insane_alien

i didn't say a would supported structure couldn't last centuries. it is just that most won't. in a town near me there are 3 quite new buildings(5 years old for the oldest one) condemed because their wooden frames have rotted through. an extra 2 stories is still kind of low. as for best i thought is was clear from the context that i was not meaning quality over price but merely quality. even with quality over price it is mediocre. unless the quality you are looking for is 'wood' then it would be best.

well, more like the entire universe IS the point

dammit, does that mean my 'payday' money is useless?

indeed, if vacuums sucked they should have no problem removing the atmosphere as the higher air went the easier it would be. unless of course, the air is only up there because it is held there from below. say by collisions with particles a bit lower down. okay, idea here. a proposal for an experiment that says pressure is a pushing force and not a vacuum pulling. we have a pipe connected to a pressure source(compressed air tank for instance) and the other end in a vaccum with a metal plate held on the end by a hydraulic ram and a force gauge. we set the ram up so that it will just hold the plate against the pipe with no air leakage(probably need a rubber seal for this to stand a chance). now, with zero pressure in the pipe we have no force. which agrees with both theories. we pump some air in (100kPa ?) and measure the force now required. AND its direction. now, the vacuum has not got any more vacuumy (probably less so because some air would likely have escaped). and there is still empty space in the pipe. in fact it is still about 99.999% empty. now, this alone probably isn't enough to sway you. BUT if we set up the gauge to record a value every millisecond and released the air suddenly, we would see something quite interesting. there would be a spike as the first air particles hit the plate. it would go far above 100kPa possibly as much as twice that. then dip below and oscilate somewhat. what does this mean? ell, it means that the force was caused by the particles imparting momentum on the plate rather than the vacuum on the other side trying to suck it off.

indeed, they just leave out other important facts like, youd die in a few days without it.

indeed, and i'm failing to see how subscribing to a total conservative bias conciously is any better than a slight liberal trend. surely the goal should be zero bias which wikipedia comes very very close to. or at least as close as a group of humans is likely to get.

last time YT gave me rep he tripled my rep score.

fusion energy does produce a lot of energy per gram of fuel but particle accelerators(as we currently know them) need to be huge power sucking monsters to get close to a decent mass flowrate. not to mention the confinement will be less than ideal and only provide one chance for fusion per particle.

1 there is research on the p-boron reaction but it will require considerable experience with D-T fusion first. also, the secondary nuclear waste will be short lived. we're talking a couple of decades to get back down to safe levels. 200 years tops. and even less than is produced by nuclear fission. maybe only a couple of tonnes per decade per reactor. Q of 0.02 is closer but still a bit high.

Sam, things in science have to be well defined and limited to one definition. if they are not things get needlessly complicated extremely fast as it can be difficult to distinguish which meaning is intended.

everyone starts with 10. seeing as you can only give 1/10 of your current rep.

actually, the shorter life cycle would make them more prone to genetic damage and horrible mutations as said mutations wouldn't show up till the offspring were produced. the fact that small short generation animals thrived is a testament to how resilient life is and that even a good deal of radiation can be tolerated. you also seem to think radiation is a cumulative poison. its not. the body is remarkable good at repairing the damageprovided the rate of damage is not too high.

so it is asking you to turn the sphere into a ring 6 inches high ? is that what is happening here? because i am honestly confused.

why not? you can get 0.5 mol of hydrogen. if you react 1 mol of sodium with 1 mol of water you get 1 mole of sodium hydroxide and a half mol of hydrogen. it is a perfectly valid chemical equation.

combined fallout would likely be less than the chernobyl incident. while it may cause areas of the earth to be uninhabitable and have increased incidences of cancer it will not cause most places to be abandoned. many areas of the earth would remain unaffected.

none as that equation requires 2 oxygens to appear out of nowhere and 2 hydrogens to disappear. the proper equation is Na + H2O --> NaOH + 0.5H2

is it? i was just using his numbers. i was unaware of the true values as my course doesn't really go deep into the realm of particle physics and our experiments have a much higher acceptance rate, 99% of data will get accepted, then again, we do not generate as much data or as much noise(well, data noise anyway, bloody pumps are loud enough to make even the heaviest of rockers wear ear protection).

yeah, but its mainly the UV light you need to worry about. it will do more damager than the IR.

yeah, and you know something can go really wrong when i'm the voice of reason. and as for dealling with hot stuff, how often have you dealt with somthing at 2500*C that is going to stay that hot till it's over? its not as if you can just chuck some water over it to stop it, it'll still keep going, explode in your face and continue reacting in side you. neither will a CO2 fire extinguisher work(probably speed the whole thing up) and, well, any of them would be utterly useless at stopping the reaction, most would make it do something incredibly violent.

no, they exist in the macroscopic as well. everytime you walk through a door you form a diffraction pattern.

electromagnetic waves can be seen. mechanical waves can be seen in bits of string and springs via electromagnetic waves matter waves can be seen in the air and ocean again via electromagnetc waves. light itself is an electromagnet wave.

when it is misapplied, yes.

1/ we have never seen the exam 2/ we have no idea where its from. different colleges usually have different papers 3/ use your course notes and work it out for yourself.

same as normal matter but with reversed charge. reacts violently when contacting normal matter by annihilation into two or more gamma photons. thats really about it unless you want more specific examples.

okay, imagine a length of elastic. on this elastic, there is a object of some description. it can only move with a certain velocity(we'll call it c) relative to the elastic. we'll anchor one end to make the thought experiment simpler. now, lets have it moving at c away from the anchor point but we'll also stretch the elastic. while the relative velocity of the object never exceeds c with the elastic it will be c+(some value that depends on time and the distance from the anchor point). to put this in real terms. the anchor point is any conveinient reference frame(like the earth) and the elastic is the space-time continuum.