studiot

Well said. Personally I'm a don't care, rather than a don't know (agnostic), or a definitely against (aetheist) as it would make no difference to my actions.

Now you are beginning to see past the beam.

I was comparing the relative strengths of the accelerating forces because almost everywhere we look and find charges being accelerated, they are accelerated (principally) by electromagnetic means. So before we can attribute any measurement of radiation induced by gravitational acceleration of a charged particle, we have to eliminate electromagnetic effects. I do not know of any measurement system now or in the foreseeable future that is accurate to 1 part in 1040.

No I do not want to extend the definition of Religion. You are still only talking about substance, but as MigL observers much of Religous content is to to with its several and varied purposes, such as a moral code of conduct, a record of history, a source of social authority etc. Talking of substance you have said Creationist Religion is in conflict with cosmology. and Buddhist Religion defers to Science. So what conclusion should I draw as to your views? 1)Religion is in conflict with Science. 2)Religion is not in conflict with Science. 3) Buddhism is in conflict with Creationism. 4) Some other conclusion.

Thank you for that correction. I'm glad someone here knows more about Astronomical Physics than I do.

Whilst I agree with John's clear and valuable extensions of my points, I think that trans ferrous elements were also made that way, using the spare energy available in large enough stars. It should not be taken to imply that fusion to create heavier elements, or fission to break lighter ones, cannot occur. Just that for this to happen would require a source of energy external to that particular fusion or fission process.

1) The use of the phrase 'there's no strong evidence' suggests to me that should such strong evidence appear the speaker would be prepared to consider or even accept it. That demonstrates the lack of closed mindedness, and arrogance.

I consider it to be in very poor form to give someone, especially an enthusiastic new member, a negative rep point for this post. There is nothing impolite, arrogant or demonstrative of a closed mind. So I have added +1 to reverse it. Further I repeat my comment about the narrow view taken on religion, which is still not being addressed.

I'm sure also that one of the things you are meant of gain from this exercise is experience in the presentation and evaluation of data. So do what do you think of the difference between my presentation and that of fiveworlds? Is the bar chart / histogram an improvement? Also you should be able to make comment on the two variables you have measured, viz temperature difference and weight (mass) of salt. Is there any impact on your data from the quality of the measurement?

That difference is too subtle for me, please explain. Here is a quote from Clemmow So the experimental implications of excluding electric accelerations on electrons are that we must measure to 1 part in 1039.

Wikipedia seems to be talking about what I meant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_function You need to look up the WF for Zinc and Copper

I'm gald you have managed to convince yourself, since some of your arguments have a plausibility. But, and I don't care who does the translating, a boat is not and never has been a container of water. Unfortunately such a basic blunder can only cast a shadow over other statements of translation. But if you are going to achieve any credence with the modern engineering community, you need to speak to them in a language they will understand, and further not try to tell them that it is easy to move multi-tonne objects hundreds or even thousands of metres basically horizontally but generally uphill.

Do you mean is it possible for some person to believe simultaneuosly in Genesis and the Big Bang? Yes I think some individuals do just that. Or do you mean do I personally .... ? Actually I find both about equally unsatisfactory. But then I asked what is truth and since you did not answer consider this. Truth is what I believe. It is true because I believe it and therefore it is a tautology.

The existence, actions, motivations and powers of deities is not a matter for Science. Oh, and by the way, what is Truth?

You are discussing the area of non overlap.

I don't follow the relevance to either what mig said or what I said. To find the reasons for conflict (the originalOP) you need to list out the substance and purpose of both and look for common areas of coverage. You can only find conflict in these common areas, since each one is silent about the area it does not cover (by definition). So what do you consider these common areas to be? Both disciplines compass large areas that are not common to the other and so far the discussion has centered on these.

That's a delicately political way of describing a rewrite. (or should I have said politically delicate?)

I don't know what happened to the original first question in the OP. This was largely what I answered, and I considered the second about acceleration subsidiary. This is in classical physics and I don't know if relativity was meant to be taken into account, but that needs to be done for bremstrallung and compton scattering etc.

Well I support MigL. Following this I note that all have taken a very narrow view of the substance and purposes of Religion. Mig has widened it out a little, but IMHO still not far enough.

I missed this See Rutherfords Experiment http://chem-guide.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/radioactive-rays-alpha-ray-beta-ray.html

You can't 'perform' fusion on a single atom. You need two. Think about it.

I've never studied this aprticular question, but I would think the answer is yes and I would look at the difference in work functions at the surfaces of the joined metals. An electron crossing this area must experience a change of energy due to the difference in work functions. I guess this would appear as a potential as in semiconductors. I think you can also get this across grain boundaries within the same metal.

Fission and Fusion usually refer to atoms, or more precisely their nuclei. Banging together other particles to create bigger or smaller ones is not normally called fission or fusion. In principle you can 'bang together' or fuse nuclei that are smaller than the Iron nucleus and obtain energy. If you wish to break them apart to smaller nuclei (fission) you would have to input energy. Conversely if you have nuclei that are larger than Iron you can obtain energy by breaking them apart, and have to input energy to bang them together to make a larger nucleus. You cannot obtain energy from iron by either fusion or fission.

1) Check out Poynting Vector https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&q=poynting+vector&gbv=2&oq=pointing+vect&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.0.0i10l10.922.7203.0.10344.13.13.0.0.0.0.203.1360.8j4j1.13.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..0.13.1360.rmNrmHmqAjg 2) Yes, deceleration is acceleration with a preceding negtative sign

First class. +1