insane_alien

be more interesting if it was 42 is there any hypothesis to what causes this?

not overall but it will increase the UV radiation that happens to hit the person. as they will get both direct UV from the sun and indirect UV from the snow.

well, yes, you do. if your ideas have implications in some part of science whether you thought of it or not, it still needs to be consistent with reality.

no, but i would bet £100 on it that if you recreate the scenario(chuck a fuel tank on a bonfire) that there will be an explosion at some point.

pioneer, i think your veiw of genetic biology is a little off. since i'm better aquainted with chemistry i'll use an analogy from there. Sodium is nasty on its own, Chlorine is nasty on it own, combined, they make your chips tastier. mixing genes in plants would likely go along similar lines. this also works vice versa.

well, you can see the fireball(s) in the videos of the event. and i was meaning the subsequent fires would burst the tanks.

Capn, given the temperatures inside the buildings with the fire, the fuel in he tanks would vapourise and burst the tank. though, not all the fuel would have been consumed in the fireball, a large chunk yes, all of it no.

i wonder if dttom has ever heard of false precision.

yeah these guys talk rubbish they also claim to be able to extract 3.2 tonnes of precious metals from 1 tonne of mud. they're not all there. monatomic gold would look black anyways.

yes. you are the product of such an evolution. so am i and everybody else. every multicellular organism is.

yeah, i would be surprised if all those results would be discarded for no reason. i honestly have no idea why they are discarded and it could be for any number of reasons (the wrong particles, the wrong reactions, background noise etc.) every science has a way to detect when something hasn't worked right whether it is a contamination or a mis fire.

no you can't describe dark matter with chemical effects. we discussed this here http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28105&highlight=darkmatter and this was the thread i was reffering to in the PM. could you answer the points raised there? the origional cloud is RED as said. the blue stuff is the inferred mass distribution. this is currently the only way we can see darkmatter by observing the gravitational effects and calculating. stars don't vary very much or very quickly in their chemical out put btw.

fine i'll give you evidence http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25430 look at post 11 i done it myself. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25231 here edtharan hasn't quite done it paragraph by paragraph but he confronts all your main points http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24050 edtharan again doing what he does best http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23348 yet again edtharan http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23662 and last but not least, edtharan. come on now. you should know better farsight just to finish because i need to run well, it has been one of your many many many excuses for not providing any hard maths. not bad perse but just not good enough to convert your ideas into equations. i can't find the exact post just now because of the sheer volume of crap i have to sift through and probably over looked it.

glasgow, scotland. bet you that montana version of glasgow is nothing like the origional.

she doesn't even look that good. i've seen better in clubs in glasgow ffs. for those who don't know of glasgow, that is saying something.

seriously, are you BLIND? several times your essays have been analysed paragraph by paragraph. the questions raised were uniformly ignored by you and you trundled on regardless. it is you who has not read our posts. or, if you have, you choose to ignore them. well, farsight, if you said this to a peer review journal, they would laugh at you. do you know why they would laugh at you and throw your paper out? because science HAS to ANSWER questions. it is not allowed to pick and choose what to answer and what to ignore. you will not get blind faith here, if you want that go to one of the nuttier boards. but here, you will need to provide substantiation. we ask for evidence, you provide none, you point to your essays again as if they are the be all and end all of science. we ask for the maths you used to come to your conclusions, you say you are bad at maths and didn't do this yet you also claim to have derived the theory. we ask you to explain well observed phenomenon that would behave differently under your theory and you ignore us. you are not doing science. your are asking for us to reject current theories in favour of yours with no evidence, proof or mathematics. to steer clear of the gaping holes in your theory and pretend they don't exist. there is one other group of people who employ these exact same tactics and it is at this level i have finally come to rank you. the 'Intelligent Design' people. you have lost every shred of credibility and patience i've had with you. and i have tried to be generous. but unless you start playing by the rules of science, GTFO.

he is also selective with which arguements he acknowledges. he will only accept invalid arguements and will reject all valid ones as invalid.

i'm all in favour of them as well. i'm pretty sure that if there was anything wrong with them then we would have had deaths by now. and chemically they look exactly the same.except maybe a bit richer in one compound and less rich in another.

wow, funny how you turn tail when confronted by science isn't it? swansonts points are valid and they would lead to a different conclusion with your 'theory' than conventional science. don't you see? this is a TEST that could be in your favour or discount everything. so, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and make a commitment.

can we take it from the absence of a reply that either 1/ suns... pioneer is talking out of an orifice that is not his mouth or 2/ suns... pioneer is trying to draw attention away from the insinuation that he is infact sunspot AND talking out of that other orifice.

well, in his experiment the ability to make the measurements depended mostly on the human eye. air resistance was obviously small enough to make it appear simultaneous. especially since the balls were released by humans as well. of all the factors that introduced error, air resistance was one of the lesser.

in a vacuum, yes but with air resistance, no they would not have hit at the same time.

no problem. i had a feeling that that was the case. we all get like that from time to time. even my old math lecturer, in the middle of a lecture. it was part of something a bit more complicated than this but it was a really simple bit he got stuck on.

well as long as the current of the water isn't 'supersonic' for the surface waves. if the winds are over 330m·s-1 round YT's bit then he has a bit more to worry about than whether the guy across the street can hear him.

try it with a linux liveCD. if that still doesn't work, you'll at least know EXACTLY why you can't do it. also, can you open the pictures up from the ipod? if you can then you can just hit save as. for 3-4000 thats going to be a few weeks work though.