insane_alien

but it is not just the peninsula. it is everything west of the transantarctic mountains. now, it doesn't matter what it is called (it could be called stinky pete's chili house for all it matters) all that matters is that it has roughly the same amount of ice as the greenland sheet and is in danger of collapsing. so, are you going to keep argueing about what it is called or are you going to discuss what it actually means that we have a large volume of melting ice?

if you have to surfaces of this in contact would it be called a BAM-BAM interface?

wow since when was ~10% a tiny fraction. i'd call that a significant fraction.

well you have everything you need just plug in the mass where there is the m and the density where there is the p(its actually the greek letter rho) and there's your answer.

yep, its experimental. and seeing as we have very accurate measurements for the mass of atoms it is a relatively simple calculation. what you do is, you take the value of 12grams (the mass of 1 mole of carbon-12 which is the accepted baseline) and divide it by the mass of 1 atom of carbon-12. this will give you the number of atoms in a mole. there will be some error but it will be tiny and generally insignificant(on the order of maybe a few thousand atoms.)

i see nothing special in its properties there. most salts can be used to form supersaturated solutions. a lot of crystalisations are also exothermic. its still not going to form balls of water.

fake. what you will end up with is a solution of sodium ethanoate and calcium ethanoate this wil do nothing special. as these are ionic species they will not lose 'polar ability'. and flashman, increasing polarization will increase surface tension as it is intermolecular forces that cause surface tension. the more polar the molecules then the stronger the intermolecular forces and hence the higher the surface tension. what i think is happening in these videos(apart from a con, especially as the second asks you to heat vinegar to more than double its boiling point in an open pot) is that he has got some spheres of a substance(probably plastic) with the same refractive index as water. this means that when they are in the water they are effectively invisible as they won't bend the light going through them. when removed they will become easily visible as they will bend light passing through. i suspect that if you were allowed to see it in real life the balls would be somewhat visible on close inspection. on a youtube video, well lets just say your not going to notice anything slight.

1/ friction is force, both of you don't seem to realise this. the more friction you have with the ground the more force you can impart on the rope. 2/ inertia is only going to come into it when you are determining how quickly the other team will accelerate from the force on the rope. big people will accelerate slower. 3/ the newtons third law thing, yes the forces all cancel out in the grand scheme of things but there is a force on the rope. if you cannot generate enough force to at least equal it(but in the opposite direction) you're going to lose. if you can generate a larger force you will win. to some up, force determines if you will win, inertia determines how fast the losers are going to lose once they start losing.

so your saying one 6th comes from greenland and that means that the bulk must be thermal expansion? aren't you forgetting about antartica which is significantly bigger than greenland and also dumping tonnes of water into the ocean. its not just the greenland ice sheets that are melting you know.

and what do you use to split the water appart? electricity. where does the electricity come from? fossil fueled powerplants mainly. until we get an extensive nuclear/renewable energy infrastructure then this isn't going to help much.

maybe now politicians will see the value of stem cell research and allow it to continue unhindered. although given their past record i see their response going along these lines: Doctors: hey look this stuff works. let us do it so we can help people. Politicians: WITCHCRAFT!!!! BURN THEM ALL!!!! BAN BAN BAN BAN!! Doctors: bloody idiots.

well all dmesg is telling you is that it has detected a usb device that sends a description string that says its a webcam. and tbh you would be much better asking on the ubuntu forums. then there will be more knowledgable people to help you.

a breif history of time is not a theory. thats why it doesn't introduce anything new. its a bit like saying 'chemistry for dummies' is a crap theory because it doesn't introduce anything new. 1/ its not a theory. 2/ its not trying to introduce anything new.

WINE won't help you. thats not how it works. try viewing it through cheese (sudo aptitude install cheese) this might help http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=329924

actually, they can. seeing as there is still electrical activity and so on.they are actually very different once you get past the way it appears from a cursory inspection. and its not minor things either, you still breathe, but slowly and very shallowly, the heart still beaats but too weak to produce a pulse and so on.

a simulated death. not proper death

not one of those links calls hypothesis an assumption. rather they conform more to my definition of an idea to be tested. don't try to redefine words. it will not get you anywhere. you have a very distorted view of science, i suggest you try and remedy this before continuing.

the ice on land got there because of precipitation. if the snow and ice doesn't melt it will stay there and keep building up as more snow and ice falls or gets blown along. given enough time you have an ice sheet a few kilometers thick

he means you don't know what a hypothesis is in a scientific context. hypotheses are not assumptions. they are testable ideas. a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested by many people many times and has shown itself to be at least a better approximation than the existing theory if there was one. certainly nothing that people produce lots of times a day. and i don't get why you think that thinking is limited in the majority of sciences. this has not been my experience talking to any scientist in ANY field. or even when i was working in a chemical engineering research lab.

a breif history of time is not a scientific paper. it is a book meant to relay the basic concepts of a scientific theory to the public. the maths needed to prove it would make it incomprehensible to most of the population. the website in question requires maths as it is trying to prove a 'theory'

as chemical engineering student and amateur chemist, i can tell you its not crap. is there anything in particular that you are stuck on? becuse we can help you more if we know what you know so far.

umm, catharsis, no offense or anything but are you drunk? that post didn't make a whole lot of sense.

I was writing up a bit on catalysts when a thought struck me, the reason metals are so good at catalysis is that the delocalised electrons make it pretty easy for chemicals to adsorb/desorb from the surface. an a sheet of graphene you have a similar set up with a plane of delocalised electrons. i haven't seen any papers on the catalytic properties of graphene so maybe i'm wrong. also, if i am right catalytic activity should be seen on carbon nanotubes and bucky balls as well.(and bucky balls would have excellent surface area/volume properties.

there doesn't need to be ANYTHING on the inside of the hull. you could have a complete vacuum. and plates do float. you can even try it next time your doing the washing up.

Pete, this is a science forum, when we ask for something to be defined it is because there are several possible definitions and there is some doubt as to which is to be used. if this is the case it must be defined EXPLICITLY not just assumed that everybody knows it. especially as there are people who do not have english as their first language that visit these forums.