insane_alien

the onews in my work are made of stainless steel.

show me someone who can age 55 years in 20-30 years and i might be convinced. where are these figures from? have you any proof? can you make retrodictions in the same manner?

I can't find any definition of bacteria that says they can't exist at 121*C I know that there isn't a known one, but i can't find anything saying that if it was that temperature then it wouldn't be a bacteria. actually, Aquifex aeolicus and Geothermobacterium ferrireducens seem to be hyperthermophile bacteria

by justify i'm fairly sure swansont meant: why should that be the equation used? how did you come to that equation? equations don't just pop out of nowhere. also, as this is most definitely considering motion why have you used E=mc^2 (the simplification for zero momentum) rather than the full equation?

I think it's quite good. my internet connection certainly isn't good enough to be downloading such large movies all the time and i haven't had a problem playing DVD's or even some old VCD's I just wish xbox would use blu-rays as well so you don't have to change disks in big games.

all i'm saying is thin clients died out for a very very good reason except in particular circumstances where they are still used because they are the right thing to use. I don't want to have a useless hep of junk every time my internet goes down.

punctuation is for those with full keyboards

I think he's saying that natural selection is the last bastion of science and that everything else is already false. could be wrong though, english skills of a drunk scotsman

I was assuming US gallons as that would be the most likely considering gallons are still common over there.

ah fair point. 3

I think this misunderstanding could come from the fact that the magnesium will react with the water and the resultant magnesium hydroxide solution will be denser than plain water. not heavy water though.

pure D2O is not 10lbs per gallon (9.2384 lbs/gal). which means you need to to use tritiated heavy water which is going to be quite radioactive. have you considered using something other than water?

As I haven't researched it indepth enough to form a properly informed opinion my statement cannot be taken as absolute truth. From what I have read it seems that WIMPS would be putting out a fair bit of radiation from those weak interactions particularly in the early universe which we haven't seen. Now, I'd be quite happy to hear other wise so if you have anything I'll have a read over it.

yes, this is a possibility too but i think its unlikely.

you could maybe use a fisheye lense to gather light from a large portion of sky. its not going to be very efficient but really, there isn't a whole lot of light to be collecting.

or if you want to be boring and try it on the computer you can use this application http://www.falstad.com/emwave2/

right, imagine we have a square sitting on a surface (taking this as a 2 dimensional problem for simplicity). the center of gravity is in the center. in order to tip the square over on its 'side' we need to rotate it, this will meanyou need to raise the center of gravity as the squate pivots on its corner. this means doing work against gravity and increasing the amount of force you need to apply to generate sufficient torque. if you compare to a tall slender rectangle the center of gravity doesn't need to be moved very far before it is beyond the pivot and gravity will do the rest for you.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=600000*+distance+from+earth+to+the+sun+%2F+speed+of+light^2 close but no cigar. i call numerology.

well if you have two cars with exactly the same proportions but with a weight distribution that causes a difference in the height of the CoG then the one with a higher CoG will require less torque to tip over as you have to do less work against gravity.

the sunspots are cause by the fact the sun is a great big convecting spinning conductive ball with some powerful magnetic fields. it is "doing" sunspots in the same way magnets "do" attracting iron filings.

then how can it explain the LHC results?

no because neutrons are more reactive than dark matter. neutrons can react electromagnetically, weak nuclear forcey, strong nuclear forcey, and gravitationally. dark matter can only interact gravitationally.

yeah, i was taking stability to mean, 'how much force would it take to tip the car over?'

more to the point, how does that lump of neutron star stay stable? without the massive gravitational field of hte parent star it will quickly explode back to non-degenerate matter by beta decay.

fixed