insane_alien

ummm,,, where?

Italy looks like a boot. Scotland looks like a witch with a crooked hat. The moon looks like it has a face on it. are these built structures? no. they are not. The human mind seeks patterns, when it looks at a random data set it will find patterns whether they exist or not. i'm sure you must have seen something similar.a face in the grains of wood something like that. why would a mountain on another plane be special? it isn't even a mountain that looks like a face. it is a mountain that looks like a face when the sun strikes it in the right way. that is all. it is evidence of geologic activity and erosive fores on mars. thats about it.

light cannot change speeds, there is only one possible speed it can be moving at. this is because it is massless, to move at any other speed would be impossible. objects with mass can move at nearly any speed they want wthin the limits of c.

the numbering of the dimensions is arbitrary. it is convention to call time the fourth as this was the last to be considered a dimension as it is not spatial.

batteries are composed of electrochemical cells. a capacitor is not an electrochemical cell. yes, it is possible to use a capacitors charge over a long period of time.

1/8 if it was completely random but it depends entirely on the sperm. it could be that the father has more X or Y type sperm for a variety of reasons. this would skew the probability somewhat.

i must confess i do not see the significance of these images either.

could have been a helicopter. or a plane at a distance. could have been a lot of things.

its quite obvious 2 of the images are mirrored. there may be other manipulations as well but i doubt it fromthe simplicity of the the mirroring.

rocks do have energy. appart from E=mc^2 you can probably get some chemical release of energy from them. and then there is the thermal energy they have. or are you talking of energy as in some 'life force' that has never been observed to exist. also, if i chucked the roc at your head i'm sure you would agree it had energy,

That would result in everything being alive. i think it can be agreed that somethings are not alive therefore energy cannot be considered alive. Technical.

so, to be alive it has to keep itself alive? that doesn't really define 'alive' its just kind of circular.

i think you'll find that it comes under the theory of special relativity. it also shows up in general relativity.

especially the allotropes graphite and diamond. very different properties, most caused by the structure. and if you have atomized carbon, it behaves very differently from either. this indicates that the properties of the two above are structure based.

it would be easier to use a normal laser. xray lasers are less efficient and less reliable.

you do know drochaid is back, right?

again, back to the origins of mass... i only know of the higgs mechanism, unless mass is an inherent property in its own right. are there any other competing ideas? will the LHC help eliminate/prop up some of them?

...and back the topic on the origins of mass. how is the higgs field hypothesis getting on? how soon do you think the LHC will be able to start providing some evidence of it?

aren't bones crystaline? and enamel?

its the electron orbitals and the possible energy levels they have. this will determine whether they absorb a photn or let it pass.

the starwars program was essentially this. and it would not need to penetrate the atmosphere so conventional laser technology could be used. the reason it does not need to penetrate the atmosphere is that ICBM's (the most likely missile attack) spend most of there time out of the atmosphere. they are on a suborbital trajectory and will havean apogee some 200-300 km above the surface of earth. the problem is getting a powerful, reliable and light laser to fit the bill. pick any two of those and we could do it. but for the thing to be feasible it needs to be all three.

higher temperature means that water is more likely to dissociate into H3O+ and OH- ions. more ions means more conductivity meaning more gas can be produced faster.

i think he means something along the lines of he has developed another formula(possibly related to e-mc^2) or something. need to see it to believe it though.

it mainly depends on the difference in concentration of caffeine in your blood and your gut. temperature would play only a minor role with higher temperatures leading to higher fluxes. in the body this is negligble because unless you are recently dead the temperature won't change much.

Swansont moved it from a thread because it was pointless in that thread(OT) claiming he did something he never did is not a good idea, even if you are right about his ideas.