insane_alien

fat the chemical, yes. body fat, no. body fat is a bunch of cells that don't do much other than store fat chemicals and convert them into enrgy when needed.

boiler on low radiators on high the radiators have valces to control the flow which controls the heat they give off which means the pump would have to work harder to move stuff around. which means more energy. an even more efficient method is superinsulation where the heat given off by you and electronics is sufficient to heat the home.

well, for one you showed the least damaged part of WTC7 and the most damaged part of WTC6 which skews the results and after a perfunctory goole search eliminating the WTC from the results i came up with a few links about other steel structure fires. http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1205 although not a total collapse it did undergo partial collapse and it wasn't heavily damaged to begin with. this is an interesting link http://www.aisc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Documents/ePubs_Innovative_Ideas/FactsForSteelBuildingsFire.pdf it mentions that steel only has half its strength at 593*C and 20% at 704*C these are reachable in office fires. it also has a bit of a case study on the WTC and other buildings that collapsed and partially collapsed dure to fires. EDIT: oops, i meant to add this... Steel buildings are equipped with fire resistance around all steel structural elements in case of a fire. the logic behind this is that it will keep the steel structure safe until either 1/ the fire is extinguished 2/ it burns itself out. it does not however take into account severe damage to the fireproofing and structural elements (like in the three WTC buildings) or a few thousand gallons of jet fuel burning away.

awesome. congratulations. now get practising for beer pong

the farnsworth-hirsch fusor is perfectly capablele of fusion. it just doesn't produce a lot of it. and any home built fusor is not going to produce enough to have detectable amounts of helium in the by products unless you happen to have a very sensitive mass spectrometer on hand. also, your not going to brak even energy wise with one of those.

i want to keep my mobile phone that does to things, calls and recieves. it also has the really nice feature of having buttons that you don't need a toothpick to press.

don't you think being on fire AND being hit by a few hundred tonnes of jet liner at 500mph would be complimentary rather than opposing? i mean, could you imagine what the emergency services would say if that was the way it worked? guy1: holy crap its on fire! its gonna fall! guy2: nah its cool, it was hit by a fully fueled plane. it'll be fine. guy1: oh fair enough. something indicates to me that you might be the wrong one in this respect hc.

the residue isn't KOH its K2SO4. you'll need to that calculation again. i think the method is right but your notation is a bit unreadable to me. okay, after that you can work out how many moles of KOH. you know the molarity of the solution. from these you should be able to work out the answer.

okay, work out how many moles of sulphuric acid you had from the amount of potassium sulphate you had left over then work out how much of the solution you needed. if you can show us what you've done already that would also help.

thay have no rest mass. since they have no rest mass, they can't go at anything but the speed of light.

yeah but he specifically mentioned an electron cloud which is why i discounted neutron stars. not that they are anywhere near rigid.

nope. atoms, in the sense that they have an electron cloud that doesn't plummet into the nucleus. have a size limit. i can't remember what it is but its not really that much bigger than the heaviest atoms we've made so far. after that your left with a ball of neutrons. anyway, massive atoms don't last long. they tend to be extremely short lived with half lifes in the milliseconds.

poetry and flowery language are all well and good outside the fields of science and engineering but as long as your here and trying to convey an idea , you'll be clear and precise. anyway, about 'cosmological pluralism' or 'ALIENS!' as we would say. i would genuinely be shocked if our planet was the only inhabited world in the universe. even the galaxy. i would imagine that there are quadrillions of worlds with microbial life, trillions with macroscopic life, billions with technology and millions of space faring races out there. this is a low low estimate though. the universe is astoundngly large.

but thats the only version of them. its a complete crock dreamed up by a bogus newspaper.

the murder rate would probably go up as well. have you ever seen engineers argue? mace is usually involved but its usually the iron kind rather than the spray kind.

you mean this?

but the human body, to record it in enough detail to replicate exactly, contains many trillions of times more information than the library of congress. even at those speeds it would take millions of years.

okay, this is going to show that farsight has actually said nothing and does not understand normal relativity to begin with. and this says... nothing. you think genral relativity and special relativity are completely separate? well, special relativity is a special case(see how the name 'special relativity' comes about?) of general relativity. this special case is where acceleration is zero. it only applies when acceleration is zero. for everything else we can use general relativity as it accounts for accelerations and collapses to special relativity when acceleration is zero anyway. this would indicate that you don't understand relativity if you didn't realise that they were already the one theory. so what if he said 'time is suspect' he didn't put it in his theories. therefore is not applicable in this context. and look, your referencing yourself. an essay that also contains little content. you provided no evidence of your claims. why should it be used to prop up another hypothesis of yours? and what in the name of the little green man from khazakstan has money got to do with relativity in any way shape of form? is it the phrase 'time is money' because if thats your justification its pretty weak. 'time is money' came about because if a business isn't producing for any length of time, it loses money it could have made if it was producing. hardly crucial in a scientific theory. also, again you reference yourself. hardly the good little scientist are you? 'no, time is not money' then why bring it up? a matter of looking at whats really there eh? well, i'm looking and all i'm seeing is smoke and mirrors that don't even hide anything. also, what do optical illusions have to do with anything? i don't think that the way our brains process colour information from our eyes has much to do with relativity. I contend that you can understand something and still not be able to explain it. I understand imaginary numbers, i know what they are, ho to use them and where to use them but i can't explain them to my dad. also, so what if there are parallels between money and energy? doesn't mean there is a relation. also also, another self reference. thats 1 type of energy, there are other yous know. thats not a photon, a photon is a disturbance in the electro-magnetic fields existing in space. and, if your moving, it still hits you at the same speed, c is constant remember? unless your accelerating, then there are a few difference which get explained through GR. and another thing, photons are massless. so you were talking about energy but link to your own 'mass explained' essay. not very fitting. any evidence? calculations to show why? any reason for the photons to move in circeles? any explanations for point masses? any explanation for photns moving in smaller circles than QM would allow? and we can now see more self referencing. all your claims are relying on things you have said being true. these are called assumptions. if the assumptions are false then the hypothesis is false. your assumptions have no basis in reality. so now its all down to capacitance and charge? what? so are you bringing electrostatics into this then? i won't even mention the variable c aspects of this part. reality doesn't care what you think, 'nuff said. so, here we are at the end of another of farsights essays. yet again, we have seen nothing but reiteration, false assumptions and zero mathematics. Farsight, i honestly hope that you do not believe that anybody with a rational mind would take all the claims on blind faith as you seem to expect us to do. it you want us to accept relativity+ as anything other than garbage then you will have to provide math to PROVE that you are right. with zero evidence you can say anything. so give us evidence and maths and if you are right then it will only strengthen your argument, if you are wrong, it will show you that you are wrong and you can learn from it. if you refuse however, you will be condemned as a crackpot.

if the same side of the moon always faced the sun then it would be rotating in relation to he sun. it would be rotating at 1 rotation per annum.

'it' meant transfering separate drives with applications on both to partitions on the one drive. windows will probably be iffy. i give it a 10% chance of working. if you make an image of the current drives and some how store them( other computer maybe?) then you could try it. if it doesn't work then you can put it back to the origional configuration and restore the images. it MIGHT work. disclaimer, i take no responsibility for any dataloss, time wasted or fist shaped holes in the tower and monitor.

it foams up. impresive but messy. i preffer the simple pleasures the humble CD in a microwave gives.

yeah. especially when your trying to stuff like your trying to do. Microsoft doesn't want you tinkering with anything in your PC. my copy needed reactivated after i installed more RAM. why i don't know but it did. ubuntu just went 'WOOHOO! <zooom...>'

it works with linux so there may be a chance it could possibly work with XP. though if you try it with XP expect the worst.

it isn't the same shapes but the same patterns. like how you can get tiny vortices in tanks and they'll behave the same as massive vortices in oceans.

do you expect us to just tell you? thats not going to happen. you need to THINK. what is it that could affect the reaction? there are two factors involved. a hint is that both get changed.