insane_alien

i was reffering to th figure given by dstebbins

all things in consideration +/- 5 *10^26 kg isn't all that accurate. thats a hundred earths either way.

he makes it in that nuclear reactor of his.

don't forget the plutonium if you've been round YT's place

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/28/mod_iran_seizure_gps_photo/ if you look at this you'll see that the iranians (first)said that they abducted the sailors in iraqi waters not iranian waters. when we brits pointed that out they quickly changed the coordinates by a few miles. personally i think the iranians are full of crap and hoping for retaliation of some kind. i don't know why though. but it seems like thats the only reason they would do it if they were within iraqi waters

okay, first you'll need to find out what the decay energy of C-14 is. google it or go on wikipedia. then, you'll need to know roughly how much C-14 is in the average human. then, you need to work out how many decays per second go on in a human. then you can work out the power of C-14 decay in one human and its simple from there

never even noticed till you pointed that out. thanks for explaining anyway.

well, he can do that on a poetry forum or the general discussion forum if he really wants to.

this is mainly for the admin. but you may remember that a few months ago the site started redirecting people who just logged in to a blank page and the back button didn't do anything. well, its happeneing again, to me at least. i get redirected from the homepage (http://www.scienceforums.net) to http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/profile.php?do=dst

yeah, well. we got sidetracked. it would be nice to get back on topic with nice clearcut language.

about whether aliens exist or not. i think he was claiming that we have zero evidence for their existence (which is true) but the consensus among most people is that it is statistically probable that they exist. in other words, the chances of aliens not existing are millions of times lower than for them to exist.

there can be many reasons for putting someone in a coma. if its an induced coma then the patient can be brought out of it anytime the doctors want so its fine. its a real coma that they want to avoid. anyway, the coma could be used so that he doesn't feel pain. this could either be because they can't pump enough drugs into him to deal with it or if they did put painkillers in, they'd likely kill him. or it could just be to control his body condition more until he is well enough for his brain to take over again. heres some more info about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_coma i know its wikipedia but if you don't like it then you can look at the reference links at the bottom.

yeah, but due to the vacuum of space the total destruction radius is significantly shorter. even for your standard space shuttle.

he's saying that you and socrates are the same person. i'm sure a little admin wizardry will prove him either right or wrong. my money is on right. i honestly thought you were socrates before i read the user name.

if your department doesn't want those sites blocked can't the simply ask for all your departments usernames to have permission to view those sites? its a pretty simple job. can i ask why its so vital that you get access? it could just be that the computers don't have flash anyway. works fine through my linux box.

well, you are implying that they are separate concepts like relativity and QM for instance. but they are the same theory. just different applications. then where is the paper he published? he also spent his last years trying to disprove quantum mechanics because he didn't like it. the reference was an argument from authority at best. i did read the essay. i still don't see what it has to do with 'relativity+' yes, i have. as i said, what has the way our brains process colour information got to do with relativity in any way shape or form? from where i'm standing just now i can't see any link, its completely unrelated. i understand imaginary number perfectly. the 98% mark on the last class assignment(which was on complex numbers) could be considered proof. they are not difficult to understand. its just hard to explain them to my dad. and how do you come to the conclusion that i don't understand relativity? why should i believe that you do? why should i take your word over the entire scientific community? did you read what you wrote? no? allow me to refresh your memory. and again. now, i know what a photon is. and it isn't stress. its a quanta of an electromagnetic wave, it consists of a changing electric field and a changing magnetic field. because of this it travels at the speed of light(since light is EM radiation) and it exhibits wave-particle duality like all other subatomic particles. this is not what stress is, stress is the distribution of internal forces with a body of material. doesn't sound quite the same does it? i read it. didn't see much explaining going on. well, particles that are small enough to be considered point masses even when viewed on the quantum scale? and what about my other questions? believe me you do not need to keep anything simple here. could you list some of my assumptions then? please do. so your trying to explain everything but everytime you keep going 'next essay' without ever fully explaining the previous one. i could say the same about you.

apart from the fact that your breaking the IT policy? we would need to know more about the proxy server you use to help you anyway.

wow, you don't understand how science works do you? two different models can't be true at the same time. either one is right and the other wrong or they are both wrong. there is no 'agree to differ' option. and since GR has been tested and still not shot down, i think we'll go for that one.

farsight, there is more than one definition of work. just like there is more than one definition of colour. for instance, you have the colours of the spectrum (red, orange, yellow, etc. etc.) and then there is the colour force. which is completely different as it describes how subatomic particles such as quarks interact. its also called the strong nuclear force.

ebbeh... post in english please. not a wall of mistakes. spell checkers are this incredible new invention you know.

not a WMD just a propulsion system that happens to use nukes for thrust. an ionized particle beam would probably be a pretty devastaing weapon in space since you wouldn't lose the charge but i guess it depends on the circumstances and the target i mean, if you have a city inside a large glass sphere then a bullet would be a WMD

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news146.html <thats the asterid your talking about. its only 400 meters 400 miles would be very very visible.

i know why they only hae the 12oz glasses in america. who the hell would want to drink more than that of american beer? i'm not a beer person to be honest. i don't even like it unless i'm already a bit drunk but even i can tell that american beer is a bit sucky (usually because after i start drinking american beer i sober up a little.)

its nothing to do with a lack of intelligence. and your 'communicatons' are not simple, they are not exact and they are not what we usually deal with. nice, you insult us for wanting plain cut language. i see you competence must be larger than your head. you've never done maths have you? its ALL abstract. none of it has any physical meaning. it just contains a few tricks for describing the way the universe works. in essence its a language. the one we speak best. not a lot. most of it was too fuzzy to derive any real meaning out of it. i can only assume that its sole purpose was to waste time. but i have took the time to disect it and study it as we scientists and engineers are prone to do.

yes well, that wouldn't be a very effective for of communication. especially if nobody but you knows that the information ever existed. its the single point of failure that gets me. if they can nick part of it, they can nick all of it. i'm sure that with the prize of stealing anybodies identity, people would try like hell to break it and that worries me.