John Cuthber

"I do choose My words very carefully here and are speaking the 100% truth." LOL "Drugs are never the answer " Except that, in reality, they have actually been shown to work, which is one up on religion. "I will add that you do not need ay training in psychiatry to be an expert in the subject, all you need is insight which the psychiatrist have nothing of." Even more LOL

"Rest assured it IS a science." LOL

I think I can see a dinosaur if I stare at it for long enough.

The probability of that message being displayed is 1; it happened.

Paper sizes are an international standard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_216 It's just that America doesn't use the standard. A six inch ruler is going to be the same size, no matter where you are.

Just for the record, not only can't you have a stable orbit with repulsive forces, you can't get a stable orbit with anything other than an inverse square law.

Dotted round the world there are probably more than 128 pets (not all of them octopodes) which are being asked to predict the outcome of the matches. We didn't hear about the ones who got it wrong.

People regularly volunteer to do things that are risky; sometimes for their own benefit, sometimes for the greater common good. That's all fine and ethical. Cold bloodedly forcing people into taking risks is unethical. It's difficult to rule out some measure of coercion if you are talking about captives who are condemned to death. The point's moot anyway since the death penalty isn't ethical.

Yes, because they kill people.

The question presupposes that the death penalty is acceptable. Civilised societies have decided that it isn't.

"Should I use a live cockroach as a particle target?" No.

Most of the "arguments" between the believers and the non believers seem to be about minor points. I don't know how well this BBC site will work outside the UK, but it shows some noted skeptics pretty much agreeing with those who say we cause global warming. http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_8758000/8758352.stm

What is Starling's law in this context?

I'd rather have a nuclear waste dump at the bottom of my garden than a block hole.

How come nobody mentioned religion yet?

Do you know how complicated litmus is?

Lol.

Or, you could take the log of the data and plot it on ordinary graph paper.

Can you understand that if something works then it works? There's no point coming up with theoretical objections to this idea; it works. It has worked commercially before.

"When it is not being used, it is stored at high pressure and can be stored at room temperatures" No it can't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_point_(thermodynamics)

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/teams/team=43942/index.html

Where in the name of all that's holy have you got 13 ft/s from? 130 foot pound would be the correct energy- of course 130 foot pounds over one twentyfourth of a foot gives 3120 Lbf Like I gave before. "and we would need the time involved to get an exact number here." No, we don't. Just the distances will give the right answer- it's just that you refuse to accept it. They will give the average force as I calculated; doubling that gives the peak force.

It seems that lucid dreaming is only a dream in this dream.

Calcium hydroxide does dissolve in water- to the extent of a couple of grams per litre. That's not much, but you can keep on playing the game, adding more Ca(OH)2, letting it dissolve, adding more Na2CO3 to ppt CaCO3 and so on until you have a reasonable NaOH concentration. Saying it won't work is a bit silly, since, as I said, that's how they used to make the stuff. Magnesium hydroxide is about 20 times less soluble so it would be seriously slow going, but you could do it.

Good thing that nobody multiplied a mass by a distance then, isn't it? Lbf is a rather old fashioned unit, the pound force. It's the weight of an object with a mass of 1 pound. So, what I multiplied was a force by a distance. That gives you an energy The energy concerned is the gravitational energy that the ball starts with- it's also (neglecting air resistance) the energy that ball has just before it hits the scales. It is also, due to the conservation of energy, the energy that ends up stored in the spring of the scales. That spring energy is there because a force- the force by which the scales retard the ball- moves through a distance ( the "give" in the scales). Strictly speaking I think it's the mean force. Now, if I watched carefully I could see how far the scales got squashed when the ball hit them, at least to a reasonable accuracy. That's the only unknown in the system. As I asked before, how overcomplicated an answer can you get?