insane_alien

they still have the same properties of ions. charge to mass is indeed different but still, you get negative ions as well as positive ions.

or you could use soap. soap's good.

no it wouldn't work. inefficiencies would mean that it would stop on pretty short order as it'd lose energy very fast.

they'd still need it triaxial? then its not geosynchronous. the accuracy would be terrible from that distance.

yes, magnetic fields can change the direction of ions. its how CRT tv's work.

you do realise the situations are totally different though, there is a difference between reversing the direction of a force and keeping positive time than reversing time right?

doesn't the symmetry usually have to do with time rather than direction?

chemical engineering is a good bet. no matter whats happening in the world copious amounts of chemicals are needed

we do use 100% of our brain. where the 10% comes from is that only about 10% of our neurons are firing at any one time. any more and you're having a seizure and any less and your in a coma (of course there is some natural variation but this has nothing to do with cognitive ability.)

okay, finally managed to download the video here's my notes on it 1/SOME science fiction has come to pass, by no means all of it, the large majority being utter junk. all of the ones that came true have been technological barriers rather than physical barriers. 2/ frequency barrier? wtf? 3/ i'm sensing.... numerology 4/ total misunderstanding of the word moment in 'magnetic moment' 5/ no really, you couldn't be more wrong about moment, its not a measure of time in this case. 6/ bits of metal sliding of a sloped device? really? 7/ arbitrary wave form generator? what is this? startrek? </sarc> seeing as it needs 750W i'm going to assume an electromagnet is part of this. 8/ bingo 9/ sudoku puzzles? 10/ oh i get whats happening, you're using your 'arbitrary waveform generator' connected to the electromagnet to induce currents in the metals so they tend to stick to the face. 11/ good thing you keep poking the coin with a stick, you don't want it melting and ruining your video. veiwers should note the distinct lack of contact between the coin and the hand. 12/ no product loss? yeah, right in your dreams. also, micron sized gold particles are already seperated easily. this thing will have trouble deentraining them from the rock they are in. 13/ ooo oscilloscope. hi-tech stuff here. seriously, there's a large amount of frequencies you can use for this, it'll depend more on the geometry and electrical properties than on the element. 14/ copper and aluminium are not found in their metalic state in nature. most importantly, they aren't found in a conductive state. 15/jesus, you keep mentioning increased profits, where is the analysis of this? just saying it isn't going to make anyone with any business (never mind scientific) knowledge believe you. 16/ okay, the salt one is throwing me a bit here, but it's not enough to dismiss the null hypothesis that this is crap. it could be a vibrating sheet you've got there which would do the job. it'd do dick all for reverse osmosis though. from the wording i doubt you know what that is. 17/ lost audio, i'll post again when i get it working. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged18/ okay, to get audio i'm having to restart the video, how does salt show complex compounds can be affected? salt is incredibly simple. 19/ diamond is not crude oil, not sure how you can make a comparison there. and its not a surface tension thing, you don't 'break' surface tension. 20/ wow those are some old computers, sure you didn't mean 19th century instead of 21st there? 21/ why is there what appears to be a particle accelerator here? whats this got to do with anything said previously? 22/ you never proved they were magnetised, you just showed you could make them stick to a metal plate. 23/ those mentions aren't lending weight to the arguement. well, after killing some braincells watching that i am left at the conclusion that you've made a crap vibratory feeder. if you had actually magnetised it then you would have picked it up with a magnet after being 'treated' or even during the process by putting a permanent magnet to the side of it. it wasn't very convincing, especially due to the poor understanding of magnetism.

care to explain its method of action?

the cube-square laws are only appropriate for things with the same density.

actually with 100 watts the smaller ball will be hotter than the larger ball. and again, neutron stars and stellar cores do not have the same heat capacity as stellar cores. so using a comparison of two identically composed materials isn't really appropriate. EDI: whoops, forgot to address the main point(i'm a bit tired) anyway, the neutron star will have more thermal energy due to collapse so it will be much hotter which will give it an initial faster cooling rate however, lets look at a simple case. we have a neutron star and a dead stellar core. same mass, same thermal energy and it should be approximately the same heat capacity. so roughly the same temperature (lets say to within 10000K) the neutron star will take longer to reach ambient as it has less thermal transfer area. this is the point, the smaller the area for thermal transfer, the less heat will be transfered.

yeah ubuntu is good. linux does not have a 'dos kernel' linux is not DOS. it does however have a number of DOS emulators such as DOSbox. you can run that from the command line and it'll function essentially as if you have DOS on your computer.

but the soccer sized steel ball will radiate heat faster due to its larger surface area. the BB just contains less heat is all. a neutron star on the otherhand has the same heat as a stellar core but a far smaller surface area due to its immense density therefore it cools slower.

if using seismic waves is just a guess then using ultrasound scans on women isn't 100% proof that they have a baby inside them. same principle, only uses a different source of waves. for someone who claims to be looking for the truth you seem to be ignoring a lot without even evaluating its ability to be truthful. you need to open your mind.

never been close to it due to thermal considerations. we have been to the 'other side' many many times. as it stands the earth nad sun orbit a common bary-center. because the heat would also go inside the sun and heat it up. also, neutrino emmissions from the core are an extremely strong indicator of nuclear fusion. nuclear fusion means it's as hot as hell in there. because of occams razor. if the two scenarios are identical to the point that no test could determine the difference then you might as well just assume it exists as it'll work the same anyway. if its all an illusion then who gives a damn, as long as its a consistant illusion then our science is useful. all testing shows that its consistent. you don't need to. you can just look up the definition of top and down and figure it out from there. not everything requires local measurement.

just hot molten rock. nothing much to it really. you can make some in your back garden if you want.

well, a single atom can't really have temperature. temerature is really more of an emergent property of a collection of atoms. sure you can consider its theoretical temperature based on its velocity but then thats relative. it won't even emit an IR signal that you can measure while a collection of atoms will.

your calculation of the acceleration is correct(ish, it will actually be non-linear and that is the peak acceleration) you seem to be forgetting that this acceleration only lasts a tiny fraction of a second just as it brings the bowling ball to a stop. i assumed the scales deformed 1 centimeter. work out the average acceleration for a 4.44kg ball going from 8.8m/s to 0m/s in a distance of 1cm. it should be less than the value above but only because it is the average acceleration, not the peak acceleration as was asked. i haven't seen you calculate anything other than its resting weight. and obviously you must realise that an impact force is greater than the weight of the object, otherwise hammers wouldn't work.

all i said was that you first need to have an unambiguous definition of religion and that perhaps iNow worded his response poorley(it happens to everyone). infact, he agreed with me. seriously, give us an unambiguous definition of religion and we'll tell you, this isn't moving the goal posts, this is finding out where the goalposts are before you try to score.

can you explain why this is not correct? assuming an elastic collision where all the energy is absorbed by the spring then this answer is perfectly correct. i admit that the collision will not be perfectly elastic in reality and a fair amount of energy will be converted to heat. but to do a more precise calculation, we'd need more details to work with. a quick bit of math shows that with your numbers (38.8m/s^2 acceleration) the scales have to deform by 1 meter to stop the bowling ball, i have yet to see a bathroom type scale that deforms this much. but never mind that, where did you get the value of 38.8m/s^2 from? at least with my answer i gave the reasoning behnd it.

monopolar in what? magnetism? electrostatics? gravitational? what? you can't just say monopolar without a qualification of what its a monopole of.

what inow is saying is that you need to have a strict definition of religion before you can say whether it is possible or not. as no such definition exists(they all have fuzzy areas) it is impossible to come up with a meaningful answer. definitions are very important in science as they are required to be exact and non-ambiguous. religious definitions on the otherhand tend to be not so strict and very very fuzzy. for instance, in christianity some people were made saints for 'miracles' that other people were burned at the stake for simply because the definition of both was fuzzy.

and there are many situations where it cannot be substituted for chlorine