insane_alien

Or, here is an even better case for why you are wrong. at work a few weeks back, there was a case of a pump malfunctioning. it went from very quiet to very loud and its discharge has small fragments of metal in it. WITHOUT replacing the case with perspex so i could see it happening via electromagnetic reflection, i knew it could only have been cavitation. low and behold, crack the case open and the rotor's looking a bit chewed up. it was cavitation. you don't need to observe everything by electromagnetic reflection. i'm sure you've seen stuff in photographs(indirect by your standards) been informed of things via reading about them(also indirect) or even just eard them without being able to see them, like hearing somebody on the otherside of a partition and being able to tell who it is, according to you this is indirect(yet light isn't for some reason). if i'm in a pitch black room with no light i can throw a ball out in front of me and determine if there is something there if the ball bounces back. if i throw many balls and look at how they bounce back i can even tell the shape of the object. by using smaller balls i can determine the shape more accurately an so on. or, lets say there is a magnet strapped to the underside of the table and i'm rolling some ball bearings across the surface. without looking at the magnet, i can tell where it is, and how strong it is. i can derive its properties without ever having to see it. sort of like how we deal with things that can never be seen. such as balck holes which emit no light or dark matter which does not interact via light. and even then with light, the light has to hit our eyes, be translated into a chemical change and then be transfered by electron flow to the neural synapses that distort pick appart and rearrange the signal to interpret it for our concious mind. seems pretty indirect to me now that i think about it.

so why did it not have to be done for an electron? why is it a special case?

our bodies can make them, but only under the right conditions and we can't always make enough of them. so if you have the right diet but are lacking semi-essential amino acids, your requirements for those will be lowered, but not completely eliminated.

it does not take a great mathemaician to do simulataneous equations.

corrected. but he's right, humidity can vary dramatically depending on how close you are to a body of water or how sweaty you are. weather reports have a very generalised format with very scant data

i've never seen a bumper sticker on a car here in the UK. i have however seen stickers on the back window. usually for a radio channel or an i donate blood sticker(i had one of these, forgot to take it off when i got a new car, doh!)

the brain sucks up just as much power under full mental load as it does under idle conditions. (well, there is some variation but it is negligble) if you're willing to spend a few hours a day thinking, then why not spend a few hours a day walking and thinking, or gardening and thinking, or situps and thinking. by all means think about something, but do something physical while you're thinking. thinking heavily about something else will distract you from the idea that you're doing exercise and the rest of the world can see your flabby bits wobbling(if you have flabby bits that is(like me), not everyone who wants to lose weight does). at least until you are comfortable enough exercising to enjoy it.

i don't see why you think this. if you're at the top of a tall building and cannot see down the sides, you can logically deduce that the building must have a bottom(as it is still standing). the evidence is the stability of the building and the logical necessity is that it has a bottom. in the case we are presented here the existence of each and every one of us is the evidence(quite solid evidence really) and the logical necessity is that, from the start of the chain all our ancestors successfully reproduced. your parents reproduced successfully, your gandparents did too. and so on and so on until you get all the way back to the primordial soup the first cells appeared in. its not particularly complex or intricate logic here.

that doesn't make it clear at all. especially since you haven't proven that maize existed in ancient egypt. if it did then why did it disappear and nobody mentioned it until its supposed reintroduction? having maize in dynastic egypt raizes far more questions than not having it which makes sense. i also find it hilarious how you think that just because its a book it uses language in exactly the same way as you despite being written by an author who lived in a different region from you and would likely have been using his own linguistical quirks which means that he could well have been using corn as reffering to a generic cereal crop.

a method of propulsion using radiation pressure.

or... a cooler idea... use the parachutes as solar sails so it never even gets close.

looks like it could be a wheat or barley field to me. and justy bcause Faulkner uses emmer and barley a few times in his book, doesn't mean he means maize when he says corn. he could just mean 'generic cereal crop' which is what corn can(and often only) mean if you're not a citizen of Canada, Austrailia or the US.

that has nothing to do with maize. which you keep claiming they had in ancient egypt. they did not and could not have had maize.

ah so the rest of the world is wrong and you're right. yeah... that makes total sense. now explain how we haven't found any remenants of maize in ancient egyptian sites, we've found evidence of many cereal crops, but not maize. and why did maize miraculously disappear from africa, europe and asia for several millenia before being reintroduced from the american continents? or is the entire world wrong on that too and its just that nobody noticed that they were cultivating this crop for a few millenia?

she was actually justified. the part you kept repeating had no bearing on what i was talking about.

what to you mean 'in recent years'? life is just one big ol' heap of insanity wearing water wings and riding a purple mongoose.

a large portion of the world. within a 5 mile radius of my house i can find 10 farmers who'll back me up on that they reffer to their cereal crop in general as 'corns' despite them being either wheat or barley. its common practice and probably is in israel too which is where that site is from. the united states of america is not the whole world. and you guys do a lot of things backwards in the view of the rest of the world. the ENTIRE rest of the world. like imperial units.

your brain has been searching for human voice patterns in the environment for your whole life, including while you were in the uterus. if you are searching hard enough for a pattern in random noise you'll eventually find it. its the same phenomenon as when people see jesus in a pop-tart or the virgin mary on a wooden door. brains like patterns. if they can't find any then they tend to make their own.

why are you so sure it's a typo? looks fine to me. you do realise that wheat and barley are reffered to as corns in well, most of the world. its really just the US, Canada and Austrailia that use it exclusively for Maize.

emmer IS wheat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmer and they said that the corn was EMMER. there isn't any way around this. and corn is used to reffer to general cereal crops and not just maize regardless of what happens in your own little world.

you're still ignoring my point. i don't know what you're trying to achieve by repeating yourself.

and you are still ignoring it. come on kaplunk, pass the turing test.

yes, but the large majority of the fuel is spent within the atmosphere. by using the air as an oxidiser until you get up above most of the atmosphere and up to about mach 8 (higher the better though) you'll need a HUGE amount LESS oxidiser. and in space launches, that means larger cargo capacity or cheaper launches depending on your needs.

You're still ignoring my point that you yourself did not research this properly.

you ignored my point about the corn mention in your link being emmer wheat.