insane_alien

try retyping that but coherently.

i was reffering to the tripolation guy who was saying he doesn't care about it being on TV so you shouldn't either.

just because you don't care doesn't mean nobody else does

well, the earth and sun actually orbit what is known as the barycenter. basically the center of mass of the earth-sun system. as the sun is so massive compared to the earth, the center of mass is deep within the sun. also, the earth is continually falling into the sun, it is just we have enough sideways velocity that we keep missing it. the quote from hitchikers guide to the galaxy 'you just need to throw yourself at the ground and miss' isn't really as silly as it sounds as it perfectly describes an orbit. the earth started going round the sun because the dust and rocks from which it formed was going round and round the sun. it was just conservation of momentum.

yes, the water would be continually split by radiation from the sun so there would be an equilibrium of hydroxyl radicals with the same rate of generation and consumption. and you have to remember that the moons surface is a vacuum. this means a water molecule can travel many thousands of miles without bumping into anything to react with.

that is pretty high. if it's over 2.7MJ then it is flat out wrong.

all i'm going to say is that a LOT of crazies come up when you talk about gravity and thermodynamics. most of them still trying to overbalance wheels.

what does the book say?

i got 2655kJ yours is 2662kJ according to the final numbers you made this is close enough. i'm not seeing a problem. what makes you think anything is wrong? EDIT: i hope you meant J/gK and not kJ on the water heat capacity though.

well, you have the sensible heat and the latent heat combined, are you maybe required to factor in the changing heat capacity with temperature? EDIT: ydoaps crazco mentioned adding on the latent heat of vapourisation.

not really, in a nebula the gasses are cold, when they collapse into a star there is a LOT of heat generated(the energy from gravity doesn't just disappear) and this is eventually radiated out as photons. if you work through the calculations considering everything(including hte photons released) you'll see an increase in overall entropy.

it only has a negative sign because there isn't a limit to the depth of a gravitational potential well so it makes sense to set the zero point at an infinite distance as this will be consistent for all gravitational fields. you could in theory work it for earth sea level as the zero point but then you're going to have to come up with new equations for every gravitationally significant body you come across. there'd be fudge factors all over the place. taking the zero point at infinity all these fudge factors go to zero and disappear making everything nice and simple.

another question would be why should we expect it to have less? all it means is that it never encounteredselection pressures that favoured it having a reduced genome. infact, it is highly plausible that there were selection pressures favouring a large genome. such as increased mutation rates(could be from a variety of sources, chemical/radiation etc.).

it isn't inertial.

and are you ever going to provide any evidence? i mean it really is at the stage where not only would you have to provide evidence that your right, but also provide evidence of why assuming that current theory is correct works so well for us. besides, reality has no obligation to be understandable to you.

yes, this is an international forum with english as the preffered language. our(severian and me) native language is english and we can't make out what you are saying so it is highly unlikely that someone who is not a native speaker will be able to make any sense out of it. your location says florida, and although they speak their own version of english in the states, it should be trivial to extract meaning. please, remember that people other than yourself have to read your posts.

you have two of those lines sloping the wrong way. the lines on the side with just the moon should be diverging as you get further from the mirror, not converging.

well there are a lot of sheltered areas where they could survive relatively easily. insects and birds live in houses, if the house can survive it then they can survive it too. insects also have the option of tall grasses(at the ground the windspeed will be low) under rocks and various natural nooks and crannies. there are plenty of hideaways where the wildlife can take shelter.

split it into two equations. one where the octane forms only CO2 and the other where the octane only forms CO multiply the constituents of the former by 0.95 and the latter by 0.05 then bung the two equations together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urea look under industrial methods. or google Bosch-Meiser urea process. but essentally it is just ammonia + carbon dioxide

bosons have been directly observed. therefore no more proof required. in fact, you are observing bosons right now. bosons inclue photons, W+/- particles, Z particle and gluons. to say they haven't been proven is to say that forces do not exist.

copper gas wouldn't be a good conductor (although at temperatures where it is a gas it is likely to be ionized as well and plasmas are good conductors so maybe).

throng, have a reference frame at c is unphysical. physics can't provide the answer because such an answer doesn't exist.

eh there were only 74 that got HIV in the placebo group. kind of indicates a small sample size of those that were actually exposed. 51 with the vaccine contracted it. i think the conclusion is premature. much more testing would be needed(although i appreciate that it is difficult to predict who will get HIV, perhaps they should focus only on those with extremely high risk of contracting it as the useful sample size would likely be much larger)

as long as boris johnson is out of their by the time it comes around. i couldn't watch him on the tv at beijing because of embarassment.