studiot

This question (placed in general Philosophy for a wide discussion base) was inspired by the writings of Professor Ian Stewart. Here are his actual words So give us the scaffolding.

Perhaps this school project is meant to push home the fact that there is no known way of removing the mercury and rendering the fish safe to eat. Is your school somewhere in the Pacific, perhaps near where there is a particular mercury problem?

Must be time for this famous nap. I only gave one example and referred to one instance of dictionary posting. I did not mention the plural. But if you have difficulty following our last three exchanges, even theought hey were are very brief, I can gather them all together in one place for review.

So why did you claim to be exempt from normal reasoned discussion practice and proceedure when you failed to address the Philosophical substance of my post about the dictionary definition you posted in support of your Philosophical? position?

And modest with it, I see.

Thank you. +1

I can only suggest you obtain a better dictionary. One that does not claim the meaning of the word advise is the same as the meaning of word urge or the meaning of the word teach.

Those who profess science proves there is no God are preaching, Studiot, according to the meaning of the word preaching. Strange said he didn't believe in a god or gods of any sort. You said you believe in on particular god. I didn't say what I believe in so you have no basis for attempting to link me to the above statement. In any case the original poster posed the following question which has been answered in the negative since at least one member here has stated they do not believe in any sort of god. Remember this is a Philosophy section of the forum. As I said, Preaching is not even allowed in the Religion section, it must be discussed intellectual and academic terms.

So you admit to preaching? As far as I am aware that contravenes forum rules.

The Norly group of alloy plastics are not attacked or degraded by water in the normal working lifetime of a waterpump and the total amount of material loss would be miniscule over this period. I would be careful of any colouring pigment in the plastic, though. Cadmium (yellow) has been shown to be carcingenic in yellow beer making buckets. Is the reason your water needs an impeller because it is well water ? Are you in a region where discharge contaminents from the oil industry affects the groundwater? These do attack Noryl.

How has this thread turned from a discussion about Aetheism, (which could be conducted without a single reference to Big G), to a discussion about Big G? And why all the preaching?

I don't know the biochemical details but I remember seeing that certain species of fish change sex when they become physically big enough. Those that don't become big enough remain female. This was in one of the episodes in Blue Planet 2.

Why do bunnies keep dogs?

Yes this is a respectable argument. It is generally offered in terms of the current best estimate of the age of the universe (about 14 billion years) and how long it has taken for humans to develop to the point of asking this question (less than a million years). So many civilisations could have come and gone in that time.

ScienceForums is not a pseudoscience site. Here is one post from the rational skepticism debunking site Have a laugh and then find something worthwhile and productive to study. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/rodin-coils-t28962.html

Do you want to change frequency of AC, right? Search for transformer in any electrical shop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer A transformer does not change the frequency of the a/c . OP to do this you have to change the a/c energy into some other form and regenerate the a/c at the nerw desired frequency. A full wave rectifier will produce a unidirectional ripple of twice the input frequency.

Yes asking questions is good. But your essay needs to distinguish between the words inquiry (=question) ; inquisitive ( = liking questions) inquisition (= probably unpleasant interrogation) Also you might like to think about the different types of question. "Are there more people in London than Switzerland ?" Simply seeks information. Are you going to mention Google here? It is probably not very important whether you take any notice of the answer or not. But compare this with "Where did I get that sum wrong ?" It is probably important to take notice of the answer

One point I need to bring out more clearly is the difference between the treatment of collisions of gas molecules with a boundary and internal collisions between molecules of gas, in the kinetic theory. Collisions with a boundary are much easier to treat and lead directly to Boyle's Law. This is because boundaries are considered not to move during the collision, thus making the calculation of change of momentum particularly simple. On the other hand, inter molecular collisions can take a variety of histories from full head on to grazing incidence and everything in between. Both molecules are affected by the collision and the calculation of momentum depends upon this. Thus some kind of 'average' collision need to be introduced within the body of the gas.

Again nice simple but clear visualisations, janus. +1 Yes in the book I referred to Einstein also explains the implications of relativity of simultaneity for time and space.

A short extract from the Preface

Here is an extract on the subject from Einstein's own book on the subject. He is much more chatty and less formal in the book, have you read it?

This is as confusing as your other thread on this subject.

Last post, I said I agreed using your definitions. But I also deliberately used different terms because your definitions reverse the normal usage. Normally people speak of the sense data coming from the real world as real and the model in the brain as the imaginary part. You have reversed this. So what else do we have? Memory Ingenuity (I would like to say imagination but that has been used for soemthing else) Cognition I expect I could think of some more. My last post was also offering the more converntional usage of real (sense data) and imaginary (internal thoughts, however generated)

Yes I would agree with that, using your definitions of real and imaginary. (Note this does not coincide with the definitions of abstract and concrete for nouns in English). You are making the same point I sometimes make that sensory input and internal thoughts both drawing on past experience and one's own thinking capacity are not separate processes, After all they are going on in the same noddle. In fact I suggest our world model is constructed by filtering sensory input through our past experience and our own rational thought. It is not a faithful reproduction of our sensory input alone.

Thank you for you evidence. Do you limit your definition of scientific activity to research, particularly medical research?