insane_alien

a conventional explosion has objects expanding from one point. and you can trace the point from the frame of any particle you choose. the universe is expanding uniformly which means there is no starting point because everywhere is the starting point. imagine the universe is an invisible fruit loaf(bear with me here) and you're standing on one of the raisins looking at some other raisins when its baking (and expanding). you would measure the further away raisins to be moving away from you at a faster velocity relative to you. but relative to the bread bit they're not moving at all. universe is closer to that than an explosion. don't read too much into the analogy, it is an analogy to explain the fundemental concept and nothing more reading too much into it will lead to disparities between the analogy and reality that are irrelevant to the point.

he was talking about spatial dimensions, not temporal dimensions. i would have thought this to be obvious. the numbering of dimensions is arbitrary anyway.

it does yes. and that means that the things that make le Sages theory fail make happy snappers theory fail. namely, if you put something in a box it should experience less gravity. but this is not observed at all. also, while i'm thinking about this (and everything but my assignment for monday) happy snapper, if gravity is caused by some new form of matter that isn't darkmatter or normal matter then why don't we observe particles travelling in a way that that indicated they are being bombarded by something. this would be an obvious indicator of your speculation as the sudden acceleration of charged particles(such as an electron) would generate an electro magnetic emission.

there was a cool thing in my highschool(only installed in my last year there) it was a mish cross between whiteboard and projector. you wrote on it with a electronic pen. there was even a program that would animate what you drew like those little physics programs so you could draw a car and a sloping track for it to go down and it would actually roll down the track. i imagine this ould have more mature applications as well.

its not misleading at all. it is an appropriate use of vector mathematics. any confusion over the matter comes from people not understanding the mathematics.

warmer here, used to get load of snow for sledging and snowman building. not so much any more.

whats the difference in potential energy between the point where it was dropped and the height it reached on the first bounce? that'll give you your answer.

yes it does depend on the partial pressure but if we assume the system is at a reasonably constant pressure (a fair assumption on the part of the atmosphere of earth especially if we are considering a single house) then the absorbed oxygen depends on the mole fraction present in the gas. which is the percentage composition. happy?

thats because the environment of space is quite gentle compared to some of the environments of earth. for instance, in space you only have to worry about a maximum of 1 atmopsphere pressure difference(unless you're going to venus or a gas giant). to get to the core of the earth you need to withstand pressure that make solids seem not so solid. also in space you have plenty of paths to dump excess heat. none when you're a few hundred kilometers down. again this all boils down to space is easy once your up there. going into the earth is hard to get down there, even harder to stay there and even harder again to get back up.

do you want stuff about heavy water or hard water? you mention both of these as if they were interchangeable, they are not. one is a water molecule containing a high mineral content(hard water) and the other is a molecule with heavier hydrogen isotopes (deuterium, tritium). they are very different things.

but atoms can only interact with dark matter via gravity. they cannot be 'bombarded' with it. the dark matter will just pass by and have a small gravitational effec on it.very very tiny. also, there are a multitude of dark matter particles passing through you right now yet you can move fine. and they're going through you in all directions, some are going into the earth, some are going away from the earth and i wouldn't be surprised if there were a whole bunch orbiting the earth. you still assume that dark matter paricles and all other particles are some little solid lumps that will bounce off each other when hit. this isn't the case at all or we'd have observed dark matter directly by now. this would mean it interacted via another force such as the weak nuclear force. we KNOW that it doesn't.

The thing is, dark matter is different from gravity itself. A graviton is a particle hypothesised to travel at the speed of light, and transmit the force of gravity. a particle of dark matter is a particle that has significant mass and does not travel at the speed of light(otherwise the mapped darkmatter shouldn't appear like it does). it only interacts by the exchange of gravitons(assuming gravitons exist in the first place, we have more evidence for dark matter than gravitons). dark matter and gravitons are different there is no escaping this. also, on reading your post, you are proposing that dark matter 'hits' atoms. how does this occur? they only interact via gravity. gravity would not cause a dark matter particle to bounce off say a quark. or anything. it seems that you are assuming that they are little tiny balls of 'stuff' that behave a lot like bouncy balls. this is very very wrong. you only get this sort of behaviour when you have fairly large objects like a virus.

well, they only tend to put you on oxygen when you're having trouble getting enough anyway. they tune the dose so you are still absorbing the same amount of oxygen overall into your blood. the only exception i can think of is during hyperbaric oxygen treatment but that is rarely used.

higher oxygen concentration( i forget the threshold value, maybe ~40%?) will cause oxygen toxicity and can be fatal if not rectified. plants only produce O2 during the day, and thanks to diffusion, the oxygen concentration in a house won't build up much unless the house is almost hermetically sealed. at night they'll lower the oxygen concentration slightly too as they consume it. either way, the difference in oxygen levels would be swamped by day to day variations in the atmosphere and how many people are in the room at the one time, what the weather is and so on. also, more oxygen does not equal healthier. people living in the mountains where there is a lower partial pressure of oxygen can be just as healthy as those living at sea level if not more so as if they come down to sea level they can generally outperform someone who has lived a sea level their whole lives. this is why atheletes train at high altitude regularly.

ah right. forgot about that bit of it.

i didn't say it reacted with gravity, i said it interacted with gravity. there is a difference. we know it interacts with gravity because we can see the effects on stars and galaxies. infact, if we use computer modelling and observations of the motions of stars we can map out where there should be mass for the stars to be moving the way they do. we did this and it detected a fair bit of mass where there was no visible matter. only trace quantities of gas and dust and cetainly no starsor gravitationally significant bodies. this is the closest we can get to a direct observation of darkmatter. the map and more about it can be seen here http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070108_mm_darkmatter_map.html and here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6235751.stm it is important to note that while dark matter interacts via gravity it is not the only thing that interactscia gravity. anything with mass interacts with gravity that includesthe quarks electrons gluons etc. etc. that make up you.

1/ yep, atoms are composed of protons,neutrons and electrons. all smaller than the atom. neutrons and protons are themselves made up of quarks which are smaller than protons/neutrons 2/ yes, a neutrino can do it although it will have a small chance of reacting with the nucleus. 3/ yep, nuclear reactions take place all the time. 4/ no. the only reason we cannot detect dark matter is because it appears to only interact with other matter via gravitational forces rather than the rest of them (electromagnetic, weak and strong forces). if it did interact via more than just gravity it would be relatively easy to spot.

nope, i usually come up with two or three methods to attack the problem, mull it over for a few seconds and decide on the best course of action and go for it. going with my 'gut' has never got me anything but a fail.

nikola, while he had some brilliant ideas and was quite smart, was also pretty messed up in the head and got a LOT of stuff wrong. you cannot take anything he said as being completely true just because he said it. this is actually called arguement from authority fallacy. sure, someone famous said it but that doesn't mean they are right. Einstein spent a lot of his later years trying to get rid of quantum mechanics because he didn't like it. but it's here to stay. also, science has moved on in leaps and bounds since tesla, his ideas are at the very least outdated.

ah good, tomorrow sales of high capacity stomach pumps will shoot up making my stock worth BILLIONS! MWUAHAHAHAHA!

if the temperatures drop then you don't get fusion. and all you have is a magnetic metallic doughnut with some slightly warm plasma going round inside it sucking up power like a hummer sucks up petrol. the fact is that the bigger the fusion reactor the easier it is to deal with. the temperatures stay roughly the same as it is too problematic to have them higher than they need to be and you don't get fusion if its colder.

yes, i know its wasted effort, but i do enjoy the odd futile task now and again. its relaxing.

and the missing the point completly award goes to .... drum roll please... walkntune. you do understand the concept of an analogy right?

none, the temperatures and pressures involved would not allow complex organic molecules to form. oh, and rubies are aluminium oxide with a slight chromium impurity.

paranoid delusions. its the whole 'they're out to get you' thing and quit frankly it is flawed. pretty much all of the secret world government conspiracies require so many resources and people cooperating completely that it would be impossible. a government of that scale cannot be implemented without tens of thousands of people i'm not just talking about the major politiciansbut also all the more minor players such as secretaries, advisors, localized governors etc etc. all these people would have to be kept quiet. thats going to cost a fortune which ever way you do it. then there's the paper work. and by paperwork i just mean data.a governement this large would generate vast quantities of data require a pretty decent network and so on. now even small governments leak data like a seive. the larger they get the greater the quantity of leaked data you get. as none of this data is appearing it points to the lack of existance of such a government. and there would be lots of infighting and people wanting to create their own branches and vying for the top job, this happens in all governments and draws attention to the government especially if they're trying to be discreet. now, it is often said that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, but if people are saying that there is a great big giant that shakes the ground when he walks around but there are no large foot prints and seismic activity then the lack of evidence IS evidence of lack.