John Cuthber

Which question are you saying "no" to?

[math]\pi[/math] =[math]\pi[/math]

It's easier to just redefine "floor" as meaning whatever is "below" your feet.

"I can only presume that both you and Moontanman are being deliberately obtuse. I have no problem with any organisation recruiting in Universities, unless their purpose is traitorous. We were talking about left wing organisations that recruited in Universities and recieved funding and direction from a foreign power. Why you both are trying to muddy the water by bringing other groups in I have no idea. " Because the universities are also where the traitorous right wing groups recruit. What you actually said was "Universities which by an absolutely amazing coincidence is where most left wing organisations have done their recruiting" See how you didn't mention traitorous there? The implication being that all left wing groups are bad and that there's something evil about them recruiting at universities. Not deliberately obtuse interpretation from Moontanman and me- just poor communication from you. Perhaps you need a sharper crayon.

"Two studies hinting at the negative effects of online 'addiction'" Doesn't the definition of "addiction" pretty much imply a negative effect? "Addiction is the continued use of a mood altering substance or behaviour despite adverse consequences" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction

True, but it could also mean that a giant hamster will be elected mayor of Pluto. That's the trouble with starting from nonsense- It could mean anything, but it probably means nothing.

Just a thought. Would you like to start a different thread for a discussion of LEDs (etc) and aquaria?

Or maybe it's total cobblers. "Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree" For a start plenty of seeds are smaller than mustard seeds. For example, opium poppies were known at the time and they have smaller seeds than mustard. Also mustard grows into a herb, not a tree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_plant

Maybe, just maybe, they would still not get pushed around if their military expenditure was half what it is and then you could spend another third of a trillion dollars on healthcare or education. Do you think that spending more than the next highest spending 4 countries put together would afford an acceptable level of protection? (China, Russia, UK, and France) That would roughly halve the buget. Perhaps you are worried that we would all gang up on you? (data from here) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Of course, there may be some other explanation- other than security- why a right wing government decides to spend so many tax dollars with a small number of companies who support their party.

From wiki "The lumen (symbol: lm) is the SI derived unit of luminous flux, a measure of the total "amount" of visible light emitted by a source." From that page "Since the lumen is a measure of the intensity of visible light in some defined beam or angle" No prizes for guessing which one is right.

"John, I never said it was only Americans." Nor did I but it is the subject of the OP. "The idea has been pushed that people have some sort of right to "not be offended". How many people are cancelling things and not saying things just in case they offend someone? These attitudes have "deeply penetrated" both our nations have they not?" It has indeed. Can we please chuck all the religious nutters out of politics please. Also I apologise for failing to make myself clear. It's not hard to find a couple of hundred left wingers out of a population of 300 million. What I should have asked for was the names of any who have actually done any harm. Now I grant you that giving nuclear secrets to the Russians was, at the very best, clearly illegal. So that's about half a dozen people in total. Where's this conspiracy (Moslem or communist- take your pick)? "Universities which by an absolutely amazing coincidence is where most left wing organisations have done their recruiting" Where the hell else would they recruit? People make up their minds politically at about the same age as they hit university. It is, of course, where right wing organisations recruit too- but presumably that doesn't trouble you. Also, please don't quote bits from conservapedia which cite dead links if you want to be taken seriously.

Actually, I didn't ask if they were influential: I asked who they were. Name names. Actually, I didn't ask if they were influential: I asked who they were. Name names. More interestingly, if there were all these "influential" left wingers, how come the USA has two right wing parties? Could it be anything to do with the likes of Fox news and their right wing bat-shit crazy ideas like Obama is a Moslem and not even American? Do you think that maybe the media are actually a lot more "influential" then a bunch of university lecturers. Face it: at best the left wing didn't have any significant influence in the USA and any claims to the contrary are "bogey men" stories.

It depends on the particular ingredients, but most are designed not to degrade in sunlight. They say you should re apply them regularly for 2 reasons. On, they sell more that way. 2 the stuff is rinsed off by sweat and gets wiped off. The outer layer of suntan stuff would protect the stuff inside the bulk of it.

Who were the prominent communists in the West back in the early 1970s? It's a bit befor emy time so I can't remember. If 20 years of McCarthyism and it's successors hadn't found them, how likely is it that the woman in the video has done so now? Just because it's their stated goal doesn't mean that they are well on the way to achieving it (or that they ever will).

"How do scientist measure the center of mass for a rock?" They don't. Why would a scientist care where the G of G (Or C of M if you prefer that terminology) of a rock was? "I have this rock and I would love to just measure its center of mass only, not in relation to another object." Follow the procedure given above by Ewmon above. It will actually give you the answer to the question you have asked. I already asked what you mean by "Mass of rock time the electron mass," You didn't answer. "Ok, wait I saw this link, but what I am trying to do is measure the electron mass in the object" It's not clear what you mean by "electron mass" The total mass of the electrons in the object will be about 1/2000 of the mass of the object. The mass of the electron is 9.10938188 × 10-31 kilograms (from Google) And both of those statements will be true no matter where the centre of gravity of the object is. "I think if I can find the center of mass for my rock, then I could pin point where the electron also is. This is because I have read about "particle indistinguishability."" You are mistaken. As I have said there are lots of electrons so talking about "the electron" doesn't make sense. It's like looking at the earth and asking where the person is. It's even worse than that. Particle indistinguishability means that you can't refer to a particular electron in a system anyway so "the electron" makes even less sense than "the person". And so on. You keep asking questions that simply don't make sense. It's hard to tell if this is due to a language barrier, a lack of understanding of physics or trolling.

"So for me, no the electron does not exist" Then what are you doing on a science web site? Re "what electron?" It's not sarcasm, it's a sensible question. Your comment "I think if I can find the center of mass for my rock, then I could pin point where the electron also is. " makes no sense. There are billions of billions of electrons in a typical rock. Talking about "the electron" makes no sense unless you say which electron you mean. That's why you were asked "What electron?"

Ask the vegans to adopt the cows in the same way that they adopted veganism.

"This means that all elements, including refractory ones like plutonium," Plutonium is flammable so it tends to get dispersed if it was the metal before the impact. Also, everything is volatile at the sort of temperatures produced by this impact, whether things go critical or not. In effect it's a damnably effective dirty bomb.

What do yo mean by "Mass of rock time the electron mass"?

A brief criticality incident will produce a lot of energy but the core of a power station is big and heavy It can absorb a lot of energy by simply getting warmer. Since it's in the process of hit by 2500kg of hypersonic metal it hardly matters if it is molten or even boiling when that happens. The weapon only carries about the energy of a few kilos of TNT.(EDIT I meant a few kilos of TNT per kilo: about 10 tonnes of TNT in total) As far as I can tell we are engaging in pure speculation about whether the effect of any criticality would be trivial compared to the mess made by spreading the core of a power station about or whether it would be comparable with a nuclear bomb's criticality. I rather doubt that anyone here has the background to calculate that actual energy released by any prompt criticality in the millisecond or so before the reaction blows itself apart. Form a practical point of view I think they would both make a city sized area uninhabitable, though in one case it would also be demolished with the attendant immediate loss of life. The best you could hope for would look like Chernobyl and the worst would look like Hiroshima. The comments made about compressibility seem to me to be roughly as true for any sort of nuclear reactor. If you could drop 2 tons of rock from space and get it to hit a nuclear plant then you would make life very difficult (or brief) for the people living nearby. Whether it was a new reactor or an old one wouldn't matter much. BTW,re. "Rockets do achieve kinetic energies per kilogram similar to the heat contents of a flame, yes. " if you know any flames that run to 30,000 degrees, could you let the rest of us know about them?

Not my field, but all the reactor designs I have seen put the scram rods on the top. The first thing that the bomb would do is push them into the reactor. If the reactor were just sub- critical before impact then it might go critical briefly when hit. So? Reactors are built to go critical for years not just milliseconds.

Can someone check my maths here? A kilo of stuff travelling at 5000 m/sec has 12.5 MJ of kinetic energy. On impact, most of that energy will be converted to heat. Iron has a heat capacity of 25J/mol/k 12.5MJ of heat will raise the temperature of a kilo of iron (about 17 moles) by about 30,000 degrees (I'm ignoring the phase changes here for simplicity). This vapourised metal will spread out a bit. Consider the ideal gas laws as a ballpark estimate of the volume of 17 moles of gas at roughly 100 times room temperature which gives about 40 cubic metres. Now, consider 2.5 tonnes of metal at that speed. The energy is greater in proportion to the mass, so the temperature change will be about the same. The volume will be greater because there's simply more stuff. Something like 100,000 cubic metres of ultra hot gas (ok it cools as it expands and mixes with the air.) If I'm right ( or even close to right) this isn't a subtle " punch a nice clean hole in things" weapon. It would, by simply "distributing the fissile material over a wide area", rather rapidly shut down any criticallity in a reactor. It would obviously make a huge mess but the one thing you wouldn't need to worry about was an uncontrolled critical mass.

"Those are good points. But the whole basis for evolution is that he who sends his seed forward, wins." No. He who sends the best seed forward wins (in the slightly longer run). "My argument is that most likely there aren't gay genes" You are, I take it, aware of the evidence that says they do. Obviously it's not a strict one- to one relation where "this variant of gene makes you gay and this variant doesn't". It's a combination of factors but it's simply absurd to say it's not genetic when the evidence is right there.

Fair enough. But the genes that are associated with homosexuality will continue to exist whether you believe in them or not. Don't forget that it doesn't take a very high percentage of straight men to maintain fecundity in the group as a whole. Plenty of men are happy to fill in for their brothers and cousins if those relatives don't want to sleep with women. Also, plenty of women who prefer female company in bed still want children and may be prepared to accept that there are not many options for getting them.

"Perhaps you should read the things you post more closely? The effect of Melanotan II is significantly different to that proposed (or hypothesised) here for Aspirin." Are you saying it's not in the same area? The fact that it's status as an aphrodisiac has been questioned means that they are researching that very issue. If you mean the very specific area of "aspirin as an aphrodisiac" (and I remind you, that's what you called it in the thread's title) then I'm sure you are right: nobody will be looking at that. Understandably in my view. And I still wonder how you can think that drug companies are not researching anything and everything that would enhance sexual pleasure. And, once again, could you stop presuming to know what I think. You keep getting it wrong. Any evidence for this "for another reason that is likely to piss you off just as much as my original statement"?