JaKiri

There's no information on the potential energy, you have to assume that it's irrelevent.

I'm still unsure what your point is. It is possible that government agents creep in during the night and exchange the contents of my freezer for another set which are exactly identical. Something being possible doesn't make it true. I was going to make something up, add in large amounts of gibberish letters, change the colours of the text and the background to ugly and garish and then post it on my website in order to demonstrate why a single unsourced link on something doesn't make it so, but I can't think of anything sufficiently absurd for it to outdo your claims. That's good, I was worried there for a moment. I'm confused, you were the one who wsa supposed to be denying that? I find it interesting that you mention Einstein. If atom bombs don't exist, then the special theory of relativity is incorrect. If the special theory of relativity is incorrect, then why does all the evidence point to it being correct? I can go into the evidence if you like, but the most obvious example would be when they sent an atomic clock on a plane round the earth, and found that it felt the effects of time dilation. I generally find that hot gas rises. I've seen hot air balloons and everything. Since you claim to have written it before, it's not even new; just copy and paste. I'd also appreciate it if you could explain what you mean by a "magnitude dyslexic". Is English your native language? So you expose "facts", but are unable to prove them? I notice you are unable to correctly copy the spelling of the word "burden", are you one of those magnitude dyslexics I hear so much about? If atom bombs cannot exist, then special relativity is wrong, which means that Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism are wrong, which means that the electronics in your computer wouldn't work. Are you saying they found bones of things which didn't exist? That's a pretty good trick right there. Now now, you're never going to win a Nobel Prize in theoretical conspiracies if you don't play nice. Hot things rise. Cold things fall. Very hot thing near explosion means that lots of stuff rises, edges cool down and don't rise as much, looks like a mushroom. You don't need an atom bomb to make a mushroom cloud, they arise from sufficiently large amounts of traditional explosives as well. I'm sorry, where? My magnitude dyslexia is playing up again. Oh, I do care, very much. I have my best man on the case. There was a shockwave. You can tell because of all the buildings that have been knocked over, unlike, say, Dresden. Why would there be massive radiation? If the bomb is detonated at a couple of thousand feet, all the fallout blows away. There'd only be fallout if there was a crater, because local fallout is caused by a mixture between the crater debris and the remnants of the bomb. Oh sorry, that's consistent and must be therefore evidence of a new world order. Why would the japanese fake mushroom cloud pictures? Were they "in" on the bombing of their own cities? I am a comedy writer as it happens, yes. Only in my spare time though. I don't think you know what the word "science" means. If it would help you with this kind of problem, I know a good magnitude dyslexia specialist if you want me to give you his contact details. Why indeed? An insightful question! You aren't going to tell me how many people have a vested interest? That's not very interesting. Well, at least I know the difference between altitudes of 2,000 feet and 100,000 feet. Perhaps you have magnitude dyscalculia as well as magnitude dyslexia, fate hasn't treated you kindly I'm afraid. I often confuse hilarity with delerium myself, it goes away after a while. What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What?

Consider what forms of energy are present in the system (hint: it's to do with what happens to the sand when it's on the conveyor). Power is the rate of change of energy, so you look at how much the energy is changing each second, and you get your answer.

I don't think anyone doubted they had the means. So you can't source the claim? Can't argue with logic like that. Ever look into the works of Ayn Rand? A=A sounds right up your street. Yes you did. Unless you meant that you guessed that this was the case, in which case please go away and demonstrate it. I find amusement in your resistance to basic mathematics, as you implored someone earlier in the day to "do the math chum". Turbulance can be caused by a pressure wave. A pressure wave can be caused by heat, which disproportionately moves upwards due to the difference in density between the super-heated gases and the surrounding air (which coincidentally forms a mushroom cloud). The ground need not be affected. Could you please point out the formula, for those of us who can't immediately discern it? You were the one who said it was impossible. The burden of proof is upon you. Furthermore, if you think that mathematics is an exercise in muddling the issue why are you able to use a computer right now? Unfortunately, if you don't answer the questions I present I have little option but to repeat them. Why are you trying to distract from something which, if you have evidence, should be easy to demonstrate? No, I call the process by which hypotheses are arrived at and tested by empirical methods using repeatable experiments the scientific method, lol. It's been quite successful over the years, too. When you say "lied to massively about the atom bomb", do you mean that it was used at Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or that it exists? None whatsoever. Could you quote them please? Humour me. Here's something I missed earlier: This is hilarious.

A quote demonstrates nothing. Even assuming the event took place, that demonstrates nothing either. You have asked us to cast off the lies of the hoaxers, but if you cannot see that an unsourced and, by context, misleading or downright inaccurate quote is exactly the kind of misdirection you are professing to be working against then I don't know what to say. Why should we believe you over the conspiracy? Things that are obvious are not always true. It's the reason why the scientific method rests upon experimentation rather than guesswork. You said you calculated it. Why are you so resistant to supplying us with that calculation? There is no maths in your graphic. What I'd like is a mathematical demonstration. If it's so obvious, it should be simple; what physical processes are you using to demonstrate this? How have you factored in the form that a nuclear explosion would take? What about the asymmetry of what can affect a plane and what is required to blast a hole in the ground? Thank you. Perhaps this is true. However, as you haven't presented any evidence or argument the question of what amount would be found convincing is moot, unless that amount is zero. If I have made up my mind, it's because you have not presented anything to analyse. An unsourced quote, an appeal to common sense and flat statements of a conspiracy are not a persuasive argument. You came to a science forum to put forward your views, why are you getting angry that scientific standards of evidence are being applied to your hypothesis? What debunks?

"To permit an individual to be treated by a health care practitioner with any method of medical treatment such individual requests" Wonderful!

None of the things specifically mentioned in that article are vitamins. You may also want to look on his campaign site, where he specifically supports "alternative medicine" as medical treatment. There is not sufficient evidence for them being beneficial.

I knew something was amiss with the quote ""I was taken to an area near Mt. Hiji where American doctors from a research institution known as ABCC tested me over and over. I was X-rayed repeatedly in the chest, and from the front and back of my abdomen. I lost count of the actual number. Then I started to bleed about 8 o'clock that night, and the bleeding did not stop until 8 o'clock the next morning. I had miscarried." (From the screenplay of the documentary film directed by Mori Zenkichi, "For The International Community: A Documentary on Korean A-Bomb Victims")". I've just remembered what it was. The ABCC wasn't founded until 1948. Is there a webpage or resource, other than http://www.jca.apc.org/~izm/sadakoeiyaku.html , that has this quote, preferrably with a timeline or at least some kind of indication of when the events took place? You claimed to have calculated that the amount of force required to buffet an airplane at 30,000 feet would have created a massive crator at ground zero. I merely asked to see your justification for it. Surely if you're trying to convince us, then presenting your evidence should be the first step? It would be the crux of my argument because it's something that cannot be argued qualitatively. Sources? I personally buy it because it was photographed. You haven't actually made any statements that can be addressed yet. Where do you stand on the issue of nuclear power and radioactivity in general? I presume you don't have an education in the area, as you seemed amazed that radiation, in the form of x-rays, could produce radiation poisoning. That's not a criticism, I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.

Dietry supplements aren't banned, they are merely banned from being advertised on the back of medical claims. Which is not surprising, because we're talking about things like homeopathy which have no medical benefits. Colloidal silver for all! No, he wants to make it impossible for consumers to make informed decisions about health care. Supporting alternative medicine against the big bad FDA is not consistent with wanting people to make rational, informed decisions. Market forces can't be relied upon for the safety of the population. The Ford Pinto is probably the most famous examples, although there are many others.

That's not what I asked for, and is irrelevent. You could express the energy released in terms of bicep curls or making cups of tea. As x-rays are a form of ionising radiation, that's not really surprising. It doesn't prove that the x-rays caused the effects observed, and it's anecdotal evidence in any case. Did you know that cremation can cause cancers and even kill those exposed to the smoke from it? Thank you.

Actually, the burden of proof is upon you. Not Found The requested URL /~hipec/conference/001.pdf. was not found on this server.

What exactly is this supposed to do?

Lets see the mathematics behind your estimation please. What's this supposed to prove, exactly? Not Found The requested URL /~hipec/conference/001.pdf. was not found on this server.

The advantages of waiting times in the United States compared to other countries is difficult to judge because of the lack of data collection. It's generally thought to be better on elective surgery, but in general the results are mixed, especially if you compare it against European countries rather than against Canada, who appear to have disproportionately long wait times in general. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=245178 is a fairly representative piece. Interestingly enough this link suggests that preventative health care is of a high standard in the US, something that is worth further investigation. I wondered when drugs would come up. The FDA is not perfect, the FDA is not close to perfect. However, it's a lot better than nothing and the problems have generally come from either business or political interference, with the medicinal value of cannabis almost certainly being an example of the latter. In politics, it's not, unfortunately. If you don't see how "taking an estimate of the number of deaths "caused" by the FDA's lengthy drug approval process, multiplying that by the "value" of a human life and then dividing that by the median estimated income to avoid one death" is an abuse of statistics I don't know what to say. What mechanisms would be in place to stop abuse by companies if you removed the FDA?

Every referral to state power over an issue of personal liberty which is deliberately designed to sidestep the checks and balances that are in place to defend personal liberty is a dismissal of personal liberty, yes. What the christian right believe abortion to be isn't an issue. Some people cry that meat is murder, should meat eating be outlawed if you happened to find an arbitrary geographic collection of people that contained a majority that believed that way? What about religion - many atheists claim that religion itself is evil, should we permit religion to be banned? The point of personal liberty is to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority. There's no value in the concept of it if it isn't defended when others disapprove, just like there's no value in freedom of speech, if speech is only free when you say things the majority wants to hear. Governments of any size should have no rights to judge or restrict on what people do as individuals, only when it affects the group. That's the opposite of what Paul said, though - "Rigid seperation of church and state can't have been intended by the founding fathers as they were religious" is the only sensible interpretation of what he wrote, unless we want to redefine phrases like "on the contrary". It has, it was from the 106th Congress (sorry, I should have mentioned that). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode31/usc_sec_31_00005136----000-.html Paul's remarks don't touch upon this at all.

Have you actually read that? Have you read the things it's sourced from? Do you not see that the methodology that they use is disingenious at best? Lies, damn lies and statistics; libertarian think tank research supports libertarian think tank ideals using dodgy arguments and statistics1 pulled from libertarian think tank research which supports libertarian think tank ideals. It's incestuous nonsense. The current american system is terrible, and drastically inferior to the socialised healthcare models that you find around the world in both performance and efficiency. However, if it's a choice between the current system and a free market, FDA-less, one then I'd go for the inefficient white elephant which stops the selling of radium as a miracle cure every time. 1"Moreover, 4,000 more Americans die every year from costs associated with health services regulation (22,000) than from lack of health insurance (18,000)." is a pretty strong statement, wouldn't you agree? Do you really think that the strength of the statement is justified given that it was arrived at by dividing the "cost" of the health regulation system, found by adding together lots of bogus numbers, by "The median estimated income to avoid one death"? I really hope you do not. I'm English, not American. The private sector involvement I'm talking about is the nonsense of public-private partnerships. No, it wouldn't. Bodies piling up in the streets. The US spends more per capita on healthcare than any socialised health care system I could name, with at best similar results. It also disproportionately encourages preventative care.

I use constants of 57 and 1/114 pi when doing fourier analysis and synthesis AND THAT'S THE WAY I LIKES IT

That's a matter of convention.

The question to ask is whether the elements, when bonding, donate or receive electrons. The earlier halogens require more energy to lose an electron, but also give out more than the later halogens when they receive one - which is how they bond.

By and large, I've found the healthcare in this country to be fairly good, although due to the best efforts of the governments of recent times it is deteriorating. Largely because they involve the private sector, as it happens. An unregulated market (especially if you take something like the FDA out of the equation) just creates further problems. Market corrections only come about when you get a sufficient pile of bodies. If this were true it would be an argument for socialised medicine, but that doesn't really matter because I don't think it is true.

If you want a practical demonstration, get three balls of descending size (lets say one of those small, bouncy footballs, a tennis ball and a table tennis ball), put one on top of the other so that you have this: Now drop them from a height of, say, 50cm. When they hit the ground and bounce back up again, the smallest ball will fly off about 20m into the air or more (Who says you don't learn things from the pseudoscience forum)

This is horrific. Science uses a word which is misunderstood or misused by the popular consciousness and so science should change its definition? Should science not use the words "force", "speed", "light", or any of the other words which have strict scientific definitions but vague popular ones? It's a matter of politeness to come into an argument on a science forum having at least attempted to investigate the evidence and thought on what you are trying to discuss. I admit this is not always possible on every topic, but given that information on evolution is so widespread and given the fact that you defended your ignorance in a rather bonkers way makes you a bit of a jackass. Obvious or not does not make things true. It was obvious that heavy things fell faster than light things. What matters is the evidence you use to support your claims. Although in this case, that's not the main problem. For a trait to become fixed in a population needs it to be advantageous, or at least not significantly deleterious, over a long period of time. It should not be that difficult to think of some examples where the greater developmental time and energy requirements of a bigger brain would cause those with it to be less successful members of society. Any animal which uses weight of numbers as a survival strategy for its juvenile forms would be a good start.

I'm pretty sure I can "feel" an acceleration, and "if you like charge" is a pretty strange characterisation of the whole gamut of forces.

Lets take a little trip down Special Relativity road, shall we? The first thing to do is to note that SR relies on two basic principles: that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant for all observers, and that physical laws are the same in all intertial frames1. These are well supported2. What do these things mean? Well, from these we get certain relationships. We get the things called the Lorenz Transforms, which state that the mass of an object that you observe moving relative to you is increased depending on the amount by which it is moving, proportional to the gamma factor3, a factor that is 1 when the object is at rest relative to you4 and approaches infinity as the relative speed of the object approaches the speed of light, c. Similarly, the rate at which you observe time passing for the object and the length of the object in the direction of motion are dependent on 1/gamma, a factor which is 1 at relative rest and 0 as the relative speed of the object appraoches c. Now what does this mean? Well, it means that you have to take relative velocity into account when determining the mass and decay rate of particles we find in particle accelerators as they're moving a sizeable fraction of the speed of light. With GR5, it produces things like the twin paradox, it means we have to take account of time dilation if we want to measure our position by GPS satellites and predicts that if you fly an atomic clock around the world a few times it'll show a different time on it than one which was sitting where it started. All of these things, and many more, we have observed to be true in line with the predictions of SR, as best we can measure. So what does this mean? Well, for one it means that your statement in the O/P that "mass is conserved" is incorrect. Have something accelerate, and the total mass you can measure changes due to the Lorenz transform! For another thing, it means that particles that travel at the speed of light must have zero rest mass, otherwise their mass when travelling at c (which they must travel at by definition) would be infinite. What else does it mean? We've already seen the famous equation E=mc^2 in this thread, and it's more correct brother E^2 - p^2c^2 = m^2c^46. It is remarkable that you use the first of these equations in an argument which also uses conversation of mass, as E=mc^2 is an equation which describes the equivilence between rest mass and energy, which kind of puts the nix on mass conservation.7 It is also remarkable that you ignore the full equation. If you like, you can derive it yourself from E = gamma*mc^2 and p = gamma*mv. If, as you state, you cannot have massless particles I think it is only polite if you provide new versions of Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Maxwell's Equations, and all the other things that suggest or require that you can have them, that fit with this statement. An explanation of why all reproduceable experimental evidence8 on the topic suggests that massless particles can exist and yet they somehow do not would also be helpful. 1In fact only the latter of these is required. You can derive that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant from all observers from the first principle and from Maxwell's Equations. 2Michaelson-Morely is an obvious experiment to mention. 3The reciprocal of the square root of the relative speed squared divided by the speed of light squared, and subtracted from 1. 1/(SQRT 1-(v^2/c^2)) 4This is the origin of the concept of the rest mass, which we shall come back to later. 5You need General Relativity to deal with acceleration/gravity. 6An interesting sidepoint is that whilst both E and p (momentum) are observer dependent, the right hand side is observer independent as it depends on rest mass, m. Using Taylor expansions, you can also derive the classical definitions of kinetic energy and momentum from this and its related equations. 7If mass is conserved, nuclear power (of any sort) doesn't work, because nuclear power is from things with a mass m combining (or splitting apart) to form a body of particles of mass less than m, with the resulting energy being given off in the order E=mc^2. I have to admit that I cannot see the sun at this precise moment as it's a cloudy day in Cambridge, but I'm pretty sure it's still there. 8With accuracies of the order of 10^-20, which is pretty hefty as these things go.

How are we supposed to store energy in a way which doesn't obey the second law?