insane_alien

first of all, do you know the difference between distance and displacement.

how about daedalus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus fair enough it'd be a one way trip with no stopping but it was deemed plausible and within technological reach of 40 years ago

nope, last post was july.

you could try submitting to a psychology journal. worst case scenario, it doesn't get in and you have to find another method of proving your claim(probably going to a notary or solicitor). best case, it gets in and some other people will analyse it and it passes/fails peer review. don't be thrown if it fails peer review or doesn't get into a journal though. 99% of the time hypotheses turn out to be crud, its not a reflection of a lack of intelligence, just that you were wrong about this one thing. refine it, improve it and maybe net time you'll be right.

do you mean: is it possible to work out how heat will distribute itself throughout an object so that you can design the object so this distribution of heat has favourable properties? if so, yes. its simple heat transfer. a lot of equations (they aren't really complex but you'd need to break the structure into lots of little parts to deal with it) so its better left to computer modelling rather than a calculation by hand(unless you want to spenda few years working it out)

yes well obviously we should have manufacturing plants on opposite sides of the world and have a week between shipping dates. although we will need an entanglement plant half way between the manufacturing plants to ensure the tracker is tied to the right coffee machine. might get some customer complaints if it accidentally swaps itself with an elephant, or the inventory of a mexican sewage treatment plant.

when they were asked simple questions about what exactly they were protesting there seemed to be a uniform 'i don't know'. how the hell can you protest something when you don't even know what it is? surely some part of them asked 'hang on! i have no idea why i'm protesting. why am i doing this?'

do you want to bundle it with my quantum quantum coffee machine tracker? once every decillion years or so it exchanges places with a quantum coffee machine.

its been used bizarley since the crazies decided quantum means 'magical'. its been going on for decades.

then why did you bring it up in your response?

he never said there was a dependence on the number of photons.

any specific sources though? don't want to have to sift through dozens of books in the university library. also, the only sources i can find something similar to what you are saying is in material dealling with light classically. photons are not in the realm of classical physics.

i can only learn stuff i can find sources for.

yep, your right. its aqueous.

empirical evidence of our own conciousness: ourselves. heck, the whole concept of conciousness is based on us so its pretty much by definition.

you have Na+ and Cl- ions surrounded by a lot of water. which phase is it most likely to be in?

you seem to be the only one claiming this. i have searched for an article, journal paper or well, anything that says photons move slower when in a material but i can't find one. the burden of proof isn't on me anyway, its on you. you are the one making the claim that photons don't move at c in a material despite everyone else saying they don't(including the guy you linked to to support your claim). so cough up or shut up. EDIT, btw, this thread has gone majorly offtopic. i suggest a mod move this off topic discussion to its own thread.

you seem to be the only one claiming this. i have searched for an article, journal paper or well, anything that says photons move slower when in a material but i can't find one. the burden of proof isn't on me anyway, its on you. you are the one making the claim that photons don't move at c in a material despite everyone else saying they don't(including the guy you linked to to support your claim). so cough up or shut up. EDIT, btw, this thread has gone majorly offtopic. i suggest a mod move this off topic discussion to its own thread.

its to do with the life span of the blood. if you took the time to test it before it was used then you'd by trying to shove a congealed lump through the transfusion needle into the patient. a sample is taken from all donations and tested. if it turns out to be dodgy, the blood has laready been used and bad luck to the person who got it. the questions are there to minimize the amount of bad blood they get.

i have never seen it in a text book. at all. now, are you going to provide a credible source or not?

one of those posters was the same guy you used as evidence for your opinion. now, do you have any peer reviewed source on this? maybe a physics text or university website would do?

i recorded it from 4HD and just watched it there. it sort of worked (as in getting up was more of an effort than usual) and i'm pretty sure if i wasn't distracted by my wee brother giggling all the way through it, it would have worked. i seen the flashed too but didn't make out what they were. i'll have a look on tuesday.

can you provide a source for this. prefferably a peer reviewed paper.

no, no problem with a marriage between them (as long as they are consenting adults at the time of marriage) although, if they intend to have children then there is a higher chance of genetic problems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding and i'd take issue there. but as to them merely getting married? nope, no problem.

his measurement was imprecise because he lacked accuracy in his measurements. accurate clocks and distance measurements were not widely available at the time. ther were no flaws in his logic as if you repeat the experiment today with accurate measurements then you get an answer of c.