insane_alien

well, according to the SI its 2(pi) radians.

ok, there are a few things that would stop you. 1/ air resistance. you mention this but you don't take into account that the friction would increase as you descend due to increase in density of the air and a decreasing force of gravity. because of this, you would just slow odwn gradually eventually stopping at the centre. 2/ the earths rotation. if falling for long enough you're eventually going to collide with the side and it would likely be painful and fatal. its friction that causes terminal velocity. terminal velocity is where the force of gravity and the drag force equalise. you can change your terminal velocity by the way you fall. starfish shaped and you go slow. head first like a missile and you go fast.

ah well, that could happen. i'll agree with you there. although, where the laser is at the core of the earth, i don't know.

679 isn't even a square. man, i've been drinkin and i knew that was way off.

97 squared is 9409

6.022*10^23 is avagadros number. this is used to get the energy per atom from the energy per mole. a single iron atom requires at least 1.26619E-18 J to remove a single electron. if its a heating element then the heating element itself would ionize if it got that hot. although he'll probably claim that we are all completely wrong and he knows better than all of us.

i say mc, you say A? thats what it sounds like a bit.

ok here is why infrared can NOT strip electrons away. WARNING: Mathematics follows, the first numbers as proof in this thread. to remove 1 single electron from a cesium atom(it has the lowest ionization energy.) it requires 375.7 kJ/mol /6.022*10^23 = 6.23879e-19 J of energy. an infra red photon at the limit of what is defined as infrared(750nm wavelegnth) E=hf E=6.63*10^-34*(c/750*10^-9) E=2.652E-19J oh look insufficient energy. even for the highest energy infrared photon for the lowest ionizing energy among the elements. its off by a factor of 2.35. thats 3.59E-19J short. this is why infrared cannot strip electrons.

i think that its a pretty solid definition. i'll go with it. EDIT: woah, charon is classed as a planet now. its in orbit around pluto!

it was a poorly designed experiment as well, too many external forces could cause the effect. now, if it was done through a physical barrier separated by a vacuum, then it would be better. EDIT: oh, so you have no evidence but think that it is completely different from the standard model which is tried and tested? the reason there are many theories is that there are many different aspects of physics. for instance, a theory on orbital mechanics does not need to describe superfluidity. or the strong force.

in other words, you have no data. you have not even looked up on experiments that could provide even a bit of evidence for your hypothesis. pressure != gravity. the atmospheric pressure will increase because of the added weight of air abover their heads but this does not correspond to increasing gravity they why do you continue to put the emphasis on only a few elements? i think you'll find that it isn't. the electro-weak force as a single force only exists at extremely high energy densities. at the energy densities most objects experience these forces are seperate and distinct. yes lasers have been used to cool things. the optical molasses effect. i know about this. but it does not interact with the nucleus of the atom. the electrons cannot be stripped away by infrared photons.infrared can at most cause an electron to jump up an energy level. nothing more. they do not have enough energy. and it was temperatures approaching 0K. negative kelvins are impossible. by repeating yourself. I did not ask for your life story. you said you had studied nuclear physics, even if it is in your spare time as a hobby, it still requires a LOT of mathematical knowledge therefore you could not have studied this to any great extent where you would be capable of contradicting thousands of scientists research in the fields of quantum mechanics.

how about allowing a custom date format instead of having it set to mm-dd-yyyy us brits use the dd-mm-yyyy format. its only a little formatting menu.

and quicker. one generation at least but more likely an extra 3 or 4 generations for 'debugging'

until it grows a bundle of nerves that start to resemble a brain and begin firing i don't class it as sentient and therefore not human. i see nothing wrong with abortions up until this stage. After it has developed a rudimentary brain, then i find it morally wrong to abort it as i would say it is alive and aware to some degree. Abortion at this stage is murder. Although, there are some cases where an abortion after this stage would be permissible(eg, severe birth defects, going to kill the mother etc. etc.) but only as a last resort and still unfavourable.

1/ you have not proven that an iron nuclei will polarize. you need to do this before your hypothesis will be anywhere above complete nonsense 2/ how do you explain the effect of the gravitational field stregnth decreasing as you travel further under the surface of the earth? this effect is alreadt nicely explained by the fact that ALL mass and not just iron will attract all other masses. in your hypothesis we should see gravitational field stregnth increasing below the surface. this is not seen. 3/ why is gravitational field stregnth not proportional to the amount of iron in an object? 4/ why do objects with no temperature gradient still exhibit a gravitational field? 5/ how exactly does an infrared photon interact with an atomic nuclei? and why hasn't this been observed in the many thousands of experiments where they were looking for this sort of thing? 6/ why do you ignore most of what we say? we are not idiots. 90% of the people here are extremely well educated and very smart. 7/ you have claimed to do some very mathematically heavy studies/jobs yet you claim to be bad at maths. i know one of these is true and i'm thinking its the latter.

i made something sound easy? man thats a first.

i like the cyclic model. although it does beg the question "what happens to entropy" i think we might have to rewrite thermodynamics a bit to accomodate it if we find out that it is true.

10 stone is 63.5 kg so if you really are 9 stone then your less than 67 kg

oh man i had just about got my head round a universe with a radius of 15 thousand million lightyears now your saying its more than double that?

the server is down. i made a thread earlier

its the engineer in me. we always use the negative power notations so there is absolutely no dispute about where the letters go.

binging every now and then is good for the soul

3 meters per second was the muzzel velocity. oh come on its SI units. ahh just read you like imperial units. thats roughly 3 yards per second or 9 feet per second

i still don't get it. i have tried loads of gases but none works. EDIT:ok this is really starting to bug me. i've tried every gas i can think of, every permutation of petrol and every process i can think of that starts with a gas. and it says wrong every time.

whats the answer to the second one? i've entered about 15 10-letter words beginning with gas and it hasn't accepted any of them.