intention of the philosophy lecturer - he knew we'd bite.

*facepalm* Yea - it's so unfair that science is backed up by references and tried and tested experiment. lol.

But it updates it's beliefs in the light of new supporting evidences. Unlike other belief systems, like religions, which claim absolute truth... even when new evidences come to light which totally ridicule the original beliefs. How can a scientist claim his theory is absolute truth if he is willing to update it the next day when more evidence comes to light.... basically he can't (and doesn't anyway - he claims the best modal according to the evidence). I read an article in the New Scientist last week about the possibility that the LIGO measurements in the first experiment were an artefact of the random noise... the pattern in the random noise was so slight but matched what they were expecting to find if a gravity wave were to pass. I still need to finish reading the article (or I might just wait to see what unfolds) but it was behind a paywall and I don't like paying for online articles. You can believe it wont effect you whilst knowing that it causes cancer. It doesn't kill EVERYONE that smokes... just the unlucky ones that are more susceptible to the damage. Some people smoke all their lives and it doesn't kill them.... Have I missed the point or are we doing language/semantical acrobatics again? Where is it leading? .... being fair - reading it back maybe dimreapers comment doesn't make any sense. As a partial dyslexic I think I might stay out of this discussion as it is heavily dependent on symantics and definitions. ;-) ... once again - have a nice day.

The problem here is that you are trying to confine the conversation by defining things according to your own 'beliefs'. All this 'Do you agree that....' biases any conversation. For example - I do not agree with your above statement. Here is my example from personal experience - Back when it was 'believed' that black holes were a singularity I was pretty certain that this could not actually be the case in reality. I 'knew' they were a singularity according to the maths... but I did not believe that they would be like that in reality (and it turns out they aren't, so my hunch was true). I don't know if this is a good example or not... it is just annoying that before discussing anything we need to first say "right, knowing this and that and this also we all must agree on THIS" before the conversation goes on. No thanks. I don't think that starting any conversation with "Before we start discussing this you must agree with my statement" - especially when that statement is a little spurious and depends soley upon context and semantics. I didn't bother reading the rest because..... OK - I went back and read the rest - what is your point? It is just philosophical musings that don't draw any conclusions.... is it leading up to some point supporting your earlier stance about science, truth and knowledge? I'll just stay out of it I think - you seem to be having a nice conversation with Studiot so I'll stay out of it. Have a good day.