Glider

That's about it. Some fish, goldfish and piranha for example, can see in infra red.

...ooops

It would be rods. Cones are sensitive to specific sections of the spectrum, and light falling outside those wavelengths won't trigger reactions in cone cells. Rod cells however are less specific and generally more sensitive. Plus, there are many more of them.

Thank you for those links. Here are some selected highlights. And my favourite... Not particularly impressive on the whole. Whilst the fact these studies exist refutes completely your contention that: "That's the problem really. No Scientist ever prepared to take the plunge. (15)" They in no way support your contention that: "Homeopathy is effective against all diseases (excluding surgical cases)." And there is still no evidence for your statement: "There is the problem of antibiotics, with bacteria beginning to win that war; there is malaria, also posing imcreasing problems, to name but a few. Yet Hahnemann cracked these problems...ALL of them, simply, quickly and permanently, without antibiotics, just using the body's own defences.". And to finish for the day, here are a few articles I found: Now let it go, for Gods' sake!

Possibly. It would certainly be interesting to watch a person whose brain pulsed intermittently.

No. I mean any evidence whatsoever. Until you present some, this is where I stop.

Beer ... is sucked I can't even remember when I last tasted beer. I went off it when I started on tequila, which was a while ago now. Mind you, since I started on tequila, I can't remember yesterday.

I know that the brain generates enough electricity to light a 10 watt light bulb all the time. I know also that to detect this electrical activity requires close contact, i.e. electrodes attached directly to the scalp as in EEG. What I don't know is whether your biology teacher included words such as 'it has been suggested that' psychic connections 'may possibly' be exlained? Otherwise, I wonder why your biology teacher is providing explanations as to the mechanisms of function of a phenomenon that has yet to be shown to exist.

Where is the evidence for this? If this is the case, why don't homeopathic principles form the core of our health care system? It is if it contains no evidence. Are you saying that homeopathy has a cure for smallpox? Can you provide evidence for this, or would it be another case of a homeopathic 'practitioner' messing around until the patient was beyond all hope? The book has been around for 193 years. I'm sure it has been read by many people. Yet, it does not form the mainstay of modern medicine. Why do you think that is? We are aware of the problems and limitations of medicine. We are aware of the increasing problems of resistant bacteria, e.g. MRSA and resistant strains of TB. You state categorically that Hahnemann solved these problems (clever of him as MRSA wasn't around 193 years ago, and then, they weren't even aware of what caused infection. Joseph Lister wasn't even born until 1827). Why do you think Hahnemanns' 'solutions' are not used today? Could it be that the medical fraternity is so self obsessed that it is prepared to let thousands of people die rather than admit that homeopathy had the answers all along? Or, is it more likely that the 'solutions' presented by Hahnemann don't work? This might go some way towards explaining why it doesn't work. You still suggest that homeopathy can cure smallpox? Why didn't it then? The above shows no such thing. The term 'disease' has been defined. If anything, it shows that homeopathy is willing to obfuscate established terminology to a) suit its own ends and b) disguise the fact that it doesn't work. As an aside, immunology isn't really your (or Hahnemanns') strong point, is it? You start with a large group of sick volunteers. You allocate them randomly to three conditions. You apply homeopathic remedies in one condition, established interventions to the second, and a placebo to the third. You measure; symptom reduction, recovery rate & time to discharge, and maintenance (incidence of relapse). You analyse your data, you draw conclusion based upon the results of your analysis. Why do you continue with this? There are no grounds for debate here. There is no evidence that homeopathy is effective. If there was the slightest indication that homeopathy could solve such problems as MRSA, resistant strains of TB or any illness whatsoever, don't you think it would be used? Do you really think that established medicine so hostile to alternatives that it is prepared to let people suffer and die rather than investigate the possibility that those alternative might be effective? Are you that deluded? Many forms of homeopathy have been tested. The most recent of which I am aware was the principle of 'the memory of water' (or whatever you choose to term it); the principle that some curative factor remains inherent in a solution diluted thousands of times. This was tested under strictly controlled conditions using a double blind method. The results showed that the homeopathic 'remedy' was no more effective than pure distilled water. In short, it doesn't work. It doesn't matter that you post long monologues based upon Hahnemanns' book. It doesn't matter that you are prepared to spend the time writing thousands of words on the topic of homeopathy. A high word count won't convince anybody of anything. To be taken seriously, you need to present the slightest shred of evidence that homeopathic interventions are effective, and "Hahnemann says..." does NOT constitute evidence. I say homepoathy doesn't work. So, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, it's Hahnemanns' word against mine, and in the absence of evidence either way, that's all it takes for stalemate (I will not bother to mention here all the homeopathic 'remedies' that have failed to live up to their claim when tested under controlled conditions). Get some. You'll save yourself a lot of heartache. To get you started, here are a couple of things you will need to demonstrate: 1) That your approach does no harm, either by direct action (either physically, e.g. through toxicity, or psychologically, e.g. by misleading patients and/or providing false hope) or omission (e.g. by preventing the patient from from seeking effective help until it's too late). 2) That your remedy is significantly more effective than no intervention at all, and (preferably) is at least as effective as those already used. Whilst I appreciate that you have a deep faith in homeopathy, any further posts on the topic that are devoid of evidence in support of it are simply not worth posting, as they won't be worth reading. I have nothing against your faith in homeopathic methods, but, in the absence of evidence demonstrating their efficacy, I would rather they were kept away from sick people.

Awww crap! Just one bloody thing after another, isn't it?

I know the sounds you're talking about. It's a series of fast blips in a pattern - -- - -- - -- - -- ------- like that. It's your phone sending our a 'recieve' signal in response to a request from the cell sending the incoming call.

You don't have to understand homeopathy to test its claims. The claim 'This intervention will cure that disease' is testable. You don't need to understand the intervention. Many. Point 35 "Medicines which are not homeopathic will never cure any disease." is one (I don't recall the role of homeopathy in the elimination smallpox for example), but as Sayonara points out, we've been here before. I'm still waiting for you to tell me the point of your (very long) post. What point are you trying to make?

You make a very good point.

A lot of text there. Some of it conjectural, a lot of it wildly inacurate, and none of it establishing a position beyond the fact that you are a believer in homeopathy. In short, what's your point? (in one paragraph please).

My username was given to me about three years ago. I was a member of a chat site, but couldn't be bothered to think of a name, so I just used to log on as 'guest' (the default). Eventually they decided I had to have a name, as it got confusing when newbies logged in as guest also. I couldn't think of a name (it's quite hard to name yourself I think), so they asked me stuff like what music I like, what I like to do, etc., and they fixed on my bike. They figured "...if you ride a Glide, it makes you a Glider." Simple as that really.

That's why a good way of thinking about it is that, there is a greater probability of your dying of a heart attack whilst watching the lottery program, than winning the lottery. It works for me anyway.

Hmmm...I dunno...even pseudoscience makes sense enough to be able to say...'uhuh, yep I understand that...it's crap'. This, I don't get at all.

The way you phrase certain things is quite telling: "...should we allow a woman to give birth... is a good example. And I thought women living in purdah had it tough. Why, I wonder, does nobody ask questions like; "Should men be prevented from having sex (or sterilized using a reversable procedure) until they enter a legal obligation to support any and all subsequent offspring, deliberate or accidental?"

Glad to know you've done the background stuff I just thought I'd mention it, just in case. Yeast will only produce ethanol and CO2 as a waste product; anything brewed with yeast (and that has not been contaminated) is safe. As to the pure ethanol question, hospitals use 70% pure ethanol as a hard-surface cleaner, because it kills everything. It destroys cells, bacterial and otherwise. You can sterilise your hands with it, but I wouldn't want to apply it to mucous membranes. Even tequila is only around 40%w/v.

Stills are known to produce two types of alcohol; ethanol and methanol. Only one ethyl bridge differentiates the two, and apparently, the distillation temperature is critical, and is a determinant of which kind you get. Whilst there is only a small difference between the molecules, the differences in their effects are quite large: Ethanol: Drink, get drunk, have fun, wake up with a headache. Methanol: Drink, get drunk, have fun, wake up with a headache, go blind, die. Ehtanol is metabolised into formaldehyde, to which, for some reason, the cells of the retina are particularly sensitive. This is what blinds you. By the time you start going blind, formaldehyde created in first-pass metabolism will have done the liver and other organs significant damage also. It takes a little while of course, but it might still be as well to find out which kind of alcohol your still is producing, rather than how much, or at east read up on it a bit so you can be certain you're getting the distillation temperature right. Of course, you may already covered this in your research, in which case, ignore me, but in case you hadn't, learning from the mistakes of others is never a bad thing.

Just had a message to say that I'll be taking Advanced Research Methods...again....yay. Possibly first level research methods too.....be still my beating heart.

Maybe the government could create some new posts. 'Regional uber-pimps' overseeing several district sub-pimps, something like that.

This theory was based upon post mortem studies of the brains of Alzheimers' patients. These studies found aluminium associated with the neuronal plaques (small areas of scarring) associated with Alzheimers'; each plaque has a tiny deposit of aluminium at its centre. However, I believe (though I'm not certain) that more recent research has shown that the aluminium deposits are a function of the pathological process, rather than an aetiological factor, i.e. it's the disease which results in the aluminium deposits, rather than aluminium causing the disease.

It's a therapy belief system which proposes that different areas of the soles of the feet correspond with and have direct links to different regions and organs of the body. Careful massage of these specific areas on the soles of the feet is purported to benefit the corresponding somatic region or organ. Of course, a problem arises if the original problem is that your feet hurt. I don't believe there is an area that corresponds to feet.

Are the two necessarily mutually exclusive? I.e. would genuine spiritual activity have to be inexplicable in scientific terms? Just wondering I dunno, but I think Siberia would fulfil my idea of Hell if I had to live there. I hate the cold, and I don't do winter very well generally. Never seemed to get the hang of it.