John Cuthber

Skil isn't a factor you can quantify like that. If you have two men who can nearly, but not quite tie their shoelaces, there's no reason to suppose that they can collectively tie their laces.

"What causes this limits of resolution??" The size of the waves and the rest of the equipment "Distance and Time???" Not really (and especially, not time. The resolution will be the same tomorrow as it was today). "What is this force??" typically, the van der waals force between the tip of the microscope and the object being examined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force "Is it still g = 9.8 m/s ?" No, for a start g is not a force- it's an acceleration and also the 9.8 m/s should be 9.8 m/s/s The value 9.8 m/s/s applies to gravitational acceleration at, or near, the surface of the earth, but it's not anything special in the grand scheme of things. "What about red shifts???" Mercifully, these have essentially nothing to do with anything Newton would have spotted. "On another note, but closely related: Angular Size, why divide by 12???" This thread is muddled enough without throwing that into the mix. Perhaps you should start another thread about it.

The other important thing to consider is where the H+ and A- come from,, and what that tells you about the relative size of their concentrations.

You have posted irrelevant stuff about work, i.e. energy in relation to my question about the conservation of momentum. Also you say "so if KE is not conserved then p is not conserved." Well, I have news for you; p is strictly conserved. Would you please explain why you think you can ignore the conservation of momentum. Specifically, if the craft accelerates without some sort of "projectile" it breaches the conservation of momentum (That's essentially the bit about Newton's laws I cited earlier and which you have not addressed.) You need to provide an answer of the form "My idea can break the conservation of momentum because..." or something like that.

For a start, it reminds me of this joke. http://cauchy.math.ttu.edu/jokes/joke-086.html Secondly, you have not explained why you don't think the conservation laws apply to your idea. I have asked repeatedly. Your failure to reply is a breach of the rules.

Since I don't live in a state or province and don't have a zip code, that calculator isn't much use to me. Fortunately, i can look out of the window to see if the sun is shining. Seriously, Vampares, what use do you think this thread is?

Why is this not in the homework help section?

Why do you think anyone would care?

But, since it doesn't, it doesn't.

Before you can sensibly call Einstein a moron, you actually need to show that he was wrong. Has anything shown him to be so? Then again... http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/80649-trolling/page-4#entry801016

It's also possible for a petrol engine to run with the ignition switched off, provided it's hot and the petrol has a poor octane rating.

Given this review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair I'd say that it's neither false nor slanderous to say the report was withdrawn and deeply flawed. Publishing such a paper is morally bankrupt too. Whatever pressures were brought to bear on this, the fact remains that there were too few animals (and the wrong sort) to have a statistically significant measurement of the effect.

The reaction between N2 and O2 isn't very successful even at the temperature of a lightning flash. The engine would melt long before the reaction got going.

"At the equator it is March 20th every single day of the year." Nope.

No. The momentum transfer is not path dependent. All the momentum added to the ball is subtracted from the rest of the apparatus. The net change in momentum is zero. Why are you trying to argue with the laws of physics?

Only one of those statements could be be correct. I suspect they are both wrong (obviously, it's always sunny somewhere on the equator so it gets 24 hrs of sunlight a day. Any point on the equator must get pretty close to 12 hours a day )

Firstly, we know what path independence means. Secondly, you are still trying to argue against the known laws of physics. Why are you wasting your time doing this? Also, the diagram doesn't show up, but it doesn't matter. The diagram can't explain why your idea works, because the idea doesn't work.

The series with the secant numbers is a Taylor series. That, in turn relies on differentiation to produce it. Newton had only just come across the subject of calculus. The Taylor series was only invented/ discovered in 1715. but Newton died in 1727 and the work he did on physics was rather earlier. So, the OP is asking if Newton considered electrons (which he would never have heard of) in terms of calculus (that hadn't been invented). My guess is that he didn't. Unless there's evidence of Sir Isaac time travelling, I think that should be the end of this thread.

"Action and reaction are equal and opposite but they act on different bodies." No they do not. That act on different parts of the same composite body (the spaceship). So, for your example " for eg: man jumping from a boat; if action is by man the reaction is on boat.." After the man falls in the sea and both he and the boat have come to rest, the world hasn't moved. Now, here are the laws of physics that you are arguing against- Newton's First law (as applied to initially static, and initially moving, cases) An object that is at rest will stay at rest unless an external force acts upon it. An object that is in motion will not change its velocity unless an external force acts upon it. Your "ship" has no external force acting on it. It's velocity will remain constant. Stop arguing with the laws of physics.

If Elite engineer thinks vinegar is a fuming acid, he needs to check the definitions. YOu can not asses the "safety" of a chemical on its own. You need to know what is being doe, how and with how much. If you only have a drop of conc HCl then it's not going to do much harm. If you have a bucket full, and you boil it then a gas mask still won't save your skin.

"force is rate of change of momentum" And, from Newton's law we know that the force on the ball from friction is equal and opposite to that which the ball exerts on the pipe. So the sum of those two opposed forces is zero. So, the rate of change of momentum is zero. So the whole item doesn't change it's momentum. And, since speed times mass and the mass is not zero, the change of speed is zero. That's why it doesn't work. Now stop trying to argue with the laws of physics.

"Isn't all smoke bad for your lungs?" Yes, it is. The plant doesn't really matter much- smoke is bad for you.

It has been pointed out several times that the "invention" is not feasible. There is nothing to discuss.

This might help http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_100_2008_E.pdf