insane_alien

even on animals it tends to damage the lungs on short order as the muscles have to do a lot of extra work just to keep you alive. it is doubtful humans could keep it up either. but really, if we could breath the same water fish breath then nobody could drown in fresh water and we'd probably even have a few settlements in freshwater lakes. as this is not the case i'm gonna hazard a guess and say no, we cannot live underwater without the aid of either a submarine or a more permanent submersed air containing structure.

eh? do you have any proof of this? because all dream activity takes place in the brain, we know because we can measure brain activity and its location.

well, i think it would be possibly to teach the basic outline of most scientific theories to a ten year old. but it would be impossible to teach them the details that actually make the theories useful. for instance, you could tell a 10 year old about evolution, but start trying to explain transcription errors from the point of molecular dynamics(an important part of evolution) and they'll be lost. not to mention protein folding.

well, this is semi-correct. in that of course magma doesn't move tectonic plates as its a product of tectonic movement. but the permanence of layers (espetially when one of them is solid) does not mean that they can't be dragging each other round. for an example, lets say you have some oil floating on water. you submerge a rotor into the water an turn it on so the water rotates in the container. viscous friction will drag the oil around with it with little disruption to the interface. we know the mantle undergoes convection(we've measured it) so there is movement of the mantle. which means there will be viscous drag forces on the tectonic plates. MASSIVE viscous drag forces. easily enough to overcome the mechanical strength of the rock. from this it seems illogical that there wouldn't be distortion of the crust.

argh, thats the only time i read the forum on mondays

thats a bit like saying holes are made specifically for the puddles that form in them after it rains.

http://www.ukphoneinfo.com/search.php?GNG=07031+835597&Submit=Submit&d=nl remember, if it looks too good to be true then it probably is. the better something looks, the greater the degree of skepticism you should employ.

you can't really apply physics to an inherently unphysical condition. i mean you come up with any answer you want with enough chin wagging as you've already decided to ignore physics in the first place.

don't give her your phone number. also, a phone number and facebook account are hardly hard to come by. that number is registered to http://www2.magrathea-telecom.co.uk/ they're a telecom company i'm guessing she just put down some random number. give her NOTHING

not unless you sent your account details in one of the replies. i suggest you don't respond further. or if you do to toy with her, you make sure there is absolutely no personal information in there.

for the last time, we are ONLY contesting that the cube square law cannot simply be applied to objects with similar physical properties. we aren't talking about 2 balls of neutronium, we are talking about a dead stellar core and a neutron star. these behave very different thermally. the cube square law cannot simply be slapped on without any further consideration. and the further considerations lead to the neutron star cooling down more slowly. so you get it now? or do we have to go through it all again?

well, the velocity of expansion could be quite high, throwing of a shell of gas, it won't be much but it could definitely happen

well, the experiments were horrible, even if you take out the emotional factor, a lot of them were not performed with suitible scientific rigor so that data is not so good. but, i don't think we should discard any conclusions as that would be insulting to the people who died. at least by using the data gathered, their legacy lives on and can save many more people. as for experimentation today, the people being experimented on should be volunteers, even if they have been sentenced to death as unknown consequences could be considered torture, and no living being should have to suffer it if it can be avoided. but if they understand the risks and still want to do it, perhaps for sentence reduction in the case of a convict, then there shouldn't be a problem. of course there will be lots of issues regarding the event of an experiment failure where someone dies, or is left with a permanent disability or so on, but thats for people more well versed in law than me.

this is spam. its a variation of the 'nigerian prince' spam emails. delete it and do not respond. besides, it won't penetrate diamond(the lattice is too tight) and vapourises from the inside just doesn't make sense.

well, thats only if the heat is from an external source, but in the case of a burning planet, the energy was already there in the form of chemical potential energy, it has merely underwent a conversion to thermal energy. and when this energy is lost to thermal radiation, the ratiation will be essentially the same in all directions resulting in no net force on the planet to accelerate it.

you need an oxidizer to burn it. neptune does not have an atmosphere rich in both reducing and oxidizing gases, just reducing gases. hydrogen by itself is not explosive at all. remember the fire triangle, you need oxidiser, fuel and heat. it applies to explosives as well. on neptune you have plenty of fuel and it has lightning so you have an ignition source for heat but little to no oxidiser. so the triangle is broken. nope, no change to the kinetic energy, but it'd have a lot more thermal energy. this doesn't change the orbit though. i don't think the planet would be destroyed as much as the death star would destroy it. a lot of the material would remain (although, a lot will also be blown off). i think its safe to say that neptune would drasticly reduce in size at anyrate. could be fun to simulate it. i imagine it'd go similar to simulations of supernova.

Congrats DJ, you going to college/uni straight off or bumming about for a bit? or even going straight into work?

this is typically what happens when something changes direction, so yes. 100kg * 40 m/s = 4000N this is not how you calculate force. what you calculated there was momentum, not force. the force comes from whatever its colliding with. again you have the forces all wrong. it didn't.

the velocity of 1 after the interaction. you seem to understand this later so why are you asking? m1 or m2 or both? m1 as shown by the one. generally you use a subscript in the mathematics, like 1 and 2 for different objects. it doesn't. nor does it need to, the final velocity of 2 doesn't need to be calculated for the final velocity of 2 to be found. you can work it out from the available info if you want though. its mathematically correct, and theoretically correct. it doesn't use advanced physics notions at all. infact, this physics has been in use for centuries, we'd have figured out if it was wrong by now. especially when we do stuff like experiments.

why can you not see that answer being correct? it looks fine to me.

the energy isn't destroyed, it is converted into non-kinetic forms of energy. most likely heat, but could take other forms such as sound, light, or even chemical energy. your conclusion that energy is destroyed comes from a dodgy analysis of the situation rather than any flaw of physics.

As of today, I'm now officially a Master of Chemical and Process Engineering with merit. Also, as we're in the middle of graduation season, who else on the boards is graduating?

well, no, but thats because they aren't cut to enhance their sparkliness and aesthetic qualities. but rather to enchance optical transmittance. also, i haven't forgotten about my own attempt. i currently have the funds and have bought soem materials for the vacuum chamber but i don't have a lot of time.

raleigh scattering. blue light gets scattered more than red. we still get a lot of white because most of the light is unaffected, otherwise it'd like be staring into the sun wherever you looked. the sea is blue because water is blue, the more water around, the bluer it is, the green colour usually comes from stuff living in it.

and my points for the scenario were 1/ not all things are equal a neutron star isn't te same as a ball of gas. 2/ large objects radiate more heat at the same temperature