insane_alien

this arguement comes from a horrendous misunderstanding of probability. even if the probability is staggeringly low. if the prerequisites occur in enough places for long enough then it becomes likely. take the lottery. 1 in 14 million chance of that happening(approximately) now the prerequisite of that is having bought a lottery ticket. if only one person buys a ticket per year, choosing different numbers each time, he will probably have won within the 14 million years. though it is possible that it could take longer, or he could win on his first go. if 14 million people play once a year and all pick different numbers then the probability of one of them winning is 1. if they don't pick the same numbers then it is less than one but a lot higher than 1 in 14 million. now, the universe(and the earth) is a big place. they are both quite old too. so chances are that there are/were billions of places where the conditions were right(the equivalent of people who bought a lottery ticket) and they also had a few trillion tries each. suddenly, it doesn't seem so ridiculous. then, if you take into account that the only way we can appreciate this is for i to happen then the odds take a jump to 1:1 because it has already happened.

O = roughly 16 AMU H = roughly 1 AMU 16 + 1 + 1 = 18 D= roughly 2 DDO 16 + 2 +2 =20. it'll be more than 19. HDO will be roughly 19.

doesn't really have a structure. other than that, it is point like except when it's a wave.

heh, i just made one using the fan method. 1m 12 cm and used 3 guy wires made out of 50 cm of masking tape. a further 5 cm was used in joining the fans. i wasn't sure how limited the tape was and i have a few rolls sitting around.

Innit, age is irrelevant. its what you know and how you use it that counts.

we've seen this one before. it doesn't really apply because it doesn't follow any known veiw of reality. the extra dimensions from string theory are all curled up(or somethin, its weird) BenTheMan seems to know string theory maybe he can explain further.

if she didn't understand the question, couldn't she have asked for it to be repeated? i mean, people would think (i would at least) higher of her if she actually considered her response before stumbling headlong in to incoherency. infact, there would probably be posts about intelligence being discovered at a pageant.

1/ it doesn't cure anything, except maybe depression if your listening to 'feelgood' songs 2/ yes, it can actually effect the growth of plants, the vibrations stimulate it or something(can't remember the exact effect from the paper) though the same effect can be achieved by anything from an earthquake to a noisy toddler. its just the vibrations that count, they have an extremely broad taste

i was going to say that but from the use of his words i was thinking a land vehicle rather than a boat. either way, same principles.

oh goody, something that will not be bogged down with analogies and seemingly unrelated pictures(those make reading your essays quite hard.) also, it should consolidate all the amendments you made further on in threads that are dispersed amongst the mudslinging. makes them very hard to track down. this is the sort of thing i was meaning by bullet points of your claims and predictions. probably didn't word it so well. hopefully this will give us a cleare understanding of your ideas because frankly, the essays are hazy at best, there are numerous ways to interpret them. they're too loose. you said earlier that you wanted to go as wide as possible and not bother about going deep. this isn't going to work. it's like stereotypes. if you make a broad generalisation for a group of people, there will be many cases where it is flat out wrong. and perhaps only a few where it is fully accurate if any. the same goes with physics. hopefully we'll be able to get some meaningful discussion from it.

fan shapes are good tubes are better. but if you only have 1 sheet then the fan shape will be the way to go.if you cut up the paper into uneven strips, make sure the thicker ones go at the bottom and put some more folds in them. when you use tape to join the strips, be VERY careful not to squash the W's or WW if you need that many. if you do then the strength of the tower completely disappears. if you have enough tape, try making guy wires to steady it as the tower could easily get blown over. don't use a full strip though, tearing the tape lengthwise into 4 strips (or even more if you can do it will be sufficient.

no problem. someone here will always point you in the right direction. we won't give you the answer if its homework but we'll give you the info to work it out for yourself.

i take it you're not looking for full scale stuff that can carry a person but if you google 'wind racer' then you will find a lot of actual designs ranging from being able to take a person to ones made out of lego. if you do an image search you'll see pictures of them.

just like a house can be made of bricks but a brick is not a house.

depends on the exotic matter in question. you would probably fuse with muonium.

yeah, most definitely.it was on fire till long after the collapse.

bombus, it has less than half its structural strength at 660*C

i wasn't putting him down for performing the calculation, just that "0.391499998 g" is more precise than it could possibly be within the scope of the question. while if this was in mathematics it wuld be fine but its mathematically dishonest when dealing with figures given to an accuracy of 2 decimal places. if this was an engineering clas he would have been flayed alive by the lecturer. while this example doesn't produce any spectacular inaccuracies it can happen and is a bad practise to get into.

its the minerals in the water. if you look at the label it will have a table telling you all the minerals in it. when you freeze it they come out of solution.

you should see some of the ones YT has came up with. he knows his stuff but he has is 'off' moments.

well it generally assumes an available airflow from the living space. with out this then the smoke wouldn't go up the chimney as easily. it is possible you could make a vent under the fire or beside it (thinking abut it, beside would be best as the bottom one could get clogged with ash, or blow it around) that would serve the same purpose but allow the rest of the house to be reasonably well insulated(do you really want an airtight house? think about it.)

well the distance of out atmosphere is roughly 0-100km. its as close to the grounds as you can get. you seem to be talking about the cloud layers though. that all depends on temperatures, water content and hot/cold air boundaries. sometimes you get clouds at zero feet(fog) sometimes you get them at thousands (cirrus type)

if we nuke it then we turn it into hypervelocity buckshot. chances are the separated chunks will still be big enough to penetrate the atmosphere and cause more widespread damage. look at why later nukes were MIRV's rather than more powerful.

yes elas, that's wrong as the strong force gets stronger with distance antil it rather suddely drops off to zero. i'm not sure about the weak force but i think it acts similarly.

Ok, its obvious that this has got out of hand and we have strayed a bit from rational discourse. mistakes have been made on both sides. I propose a set of rules that i think both sides will find agreeable. 1/ no ad homs. Farsight, this means no claiming we haven't read your essays etc. the rest of you, don't be calling farsight deluded and such. irregardless of the validity of either claim. 2/If farsight can kindly present a list of his claims and points without turning it into an essay. bullet points will suffice, one claim per bullet. this will aid a proper discourse and analysis. 3/the only thing to be discussed is the claims. a similar bullet structure(or perhaps a numbering system) should be employed. 4/If you behave like a kid and violate these rules then you get banned from the thread for a day.(moderators i don't know if this is possible. maybe you can just delete the posts made by that person during te time frame) this will allow time to cool off and reduce the amount of flaming that has been rampant till now. again this goes for both sides. right, lets grow up. stick to the science and not to the person(s). any objections to the rules, post here and we'll sort it out. i personally hope farsight does post the summarized form of his claims. may the debate continue.