Radical Edward

yopu're right of course, but that is the E=pc equivalence (having set the rest mass to zero).... sorry If I didn't make myself clear on that. I was just trying to point out to him where the E=mc2 thing comes from.

I think it is something more to do with the chemical effect on the brain maybe. as Glider said, Residual GA exists for a while after recovery.

I thought a klein bottle was just a 3D mobius strip. or is there something I am missing?

residual synaptic capacitance, or something... It is a while since I say the technical term for it. and that is what heppens in chickens when you cut their heads off and their bodies run around for a bit. What is described above is different. having one's head cut off does not lead to instant brain death as there is no reason for the brain to die immediately, though you might be knocked out with the pain. the brain takes a few seconds to die as it runs out of blood and oxygen, and in this time you can still look round and blink and stuff like that.

the full equation is: E2=p2c2 + m2c4 so the E=mc2 equivalence only applies to a particle with mass, in it's rest frame.

I think it comes down to his misunderstanding of the word "theory"

your argument makes no sense.

I didn't realise the mechanisms were that well understood Glider, particularly with there being such a wide range of substances that cause GA, from the noble gasses to the more familiar alcohol and more complicated chemicals. Going under though is wierd, I have experienced it many times, as I had alot of trouble with my ears when I was younger, and also a strange growth on the side of my head that had to be removed... enough about my medical history now, one interesting thing is that I always had a craving for buttered toast afterwards, and still get that if I drink too much. heh.

somewhere along the line you are making a fundamental misunderstanding, perhaps several. radioactive things generate heat as a result of their breakdown, the breakdown however is not caused by the heat. a lump of Uranium at zero degrees celcius will decay at the same rate as a lump at 500 degrees. Radioactive decay is, in short, not catalysed by heat. Furthermore, the interactions are nuclear ones, and most of the "heat" that you impose on a body is stored in the electrons surrounding it, in the form of excited modes and so on.

oh it would make excellent turbine fuel, though as I said, it would end up being inefficient, as you would have to get hold of hydrogen in the first place, and the only way to do that is through electrolysis of water. Hydrogen powered cars will work on exactly this principle.

I don't know about "efficient" but the fuel would be more readily available, and not nearly as dangerous, same for the byproducts. the radioactive waste from a fusion plant would only be low level. as for splitting water.... essentially this is how hydrogen powered cars work, although again it would be impractical as a power station because you would have to expend more energy splitting the water than you got from burning it again, so it would be pointless. Some people think that sonoluminesence may be the key, as that creates little bubbles with sound. I doubt it personally though.

I have to leard C++ ... anyone know any good books?

good mathematical definition, thanks, but I don't really get what it means though

finding one man in a country of millions is alot harder than destroying an entire army. If it was so easy, there wouldn't be a Most Wanted List.

It would be a completely useless and efficient way to do it too, akin to driving a windmill by blowing it with an electric fan.

I wonder if he ever states that GR could be wrong, or whether that is just publisher hype.

that doesn't stop the relation being being true though. and what about in it's own rest frame?

Even that link doesn't seem to suggest that he is saying Einstein is wrong though. In fact he uses Einstein's theory (in E=mc2) to support his argument.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2985345.stm Supercomputer modelling of DNA formation from RNA has shown that a 4 Base DNA is actually preferable. The Bases of DNA are Adeninge, THymine, Guanine and Cytosine, but many have asked why we don't have 6 or even 8 bases instead. In the end the answer seems to come down to stability. four and six bases seem to be far better and less prone to errors in reproduction that eight bases. from this it is thought that life could have come about with 6 bases, had they developed error checking routines early on.

Second only to Nicole Kidman, I would pick Eta Caritinae. a relatively nearby star that could go nova at any time, I'd like it to be in my lifetime, but we shall see. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/milan_eta_carinae_000307.html

It is a while since I have used these, so can anyone explain to me the meaning of the magnetic vector potential and the electric scalar potential ? I know how to derive them, no problem, but what is their physical meaning? while we are at it... anyone got a good definition for gauge transformations?

that's called paranoia.

the Iraqis beat the Brits in a town near Basra too.

spin isn't included in the particle antiparticle relations since it is just a measure of a quantum equivalent of angular momentum. an electron may have a spin of +/- 1/2 and so may a positron. It is the fact that the photon has a spin of 1 that leads to many energy level transitions in the atom being forbidden, since the spin must be conserved in all interactions.