insane_alien

no, imaginary mass is not real. its the foundation of complex numbers in mathematics, it is nether negative nor positve. If you think back to when you were learning maths for the first time, you probably had a 'number line' or something similar. If you didn't its a line with bits marked of for each of the numbers. imaginary numbers can be put on to this by using another axis perpendicular to the numberline. a complex mass would consist of a real part and an imaginary part, maybe. we don't even know if its possible so we can't make predictions about it.

it wouldn't work, combustion is always exothermic. it releases heat. thats how it can remain self sustaining as long as there is fuel present. i'm not sure if any endothermic reactions will produce a plasma even if they are kept at high temperatures. i don't hink its possible to have a cold flame where cold is in human terms.

just remember that nearly all science shows on TV are dumbed down for the public. once you've watched on and thought it was kind of interesting you should go on the internet (wikipedia might be a good place to start if your looking at a new subject) and find out what really happens in the process.

Trigger, tsolkas is a troll, he is all over the net on forums posting identical crap to the stuff he spews on this site and he NEVER returns to his threads. he isn't trying to learn, if he was then he would reply to the answers he gets. this isn't the first time and we talk to people like that without reason

yup its losing mass alright. It loses mass via the fusion reaction in the core and also via the solar wind. When a star burns out its because the core has used all its available fuel which causes the star to become unstable and explode.

oh sorry, thats just for an average 80 kg human

have a search on youtube, its not the most ideal source but its free and there are some reasonable quality vids of experiments. they can be hard to find if you don't know the name of the experiment though.

when chemistry sites say 'a spatula full' they are NOT talking about kitchen spatulas. its a very very small amount maybe a a half gram at maximum. the guy who created that site is a member here under the name of woelen. i'm sure he won't mind a private message about it.

the amount of caffeine is probably less than 200 mg per pill. LD 50/50 is around 2500 mg anyway. 2 an hour would probably be perfectly fine but depending on your tolerances any more might have unwanted effects.

Ah it all comes back now. Thank ecoli.

1. yeah, thats right eg. cis-2-chloroethene or trans-2-chloroethene 2.umm, not sure on that one, might want to check the IUPAC site for that 3. again check the IUPAC site but i think it has something to do with the molecular weights of the groups(the two heaviest?)

umm the arths atmosphere only has 0.04% CO2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_atmosphere) and cows do NOT produce 95% of that. humans breathing probably puts out a similar amount of CO2 as cows (we out number them 6:1) and then theres all our cars and stuff. oh and 96.34% of jackson33's statistics are made up on the spot with no data

well, there are programs that'll let you find pi to a billion digits (if you have the time and lots of RAM and HDD space.) i wonder if thats accurate enough for him/her.

the article is valid. but it only mentions cows producing 18% of greenhouse gases without being specific to CO2. It also looks as if it has been adjusted to include the potency of the gases emitted as well. It is actually quite difficult to estimate what fraction of greenhouse gases come from which sources as you would have to analyse a large percentage of livestock world wide and car usage. It's some where in the ball park anyway.

no. i don't think so. cars emit a heck of a lot of CO2 compared to animals. theres also a lot more of them. the problem with cows is the methane they produce which is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2

can i just ask what abstract mathematical concepts have to do with the age of the universe? it seems to be a bit irrelevant.

well, human can have a high energy and nutrient diet on fruit and veg and stuff but its only possible now since we can get fresh fruit from all around the world. back when we were hairier and hung out in trees we couldn't do that so we ate meat to get the energy.

another tsolkas hit and run posting proving once again that he hasn't the faintest clue about relativity. and in this case, life(or death, one of the two at anyrate)

yeah. that doesn't work in real life. it only really works(as in it'll keep on spinning for ever) is if you make a physics simulator and set the friction coefficient to zero. and if you can do that then you might as well just have a wheel.

john, that refers to manganese metal, not its dioxide. however, its not something you would really want to be eating none the less. as long as you don't eat a sizable chunk of the stuff you should be fine handling it.

except the people of krikkit had a valid excuse for not knowing about the rest of the universe. or, does having your head up a certain orifice count as a valid excuse?

okay, no problem. i'll walk you through it. 1. write down the molecular formula for arsenic oxide 2. add on '(g)' 3. move on. the molecular formula of compunds doesn't change when they become a gas. the molecules just get further appart. so the molecular formula will be the same whether its a solid, liquid or gas. the (g) part means 'gaseous' which means its that chemical in gas form. (s) means solid (l) means liquid and (aq) means aqueous (a solution of that compund.) hope this helps

the plain vanilla variety? forgive me if my physics has fallen behind the current thinking but i don't recall there being a 'plain vanilla variety' of energy 2 years ago when i was studying physics. or even now when i do energy balances. or bernoulli's principle. or, well anything. your going to have to give us REAL things to work with if you want us to do anything. incidentally, is there a raspberry ripple variety?

which can only occur at absolute zero which can't be reached and which means that nothing is moving anyway.

farsight, please, which type of energy do you want described? there is(are? my grammar sucks) more than one type.