Radical Edward

someone he should know if he knows much about quantum mechanical stuff like that. I strongly suspect he doesn't.

it sounds nothing like magnetism, either do me a favour and call it something else, or explain it in terms of the magnetism that we know.. I ask again, what is a magnetic pole?

what is a magnetic pole?

furthermore, if a particular group of journals started to publish papers with insufficient detail, no-one would read them anymore. I wouldn't - It would make a mockery of the whole idea of peer review, and demote these jornals to little more than pop science.

marvellous. That will slow slow scientific progress to a crawl, and make it look to the public even more like scientists are just part of one massive military machine. not to mention, but the recipie for C4 is already out there, people can buy aircraft lessons and fertiliser and whatnot. and I'm sure alot of these people buy US weapons anyway.

eh? but if I give you the key, you can decrypt it. If I don't, it is impossible for you to decrypt it. I am not corrupting it at all. remember that the person who recieves the message has to have a key. or is one of us missing something?

well you can figure out the likelihood of someone having attempted to intercept your key - it becomes quite easy to see of someone has looked at the key. again, once you have a key you are certain no-one has looked at that is the same size as your message, then it is uncrackable. this is quite easy to see: take all the values in the top row, and add them to the values in the bottom row 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 (1 + 1 = 0) now if the top row is the key, and I destroy the key, you will never be able to find out what the middle row was, given the answer in the bottom row. granted there may be a certain non randomness to I have generated the key (this was one of the things that helped them decrypt the enigma code) but if it was generated by quantum means, it would be entirely random. (given our current understanding of quantum mechanics at the very least)

wrong, if you have a random key the same size as the message, encrypt with this key, and provided that no one gets hold of the key, the encryption is uncrackable. there is also mathematical proof of this.

there was a link to 'the sounds from hell' I heard once, apparently a couple of guys recorded it while digging a hole in siberia. my own personal suspicion is that it was wind.

not exactly. they are information sinks, afaik destroying all information except charge, mass and angular momentum. there may be a couple of other quantum numbers that remain. I can't think of them off hand though if they are conserved, but I doubt it (things like boson number, lepton number etc)

furthermore, how does this 'push' that you describe not act over distance? there will always be some distance over which a force must act, or it can't get to where it is acting.

what about the attraction between an electron and a proton? then compare this to the repulsion felt between two electrons.

what is your issue with force at a distance?

again the atention must focus on the retention of this heat. take mercury for example - the side that is facing the sun is hot enough to melt lead, wheras the side facing away from the sun is minus hundreds of degrees. large amounts of water vapour in the atmosphere would lead to a heating effect rather than a cooling one. note that I am not discounting the possibility of an ice age occuring, I merely doubt how and why you say it would work.

lots of people would like to do that. my suggestion at the moment though is string theory - i haven't looked into it much, but it seems pretty promising

mercury definitely is, locked in a 3/2 pattern - having 3 days for every 2 years, one of the resonances that would be expected. these resonances can also be onserved in the Jovian moons, and of course, our own moon (one day per lunar year) Venus is an oddity, since it's spin is actually counterpropagating (sun rises in the west and sets in the east) and 1 venus day (taking a day as the time it takes to turn on axis, as opposed to the time it takes for the sun to return to it's original position in the sky) is longer than a venus year. I'm still looking into this one though. another interesting point to note, is that there may be a resonance here too - on it's closest approach to earth, the same face of venus is always pointing at the earth (again, 3 Cytherian orbits for every earth 2). However it is not known if this is a coincidence or not. these resonances are predicted from typical classical mechanics, and unless it is an extreme coincidence that they all appear to have slowed to these exact rates at the same time as we observe them, it would indicate something wrong with Zarkov's theory, which requires a continual slowing of the planets revolution.

I fail to see how this layer of petroleum products (extremely thin) whould have a significant effect though, as I pointed out, water is actally a greenhouse gas, and the reduction of water in the atmosphere would actually aid the globe cooling down, as opposed to heating it up. A massive release of water vapour into the atmosphere would actually result in the planet heating up, this is one of the major concerns at the moment, since we are quite close to this threshold for massive accelerated Global warming.

the explanation of the experiment is rather poor. I will see if I can hunt down the proper paper when I get into univerity in a while.

you sure about salt water there? by that logic icebergs would sink.

seems to work for me... but then I have to right click copy shortcut, and then paste it into a new window as my Explorer is borked.

I always wish these dead people would speak up a bit...

aah string theory and so on. excellent. Do we have any resident experts? I know I'm not....

oh black holes move, spin and allsorts - they would, since they are a prediction of general relativity, which in it's simple form - ignoring gravity and acceleration (Special Relativity) relies on the fact that there is no absolute motion - all motion is relative.

here's me again, I meant swartzchild radius..... chandrasekhar limit is the maximum mass that can be supported as a white dwarf. anyway. I did a crude calculation (really crude - I don't have a calculator) for the mean density of the contents of a black hole the size of the one in the galaxy M87, which is about a billion solar masses, and it gave a mean density of about 10kg/m^3* which while high when compared to the mean density of the galaxy, could well have occured an awful lot in a young universe. I'll have to check up on the mean density of the universe when it was in equilibrium though. it might be interesting to work out the probability of different sizes of black hole occuring (some statistics... how banal) and see if it matched up to anything, such as the distribution of hypothesised black holes in the centre of galaxies. calculation consisted of the following: R=2GM/(c^2) R is the swartzchild radius - the radius of the event horizon of a black hole of mass M G is the gravitational constant c = speed of light. and density=mass/volume solar mass = 1.9x10^30 kg/m_3 G = 6.7x10^-11 c = 3x10^8 -------------- If anyone knows much about statistics, that would be a help. I hate it and have avoided it wherever possible.

It would be if venus and mercury didn't have any gravity... also he seems to be missing maths, which is somewhat disappointing since it would allow us to actually predict the rates at which the various astronomical bodies are slowing down, for example Jupiter, which has a surface gravity of 254g and mass of 318 earth masses.