JaKiri

As to 1 and 2, any and all. As to the pps, arguing with something that someone doesn't say can only lead to disaster, as has been shown on these boards on many occasions.

I don't really know, I've always sort of assumed that I would be a physicist or something.

Aside from the fact that most of the evidence so far presented has been debunked by academics, and that many top academics are against the war, how did you get privy to this inaccessible information, pray tell.

Faf, you're missing the argument. The argument is NOT whether Saddam has WMD (he almost certainly does, given that the USA gave Iraq them, and this normally anal country does not have a paper trail ten miles long to show them being destroyed). The argument is NOT whether Saddam is a jolly nice person who I'd invite round to one of the vicar's lovely little garden parties. The issue is whether the US are justified in attacking this country. Links to Al-Qaeda remain unlikely and unproven, Saddam has not been a busy little bee and invaded another country, the no-fly zone is still in place. Neither can the US use the excuse that 'they were persuing a solution through the UN, but the attitudes of (among others) the French stopped this, and the US ignores their bolshy ways on the course to INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE!' because of the number of Resolutions they've vetoed on Israel. Iraq may have WMD (which are almost certainly not Nuclear, given the report from the IAEA), but have a stable government which is currently nonaggressive and appeared to be remaining so. Lets have a quick peak at another 2 countries. Pakistan. Pakistan DEFINITELY has WMD, in the form of Nuclear Warheads, and the delivery systems. They have had a recent military coup, and are currently engaged in hostilities with India over the ownership of Kashmir, and are prepared to use their Nuclear devices. India would no doubt respond in kind. Israel. Isreal DEFINITELY has WMD, in the form of Nuclear Warheads, and the delivery systems. Although they have a stable government, they are currently engaged in a war of aggression with Palestine. They were prepared to use nuclear weapons in the past, and probably will again. They have by far the strongest military in the region. Which of these three nations do you think needs military intervention? Not Israel, obviously, otherwise the US wouldn't keep pouring money in. Not Pakistan, because they were so nice in letting the US have military bases there during the invasion of Afghanistan. Oh, and They were withdrawn by the UN, not 'thrown out'.

But the opening message should be 'of x and myself', or what have you, rather than '...and I'. Who knows, perhaps maybe many an aspiring scientifically minded pedant has turned away at the door in disgust.

Yo bitch, burn some magnesium or whatever you chemists do.

Originally not (see post), but effectively now it is.

A parsec is the distance at which 1 AU (astronomical unit, basically the distance from the earth to the sun) subtends (is the straight line distance between, ie. not on the arc) one arc second. Or in other words, think of a big isosceles wedge, with the unique angle being 1/3600th of a degree. If 1AU is the length of the side opposite this angle, then one parsec is the length of the other 2 sides. The value came about due to measuring the distances of stars by the parallax caused by the movement of the earth in its orbit. If memory serves, one parsec represents a practical rather than a theoretical maximum on this technique.

Written as :mu: because in context there's nothing else that it could be.

The basic idea behind Dark Whatever is that Einstein is correct as far as we can gather. Most evidence shows it. However, among other things, the way that our galaxy exists shouldn't work under General Relativity, so there is theorised something called Dark Matter (or Dark Energy, it doesn't really matter [hoho]) which is providing the 'extra' gravity. Dark because it can't be seen, although that's a bit of a misnomer as it can't be seen because everything passes through it, not because it absorbs it all.

b. Whatever the value of 2000*199*e^-5 / (1 + 199*e^-5)^2 is. c. % rate of change = (rate of change/total number so far) * 100% = N'(t)/N(t) * 100% = [2000*Ce^-t/(1+*Ce^-t)^2]/[2000/(1+Ce^-t)] * 100% = Ce^-t/(1+Ce^-t) * 100% = 19900e^-t/(1+199e^-t)% d. 1+199e^-t = 19900e^-t 19701e^-t = 1 e^-t = 1/19701 t = ln 19701 = 10 days (0dp)

The only formal topology I've done was part of my Mathematics Decision 1 module, which was more suitable for a Computing course as it was to do with computer algorithms as much as anything else. If all goes to plan, I shall however find out more when I degrade and change to mathematics after the summer.

What do you have a doctorate in and what are you researching? I'd presume it's something in the general area of physics, from the Feynmantastic avatar, but then it's physics or stamp collecting isn't it. Although the avatar isn't perfect, as the picture of Dick P staring at me may force me to accept what you say more readily. Hohum. This post was sponsered in part by Lord Rutherford.

That would be rather fine.

I thought acidity and alkalinity only existed in water based solutions

The planck length is a finite measurement, and therefore it's impossible to have a 'real' fractal.

A singularity without an event horizon.

Anything involving absolute positioning or velocity, due to Heisenberg.

He's distorted physics out of all recognition in his books, if that counts.

It's been proven that you can't have an exposed singularity.

If a % of the jackpot goes into the prize fund, then buying 13.9 million tickets might boost it a bit.

Arent those two statements equivilent?

It'll be an incorrect sign on a sqrt. It almost always is.

And here was me thinking Laplacian determinism had gone out of fashion with the quantum crowd.