StrontiDog

Actually, there are a few things we're sure about. First of all, it's a mistake to ever say 'lower life form'. From an evolutionary standpoint, it's just a different life form. Everybody talks about the monkeys, well...forget the monkeys. If you go back far enough, we share a common ancestor with every mammal that exists. The same single ancestor species evolved into wombats and sperm whales and kangaroos and mice and humans. That ancestor species may well be considered more complex--for those who try to determine these things--than some of its descendents. Wouldn't that make it a 'higher' life form? And no, folks using the tool of science cannot say that some magical being didn't wave its appendages and pop the entire universe into existence, as is. But if it did, it took the time and effort to make it look like these things came about over a really long period of time and using nothing but natural and explainable phenomena. Why would it do such a thing? You're going to have to ask the magical being about that, it doesn't talk to me. If we were 'seeded' by some less-than-godlike creature, it must have done so really early, because we sure look like we evolved along with the rest of the flora and fauna on the planet. (With a few exceptions living around volcanic vents and such.) The point is, the natural phenomenon called evolution is happening now, we're sure of that. We've seen it happen and have come a long way toward explaining how. And it doesn't have a 'direction.' Bill Wolfe

I'm not really sure what 'create the fuel' means. It always takes consumable raw materials of some kind, which have the energy already locked-up inside them in some fashion. We get far more energy out of fossil and nuclear fuels than it takes to mine, refine transport and convert to electricity, but that doesn't sound like it fits the definition of 'create'. It's not like we're putting most of the energy into it before we take it back out in the form of electricity. Even wind, solar or hydroelectric power needs something akin to raw materials, a steady supply of 'free' wind, photons or rainfall upstream of the dam. I'm not sure this question has any answer besides a simple 'No.' Bill Wolfe

One quick question, Galindo. Do you understand that you will never evolve? Neither will I, nor anyone else, for that matter. Populations evolve, it's what the word means. Individuals cannot--by definition--evolve. Even if you discover some never-before described (scientifically) brain potential and teach us all how to use it for the benefit of all humankind. . .that does not constitute evolution. I've just read this entire thread for the first time and I'm not sure where you are on that question. Bill Wolfe

I hope I don't step on any toes, here, but the actual answer to the question is. . .We're not sure. There is still some debate about it. Gotta love that General Relativity. Here's something I found that may shed some light on the subject. Some GR highlights: 1. Space and space-time are not rigid arenas in which events take place. They have form and structure which are influenced by the matter and energy content of the universe. 2. Matter and energy tell space (and space-time) how to curve. 3. Space tells matter how to move. In particular small objects travel along the straightest possible lines in curved space (space-time). (Note the above descriptions of General Relativity are due to John Wheeler.) So basically, gravity might be curved space. Think of the stuff that space is made of 'leaning in' toward mass, from all directions. From this perspective, photons (no mass) might not be affected by gravity, they're just traveling in a straight line through space that is curved, so they seem to be pulled by it. This is a simplistic overview, but I like it. Bill Wolfe

Then please adjust your browser settings. That will make everyone's font the same size (I have problems with small fonts, too) Will do, boss. BW

Quite correct on both counts. I was looking at the scenario and alpha wouldn't reach or penetrate the 'hovering vehicle', so I discounted it. And while high energy photons can create metastable isomers, these are generally of such short half life that he wouldn't 'take it with him.' Oversimplification is sometimes the same as being wrong. Guilty. The whole 'likely to see from nuclear waste' thing pretty much limits the likelyhood to neutrons and the occasional proton as activation agents. Photon activation of any scale would probably take a lethal dose, while the other two would be survivable. Once again, though, you're right. Bill Wolfe

Temperature and pressure determine fusion rates, sure. That ain't radioactive decay, though. And that was the original question. In a way, fusion is the opposite of decay. I can't find any reference to slower rates of nuclear decay in the core of a star, can you tell me where you found the basis for it? You're not talking about gravitational time dilation are you? The sun isn't massive enough to make much difference along those lines, but I suppose that to an outside observer, the nuclear decay rate would appear to be slowed. Sorry, still can't see any effect that temperature (high or low) would have on radioactive half life. I use bigger fonts because I have lousy eyesight. And all this time I thought that size didn't matter. BW

Sorry, bad eyes, small screen. Size matters? BW

We're talking about the trading of charge (wanna call it quarks, go ahead) between the nucleons. The nucleons. Don't mess with this stuff, it isn't really up for debate. Temperature is not powerful enough to matter at this scale. Think Higgs bosons and what they are actually made of. I doesn't make any difference. The effect is still random, but predictable on a large scale. Think what temperature does, and then think weak and strong nuclear forces. It's not brain surgery, folks. It's simple thermal dynamics. Kid's stuff. Like it or not, that's the way it is. Sorry. Temperature isn't capable of influencing the actions on the Quantum Level. There just isn't enough energy there to make a difference. Bill Wolfe

Simple answer is yes, it would. At 80%C, the object has 1 and 2/3 times the mass it has when it's not relativistic. Your hundred kg ship now has a mass of 166.66667 kg. Its gravitational attraction on objects in the vicinity has increased accordingly. Pretty straightforward equation. v = 0.8 c = 1.0 mo = 100 kg. Oh yeah, and it would probably take more energy than exists in the universe to make this happen. The radial acceleration would be enormous. Every picosecond of arc change would take the total energy of our sun--this is a guess, not a calculation. I could be off in either direction by several orders of magnitude and it wouldn't make any difference. Bill Wolfe

I am qualified to take a shot at these three, so I will. Number 1: The answer is no. For the most part, radioactive decay is caused by an imbalance of charge between the neutrons and protons in the nucleus of the isotope. Very basically you can call a neutron a chargeless proton or vice versa. They can be either. In the nucleus, they switch back and forth between being a P+ and No in a completely random manner. Heat--even core of the sun-type heat--has no effect at this level of matter. Neither does absolute zero. No effect at all. As a matter of fact, if you shoot a neutron and it never collides with anything, it will decay into a proton by emitting an electron (okay, it's a negative beta particle, but we only know that because we know where it came from, it's indistinguishable from an electron). A neutron on its own even has a half life of about 10.3 minutes. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/particles/proton.html For number three: I'm going to have to make the assumption that by 'radiated particle' you mean the ionizing agent, which can be a particle or a photon. If this is what you mean, the answer is YES if you were hit by neutrons (or protons, both of which fall under the category of 'radiation.' ) Both can 'activate' certain elements in your body (oxygen and sodium, primarily) which will decay with varying half lives of their own. It literally turns an element into an isotope and 'makes' it radioactive. A quick and dirty check of an individual who has been exposed to a lot of neutrons is to have them tuck a gamma-sensitive instrument (Geiger probe or Sodium Iodide) under their arm and there are rules-of-thumb for dose estimates, based on the dose rates observed and the time since exposure. All of these activated isotopes have short half lives, though. You won't be radioactive for long. Alpha, photon and beta radiations will not do this. For number four: It depends on the energy of the 'radiation' and what type it is. Air attenuation actually has Half Value Layer measurements (linear distance through which a particle or photon travels before half of them have been absorbed). For example, 10 keV photons are attenuated 35% when passing through 50 cm of air.http://www.irs.inms.nrc.ca/papers/PIRS629r/node16.html Charged particles are a lot more prone to running into those pesky air molecules, but they all have values of one sort or another. Air is still matter, after all. Since I'm not qualified to answer any of the others, I won't try. Bill Wolfe

You're all forgetting that Unobtanium, when it decays, produces two main daughter products called Impossibilium and Thatsjustsillium. Obviously, the rocks are composed mostly of these two substances. Another key factor in the science behind the movie is that the floating rocks are all anchored by those huge vines, which are of the genus/species Looksgoodicus onnascreenium. And the Suspension of Disbelief Field was created and maintained by the POA* Effect. Pretty obvious, really. How can you folks call yourselves scientists? Sheesh! Bill Wolfe (*Price Of Admission)

Sorry, but you're still thinking along the lines of a wire. This is electrochemistry, not electricity. Try this website, it's the best I've found to explain what you're asking. http://www.bris.ac.uk/synaptic/public/basics_ch1_2.html The other thing to remember is that the nerve cell either fires all the way or it doesn't fire at all. There is no such thing as a stronger or weaker nerve impulse. If you're straining harder or lifting a larger load, it just means that the nerves are firing more often and/or more nerves are firing to trigger the muscle contraction. Number seven is the only question you're asking that even has an answer, but you're not gonna like it. Muscle contractions are like nerve impulses. They get the order and they contract. None are stronger or weaker unless the chemicals needed to make this happen are in short supply. Again, it's all or nothing when it comes to muscle fiber contraction. The difference between picking up a 5 lb or a 50 lb weight is in how many muscle fibers are involved. Each one, however, just does what it's told and either contracts on demand, or not. Hope this helps, a little.

Axons are part of a nerve. Nerve impulses aren't really the same thing as a wire conducting electricity. Basically, the nerve cell is just passing a signal to another nerve cell (through the axon) and the thing physically lets go of a chemical neurotransmitter which tells the next nerve to do the same thing. It is much slower than electricity (~600 mph), it is a one-way only trip, and can be started anywhere along the line. Electric shock can cause a muscle twitch only because it can cause the nerves to fire. We can measure a current off of nerves because they work by a flow of ions through a membrane, but they still arent the same thing as an electrical wire carrying a current. Each nerve cell is like a little power plant and their only function is to tell the next nerve in line to do the same thing that it just did. Help any?