insane_alien

no, i haven't physics is only a passing interest for me but i know a fair bit. no offense meant but it would not be the first time some has tried to infect the forums and users with a virus. i scan all my mail anyway. EDIT: I have prepared a preliminary review(i have not thoughroly went over the calculations but there are still issues i have before then All quotes are from HannonRJ's essay thing. He likely mean a few arcseconds per century. Also, what i means is, that it fits within the errors or empirical observation. meaning, from looking at it we can see that the precession is so many arcseconds a century +/- some small observational error. This is common practise as all measurements will have some slight error incorporated into them. the more data you collect the more accurate you can be. As time has passed we have been able to measure the precession of mercury several orders of magnitude more precisely, Relativity still fits. possible but HIGHLY unlikely. Wow, this is just plain wrong. Mercury will not lose energy because of this. otherwise nothing would stay in orbit for very long. the sun moves because of the conservation of angular momentum. there is no energy transfered. hold on a sec, last sentence you said that it expends energy keeping the sun moving round in an elipse, a circle IS an ellipse, and the sun would be moving in one. Why is ther e supposedly no energy transfer here yet there is earlier? you seem to have an unexplained energy input around here. please explain this in detail. i think this is where your problem lies, you are applying equations for a circular orbit to an elliptical orbit.

okay, i now have the file. A little note, i have removed HannonRJ's address from the file as this is the kind of information that is bad to post on the internet. POM3Bcm.doc here it is, nothing malicious detected. will read it over later and post a review.

now you can't blame him for not knowing how the forums work, i bet you were like that too at one time in your life. i've asked him to email me the file and i'll post it when i get it. i don't know how you use the latex thing so i'll just post it as a file.

points one and two are inconsistent. time and space are physical therefore 1/ must be wrong. 3/ we know 4/ we know 5/ current predictions say 'probably not' with that one. we need to get the unified field equations to work back to t=0 (or the event that most know as 'the big bang') 6/nope, they are related. space can act like time and time can act like space. this typically happens at high velocities and is the reason behind time dilation and length contraction 7/ you already mentioned this 8/ energy can't be created or destroyed, matter is a form of energy. current observations say energy has been around as long as time and space have. 9/ nope, they are the same thing. existence is not perpetual motion 10/ space is expanding, that seems pretty damn dynamic to me. your physics is lacking in many areas with that. i suggest you read some university level books on the subject to get a better understanding of what you are dealing with.

well, for the second postulate, look up maxwells equations. they say that light will always propagate at c for any inertial frame. And the origional papers by einstein are outdated. we have moved on from them to the point where they are wrong in some places. why should we use outdated papers when more recent and accurate research papers are available. as for the forums not displaying the exponents, well, they do. look up LaTeX which is the system we use. i have sent an email requesting the file. i will be checking for viruses before uploading so don't try anything.

so why don't you upload the file to the forums. i'll take it and upload it if you want.

there will be no gravitational change. there will be a centrifuge effect though that will mimic gravity but it will not be gravity. this would only appear if you were on the incside surface and rotatng with it. outside there would be no change.

as far as we know plank time is the smallest unit of time that will make any sort of physical sense something like 5.3910^-44 seconds. damn close to zero.

oh sorry, i didn't see the bit where it was aimed at eric 5. whoopsee.

I think genetic engineering is fine. we've pretty much been doing the long version of it with farming and dog breeding and similar for millenia now anyway.

just browsing round the internet and came across this: http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.3869 and http://arxivblog.com/?p=385 They might have found Unbibium-292 in a sample of thorium. and not out of a nuclear reactor either. of course the concentration is vanishingly tiny. i really hope this is for real as it would be a major find and could turn up some interesting new chemistry. any thoughts from the masses?

its not a perfect simulation of gravity then is it. it has a few major issues 1/ Power, its going to be sucking up a whole load of juice that the ISS doesn't have 2/ Size, its going to be taking up a whole load of space that the ISS doesn't have 3/ Cooling, its going to require more cooling than the ISS is capable of. 4/ it would bugger up a whole range of experiments a more feasible solution is rotation. especially as it does not require any power once it is going.

the bench would be 10m in its own frame. but it doesn't make the other measurements wrong.

ebay would be a good bet. you can get anything on ebay.

pretty much.

Vexer, we are unsure. hats decay. most hunter gatherer tribes vanished long ago and any hats that they wore will have decayed. it is likely they wore hats sometimes(for rituals, prehaps for camoflage and such.)

oh dear, you are assuming that there is only one type of hat. you are just argueing for the sake of it aren't you? it doesn't. i never said it did, i just said it didn't impede airflow through the hat and around the head as much as a winter hat. again you are assuming that the phrase refered to one hat for all occasions. 1/ not an option for some (unless you count toupees and those really will make you look silly) 2/ not always, ie. you have the wrong type of hair. etc. etc. 3/hats typically do a better job as summer hats provide a little shade from their brim (sombreros, baseball caps to an extent, ...okay, i'm not an expert on hat types.) this is not about fashion, it is about how a hat can help you stay warm or cool.

it doesn't emit chlorine. if it released chlorine you would know nearly immediately from the swimming pool smell. also in any sort of major concentration it will put you into a coughing fit. it wasn't used as a chemical weapon in two world wars for nothing.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20763 here is one of them

its difficult for a lot of reasons, including those. the only place we've observed more than a few hundred neutrons grouped together(in normal atomic nucleus mixed with protons) is in neutron stars.

because making a droplet of pure neutrons is incredibly difficult. it is easier and cheaper to build a massive nuke that'll take out over a hundred times that area. the russians did it with the tsar bomba. or saturating the area with chemical/biological weapons or conventional weapons or basically anything we have the technology for.

8.4x10^16 x 10-9 = 8.4x10^5 mol of neutrons for a 1mm^3 droplet. all in about a millisecond. thats using the low estimate for the average density of neutron stars.

pretty much anything you could expect to detect coming off it. there will probably be a significant amount of gamma rays as well. basically, it would be a nasty thing to put in your pocket.

i would be interested in seeing that as well as it is trivial to make a computer model using newtonian mechanics for the entire solar system and even to add in the effects of nearby stars. they don't produce anywhee near the amount of precession we see. GR does. and it does so spectacularly well.

i would be interested in seeing that as well as it is trivial to make a computer model using newtonian mechanics for the entire solar system and even to add in the effects of nearby stars. they don't produce anywhee near the amount of precession we see. GR does. and it does so spectacularly well.