insane_alien

yes it could contain mistakes but you can't argue its proved pretty successful so far. its been applied to every satellite, probe, space ship, space station we've ever sent up. its allowed use to discover hundreds of planets, predict the motion of stars and galaxies and so on. if it has mistakes they are negligble in this application.

gafferuk, if gravity always slows you down then how come you speed up when falling? get a brain. your trolling is becoming staler than month old bread.

gaffer you are affected by gravity bothe below AND above escape velocity.

movement is not a force. i think you have your definitions all mixed up, why don't you go remedy this. wikipedia would be a good place to start.

lose what force? the force you used to jump? well thats because you are no longer in contact with the ground. energy and force are not the same thing. newtons laws work fine in space. you still haven't said what 'griff energy' is. nor how it behaves. nor any experiment that would deterimine if it is really there.

no, gravity behaves exactly the same in space as it does on earth. the planets won't ever hit the sun because they are not stationary relative to the sun. they are going pretty fast, this means that even though they are accelerating towards the sun, they will not get closer. if you tie a rock to the end of a string and whirl it about, the rock is accelerating towards your hand but it will not hit your hand. same thing with orbits.

no that isn't correct. you appear to float in space by the same way you appear to float in the vomit comet(a plane used to train astronauts) all that happens is that you are falling at the same rate as whatever object you are in because you are being pulled on by the same gravitational field. you will not fall into the sun, but you will orbit it as long as you have sufficient lateral velocity.

depends on what direction you are travelling in. if you are going towards the sun then it will speed you up, if you are going away, only then will it slow you down. however. as we are well within the earths hill sphere, the force of gravity from the sun can be considered negligble

when you leave the ground you are no longer providing a force that acts against the force of gravity. the force of gravity is what brings you back down. jumped off what? and where about in space(it's a big place). lets assume you are standing on a really tall pole, say 200km tall. if you stepped off of this you would fall back down to earth. if you are orbiting the earth, say in the space station and you jumped off that, you would leave the station behind because its gravity is not strong enough to pull you back, but you would still be orbiting the earth as its gravity is strong enough to hold onto you. false dichotomy. they turn off the main engines because they have ran out of fuel for them. once they are off they cannot be turned back on again. not only that but they don't need them as there is no friction. i don't know why you think gravity from the sun would slow them down. the shuttles have much smaller engines for deorbiting, all they need to do is slow down a little bit and the centripetal force of gravity will take it closer to earth and the atmosphere does the majority of the slowing down.

you don't lose force when you jump. the force is what brings you back down. if you lost force when you jump on earth then you WOULD float away. but you don't lose any force so you come back down. gravity is still acting on those in space, they are falling towards the earth but due to their lateral velocity they are falling at the same rate the earth is curving away from them. look up what an orbit is.

here is gravity in space. astronauts float because they are accelerating at the same rate as the vessel they are in. you have an improper understanding of how gravity works, nothing new is required.

caught! lol.

and an even better method than using the time as a seed is to use a true random number as a seed. most computers will generate true random numbers but only very very slowly. a few bytes per second. not particularly useful if you need thousands of random numbers but it can be used to seed a pseudorandom number generator and then your off.

he wants to say he's a scientist that means he must be judged on sciences terms.

you seem to have a wrong definition for evolution. evolution is a change in the allele frequency over time. it doesn't require an increase of information(although that can and does happen)

you do know evolution has been observed in the lab right?

actually, this is seen all the time. oh really. i'm sure that with your studies of information theory you have come across stochastic optimisation right? you know where there is an entropy source(a random number generator for a computer, mutations for an organism) that allows you to get information about the function, namely the maximum/minimum/zero or whatever you are looking for. same thing applies to evolution. if you cannot see this then i don't believe you have studied information theory at all. or if you have then you certainly didn't understand it.

actually, this implies the universe HAS no center. the universe would look pretty much the same from wherever you are. and viruses can 'survive'(there is debate as to whether they are alive in the first place) space. as can bacteria. this has been proven by experimentation.

Personally i think Nostrodamus and the History Channel should just get it over with, get married and have a brood of retarded hitler babies. because thats all they ever seem to show. history is a massive an sometimes interesting subject yet they focus only on two tiny tiny parts of it if what they're showing is even historical in nature.

and heat sinks. very very good heat conduction properties. and the diamonds don't need to be of gemological quality to do that. they can still be looking like black/brown lumps and perform well.

As an engineer (potentiall a very valuable one to a terrorist organisation as i am a chemical engineer and thus have a background in chemistry as well) i can say that yes, if we put our minds to it we could make something to destroy whatever. fortunately most of us don't care to much for religious fanaticism. unfortunately i suspect we are targetted for recruitment a lot. i don't want to blow stuff up, i want to build things. i want to solve problems(in a more elegant fashion than a bomb). and i'd rather stay alive. there are more than 32 virgins on the planet and they can be yours if you play your cards right. there isn't even a (useful) guarantee that there even is an afterlife nevermind virgins or even that the virgins are of the desired gender. the virgins probably just consist of the other suicide bombers anyway.

from a scientific ideal point of view, its crap. it doesn't show you that you need to repeat stuff a LOT to get good data. or how to analyse the data properly. from the point of view of the rest of the 'science' shows. pretty darn amazing. its much better than the rest of the crap out there. and its enjoyable. go mythbusters.

still tells us nothing about the microscope's condition or the microscope you are comparing it to.

depends on how well the old one has stood the test of time and how good it was to start with as well as how good the new one is impossible to tell without trying.

Sorry, but work has been taking its toll on me lately so i just haven't really had the energy to respond yet. i had a day where i basically sat in a chair and wated a little machine go beep every ten minutes today so i'm feeling fidgety. Well, you noticed that an underground tunnel would have a few difficulties, namely you still need a pressure tight liner and so on. But you are wrong about the underwater tunnel being hard to construct. it would be very easy. what you do is you build sections of it on land, in a drydock then float them out to sea, join them up and then sink the tunel to the desired depth, anchor it and bobs your teapot. yes it would take a long time and cost a lot but not as much as boring a transcontinental tunnel. The thing about rocks is that they're hard to go through. Much harder than water and you have all sorts of different types of rock, and then there are fault lines and so on and so on. The boring of the tunnel would take much longer than constructing a transatlantic tunnel. That could probably be accomplished within 20 years. 40 considering beurocratic red tape. tunneling across the US would take 50 or so and serve less purpose(its easy to travel over land, you have many options travelling across a stretch of water leaves you with less options). As for traffic management, a looped tunnel and multiple trains would be the way to go, you talk about large loops at either end, but they wouldn't need to be very large at all, the solution is to just put the train round them at a slower velocity. they needen't be bigger than a loop of standard railway track. multiple trains too, its 40 minutes both ways remember, thats a 1 h 20min gap between departing and arriving trains not to mention the problems caused by time zone differences.