insane_alien

sugar, booze, caffeine and hammers, they do not mix.

you do know science is an iterative process. we stat with an approximation, we improve it so it is a better approximation, and repeat. there me not even be a 'perfect' theory. and an approximation is not necessarily a bad thing. for instance, i know i am approximately 25km from my house. the fact that by using google maps i can see that i am clearly 24.98 km from my house does not mean my origional estimate is wrong and should just be chucked out. the actual value was well within error limitations (which would be on the order of kilometers). i was actually quite surprised by how close my guess was. and the 24.98 is still an approximation. i'm sure more accurate measuring will reveal that i am more like 24.9760003846383763827453846438328467932463452564836km but that would still be an approximation. an incredibly accurate one that you could use for a lot but still an approximation. butthe fact is, it would require a whole lot of effort to aquire something that accurate with almost no benefit over the origional estimate of 25 km. QM fits the data we have available. we are working on was to be more accurate. when we get them then we will improve our approximations.

gravitational attraction is not related to the angular momentum of the object. merely its inertial mass.

smooth, what we are trying to say(in a much nicer tone than the following) is that no-one with an IQ above that of a retarded tin of mongolian grade F spam is going to walk into a business deal without ANY information at all. certainly noone with the intelligence to carry out what ever ideas you have. basically, you are not going to pique the interest of anybody without giving a little. its like fishing without a rod never mind a worm.

its not because it doesn't burn hot enough, but because it is not as volatile. fuelling something designed for highly(higher at least) volatile fuels will not work with fuels of lower volatility and vice versa. same thing as putting diesel in a petrol car.

you will find there are many different levels, i can write software, do it all the time, but i doubt i have what you're looking for. we would need to know context before we would even be remotely interested.

did i say glyphosphate as the only chemical? i was more meaning stuff about chemical fertilizers such as pure ammonium phosphate or potassium nitrate. not to mention all substances fall under the definition 'chemical'.

filled it in, nothing wrong with GM at least you'll know its safe to eat as it has underwent testing. with organic stuff they just kind of go 'no chemicalz lolz' despite the entire plant being made of chemicals. seems a bit silly.

if they knew about atomic weights then they knew about atomic numbers. the first tables were done by weights but this lead to anomalies so it was switched to atomic numbers. this lead to a more functional table.

you do know that good old dimitri developed the table BEFORE quantum mechanics. he was not reffering to the quantum numbers. he was reffering to atomic numbers. they are also grouped by valence shell electron numbers. in its current form, it is useful, we can even predict properties of elements before they are discovered, there is lots of stuff you can use its current form for. as for the one you link to, i see no real use for it.

the human body can adapt to slight deficiences in one chemical or another. as long as you are getting some then it will be fine. you should only worry if you are getting none for a very long time. also, for fat soluble vitamins, you're body stores them up. so if you have a period in your diet where you are getting more than enough of a vitamin it will get stored in your fat cells and can be released if you have a diet deficient in that vitamin. this doesn't work with water soluble vitamins like vitC though. if you haven't already developed scurvy or rickets or any other nasty case of malnutrition then your diet is fine.

actually, the periodic table DOES take this into account, there are the s, p, d and f blocks on the table. the s block is the alkali metals and earth alkali metals. both these elements have an s orbital valence shell. the p block is also known as the main group which all have p orbital valence shells and the d block or transition metals all have d orbital valence shells same applies with the f block. also known as the lanthanides and actinides.

especially when the water is far less dense than the ground(hence the oceans are on the surface)

you do realise that sound is cyclical. in other words, half a cycle round you'll have a partial vacuum pulling the object towards the speaker again.

unless you believe my hotmail inbox. according to the spam that finally drove me to abandon it(230 messages a day that got past the spam filters) i won various lotteries around the globe everyday without even knowing they existed. or that they used yahoo addresses.

because they ARE waves. they are also particles at the same time.

then it would not be absolute zero as the atoms have kinetic energy which is proportional to temperature. or rather, temperature is proportional to kinetic energy.

the antartic ice sheet isn't floating. theres a whole continent under it. it is this ice sheet that will cause the flooding. you are right in that the arctic icesheet will not cause much rise, though the greenland ice sheets will. also with antatica, when the ice melts and the water runs off, it would cause the land itself to rise up as it is suddenly not under the weight of a few trillion tonnes of ice. this will case further rises in sealevel.

what he means is that there is no 'grand scheme', 'big picture' or 'ultimate plan'. or at least there is no evidence of it. things just pan out as they happen.

everything is connected in that it we are all constantly interacting with everyone and everything through gravitational interactions. i suspect you were looking for something more 'metaphysical' but there is no evidence for that at all.

dragons as in komodo dragons exist. but these are nothing like the dragons of legend. more like overgrown lizards.

1/ it would produce the chemicals, yes. 2/ no 3/ probably not 4/ it is likely other reactions would take place(ie. iron chloride would be produced) 5/ not particularly this is still a very energy intensive way of doing it. it is not a good method. you start of with raw aluminium and then react it and have to electrolyse it. and then you are electrolysing to make Fe2O3 not good. much easier ways to do it. especially as you will have to scrape the Al of the electrode and grind it up anyway.

well, you can diffract buckminster fullerene. that is wave behaviour. you can also bounce it around. that is particle behaviour.

if the DC voltage is in a short pulse, it will behave like AC in a transformer. meaning, out the other end of the transformer, you will get a spike of very high voltage which is what causes the spark.

damn, i can only make the first one. i'll be on holiday and doing other stuff during the other ones. also, i'm banned from the GU so i'd have to find another pub.