insane_alien

thats an evil question. there would always be somebody who would call you a racist nomatter which one you picked. i'd pick the one farthest away from the train since it gives me more time to get away while the one nearest the train might be cutting it a little close. or if there are two tracks, trains and kids then apply shroedingers equation.

stop putting words in my mouth. get back on topic

nope, just slightly extend the time needed to edit the video.

truth seeker my ass. you ignore evidence. you dodge questions. you see that reality deviates from you own little world inside your head and you crawl deeper into your shell. i just don't like seeing people do this. its depressing that people will ignore facts to avoid upsetting their world view. you may truely be a lost cause.

i'm sorry but which one has evidence?

no, if you can provide evidence that an atmospheric model of gravity is more accurate than GR hen i will believe you. you can explain it all you want but if its wrong its wrong.

i ain't religious. i need proof. so, provide proof for you atmospheric model of gravity or stop calling it as fact. alternatively you could try to point out errors in the well tested theory of general relativity.

if you count a bunch of books that have been bastardized over the millenia for political and sociological agendas as evidence then your still wrong. what has the bible ever predicted? nothing. what has newtonian gravity allowed us to predict? only neptune and the orbits of every extraolar planet we've ever found. a couple of moons have also been predicted by newtonian gravity and shortly found using the derived coordinates. it also allows us to determine what speed a rocket must achieve to end up at other planets or enter a certain type of orbit. if its completely flase then it must be one hell of a coincidence don't you think. oh and by your logic i can say that you don't exist. after all i only have evidence that you exist. that doesn't really mean you exist. and what about every prisoner in the world, we only have evidence that they done it. doesn't really mean that the crimes were ever commited. THINK DAMMIT!

i have the sequence GATTACA 7 times in my DNA lets see who gets this one.

well, that question can be answered easily by buoyancy BUT that relies on gravity! could this be even more evidence of it? yes, i believe it is!

so your saying newtonian gravity is wrong? as in completely wrong? oh dear. i wonder how we can launch so many rockets successfully then seeing as the designers base the calculations on that equation and that orbital mechanics relies on it for pretty much everything. i think the evidence is in its favour. G does not appear on both sides it only apears on the RHS and is the gravitational constant the only thing on the left hand side is F which is the force caused by gravity. Also, reality doesn't care if its your equation or not. if i put you in a space suit and kick you out a spaceship at 7.3km/s retrograde your going to fall. water, evapourates when the pressure is lowered yes, but it is still affected by gravity. its the same thing as you picking up a stone and chucking it away. the molecules can tear free from the intermolecular forces due to the reduced pressure and follow ballistic trajectories until they hit something then they follow another ballistic trajectory and so on for every molecule.

its only complicated before you learn it. same with calculus. okay, i'm going to explain newtonian gravity to you and i'm going to to use equations. it'll show you how simple this can be. The equation for gravitational field strength is F(g)= (G*m(1)*m(2))/r^2 where, F(g) = the gravitational force G = Gravitational constant m(1)= mass of object 1 m(2)= mass of object 2 r = distance between center of masses of the two objects This equation states that the force of gravity is directly proportional to the masses of the objects(bigger mass, bigger force) and indirectly proportional to the distance (bigger distance, less force). as you can see, at no point does an atmosphere come into the equation. it doesn't affect the force of gravity except by mass, it certainly isn't essential to the theory. for example, mercury has gravity and there is no atmosphere therefore the atmosphere cannot possibly be responsible for gravity. i can go even bigger if you want, galaxies are attracted to each other. this is over vast intergalactic distance of millions of light years. this couldn't be explained by and atmosphere.

yeah but the whole point of this is reverse osmosis rather than distillation. the former requires less energy.

yeah, the apple falling from the tree never happened. its just a story. newton worked out his theory by observing the moon and planets.

yes the radio isotopes will be decaying all the time, but how soe it help the plants grow (assume a non radioactive fertiliser for this part)

okay, what happens to the fertilizer after its added to the soil?

okay, gravity isn't so simple, we don't know WHY it acts the way it does. or even how it acts, we just know that it does. now, i'm going to use the rubber sheet analogy but it should only be taken as an analogy since it is flawed but its close enough for a beginner. say you have an infinite, frictionless rubber sheet(space-time) and a bowling ball and a golf ball(a planet and a rock). now the rubber sheet is taught and will deform slightly if you put a mass on it. (just imagine that the balls are pulled down it doesn't matter by what force but it acts on the mass, bigger mass = bigger downward force) so you place your bowling ball on the rubber sheet it deforms a bit and its kinda steep near the ball but gradually gets less and less steep as you get further away. so, you could place the golf ball ANYWHERE on the sheet and it would start sliding towards the bowling ball (cos its going down hill). Or you could put some velocity on the golf ball when its near the bowling ball and it would have an orbit. This is, very basically, how we think gravity works. to get it right you need a couple more dimensions and some other stuff that i don't know about since i don't study physics. It does actually get quite complicated when you try to put in the third spatial dimension, frame dragging, speed of propagation and all that jazz.

the hole your talking about isn't really a hole. There is the ozone 'layer' which is a relatively narrow range of altitudes where the pressure is suitable for ozone production and stability. the hole(i'm assuming this is the 'hole' your talking about) is an area in the layer where there is less concentration of ozone, there is still ozone there, just not as much as everywhere else.

it won't keep getting faster and faster, there is friction between the gases, if left long enough it will all slow down to a stop(or at least laminar flow)

it could be the new memorizing pi to the nth number fad. who can remember their own DNA sequence to the most base pairs.

its not ubuntu's fault, its ATI they don't provide support for linux. have a look on http://www.ubuntuforums.org for help with ATI GFX cards. the community is great and people have got them working. i don't know how to do it myself as i use an Nvidia card which even have their own linux driver provided by the company.

well, your off to a good start, the two questions you took a guess at are more or less right. for 1/ it is most certainly fast as this lowers the risk of the radiation causing damage to the body. not something you want. shortlived ones require less of a dose due to their higher activity and don't leave you radioactive for years to come. 2/ have a guess at this one. to give you a hint, what needs to happen to fertilizers before they can affect the growth of a plant? 3/ yes, radiation does kill cancer cells, the only problem is that they kill cells indiscriminately so you need to kill the tumour faster than the stuff around it. if you look on wikipedia for radiotherapy you will find a lot of information on how this is done. The radio isotopes emit gamma radiation and stay outside the body.

yeah thats definitely some pendular motion we're seeing there. only reason the string isn't visible is because of the low lighting and the crappy resolution of youtube.

OK, you don't understand atmospheric mechanics. First, rockets can leave the atmosphere at any angle or speed they want, as long as they have sufficient fuel. not all things that leave the atmosphere burn up on rentry as they may not have the necessary velocity (spaceship one is an example of this as it did not develop a plasma) it does not occur at a "junction between atmosphere and space" as there isn't one. there has been lots of debate as to what qualifies as space since the atmosphere does not suddenly stop at some arbitrary altitude. It looses pressure and density in an inversely exponential manner up until about 50km then it deviates a bit depending on the time of day, temperature, solar wind and various other parameters. even what we term as space (>80 km at the moment) is still within earths atmosphere even the ISS at ~300 km is still experienceing atmospheric drag. this is because of gravity. pressure does not cause gravity. if pressure caused gravity(i'm going to assume some kind of negative buoancy effect) i would experience more than a thousand g's if i submerged myself in water. since i float in water and have regularly swam under water(i even did so 20 minutes ago) and have not been horribly mashed to a pulp i can only conclude that you are wrong and mainstream science is correct on modeling the atmosphere and gravity.

scrolling through it would probably take a few years in itself.