Radical Edward

well parents will do it for them. I intend to with my kids.

I'm not sure about that last paragraph. THe speed of light is constant for all observers - that doesn't have anything to do with time dilation in the way you seem to be describing it.

Just like rest of the universe, large waves at sea don't care about your belief in poseidon either Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedatheism doesn't offer anything. It does not intend to, it is simply a point of view that there are no gods. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged There is no proper definition of the term atheist, but you are conflating the two positions of (1) believing there are no gods and (2) not believing in gods. You're also making a lot of statements about animals and living organisms that are nothing more than blind assertion.

"this can create a big bang" does not really follow from what you have said.

some are also hideously complicated to reverse, like denaturing proteins.

well your choices are; it would do nothing it would crack the bottle. the bottle would explode sending shards of glass everywhere. I suggest that if you do this, you do it from another room and observe your experiment through a webcam.

it would just look like a very bright violet light of around 400nm (the same as when 400nm light fires off the blue cone only, but neither of the others). The brain generates the colours that you see from the different firing rates of the three types of cones. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged all this has been done in the graphs I showed on the previous page. You should look up the CIE charts Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The colour wheels may look a bit strange, but there are good reasons for them. They are roughly based on this: This chart shows the entire gamut of human vision; all the colours we can see (though being on a computer screen, the whole gamut is not actually representable, so you have to follow the numbers, Ill get into that a bit more in a moment. I won't go into the detail of how this is produced, but it is based on the graphs I have posted previously. The very edge of the curved part of this chart though represents monochromatic light - all the colours that can be made from a single wavelength of light. The whole volume of the chart are all colours that are made from mixtures of monochromatic light. The straight line is made from mixtures of blue and red (the extent of our vision). As you can see, this pretty much follows the pattern of a typical color wheel. Color wheels are also important in art. Say you are trying to shadow an area - you don't simply mix a bit of black in with the colours under shadow, you should take into account the illuminating colour, and then tint your shadow with the colour on the opposite side of the wheel. Ok, Back to what I was saying about monitors though. Monitors as we know consist of three elements to each pixel, a red, green and blue element. As a rsult they are limited in what colours they can make. To show this on the colour gamut chart as I did earlier would show this: As you can see, you basically get a triangle. Anything outside that triangle cannot be represented on that screen. Different sorts of screens have different triangles which is why the colours on older monitors can look rather odd today.

gravity waves aren't derived from E=mc^2. That is a result from special relativity, which has nothing to say on gravity waves.

large scale deforestation and growth of urban areas has also been a problem. To combat it, China is now planting more forests than anyone, anywhere (so much forest in fact that it is making a significant impact on global forest loss figures)

show me.

I'd rather try to explain quantum mechanics to a chicken than talk to a flat earther. They are so deluded that the only way to get anything into their brain is with an ice pick

no need for waves really, simply having a gravitational field such that there is no force that can overcome it is quite adequate. Even very large low density areas of space in gas clouds can just collapse into black holes. to be honest, your conclusion does not really follow your argument.

experiment and find out

precisely. This graph shows the response of the eye to different wavelengths of light in light situations (photopic response) and dim situations (scotopic response) The eye has three sorts of opsins. These are slightly different proteins that adjust the wavelengths of light that a molecule known as cis-retinal can absorb. When this molecule absorbs a photon it changes shape and that results in the rod or cone firing a pulse (it's a little more complicated than that, but these are the basics.) with the following curve showing the responses of the different opsins respectively: We distinguish colour by the relative firing rates of cones with the different opsins in them (answering this). For example if we have 550nm light, the blue opsins barely respond at all, the green opsin a lot, and the red opsins a bit.. As you can see, these opsins simply do not absorb light in the UV and the IR. an interesting aside here. the red and green opsins are on the X chromosome, so if a woman has a broken opsin, it is ok, because the opsin on the working chromosome can still let her distinguish the two colours. For men however, we only have one X chromosome, and so if an opsin is broken, we end up colorblind. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged yes that's right. The lens and the aqueous humor of the eyes are very poor transmitters of UV light. well bird eyes are tetrachromatic - they have another opsin here's the equivalent curve to the one above for birds: well you can in principle do it purely by looking at the responses of the opsins themselves. The question then though is do we even have a channel to process additional colour information, or would any signals from spurious opsins just be lumped in with one of the other colour channels. There are thought to be human tetrachromats, although the new opsin lies between the green and blue.

there are 0 oranges in my fruit bowl. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged this is only a crude representation. As the pressure builds up on the front point, the air itself can no longer be considered using ideal gas approximations and the fluid dynamics becomes more complex. The pressure does not increase to infinity.

exactly where it was before. meters are pretty arbitrary, as are seconds. you can change them as much as you like (but have to multiply your changes through any calculations you do with your new units of length)

they don't have an amplitude. Photons are excitations of the electromagnetic field. I write about this in detail here: http://www.thelightsideofscience.com/2010/02/what-is-photon.html (yes; a shameless blog plug, but I really don't want to have to type all that out again!)

you need some spatial information. Density = mass/volume - you need two of those to work out the third.

there are already plenty up there. bringing them down would be far easier. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged it's also the size of a warehouse. You really don't want to be using fusion or fission to get things into orbit. You are far better off with very long linear accelerators, which you then run up the side of a mountain for launch. High repeat rates, you leave all (or most) of your energy grid on the ground and so on. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You know there is a reason that they wanted to stop in-atmosphere nuclear testing? Risk mitigation can't deal with the ridiculous amounts of nuclear fallout that this would cause.

"Gauss's law can be derived from Coulomb's law.." don't quote mine.... wikipedia says: Gauss's law can be used to derive Coulomb's law,[2] and vice versa.

Don't forget the perfect lens; http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v85/i18/p3966_1

black holes aren't atoms because the repulsion due to the strong force can't overcome the gravitational field. Neutron stars however are basically very large atoms, or can at least be shown to be something like that. For the interested reader; take the semi empirical mass formula http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-empirical_mass_formula which shows the binding energies of the nucleus for various sorts of atom. Now adjust the terms relating to protons; the coulomb term and the asymmetry term, making the assumption that there are no protons in your atom. You'll find that your "atom" can never be stable. Now insert gravity as a perturbation, and work out when it will be stable again. You get roughly the mass of a neutron star. So from this, a neutron star is a giant atom with no protons in it. This is only crude however, but it is pretty cool. I like it.

Maxwell's equations are the most fundamental equations in that you can use them to describe any classical electromagnetic system. that doesn't make them the most practical to use however, because often there is quite a bit of work involved in actually deriving stuff from the equations. For complex systems, such as Mie scattering, thin film optics, fibre optics, Supercritical Fluorescence, evanescent wave calculations it is often critical that you start from Maxwell's equations (or very close). For example for thin film calculations you need the wave equation which is derived directly, then you remove the time dependence and simulate the system based on boundary conditions dictated my Maxwell's eqns. Often you need to integrate them with a number of other mathematical theorems to describe systems. I use the dyadic Green functions a lot in my work for example. The real issue is determining the appropriateness of using particular levels of description. You could describe a magnifying glass from first principles using maxwell's equations if you wanted to, but you would be stupid to, since geometrical approximations work perfectly well. This page here shows you how to get coulomb's law from maxwell's first equation: http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/sl/resources/physics/em/em01.htm So if Coulombs law works best for you, then use coulomb's law - there's no need to re-invent the wheel.

freedom of religion is not the same thing as separation of church (religion) and state. In the UK, you can be whatever religion you want, but legally schools still have to push religion on you in the form of assemblies and RE classes. Similarly in Germany, where you also pay a church tax, unless you specifically state that you have no religion.

it might. It depends on the materials. We could build a lunar space elevator with current materials if we wanted. also, you really don't want a nuclear powered rocket for lifting things from earth into space. you really don't.