insane_alien

okay, now that i have managed to get a few hours sleep, i'll make a meaningful response. you have this idea. you claim it is revolutionary and will change the way science works etc. etc. etc. yada yada yada... but you have no actual evidence that it works in real life and are somehow surprised when people don't immediately go 'oh wow you theory is so brilliant! here have a nobel prize and that girl over there wants to sleep with you because your so smart!' you haven't seen much of what most of us call reality have you? i mean, if i came to you and said i have a revolutionary theory that explains everything its that everything is done by tiny invisible fairies but i don't trust experiments so i have no proof. what would you say to me? if its not along the lines of '**** off you ****ing looney' then there is something wrong with the way you view science. do you think that the theories that exist today would be classed as theories if they didn't have a small mountain of experimentation and observations to back up the initial hypothesis, and thats all you have: a hypothesis. come back once you have done some experiments, posted to a peer review journal and got someone to confirm your results.

because thats the direction the acceleration will be in. if you applied a force (lets use basic directions here) forward onto a block you would not expect it to go shooting off to the left. use vectors in the equations and you'll see the displacement will be in the direction of the force.

says it all really.

yeah like in encyclopaedia

that was the general point, yes.

and just think how many measurements and ratios he isn't considering that don't fit his little model. seems rather convienient that he ignores those over the few that do seem to form a pattern when you ignore accuracy and the fact that they change over time.

my irony meter exploded quite some time ago.

:eek::eek::eek:

actually, the same notation is used for particles AND elements.

radiothermal generators(RTG's) are not nuclear reactors. nuclear reactors work with fission RTG's rely on radioactive decay. any sources for the 50W for a decent sized solar sail?

and this means what? seems to be totally unrelated to everything? you are sounding more and more like a crackpot numerologist and you started off that way too

a singularity is part of a black hole(according to current theory) a blackhole generally includes the event horizon as well.

see that key marked 'PrtSc' it has its uses.

google 'lolcats'

okay, i'll start you off. hint: multiply both sides by 10+r

i practically had to crowbar him into asking the right questions. he didn't even know what made an atom a particular element.

ash_wolf, i see you don't post here much but please don't give them direct answers, it doesn't help them and makes us look cheap. a helpful hint and a nudge in the right direction are fine but no answers.

do you have any other evidence than numbers you have to bash with a hammer to make them the same? i could look at a rock and take millions of measurements and find loads of ratios that look just like the ones you have posted. they would also have the same level of importance, zero. this phenomenon is called coincidence.

ROFL! one isn't an explanation of origins(evolution) and the other isn't scientific(creationism). you need to learn what evolution is. if it is taught in those schools i hope for the sake of the children that the creationism is in philosophical and religious education rather than science. and no offence, but i trust sayonaras info more than yours. he has a good track record for accuracy. well in this case it is 1 theory that isn't concerned with origins(it might as well be creationism versus newtons laws of motion here) and the other is not a theory. ahh right you want us to teach something blatantly wrong instead of something that is correct. yeah that makes sense. ROFL! 1/ all scientists qualified to comment on the theory of evolution say it works very well 2/science is not a democracy it cares not for popularity among the general public it only cares for merit. evolution has merit(stacks of it) creationism has none

you still haven't described how this relates in any way to the formation of life

not as hard as it is to scan the image into a computer and post it to a web forum

you always know you've missed a big one. yeah, google sonochemistry and you'll get a bunch of examples.

i can see a major problem with legalising existing child porn appart from the fact that it will encourage certain people. how do you determine if it is old porn. especially if it is a digital image. changing the creation date on a digital image is a trivial process with no way to recovery the origional date as it could have been produced on devices with clocks set back a few years. the only people who would see this as a good move are those who look at child porn as it practically gives them unlicensed ability to produce more child porn. legalising it is the worst thing you could do with it.

i've applied to join it.

IIRC it would require either a nuclear reactor or an even bigger solar sail of solar power cells.