insane_alien

i'm writing an example article on a few myths i've seen around. i'll submit it both as an application and a full article once i'm in. well, if i get in. i failed higher english on an essay still doubt i'll need to do an indepth analysis of how a vase falling off a table was really an expression of the main characters lust for the person who shoved the vase off the table. i kinda missed that one. apparently it was obvious. i just thought she shoved a vase of the table. Alrighty then, application is away. and now it's the time when i think, damn it, that looks crap now. oh wait. the email thingy borked. nevermind.

i would really like to see which source(actually, for something this big, it will need to be sourceS. probably at least 20 if they are really reliable.) you got that from. if that many people thought with good reason that it was baloney then we would know about it. scientists and engneers don't bottle discoveries up to themselves, they publish it everywhere they can to make sure they're right and if something like this was true then there would probably be a nobel in it. thats like the holy grail to a lot of scientists, they wouldn't keep quiet. what would the advantage be?

yep. i also got a HUGE firework style rocket with it. that roadrunner is MINE.

soo... all the research satellites designed specifically to conduct experiments on relativity are lying are they? and i suppose gravity probe B isn't doing a relativity experiment either oh and i suppose the observed mass change of particles in particle accelerators that agrees with relativistic predictions is a lie too. here is some stuff for SR alone http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html and can you explain why the GPS signals have a different frequency down here than the frequency they transmit at up there? and why it agrees with predctions made by GR?

well, maybe if you have a big spring attached to the top. gotta think outside the box dude.

ah yes GR and SR being so wrong we have built up billions of dollars of industry on satellites using those principles. yes, the theories are incomplete as they have conditions where they break down but thay are not wrong. i call spamvertising post here.

well, if the cloud formed a shell around the galaxy then yes. but from observations the could is interspersed with the galaxy. this means that it interacts with the part of the could that is within the galaxy but that which forms the shell outside a sphere containing the galaxy doesn't affect the galaxy.

also, the PBR's will have the waste bundled up in nice little bits of sheilding for easy processing.

hmm, do you have to send in a copy of something you did previously or can you write something new for the application. i've never really wrote anything that could be considered an essay for something like this yet i would be interested in helping out, especially in the chemistry section. if this is acceptable i will write an essay and submit it for review.

if your body is there to act as a shock absorber, you can survive. if you are trained to be able to land well, you jump from that height and walk away(like how you get trained for parachute jumps) i could probably manage it but i wouldn't want to jump off 2 stories to give it a shot, i like my bones intact. but if you land on your head then get slammed by your body, your not going to be very well at all.

yep your going to need to rephrase this one. crystals minerals etc etc. are not actually types of matter. they are formations of matter but not a distinct type. for example, Carbon can be in crystals(diamond), minerals(limestone), vitamins(ascorbic acid), acid(carbonic acid), and it's in every protein known to science. for types of matter you could look at the fundamental particles(quarks, electrons, neutrinos etc.) and for types of energy, there are lists on wikipedia but they all tend to have a lot of overlap. and as swansont said, they all sort of blend into one another in physics.

7/ it's possible but the pressures and velocities would be prohibitive and extremely expensive. water is good at this because it is also dense and will stick together and not fan out like air would. a similar method is used in plasma cutting. this works because it vapourises the material but is essentially firing a hot gas at the substance being cut. this wouldn't happen with just ordinary gas. 8/not really no. its not the strength of the bonds that matters, its the extreme pressure it can deliver to a very very small area. like if you made a hole in paper by pushing your finger throug it, it's a relatively low pressure and the hole wil be messy but if you shoot a bullet through it you'll get a nce clean hole because the pressure is so much greater and in a smaller area.

to expand on swansonts post and get a bit more technical, the phases of matter are all to do with the way the molecules/atoms are bonded. in a solid, the bonds are quite strong compared to the motion of the atoms/molecules due to het so they are not free to move around. density doesn't really comeinto it as we have made an aerogel that is lighter than air and can hold up a brick. then theirs osmium/iridium densest solid (non degenerate) matter we know of. liquids have slightly weaker bonds so the can move about freely but they are still very closely packed nearly as much as the solid(usually) since they are free to move about and flow, you can put your hand into them and through them. gases have very very weak bonding and the atoms are spaced out this causes them to flow easier than liquids and the fact of the increased separation means that they are less dense than most other materials/phases. if you remove the IR filter on a standard digital camera you should be able to see into the near infrared spectrum though it will appear blue. look up IR/UV photography. i also don't think that the stuff can be bought in a normal shop, you might need to go to a speialist shop.

heres another thats bugging me. i'm a laymen when it comes to string theory so excuse any glaring errors. it is often spouted by opponents of string theory that it makes no predictions and there will never be anyway to test it. quite bluntly, is this true? this is bugging me because i really doubt there would be so much interest in string theory if there wasn't anything we could do to test it. even if the experiments may be out of our technological reach for the time being. so, what would be a test of it and what sort of technology are we going to need to perform these tests?

dude, this thread ended in 2004 a lot of these people don't even come to the forums anymore.

i have only ever met 1 single scientist like that. he wasn't a very good one either. also, i don't see what you mean about relativity being the last scientfic model based on maths. there have been THOUSANDS since. quantum mechanics for one. that was something einstein tried to destroy because he didn't like it. and just because there is one theory(string) that is a bit of an offshoot(though i don't know enough about it to make a reliable comment) from mainstream that is not the only thing scientists have been working on since the time of einstein. the majority of scientisits probably have no idea what it's about. you are another example of a layman misrepresenting science an scientists pioneer. you'd do well to think twice before you post.

i meant gravity. i knew there was something wrong with just 'acceleration' but i couldn't quite put my finger on it.

what the hell are you talking about. SR is just GR in special circumstances(no acceleration) when you plug in the numbers for zero acceleration to GR it simplifies to GR. GR can handle accelerations and so on.

they just look pretty. the look prettier when you look at them even more broad spectum than our eyes can see. the spectrum continues a bit more either way. has no more special qualities than a prism made of plastic or glass in a lab. though its transmittence is less.

like your entertainment simple then?

huh, oh well. they were written angrily anyway. yes, humidity will increas condensation on the droplet makeing it bigger. this is one of the primary ways it gains mass especially in the initial stages of formation where vapour condenses on specks of dust and other stuff in the air.

everything involves lots of titrations. good thing is that you get really really quick and accurate with them. finding the vitamin C levels in various orange juices(freshly squeezed by you in the lab, whole orange juice and diluting juice) isalways a good one.

also, more things to go wrong and more things the maintenance people need to know to be able to fix the problems. mechanics no longer have to just deal with the 'nuts and bolts' of the car, they also have to deal with a quite complex electrical system.

I can tell you first hand that the alcohol and ethanal were DEFINITELY in my system in the time frame discussed. i had the oj 4 hours after a frankly massive binge. so massive i don't plan on repeating it. also, read up on vodka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vodka "an insignificant amount of other substances" and seeing as most of the vodka i drank was drunk straight i would imagine this would cut down on the other factors involved. if you think your liver can metabolise what i drank in 4 hours, you'd be welcome to give it a shot. we'll get a breathalyser in as well. not thatwe'll need it.

well, we can factor them in kind of easily if we keep it general. in the cloud it will gain weight by condensation and collisions with other droplets after it has left the cloud, it starts evapourating. so it then loses weight. and the difference in gravitational field strength only makes a marginal difference. i was hungover and being a bit of a asshole there.