insane_alien

or it could be because gravity is a uniform attractor. err, i don't know where to begin on how wrong this is.

i said planets FORMED by asteroids smashing together, not that. trees have layers because of yearly growth patterns. the earth has layers because of gravitaional settling similar to the mercury/water example. they are not the same thing at all. not at all. trees are formed by a very different process. this is obvious as we do not see saplings crashing into trees at tremendous speeds when we enter a forest. however, we do see protoplanets being formed by the accumulation of rocks and dust in protosolar systems adding credence to our current theories of planet formation and pretty much discounting your ... exotic idea. aluminium forms a thin skin of aluminium oxide on exposure to air. cooling lave forms a skin(crust) of solid rock. suuuure... By the way, have you considered a question i asked you a while ago? Do you consider lava to be alive as it composes the innards of the planets?

jsispat, you do know we have tons of evidence for continental drift and zero of shrinking continents(unless they are on colliding plates, the subcontinent of india is shrinking in area as it builds up the himalayas). also, as has been explained to you many many times, the earth is not a tree.

you could assume a constant acceleration and work it out from there as it does say it started at 0 velocity.

$£%£$%^£$^ yes i meant neutrons whoopsie.

no, it is impossible for the earths core to be a very low temperature and still have volcanoes. i also see you still think the earth is alive. quit posting that as fact. it is not fact.

start off by explaining the components of the nucleus and how it is the number of protons that defines the element(if you haven't already) and then just flat out tell them that isotopes are atoms with the same number of protons but different numbers of electrons. note to mods: recomend the isotope discussion gets moved to its own thread

yes.

quite cool that the titanic lake is infact, titanic in size.

i only see what i presume is you posting the same thing in other threads. why don't you link to a source or have a go explaining it yourself?

but what does it mean? how is it calculated, what experiment? what is the name of the property? any sources? because i can't find anything about it exept this thread.

and eh, forgive my ignorance, but why are the mesons given a specific angle and why do they have a dimensionless number associatied and what is that number?

what? that makes no sense at all?

yes but it does pose an interesting problem. i think of it as what happens when an irresistable force meets an unmovable object.

well, being omnipotent, god could create an object M^100 then easily lift the M^10 mass while standing on the M^100 object(if god stands of course).

yeah, i suppose, an ammeter and a stopwatch would be much easier than considering the geometry and materials of the kettle. but the heat equation would give you a pretty close estimate.

no, at normal pressure, the melting point does not exist it only has a melting point when you compress it. at the pressure where it has a melting point, the boiling point is higher than the melting point. infact, at that pressure it is the same temperature so you have a mixture of all three phases in equilibrium. apply more pressure and they will seperate into the 'normal' distribution.

yes. dH=C*M*dT dH=enthalpy change (or energy used in this case) in joules C=heat capacity of water in joules per kilogram-kelvin M=mass of water in kilograms dT=change in temperature in kelvin(or centigrade, for differences these are the same) if you want to consider heat loss then we will need to know more about the construction of the kettle.

exactly, there is very little electrostatic attraction between the molecules. that doesn't mean there is none though. compounds form liquids when intermolecular forces overcome momentum to keep them close together but not enough to keep them in the one place. when they are enough to keep them in the one place as well as preventing them from flying off on their own they form a solid. In CO2, unless you apply a fair amount of pressure, the intermolecular forces will be insufficient to stop them flying off before it lets them move around close to each other. at standard pressure there just isn't an inbetween. you can see this on the phase diagrams of any substance, even water. take the pressure down really really low and there will be no liquid phase just solid and gas.

Basically, CO2 molecules aren't sticky. sameway non-stick frying pans don't stick together. kids will always ask why. even if you have told them the answer 20 times.

CO2 molecules like zooming round really fast and don't like each other very much so they don't want to be going slow and bunched together in a liquid?

the vapour pressure of carbon dioxide reaches 1 atm before it becomes liquid. therefore it sublimates rather than melt then boil. carbon also does this i believe. this is due to the balance of kinetic energy of the molecules and intermolecular bond strength. its unusual but not unknown.

They don't cancel. the boiling water will be losing heat to the environment so, the longer it takes to boil it, the more heat it loses to the environment before it reaches boiling point. so, even with equal amounts of water and equal starting temperatures, the 1.5kW element will have to expend more energy to compensate. if there were NO heat lost to the environment, both kettles would expend the same amount of energy on equal amounts of water.

explain why he thinks planets repel and they're born from multi-stellar mass objects a couple of kilometers across.

it is comparable. the effect is proportionally greater.