insane_alien

we're going to need more information than 'that weblink'

it was closer to 500ft the distance the bullet travelled. plugging that in, we get 2.18 millimeters so assuming its launched from 1 meter thats 0.218% error. given that the tolerances of a floor are greater than that we can assume that we can then assume that the curvature is negligble. also, given that this is most likely to be repeated in a classroom scale, if we use a 10m distance travelled(on the big side for a class room) we get 7.8 micro meters. at that scale specs of dust will give larger errors.

eh? i'm not claiming that the earth is flat. i'm claiming that on the scales considered, the bumpiness of the ground plays a far greater role than the earths curvature. especially if this is a classroom scale demonstration. maybe i've missed the point of what you said, it was rather obfusticated do you mind reiterating in clearer language? oh and we've known the earth is round since the 6th century BC. significantly before 1492.

see the more you actually look into what energy companies are doing and what potential sources they are developing, the more you come to respect just how well they are keeping us supplied with energy. there really isn't a lot of wiggle room for them and they still have major setbacks that further reduce this and still we get a very reliable stream of energy. if they had some magical sources of power then they'd use it. because the more energy the produce, and the cheaper they produce it, the more people will use resulting in more profit. it would be extremely bad for business if they didn't while its a nice fantasy, its no where near reality.

yes, 10.04 is already on its way. but i'm more of an arch linux fan now. i like the rolling release concept.

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/itamp/slowelectrons.html#anchor636597 < many of the papers here deal with electrons with KE's of ~100eV a tv will produce several keV electrons and particle colliders will provide GeV electrons. this definitely indicates that they have an arbitrary speed.

they will not last forever. the structures that give rise to the magnetism will eventually revert to an amorphous state. it'll take centuries usually unless you are extracting energy from the field then they'll do it much much quicker.

electrostatic attraction to the electron sea. same as in all metals

more of a guideline really. SFN is far more leniant of it than some other forums. it all comes down to moderator discretion on where to draw the line and they'll only really take notice if either they are involved or someone complains. if they can back up their case with evidence then its fine.

i agree with captain panic, you need to be much clearer with your working, sure it takes a few seconds longer to put in the units and write it out in a readable format, but this will be a MASSIVE timesaver if you make a mistake(which you inevitably will, you wouldn't be human if you didn't). especially if it is on a larger balance than a combustion unit. also, on larger systems your are doing a balance on, draw some diagrams. these are ridiculously useful, i even do it for small unit processes where it isn't strictly necessary out of habit.

nor would they get the point

look, its simple, you label every graph whether you want to or not. it is not immediately obvious what the labels should be, okay it is a reasonable assumption to make that the bottom is atomic number but there isn't anything you can assume about the y axis. and if people have to make assumptions then that means you aren't doing a very good job of conveying information. it is the work of 30 seconds to label a graph and its an extension of a previously labelled graph so it should just be a matter of adding in the extra data.

no that'll just make it take even longer as the rest of the admins will wander off to get marshmallows

where's our traditional winter logo? no santa hats, no snow men. whats up with you lazy admins!

toasty, there is a particular brand of nutjob out there who believe that monatomic gold has magical properties. also, if you atomize gold it will be black and not white. there's a bunch of hooey about the electrons being in a special configuration that changes the shape of the nucleus into a line of nucleons or some other magic shape of the week. the guy who 'invented it' also claims that he can extract 50kg of rare earth metals per tonne of any soil. if there really was 50kg of rare earth metals per tonne of soil then they would not be rare earth metals and they wouldn't even be a tenth the price they are.

actually, there is a proper philosophy called metaphysics and it wouldn't deal with stuff like 'g faeries' 'g faeries' would fall under the popularized by nutjobs definition of it though. of course, the proper term for THAT kind of metaphysics is 'mindless drivel'

elas, i'm going to restate a request that has been made before and is a pretty important one. label your graphs and their axes. have a legend as well. graphs only make sense if they're labelled. you may know what they mean but it needs to be obvious to others as well.

yep, and that ydoaps has a bit of an obsessive fetish about creationism.

congrats dude!

no, he's not. he just keeps on posting the same old crap that averyone got bored of years ago. frankly i'm surprised this thread is still open, i'm quite sure this isn't the first he's opened on it and i'm sure a few of the older ones were locked.

i wonder if zolar V said that with a hint of sarcasm...

it was not a direct attack, it wasn't even an attack at all. i merely said that claiming you have lots of experience on the matter means bugger all, especially on the internet. i can claim i am 50 years old, have server in the RAF since i was 18 and have met the queen twice. but it doesn't mean any of it is true. (and those members who know my actual identity will know that this is a lie). the point is that without someway to independantly verify the facts, we cannot take what you say for granted.

PAL/SECAM really now, is everything you don't like a psychosis?

you could be lying, for all we know, about your experiences. also, the articles you posted aren't relevant to the 'craters' you have posted. they are about the tunguska event. tunguska is not in new mexico(last time i checked). you haven't shown how they cannot be anything other than impact craters. all you have told us it 'they look like impact craters to me' so what. people have misidentified things before. they look like small quarries to me. i have seen a lot of quarries from the air. what makes my opinion any less valid than yours? because thats all it is without some independant evidence, opinion. EDIT: So, just so i'm giving back something positive here, http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/ConMediaFile.25131 pretty square looking open quarry. why can't the formations shown in the pictures be old quarries?

the black colour doesn't necessarily mean burning. it can lso mean that the ground has been churned up revealing a darker material underneath. assuming these are impact craters is an un justified assumption. you will need to provide evidence(geological surveys) of these areas to prove that they are impact craters. signs to look for ar glass formations at the bottom, breccia or rock shattered rocks, chemical analysis of the rocks. this information cannot be achieved through google earth. but the large number of access roads to otherwise uninteresting areas indicates some quarrying. and not all quarries are currently active. it is entirely possible that many of them are abandoned and no visible evidence(from the point of view of google maps) is available.