Radical Edward

water is a greenouse gas, and a large amount of water in the atmosphere would actually aid the planet heating up. conversely there is a thought that the heating of the polar caps could lead to a layer of fresh water sitting around near the north pole, disrupting the currents such as the gulf stream, and leading to a mini ice age in the locality of northern Europe and so on.

MSc ffs..., not one of these doogie howser jobbies.

the thread title made me laugh. I had this bizarre image of a huge amoeba swallowing some kid.

This forum was looking a little lonely, so I thought I would post a relevant link. Brain Stem

weather channel? they're always wrong. they may as well say 'today there will be weather' and then they would probably still be wrong

I get it.. depends how big the universe was at the time when it was all destroyed really.... I guess it would be after the inflationary period.

I was just defining holograms as I know them... I wasn't sure what aman was on about that's all

oh you could, but you could just do it with salt water - that's how these subs work. the thing is the power of the device my mate built wasn't all that high, so he needed to dump alot more stuff into the water to get it to work.

I think that is what soaps and programs like Big Brother are for, to keep all the cretins off the streets and infront of the TV where we* are safe. *yes, we, not they. their safety is irrelevant.

you might have somehow picked up on the buildup of charge... animals do it. notice how they will run off before a storm starts, wheras us moronic humans (top of the evolutionary ladder indeed) don't realise it is going to rain until we're up to our necks in it.

you mean an eclipse... yes you would, be able to see it's shadow if it passed infront of, say, a star (this is one of the methods being used to look for planets, and other large objects like brown dwarves, black holes etc) but you would have to be looking in the right direction at the right time though....

hologram? that would be the reproduction of a wave front....

yes, but rather than a few, alot of chemicals. probably more than you could carry.

what's a soul then? how heavy are they, and can I have one? interesting point about computer storage blike... it would be a good copy of you, but it wouldn't be you. but then could the same be said for each time you go to bed at night, you fall into a state of unconsciousness, and wake up in the morning, but is that still the you from yesterday?

not nescessarily superconductors, just really powerful electromagnets. a mate of mine built one, albeit only a little one, that pumped water round a pipe. oh and they had to put some stuff in the water to make sure it had a very high ionic content - it's basically just an ion drive of sorts. oh and yes they exist.

sto·ic Pronunciation Key (stk) n. One who is seemingly indifferent to or unaffected by joy, grief, pleasure, or pain. Stoic A member of an originally Greek school of philosophy, founded by Zeno about 308 B.C., believing that God determined everything for the best and that virtue is sufficient for happiness. Its later Roman form advocated the calm acceptance of all occurrences as the unavoidable result of divine will or of the natural order.

ever heard of Peter Knight?

still doesn't deal with the chandrasekhar limit though... there is probably an easy enough answer, but I've not seen it.

induced charge maybe? though that could be wrong.... to see what I mean, try rubbing a comb through your hair, and then putting it next to a running tap (not running too quickly, or you will drown out the effects)

yup, fluctuations caused in the inflationary period, thought to have occurred during a phase change as the strong force separated out of the mix. the think I've always wondered is how come more of the matter didn't overcome the chandrasekhar limit, since this presribes a really low density when given enough matter....

no one believed galileo galileo was right no one believes me therefore I am right. hmm...

I fail to see the link....

Yo didn't answer my questions, so I will just repeat them: how would you account for the cavendish experiment? how would you account for the fact that the gravitational force experienced between two bodies is actually proportional to the masses of the objects?

and what is point 12. I don't care if you are still working on it, post it.

I'll let him deal with you in his own way then. explain this 'The rate of degredation of a spinning field system is proportional to the resultant, spin gravity' are you saying that the rate at which an object slows down spinning is proportional to the gravity, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the mass of an object? how would you account for the cavendish experiment? how would you account for the fact that the gravitational force experienced between two bodies is actually proportional to the masses of the objects?