John Cuthber

Imagine paying for the energy needed to launch that fleet.

A grain of sand or whatever on the surface of the earth doesn't know id it is night or day. it radiates according to its temperature so the bit about ", this energy is reradiated by the shadow side of the planet," is misleading. The sunward side of the planet also re-radiates. With respect to you assertion "One of the alternative strategies strangely neglected by the ever solicitous IPCC is to make the radiation of excess heat to space more efficient. " there are a couple of points. The first is that the IPCC has a well documented view that one way to improve the efficiency of re-radiation is not to put so much CO2 in the way. Another issue is that, while it's perfectly simple to make the earth a better radiator- you just paint it black, there are problems with that. The first is that it isn't practical. the second is that it also makes the world a better absorber so the effect on temperature isn't what you hoped it would be. You get bigger night vs day variation, rather than overall cooling. Of course, you could in principle, have two groups of painters one of whom paints the surface white at dawn and another who paints it black at dusk. the ones near the equator would need to work particularly quickly. Is that what you had in mind, and can you think of a reason why the IPCC wouldn't suggests it?

It often helps to start by writing an equation. Can you do that here? (Since you don't know anything about the acid you will have to make up a dummy formula for it. The "traditional" one is HxA where x is the number of protons that acid can give up.

What?

Then why resurrect a thread to use a strawman to do it in the wrong forum. Don't answer that; it''s rhetorical. Trashing the earth creates poverty for most people and wealth for a few however, if you want to discuss that, please choose the right forum.

presumably, by the same argument you also believe in unicorns, the FSM; monsters under the bed; honest politicians, and a whole lot of other things. I'm not a football fan, but quite a few of my friends are. Unfortunately for me, they insist on discussing it where I want them to or not and they seem to think it's important. As it happens none of us is a fan of kabaddi so we don't waste time discussing it. The irony is that people say (wrongly) that atheism is a religion but those same people wouldn't try to say that I'm a sports fan who supports "Absolutelynobody united" or "NoKabaddiTeam". (For those who don't know of it, kabaddi is another team game) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabaddi

Why does the fact that he's an alien make any difference?

In many places, the rain is cleaner than the water in which the clothes are washed. It makes sense to think of the rain as just another rinse.

In order to tell you how to solve the problem we need to know how well you understand it. The easiest way for us to do that is for you to show us how far you have got so far with answering it. The significance of the homework help area is that, when you post stuff there, it makes it clear that you will get help; but not the answer. "Homework Help Rules A simple reminder to all: this is the "Homework Help" forum, not the "Homework Answers" forum. We will not do your work for you, only point you in the right direction. Posts that do give the answers may be removed."

In reactions like this the bromine doesn't replace the methyl group, it replaces one of the hydrogens of that group. The kink in the line to the Br is a methylene group. unhelpfully, they also flipped the molecule right to left which makes it less clear.

The last analysis I saw of of that assertion showed it to not be true. Have vast numbers of climatologists recently changed sides? That's not a "claim" it's an observation. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The equivalent weight is one of the few things you can calculate from the information given, so I think it probably is what they want to know. However, it looks like a homework question.so I think it should be here http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/35-homework-help/ and follow the rules for that section.

Is this homework help?

Page 80 of this https://www.orau.org/ptp/Library/NBS/NBS%2069.pdf says that (way back in 1959 when standards were generally less stringent) the maximum permitted concentration of 223 Ra in air was about 10^-9 µCi per cc I think that's 10^-6 µCi per litre so the 100 or so µCi you are talking about could render 100,000 cubic metres of air unbreathable- or it might stick to the floor and never get within striking distance of any human. It's impossible to say which. What you need to do is ensure that, if it gets spilled, there is a suitable clean-up procedure in place. Looking on the bright side, radium chloride is likely to act like barium chloride which is hygroscopic. It will absorb water from the air so it will tend to stay slightly damp (It's difficult to assign bulk properties like that when you are only talking about micrograms of material.) so it's less likely to forma a dust.

It would be less dangerous to the human body than, for example, submerging the human in the ocean. Samarium will react with water and produce hydrogen. Hydrogen isn't toxic, but it forms an explosive mixture with air. Why do you ask?

Which part of " (ignoring wire resistance, battery capacity, etc)?" did you not understand?

Volatility isn't an issue. Dust is.

Of course, the other advantage to using adaptive optics is that you can use image manipulation as well.

Jet packs are easy; it's the fireproof trousers that are the problem.

They didn't make adaptive optics because they wanted to upset the programmers. On a good day the best detectors can detect single photons; but they don't know if that photon is real or noise. Also the quantum efficiency of the best detectors is not 100% (some photons essentially bounce off or are degraded to heat) so you can't ever hope to get a perfect image. The human eye isn't quite that good My recollection is that you need about 10 photons to turn up in quick succession to cause the nerve to fire. Essentially, by having poor focus, you throw away data on where the photon came from. losing information in that way is irrevocable- there's nothing the software can do about it.

Specifically, the microbes that survive in sulphuric acid at a few hundred centigrade. Ironically, if I was looking for bugs that survive in those conditions, one place I might look is err, Venus.

A lot of the time astronomers are looking at stars and those are so small that, even with the biggest telescopes, the image of the star should be a single pixel (with an Airy disk for those who want to be fussy). If the distortions lead that light to be spread out onto, for example, a bunch of 4 pixels or 9, then each of them only gets a quarter or a ninth of the light. So if you have a very dim star you can have a state where, unless it's focussed properly onto just one pixel, it's not bright enough to see at all (for any given exposure time). there simply isn't a signal to process- it's lost in the background noise.

Fire is a process by which fuel combines with the atmosphere to produce heat, light etc. Flames may be different colours for different reasons.

You need to look into the world of bias in experimental design. When you say "We just need to get in touch with court reporters and ask them to take note of which re-trials expose the second jury to the fact that there was a previous conviction. " you ignore the fact that the decision to tell them or not isn't going to be random. Imagine that, in every case where it was clear that the prosecution had left out some exhortating detail, the defence made sure that this fact was pointed out to the jury but, where it was some "technicality" like the copper wasn't in uniform when he read the defendant his rights because he hadn't got his hat on they didn't point this out to the jury. It's clear that in the first case the defendant isn't guilty - so the evidence that was used by the prosecution can't have been all that convincing (after all, it was wrong). On the other hand, in the second case the evidence might be very convincing. Wouldn't you expect a difference in outcomes because of that? Well,, unless the two groups are assigned randomly (i.e. someone flips a coin, in advance, to decide whether or not to tell the jury, you are not comparing two similar groups so the outcomes may be different- but not for the reason you are looking at. Like I said, it's not a legitimate way to test your original hypothesis. if you don't do it properly, you might as well set fire to $250 per month.

I doubt that statistics have been compiled. even if they were, it wouldn't be a randomised allocation to the two groups so it's not a legitimate tests. It's not really semantics. There were, in fact, two hearing which discussed the case, prior to the second trial. It might be interesting to see if a university psychology department would investigate this (it doesn't need to be real trials and, unless you have a lot of money, you are not going to get real lawyers etc.)