Leader Bee

Either this or you're struggling to express what your idea is enough for us to understand you.

For this setup the problem would be two fold because as well as piezoeletric plates being expensive and not particularly efficient you'd also need to cover them in a sheet of ice...

Damn, and reading the thread title I was hoping to hear about the first Elephant manned mission to space What's an even bigger rocket once a year going to achieve over many smaller rockets over the course of a year?

There have been clinical trials on the ill effects of caffeine by... King Gustav III of Sweden who seemed to think that the stuff was so poisionous that a convicted murderer was "sentenced" to 3 pots of coffee a day until he was dead, as per the following: http://idiotsguides.com/static/didyouknow/01_12_11-gustav_iii_of_sweden.html

A little misleading imo. They don't necessarily get passed on because they are successful, evolution doesn't distinguish between good genes and bad genes then weed out which ones will be beneficial or not, it just so happens that because the gene mutations were useful more offspring that carried the gene survived and had the chance to pass it on. If less variations of organisms survive with bad genes they have less opportunity to pass the gene on, however those successful enough to breed will pass on the mutation just as well as something with a "beneficial" gene.

No, To the best of my knowledge Piezoelectric plates are expensive to manufacture and used in very specific applications. You'd be lucky to get this to work from stuff you can get down your local DIY store.

I'd go with putting some aluminium foil into a blender and using the result . I'm sure others could come up with a better idea though. It sounds like you're after household materials so thats why i've suggested this. Alternatives would be hydrogen peroxide, which you can get from good old hair bleaching kits, your local hairdresser will probably sell this. if you're lucky enough to have a pool then you'll probably have chlorine at hand which is also an oxidising agent, maybe thy this. Then again, these aren't solid...

While Wikipedia is a great place for information the fact that it's editable by anyone means it's not reliable, experts and ameteurs alike can add their comments to an article and it's not always unbiased. While there are links to sources at the bottom of most articles it's usually cited as an unreliable resource. Taking into account the above, how can you varify anything on the internet as a reliable resource? is Physorg.com reliable? how can you tell something has been peer reviewed or that the same information is generally accepted science? what about Howstuffworks.com too? I find that very informative but without a research background I find it difficult to tell. When I post I'd like to be able to source reliable information in my posts but doing so online seems like a fallicious minefield.

It's not that they couldn't hold a spear, it's more that they couldn't throw one, at least not far: "(PhysOrg.com) -- A new study of the skeletal fossils of Neanderthal and Early modern man suggest the lack of a "throwing arm" may have made the difference in human evolution. Researchers Jill A. Rhodes and Steven Churchill, evolutionary anthropologists published their findings in the January 2009 edition of the Journal of Human Evolution. The paper entitled, "Throwing in the Middle and Upper Paleolithic: inferences from an analysis of humeral retroversion," provides some clues to the extinction of Neanderthal. " Source: http://www.physorg.com/news151326825.html

You may be interested in this: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/house-music-energy-crisis1.htm

Well lets start with neanderthal man; Unlike Homo Sapiens they were far less communal a species, many living in small groups of 10 or so very likley family members and close relatives, this really strikes biodiversity a huge blow to begin with. Secondly, while they could communicate they were not as highly developed for speech as Homo Sapiens, their larynx just too high to produce the variety of noises we can make, great for not choking on your food, not so great for being able to speak. While it seems all the animals in the world survive without being able to "talk" to each other, in a world where 2 very similar species are competing with each other i'd say this was a major drawback for them. Neanderthals also had an unusually devloped shoulder joint that limited it's mobility, they would have difficulty throwing spears for example and using particular tools... Perhaps they had the mental capacity to develop tools like this but they never could due to physical constraints. Neanderthal instead relying on speed and strength to survive over reason and cunning.

Can you make a birds nest out of glass, plastic and man made alloys? It works both ways and as such would be an association fallacy. A) Birds are born naturally B) Birds build nests C) Therefore nests must be natural A) Man is born naturally (in most cases) B) Man builds TV's C) TV's must be natural? Saying that, how can anything that is built with naturally occuring resources not be natural? Infact even something like Plutonium which is "man made" came from natural substances I don't see how anything that can physically exist in the universe could be called un-natural? How would one define natural and un-natural? Perhaps natural could be described as "Only without the intervention of man"?

You have to ask yourself what the reason for the reduced lifespan could be and in both cases of television or computers the thing that sticks out is excercise; If you're sat for 6 hours in front of the TV it's 6 hours you could have spent running around or doing pushups or a walk in the countryside. TV's and computers aren't particularly mobile devices and you're guaranteed to be in the same area with little movement for that time.. bar the odd walk to the kitchen for drinks and snacks, which wont account for much. I spend a lot of time in front of both a computer and television and i'd say that given equal usage times the time spent infront of a monitor I would probably feel worse after i'd finished, annecdotal evidence would say this is due to the proximity of the screen, the fact you're focusing on small areas of the screen and your posture (mouse, keyboard etc) whereas you'd have a chance to sit back and recline watching tv from a distance. Going by this, i'd go as far as to say over use of a computer is worse for your health than overuse of TV; clearly studies and numbers are more useful than ones opinion here though.

I can't believe I fell into that trap... Oh Well.

So the genocide of WWII wasn't wrong until the allies made their way into Germany and Poland and found the concentration camps... right?

Heat can be described as an increase in the movement of atoms contained within a substance. The way you've posed the question sounds a bit Home work-ey and we can't just hand out answers.

What you have there is a railgun.

what is the probability of the hole occuring infront of a photon? if a hole doesn't appear does light just get blocked, does it slow down what happens to the light that should be getting to us? This phenomena should be observable as dark patches in the sky.. no?

You said: I said: I'm not sure how I didnt include gravity in that explination? Furthermore, Elephants in general are the largest existing land mammals, In general, the Asian elephant weighs between 3-5 tons (6,615-11,025lb); however the smaller Sumatran subspecies weight range begins at 2 tons (4,000lb). By contrast, the African elephant weighs between 4-7 tons (8,820-15,435lb) Source: http://www.honoluluzoo.org/indian_elephant.htm A typical estimate for T-rex is 5 - 7 tons (Example here: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/march6/tyrannowalk-36.html and here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/trextrans.shtml ) so a Male african Elephant and a "typical" T-rex roughly weigh the same. In general, heavy animals like this have a lot of padding on their feet to spread their weight which causes less damage to joints and has other useful features like not sinking too much in soft ground or sand. T-rex has a disadvantage here, being bi-pedal it can only spread it's weight over 2 limbs instead of 4 and yet we still see rounded indentations in the fossil image you linked. Regardless of the above, this still doesn't explain your postulation that a change in gravity killed the dinosaurs. Do you have any evidence for the existence of Aether? My understanding is that Le Sage's theory of gravitation (that deals with gravitational Aether) and other competing theories for Aether are non-viable within modern science.

Gravity is an attractional force associated with mass, it cannot change direction to "outwards". If gravity weakens then things will still be attracted downwards but perhaps not as agressively as it could have been. How do you suggest that gravity was to change direction? What mechanism do you have to explain this phenomenon? I'd also imagine a creature evolving in a low gravity environment to be far less muscular than a creature evolved to deal with high gravity too and i'd hypothesise that it would have less need for rounded padding on it's feet than a heavy creature that needs to protect it's feet. I feel if anything that low gravity would mean more fragile flat feet than the other way around.

And so would the dinosaur itself and so everything, relatively speaking should work the same, no mass values have changed. I dont think the compressibility of a material is affeced by gravity, rather Geologic materials are made up of two portions: solids and voids (or same as porosity). The void space can be full of liquid or gas. Geologic materials reduces in volume only when the void spaces are reduced, which expel the liquid or gas from the voids. This can happen over a period of time, resulting in settlement. Less gravity doesn't mean more compressibility.

What leads you to believe that this has only happened to primates? Take the horse for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Equine_evolution.jpg The earlier Mesohippus clearly has a longer skull, weaker lower jaw and larger eye sockets much more rodent like in appearance; Compared to Equus, the most recent example we have here which looks more recognisable as todays horses though all are closely related. As for big cats "The cat family comprises some of the most specialised carnivores in the history of mammals, all exclusively eating flesh. The cat family consists of two major sub-groups: the feline cats (including all modern species) and the sabertoothed cats (which are all extinct). Skeletons from the two groups look broadly similar, but their skulls are often remarkably different, and suggest that members of the two groups underwent radically different adaptations to predation during the course of evolution." Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080729234258.htm

Curved soles suggests to me that the ground the dinosaur stepped in when the fossil was made was soft when it happened.

no relation to this guy: http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html ?

Since this thread was necro'd I suppose i'll take the opportunity to ask about the ICF construction; While it looks like a great concept, "waiting for the concrete to cure" sounds like it could be a downside. Obviously the Hoover dam was a lot bigger and thicker and they used cooling techniques to harden it quickly, otherwise it would have taken 100 years to harden using conventional pouring methods(source) but i'd assume a residential scale program wouldn't use such techniques and wonder what the waiting time would be... especially since you've also insulated it with foam, for it to harden so that work could begin on the interior - not even considering when it might be habitable?