insane_alien

so what your wanting is to make a normal bow and arrow?

the thing is though, catalysts only change the activation energy, they do not change the overall enthalpy of the reaction.

check the UAC. that has caused problems like this for some people.

and why can nobody other than another muslim help you? things like this won't get you far. these forums are religion neutral.

if something is going round in a circle very fast it can have a very high average speed but its average velocity will be zero. big discrepancy.

that would be called a crossbow

the spent fuel is helium, non-radioactive. the parts that become radioactive will have a shorter halflife and there be less of it as the reactor wall will only need replacing every few decades

heh i know about that one already. though i don't have an IDE i'm using a text editor. i'll hae a go at a naughts and crosses. game.

I've been glancing over the python programming language recently and i've worked through a few beginners tutorials and i get most of it. i'm just wondering if there are any sites out there with sets of problems along the lines of: write a program to do X. then maybe example answers if you get stuck. i've had a bash at http://www.pythonchallenge.com/ but i can only get to level 2(it's actually the third, it starts counting at zero) where i can get an answer but i don't know what to do with the answer. in other words, its far too hard for me just now. any help would be appreciated especially if you can explain classes to me in teeny weenie words as i can't seem to get my head round them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics there you go, photons interacting with each other.

^ from the first paragraph of the wiki. its not an implicit statement but an explicit one. oh, there we go again. first 4 words of the physical properties section. did you read the article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photons massless just means that it always zooms about at the speed of light. thats all. can't go slower, can't go faster.

1/ photons have no rest mass, they interact. IIRC higgs boson has a mass bigger than anything wehave seen so far(for an elementary particle) which is why we need to build the most massive accelerator yet to find it) 5/ being massless doesn't mean useless.

i think he means the energies involved, with a gold nuclei you have a binding energy that is accountable for a bit of the mass. with a top quark on its own(we don't know if this is even possible) there would be no binding energy. this throws comparisons off.

i agree with john here. you are describing one type of non-newtonian fluid but it by no means includes all of them. there are some where it is the opposite effect and they get thinner under shear stress instead of thicker.

don't be intimidated by your teachers. they would rather you asked for clarification that sit quiet and get it wrong.

not directly but they can cause a car to be forced into a fatal accident. while they were not the direct cause, they were the cause.

to me it would seem far fetched as you would have to supress the reactions of every particle in your body with every particle in the wall. otherwise, you would start to fuse(as in nuclear fusion) with the atoms in the wall when your nuclei get close enough to their nuclei. which would be potentially very messy.

ballista is closer to a mounted crossbow than a bow and arrow but the principle is the same. pull on the string, string bends bow stores energy, release string, projectile goes bye bye. ballistas have been used to fire what were essentially massive arrows anyway.

i think you don't know what the ban is about. If the paper spots a hole in the relativity(either version) and provides the tweaks and amendments necessary to the relevant theory then it would be accepted. if however, it went along the lines of 'Relativity is completely wrong. here's what i think it is.' without first explaining where and why relativity is inadequate. then it will be rejected as it is not science. I honestly don't know where you get the idea that relativity hasn't been tested much. IIRC it is tested every time someone uses GPS every time physicists turn on a particle accelerator or free electron laser. every time we look at the stars an orbits of planets as well. especially if it is a highgravity/high speed condition. this is where GR and SR are being tested and they haven't had major holes poked in them yet. If you still think they have barelybeen tested then i'm sure other members will swamp you with examples of tests and retests

it gets turned on and off at the frequency of the note they want it to produce. there is usually a chip on the coil that does it. and some people have even hooked instruments up to it so you can use if as a geeky amp

1/ it is believed by some people that the brain is dumping things to long-term memory and getting rid of junk memories. there is no direct evidence either way. we're not close to understanding it yet. 2/ yeah this happens. the same way when you wake up and remember a dream but 2 minutes later, you've forgotten all about it. 3/you might have a dream vaguely about something that has happened(with your imagination putting in a lot of weird extras) or it maybe about something you have planned (like a holiday). mostly the content will reflect what you have been thinking about a lot recently. especially if it involves high levels of emotion and/or stress. <unrelated note> w00t 3000th post

I was going to mention that but i don't know enough about it to make a decent stab of explaining it.

basically, it is religions that have treated it as a necessary evil. this has sort of been engrained in societal conciousness over the centuries. there is no real reason for sex to be private other than preference. and to be honest, i like a bit of privacy myself. i'm not so sure i could do it, for instance in theTE](3) A top quark can't possibly be more dense than a gold nuclei because it is made of only itself. (disregarding any bizarre fringe physics) this is where you are wrong. a gold nuclei is madeof l middle of a busy street. as for 1/ i honestly don't know. it would seem that nearly universally, sex is a private matter. either in the house/hut/dwelling of other kind. or away from other people. maybe it goes back to how we done it as apes. i'm not sure how the behaviour would evolve but its likely given the universalness of iTE](3) A top quark can't possibly be more dense than a gold nuclei because it is made of only itself. (disregarding any bizarre fringe physics) this is where you are wrong. a gold nuclei is madeof lt(well besides the ritualistic orgies). 2/ up until very recently, religion has been the dominant rolemodel for society. and in a lot of the world, it still is.its effects are still existing even in people who have broken off from religion for quite a while. it is still a huge influence on many many people and their habits. i have a question about the ritualistic orgies: were they only inclusive of known people(like everyone in a village or a circle of friends) or was it a free for all for anyone to just join in? it has a bearing on a little thought thats going round my mind. if they were closed to those outside a certain group then it would be pretty much the same situation as a couple(just some more people involved) but if its public(anyone can walk in) then it would be uninhibited sex pretty much this would indicate that it was religion that placed the shame on sex. not that everyone is ashamed of sex. i'm certainly not. and i would guess(based on who i know) that only maybe 10% of people are actually uncomfortable talking about it.

1/ right 2/ right 3/ why can't it be more dense? a gold nuclei is made of several hundred quarks with space in between. a top quark is a single particle 4/ if it is the same mass in a smaller volume then it IS more dense by the definition of density.