insane_alien

right i think i get it now. it seems that my view of socialism wasn't so far off(taxes contributing to projects and services for the good of society and not necessarily the individual). and that it is just some politicians using it as the latest 'ZOMG! TERRORISTS! HUNT THEM DOWN AND BURN THEM!' yea/nay?

so... again can someone explain to me what socialism is then.

the earths frame is not an inertial frame. so no, they are not moving faster than the speed of light relative to us. it is us on earth that are accelerating round and round and not the universe. if there is an acceleration then we can tell who is accelerating. and it is us on earth and not the rest of the universe.

we don't need tritium from the moon(we can get it from the ocean easily enough) what we want from the moon is helium-3 (currently at a ridiculously large cost, somewhere around $1000 per gram) for use in fusion.

stick to accepted science. the speed of propagation of gravity has been measured to be approximately c with good reason to suggest that it is exactly c. but that is besides the point, the question concerns newtonian theory and NOTHING else.

i don't understand half of what the wiki is saying(again, i am not well versed in politics period) so again, keep it simple. and as with bascule, i see no relation to the wikipedia article and your post(although that could be due to me not getting the article perhaps, but i trust bascule a bit more than you in these matters)

yes, but gallileo used iron cannon balls which are far more dense than a tennis ball so the terminal velocities of those are far far higher than the tennis balls. this means it would have had to drop even furth to show an effect. a few thousand feet would probably be required. i've seen the tower of pisa too and it ain't a few thousand feet.

you aren't considering all the variables. the variable you are missing in this case is friction with the air. it isn't very prominent at low velocities so dropping them from head height will not result in significantly different times of impact but from a large building where the lighter ball is likely to hit its terminal velocity(or get close to it) then the difference will be very noticable. if it was in a vacuum then they would hit the ground no matter what the height. an experiment which exemplifies this is a hammer and a feather. this was done on earth and the moon. in the atmosphere the feather falls slowly to the ground(high air friction) but on the moon if fell just as fast as the hammer.

it'll work even if the lower water is at 32*F (0*C) and the upper water is 212*F(100*C). if the water is liquid, it will work.

well i've mostly seen it bandied about when reffering to a public healthcare system(similar to the NHS in the UK) being introduced to the US. so i guess its in that context i'm reffering to. as far as i was aware it merely meant the governement provideing services to public finaced by taxes but otherwise free to use.

yep, it'll still work. and you should specify what temperature scale you are using. i'm going assume you mean degrees farenheit as 90*C water isn't usually found in nature. we'd preffer it if you used celsius here as it is the most common measurement scale globally anda lot of our membership is international.

So, theres all this crap about obama being and evil socialist and all this from the american media. but, whats never explained is wats so wrong with socialism? i'm not that into politics so i'm not to well versed in all the terms so can someone explain it to me in laymans terms?

as long as it isn't ice you can do it.

depends how fast the water is moving relative to the pipe. look up bernoullis equation. this will allow you to calculate it for a specific velocity.

my BMI has just moved over into the overweight region in the past couple of weeks. curiously enough, i just had to go buy a new pair of jeans and a belt because my old ones keep falling down and (besides the fact that my belt is starting to fall to peices) i'd have had to make a third extra hole on the skinny side for my bel to do anything other than weight my jeans down and make them more likely to fall down.

luckily for us at the moment answering one 'i don't know' usually leads to about 50 other 'i don't knows' and it should be pointed out that treasuring 'i don't know's doesn't mean we should avoid turning them into 'i know's

don't put all your data on the slides do show a graph or chart that gets the gist of it simply don't have lots and lots of slides do have a small number, one every three minutes can be a reasonable number, of course this can vary depending on your presentation but try to keep them minimal. don't just repeat everything on the slides do have a script with more information for the talk, be prepared to accept questions afterwords. don't use fancy graphical backgrounds do keep it simple, at most have a gradient effect in the background and maybe a little logo if required. less is more. don't use annoying transitions, they may look cool when your making it up and are as bored as hell but they just make people think your childish do stick with the default transition don't stand there like a robot when your giving your presentation do, point out stuff on your slides, move around a bit, interact with the audience. but, when push comes to shove there is one universal truth. presentations are as boring as a nun on a friday night. there is only so much you can do to keep it interesting without the audience thinking your a pillock so don't be disappointed if you get a few yawns(or snores).

dr syntax do not just give the answer away when the thread is in homework help it is a violation of the rules you agreed to when you signed up. not only that but your answer is wrong. the question asks what characteristics are common to contagious bacteria, not how can they be transmitted.

then why don't orbiting neutron stars create a bubble around themselves? i'd also be far more impressed if that picture wasn't to do with extrasolar planet detection. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/ph210/raman1/ any actual sources on slipstring drives?

and far more practical tests are being performed by JET and (eventually) ITER. we can break even(just) already. ITER should allow us to make a surplus but it primarily for control and materials testing. the major problem with fusion reactors is that they don't miniturize well. bigger is better. unfortunately nobody is willing to shell out the funds for something like that.

is there a reason you had to post that twice?

nah its a sloping pipe in moving water.

err... no if the intensity is the same then you will get the same amount of heating. UV is actually better at heating than IR as you can deliver the same energy with less photons.

yes, the pressure is greater at 1 than 2 because of depth. but that isn't the cause.

not unless the temperature is a few million kelvin.