insane_alien

thats not a satisfactory reason.

the only way a meltdown can happen in a modern(and even quite a number of old nuclear reactors) is if somebody shuts down the reactor, rearranges the core, control rod system and a bunvch of other vital components in a process that will take years and millions in cash and then cranks up the power while disabling all of the remaining safety systems. this, i'm sure you'll agree, is an unlikely scenario and it will not go unnoticed if someone decides to try it. but lets say that someone does manage it for some reason and our lovely little reactor core is turning into a puddle. what would happen? well, due to the fact that engineers are not morons of the highest calibre, they designed a containment structure that is capable of containing just such an occurance. all that will happen is that the molten reactor will hit the floor and spread out until such a time as its geometry makes the chain reaction stop. what you will be left with is a thin disc of highly radioactive material that is safely contained until such a time as it can be disposed of properly. coal on the other had pumps all that crap out into the environment as normal operating conditions. coal is crap from many many standpoints. the only good point i can think of is that it's easy to burn.

well, it is one potential source but it has a very short window of opportunity. a more reliable source with a larger window is two neutron stars or blackholes orbiting very close to each other. the emission of gravitational waves should cause the orbits to decay.

no, this won't happen as the atmosphereis moving with the earth. if the atmosphere was stationary then you'd experience supersonic winds on the surface of the earth.

0.999 recurring for infinity is 1 but the number of nines in the 99.999(etc)% of the speed of light we can reach is finite. meaning that the proof above does not apply because it is not the same scenario at all. we are limited by the amount of energy you can put into a single particle. if you put ALL the energy of the universe into the lightest known particle(a neutrino) it still wouldn't be at the speed of light but slower.

normal gravimeter types, even the extremely sensitive ones, can only reach on in 10^-12. and again, gravimeters are not designed to pick up modulations in a gravitational field. they'd only be able to reliably pick up a massive slow oscillation. LIGO and LISA have been SPECIFICALLY designed to detect weak oscillations of any frequency. why you think that this makes them less likely to pick up something is beyond me really. to demonstrate this, say we wanted to measure the distance to the moon, a scientist proposes using a laser ranging device to get the distance and you go, "no! we should use a meter stick!" while meter sticks can be used to measure stuff, compared to the method we're using they're rubbish.

thats why they're making a version 3 million kilometers to a side. called LISA i think. not that sensitive and they don't detect oscilations unless they are very big and low frequency. LIGO LISA and the like are purpose built to detect gravitational waves. this is because the predicted signal is so weak even for large events that are quite obvious in the electromagnetic spectrum. it is also why we have purpose built experiments to detect oscillations.

ongoing yes, but theory says it is c and this is within the error range of experiments. it is likely to be c and until an experiment shows otherwise it should be taken as c. no, gravity is not caused by photons. why would it appear on the electromagnetic spectrum when it is clearly not electromagnetic in nature? we can detect them by detecting distortions in space. this is why we use laser interferometery. if a wave passes through the detector the laser point on the detector will wiggle about a bitcreating an interference pattern. look up LIGO

the methods being used just now are frequency agnostic. just as with radio waves, it is possible to determine whether any signal at all regardless of frequency is picked up without tuing into anything. if you count that as antigravity then me lifting up a frog with my hands is anti-gravity as it is repelled by the electric field of the electrons in my hand. no.

gravity propagates at c. it is not instantaneous.

bob, they always undergo optical effects. it's just that for some frequencies most materials have such a low refractive index that to construct a lense would require such an immense size as to be impractical.

impossible to say as there have likely been many many cases of this, some will have been accidental others will have been fraud.

gonna be much much more expensive than getting an electrical generator.

they can be. it is impossible to test most cosmological theories in the lab due to scale issues. therefore, we must look for naturally occuring situations that are as close as possible to how you would set up an experiment to test a thoery. for instance, one of the tests for gravitational waves is to accelerate large masses in a regular fashion and try to detect the waves generated(if there are any). so what we do is look for massive objects orbiting each other very close together, blackholes, neutron stars etc.

its always photons. from zero hertz(well, as close as is possible) to infinite hertz(as close as is possible.)

its due to this thread being split from a previous one i think you'll find.

that filter is merely a particulate filter. it will not remove smells although there are some that include an activated charcoal filter layer as well. you'll want to get one of those, slightly more expensive but they should do the trick.

no, but there are many many fakes out there.

i read an article yesterday that said they'd figured out how ball lightning occured. its trans cranial magnetic stimulation of the brain from the magnetic fields produced by a lightning strike. basically a hallucination of a disc of light caused by external conditions. ah here we go http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25166/

see, thing is, i'm not. i just hate cameron.

that would be completely unrelated to the exitance of ufo's as you well know.

the point i was trying to make was that being unable to identify the phenomenon does not rule out a known explanation. i was under the impression that this was clear.

no, by definition is an object that has the power of flight but has not been identified. for instance, to a baby, a bird is a ufo. or to someone who has never seen an aircraft before, then they are UFO's or if there is a mirage in the sky, then that may be seen as a UFO. there are many things that would hinder identification without their being a lack of known explanation.

well, de-ionized water is common. although this reffers to water that has been stripped of all ionic compounds dissolved in it leaving only the normal equilibrium. so presumably ionizing the water would simply mean dumping some ions in it. so its salt basically.

aye, and i seen obama huffing kittens off a swedish model in the barras in glasgow.