insane_alien

as far as i can tell you have two options, keep trying till you find an exercise that works or get an implant. but remember that the implants will look weird once you get older and your muscle mass starts to decline.

genetic modification wouldn't help you. for one, scientists would need to know the exact genes that influence that part of the muscle(they don't), which of your genes are wrong requiring a hefty amount of genetic sequencing which is expensive and then to design a delivery system. for another, genetic modification will not cause restructuring of the muscles. you're muscels will still behave the same, the only difference would be some internal chemistry and the DNA contained within. like i said, gene therapies won't influence this.

that sounds like you are exercising the wrong parts of the muscles there. that isn't a genetic isssue and wouldn't be solved by any genetic modification at all. what you'll need to do is find different exercises that build up the muscles differently. the best people to consult on this would be body builders as they tend to build muscle for shape. genetic modification would only be detrimental to you and offer no benefit.

have you considered less invasive and potentially lethal methods of fixing the 'variation'. i mean it could be as simple as doing some exercises to fix it.

well, HIV is a viral infection and Leukemia is cancer of the blood. I do not see how they are mutually exclusive. HIV could have been sexually transmitted or by sharing needles and the Leukemia could have justcropped up by chance. neither are that rare that its impossible to have both.

its because of how thick the atmosphere is. the less vertical speed you have (by pumping some of the acceleration into horizontal vectors) the longer you stay in a high drag environment. anything below about 10km you should be focusing on mainly going straight up. launches do tend to start tilting over quite soon after launch at the optimum rate.

explain why that is a benefit

its not really a viable cure for most sufferers. for one, chemo and total body irradiation are extremely unpleasant things that require hospitalisation as it gets you a gnats testicle away from being declared dead and then finding a marrow donor who has HIV resistance AND is compatible enough to be used as a donor for you. all this will provide is a new avenue for research, first, a 'safe' way to wipe out the immune system of the patient, then a way to introduce the mutation to existing bone marrow. (may involve taking a sample, performing the genetic modification, wiping out the bone marrow still inside and then reinserting the modified marrow. still a bit drastic for a manageable disease though.

seeing as solar panels (easily available, non-prototype ones) can be as low as 5% efficiency, very quickly.

yes, this is true, but leaving the earths sphere of influence at such a low velocity would mean the objects orbit would not differ significantly from earths orbit. this means the earth would still have a strong influence which wouldn't result in a stable orbit around the sun. possibly resulting in the object crashing back to earth a few hundred years later.

yes. throw some pellets of dry ice on a table at room temperature and they skid about like the puck on an air hockey table.

17500mph is the speed you need to achieve a circular low earth orbit. escape velocity is ~11.2km/s which is indeed 25000mph. if you applied thrust to maintain 10mph you would escape once you got past the threshold where the escape velocity is 10mph. it would take a LONG LONG time to get there however, as that distance is 266.7AU away as shown by this calculation http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2*G*%28Mass+of+earth%29%2F%28%2810mph%29^2%29 it would take 283.1 millenia at 10mph http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%282*G*%28Mass+of+earth%29%2F%28%2810mph%29^2%29%29%2F10mph

well, here in the UK refills are rarely free. obliviousness is probably part of it. another part will be the whole 'if i get seen with a small drink i'll be seen as weak' etc. etc. line of thinking. yes its stupid but people are stupid. everbody is stupid. i'm stupid, your stupid and that guy down the street is stupid. fortunately, most people are only stupid in areas that don't really matter like ordering a large when you get free refills. personally, i wouldn't get a large. not because there are free refills, but i wouldn't want to drink all that much fizzy drink in the one sitting whilst eating food. a small is big enough to quench my thirst and not leave me feeling like a bloated balloon.

but frequency and wavelength are equivalent as they are inversely related. look up ANY experiment where the spead of light is measured. it has been done in all sorts of wavelengths from radio to gamma. seriously, go pick up a physics book. high school level will be fine.

in case you haven't noticed, cars idel at about 500-800rpm. this means that if you were to weld the engine to the wheel, you'd need to be going at a speed where the engine could reach 500-800rpm before you could start it. depending on ratios this could be 2-30mph. the gears are used to allow for a wide range of speeds and torques that are required for moving vehicles. its no good if you stall every time you stop. on the other hand, many of the electric cars are currently made with no gears(some with independant engines inside the wheels). but this is due to the greater flexibility of the electric engine over the internal combustion engine. There would still however be advantages to gears although these are more likely to apply to performance driving(off road, racing, haulage) than the casual commute as large torques and speeds can be required.

le chateliers principle. you shift the equilibrium to favour forming water by increasing the ion concentration. of course there are so many hydronium ions that this drastically reduces the number of OH- ions.

it has been experimentally shown to be constant time and time again. the literature on the subject is overwhelmingly in support of a constant speed of light.

the ones that can be used at higher temps are more expensive and can be more suceptible to quenching.

whether you call it c or v it's still a constant. as far as i can tell you are just saying its not.

ah, you're using the equation wrong. frequency and wavelength are variables the velocity is not. you can't have a constant wavelength and varying frequency. pretty much all physics texts and experiments confirm the speed is constant with relation to colour. the only ones that don't are those unrelated to the topic of light.

what mills are you reffering to? do you mean mL or mil? either way, these units do not translate to moles as one measures volum and the other length while a mole is a count of the number of atoms/molecules of a substance.

It is the convention, but not for the reasons you posed. it is merely aesthetic reasons. the same reason books are not written in a single line is the same reason the periodic table has the separation. there is nothing stopping you writing a book in a single linebut its going to be a long bloody line requiring a huge bit of paper. when the periodic table was first drawn up, paper and printing techniques were nowhere near as advanced as now. aslo, the periodic table is commonly found in books. It is advantageous to have the periodic table drawn in such a way that it is readable so it conveys information. It is also shown in most if not all periodic tables that the lanthanides and actinides should be inbetween the alkali-earths and the transitions.

he's not being mean. he is being realistic. of course if you had a stable highz nucleus you could do chemistry with it, but you don't. some are unstable to the point that they decay long before any chemistry can even occur. its not a technique limitation but a limitation of how things behave while following physical laws. your expansion of his logic is flawed also because his logic doesn't mean that anything impractical to measure doesn't exist, it means something which cannot happen is impossible to measure.

have a look at maxwells equations.

when astronomers are looking at things that far away the exposure times are huge. and when i say huge i mean it. The exposure time for a decent camera can be on the order of a millisecond(depending on the setting and lighting conditions) in which case the star would appear intermittent but the exposure time for something like the hubble looking at a really distant object could be on the order of months. given the huge timescales involved in photographing faint objects it is likely thousands of photons from the star would reach the sensor. if the star is faint enough to be intermittent to something like the hubble then the signal would be far too weak to be detected. it would be lost in the noise.