insane_alien

see how there is a term with x in it that is a division(big hint: (1-4x)) start of by multiplying both sides by that. after you do that the whole thing should become much much easier.

gravity is not a magnetic field, it is a seperate effect. there is gravity in space and gravity holds planets because there is gravity.

it does pull on the earth just as much.the earth and moon actually orbit round a barycenter that is just off centre with the earth. its only slightly off because the earth is so much more massive than the moon.

the moon does get pulled and quite strongly too. it is moving though. and moving things tend to go in a straight line so gravity pulls it in a circle.

yes, this is a science forum. you want to discuss pseudoscience, well, you should know by now where to post it.

and this has what to do with anything here? you want to discuss the origon of the universe start a new thread. uhuh, you can see things that don't interact with light? very interesting. care to explain how you can do this? oh your talking about the clouds of condensed water droplets in the atmosphere. right. thats not dark matter. they are remarkably visible. especially in other wavelengths. the grey colour is caused by an increased density of the water droplets(water droplets per cubic meter no the actual density of a droplet) still nothing to do with dark matter. but you see, dust clouds do this. we can detect them easily though. you know how? we know when light is being absorbed. not all wavelengths get absorbed or reflected at the same intensity. also the edges are more dispersed so we can see stars that are partially obscured. uhuh.... right. and how does this answer previous points i made? how does ANY of this post even begin to relate? in short WTF are you talking about?

don't worry about it man. just unlucky coincidence.

yes, because numerology has been proven accurate so many times...

i've seen that site before and it was debunked. the OP never returned to discuss it. i'm searching for the thread now. PS. thanks alot swansont, i was just posting this in its origional location when you moved it, somehow crashed FF.

evapouration if the water does not return to the source. see The Dead Sea for an example of where this is happening. though, if its something lie the pacific, you wouldn't be able to evapourate all of it. yes this is possible. there are examples of this in lakes where the surface salinity is very low but it is almost saturated at great depths. IIRC this requires a distinct lack of currents and other mixing effects. it also has something to do about the past of the lake or something. i'm not to clear on it.

got anything to back up this assumption? it should have left significant amounts of deuterium hanging around the place. so ehh, how did these solids form? you know back when the CMB (which would be equilibrium temperature) would have been higher than the boiling points of any of these isotopes? if your going to assume things make sure they're possible. one more point, if the solid core has already formed, that means that the gravitational action has already happened. so this core would have to be the size of a star before it boils? otherwise its going to act like a conventional bomb and disperse its self. any proof of this. surely we would have evidence of this. like extreme amounts of deuterium floating about and what about the tritium. this should also mean that stars further away should be much denser because of the heavier isotopes.

it'll remain in solution indefinitely as long as conditions don't change

but we can detect matter that hot as it stands out against CMBR. and we don't know how common deuterium and tritium are. tritium is probably nearly non existant due to its low half life. deuterium will be less common than it is on earth probably.

it does attract the moon. the moon is just moving sideways enough so it always misses by a few hundred thousand kilometers. nature has lousy aim.

well in a low density difference situation like that then they do become quite dominant. i wasn't considering buoyancy her because, well, the density of gold is a few orders of magnitude bigger than airs.

well, no doubt a good chunk would have burned off in that time but it is conceivable for some of the fuel to have hung around for maybe up to 15 minutes afterwards. depends if there was anywhere it could have puddled, like a gouge left by bits of a plane.

i think we can consider the buoyant forces negligble if the spheres are solid. but if you want to be pedantic...

yeah, nothing like a fireball to indicate a good fuel/air dispersion.

well, you don't have to reach terminal velocity, just enough so it significantly affects the acceleration of the lighter.

the sound would be 10m to the side only if you used the sonic equivalent of a laser to broadcast the sound. fortunately we broadcast in all directions so accuracy isn't so much of an issue.

no it's not. its real name is sulphur hexafluoride.

yeah, darkmatter does not actually interact with light which is why we can see through it without any altered emmision spectra. chemical effects in the universe are actually pretty visible, especially if the have a star near them as we can get really good data from the spectra then.

yes the friction force will be the same at the same velocity but the mass is different, so the weight is different. terminal velocity occurs when the forces balance. aluminum is less dense than gold, so the gold sphere will be heavier. (pulls some numbers out of thin air) say the gold sphere weighs 10kg and the aluminium sphere ways 5 kg(these are not accurate values) and g=10 m·s^-2 (its early, i'm tired, i hate maths) the gold sphere will have a force of 100 newtons and the aluminium on will have a force of 50N. the velocity required for 50N of drag is slower than the velocity required for 100N of drag. ergo the the gold sphere will fall faster as it has the higher terminal velocity. in a vacuum there is no drag so both hit the ground at the same time.

its the morning, my insomnia was horrible and the drugs the doctor gave me didn't work. forgive any ravings, utter a--holeness etc. etc. well, in the world of science you don't just apply words to different contexts and assume everybody is going to just know. particle is very well defined and it is defined for one thing only. if you were buying a car you wouldn't ask for a compact if you really wanted a small mobile home(RV in america i'm informed by wikipedia) would you? yes it is most definitely an idea science does include. but this does not mean that the phenomenon that occur with a massive amount of particles occur in individual particles. take football fans(soccer in the USA) with a large densely packed crowd you can get a good mexican wave going(sound wave). but if it was just one guy(particle) on his own he'd look pretty stupid. there is nothing else to interact with so he's not goingto do it. yes, atoms are held in equilibrium by the EM force, they're not really touching(you could imagine this as a bunch of spheres bonded by springs to the neighbouring spheres. you can get a wave going (and that would be a sound wave) if you make it long enough you'll notice that the other end doesn't move till the wave hits it. thisis essentially what happens. size doesn't equal mass. elementary particles don't have a size really, most do have a mass though. but all of them, behave like infinitely small points under the right conditions. no, see it's more like a pile of rocks. the position of the pile doesn't define where the rocks go but the position of the rocks defines where the pile is. not the other way around. appart from the utter hideousness of your interchanging custom vocabulary( i think i've figured it out) this is generally true. in the real world(not the classroom though, any resemblance to reality there is purely coincidental and probably a mistake) beams are not considered to be particles. we have a different set of equations to govern them and generalize their behaviour. this can get rather complicated and messy so we leave it up to computers most of the time. look up finite element analysis. if anything it's an interesting read. as grumpy as i am, its free and sort of fun.

well if the building is tall enough then the gold one will hit first as friction will cause the aluminium one to stop accelerating at a slower velocity than the gold one. in a vacuum they would hit at the same time.