Radical Edward

that is perpetual motion. I may not have been into space, but I can do the calculations. basically when you cut the field, there is a resistive foce which slows the spinning opbject down as you convert it into electrical motion. what is more, if you are not in geostationary orbit, you don't even need to spin it, you just stick out a wire and extract lectricity. Nasa did this recently, but they blew the device up.

this would be a Converse Accident fallacy wouldn't it? optical illusions are designed specifically to detect the functions and weaknesses of the human optical system, however the majority of experimentation does not rely on the human optical, or for that matter, sensory system. The sensory systems used in experimentation utilise far simpler rules and requirements, and the outcome of a measurement is far less ambiguous. take the optical illusion where a straight line is made to look curved by superimposing it on a series of concentric circles. Your eye thinks the line is curved, however, using a cunning tool which does not rely on human perception, a ruler, you can see that the line is straight after all.

this came out before the intarweb, it is so old. still the pic of britney with a condiction and valence band is an all time classic http://britneyspears.ac/physics/basics/basics.htm

you have to be the one.

yes you can, what about total internal reflection and diffraction?

be a bit wary with the word transparent, because it is a quite limited term. something like a window might look transparent to us, but trust me, glass does absorb quite a bit of light, in effect, it is only relatively transparent within a certain area of the spectrum, not only that, but about 4% of the light is lost on each surface because of poor impedance matching. The only truly transparent object would be one that does not interact with the EM field, for example like MrL said, Dark matter.

wouldn't it be a silence sucker?

is that a sort of toothpaste?

or even if there exists a reason in the first place.

so basically you think there is intelligent design because that is what you think, and there is no more to it than that? If so, then it isn't at all debatable since you don't believe in empiricism.

where does your intelligent design fit into all of this?

an isolated neutron is heavier than an isolated proton, however isolated neutrons have a half life of 15 minutes, wheras isolated protons have a very long half life indeed.

well it can be controlled if it is ionic and you can keep it away from stuff... the only way to use it though is to ram it into something quite far away, and then laugh insanely as it explodes.

but considering the time it would take for the antimatter to react...... oh I am not going into this, Star Trek science is awful, and should be dumped in pseudoscience.

http://www.google.com/imghp?hl=en&tab=wi&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=

actually they would be the same. if he merely applied the equal and opposite force to the sack's weight, it would carry on in that direction at that velocity. it depends on how sharply he throws it, if he swung it from under his legs in a wide arc, he could get alot more speed into it with less force (though more time) than if he threw it up sharply. same goes for catching it.... if he slows it doen over a long period, then less force, then if he stood ramrod straight and let the thing slap him in the face.... watch cricketers catch cricket balls, you'll see what I mean.

depending on the quantity of it though. plus it would be a bit tricky to run away from virtual particles. actually this always amused me in star trek, the way that they foolishly thought that dumping the core would save them from an antimatter explosion, when really it would take out the solar system.

you don't need to have both... just because enzymes are this good now doesn't mean they always have been this good, early enzymes were probably just relatively inaccurate things that stuck a load of chemicals together, in fact I have heard of a suggestion that really early enzymes could have been made from RNA rather than amino acids, though I haven't looked into it much.

yeap, sorry, you can tell I don't study this...

it is just a matter of self replicating chemicals that copy themselves from some standard stock, like amino acids or DNA bases. these can be found all over the univserse and are nothing so special really. eventually they got more and more complex, as little errors and changes lengthened the strings, and eventually you get "life", which at the end of the day is just a set of self replicating chemicals, albeit vastly more organised. once you have multicellular life, and sexual reproduction, then things change a bit, because there can be much more in the way of behaviour because of nervous transmission and so on and from behavious you get choice. this is a grossly simplified account, but the whole life from non life, or choice from non choice thing is a bit redundant in my opinion.

the lunar eclipse about a month ago.

if you don't know, there is no problem asking 1) the temperatures that different things melt and vapourise at is pretty complicated, it depends on many factors such as how well bound the electrons are in the atom and so on, and whether they can form weak bonds between them and neigbouring atoms ( van der waals or metallic, rather than the stronger covalent and ionic seen in molecules and crystals) so that is why you can have something like mercury, which while the atoms are very heavy, is a liquid at room temperature, but something atomically lighter like lithium is a solid (though pretty soft) I don't know much of the physics in detail, but this explanation is about right I think. 2) as mentioned before, things like wood are formed from molecules, which are bonded much more tightly, they may also form really long molecules which wrap around one another, like in paper and plastics, and flow less easily than a liquid (though still be flexible and stretchy) 3)Fire is basically an exothermic reaction, that is, a chemical reaction that results in more heat being released from the substance than is put in to cause the reaction.... this isn't violation of energy conservation, the energy is already stored in atomic bonds. the reason some things burn is because they caule a self sustaining (until the fuel runs out!) exothermic reaction, so something like ash doesn't burn, because there is nothing for it to react with that would release heat. 4) They are merely related. things boil at different temperatures at different altitudes basically because the energy required for the atoms and molecules in the liquid to escape is that much lower.

it depends how hard the throws the sacks up in the air.

amino acids are not made of DNA, they are constructed by enzymes and so on though, though they also exist in abundance throughout the universe and can and have been created spontaneously given the correct conditions and chemical mix (i.e. the conditions and chemical mix on earth a few billion years ago for example.) ah, and what you are talking about isn't evolution, it is abiogenesis. though some others here like sayonara might know more than me about these things.

plus this kind of thing always happens to the Japanese too.