JaKiri

Atoms have positive energy. A LOT of positive energy. Can I reiterate: Charge =! Energy

Speaking as a mathematician, you're wrong. Speaking as a physicist, you're an idiot. The disciplines are very similar, but not exactly alike you know.

I'm going to comment on q3: The protons and electrons don't have the same amount of energy. A proton is several thousand times 'larger' in the only measurable quantity, mass. The only way they are equal is electronic charge, which has little to do with 'energy' as an abstract concept. Neither protons nor electrons have 'size' in any conventional sense. They're not balls of stuff, they just are. As far as I can remember, they may even be point masses. The only difference is that the electron generally travels faster, because it is less massive, and it's more 'spread out' as a result.

I like drawing big diagrams in MS Paint. Noone can take that away from me!

Everyone else does on every other building. Stop being a rebel!

Big ass diagram! Anyway, that clearly shows that the CoM of the Earth/Moon system isn't the Earth's for any point in the orbit, hence it's not the same for every point in the orbit.

Or just put '[edit]' yourself. Anyway, the question to ask for all of these is: What does it add to the forum? I'd argue that it adds nothing, and actually detracts.

Dave likes neither and both, like he does to 3 and 4.

What? You also worded it extremely badly.

Except it's not really expanding into anything, it just IS.

To teach something, you need to understand it fully yourself. If that's the case, no books are really required beyond their own text books.

Every democratic system tends to devolve into a 2 party system.

e^ipi = -1 It's fun and fruity!

This isn't necessarily true, you know. Try drawing the graph of 1/|x|.

Aside from the speed of light example already mentioned' date=' in terms of getting 'smaller', you can't, because of the limits of quantum reality. However, that's a problem with reality, rather than mathematics. You can't get negative 'distance' in this sense. 'Distance' is a scalar value, and thus is the modulus of displacement. Can you show me how a modulus of a value can be negative? You can get negative displacement, but that's a vector, and a negative value means it's the opposite direction

Ironing is just like irony. In my experience anyway.

No' date=' it's 0.[dn']0[/dn]1, which is equivilent to 0. By the way, that's the mathematical definiton of 'equivilent', which is 'Under all circumstances identical'. 1 - 0 = 1, if you didn't know that already.

That's a circular argument at best.

You're wrong, and find a flaw in any of the proofs posted in this thread if you don't want to be labled as a big big fool!

At the moment, it's about the same distance from a nobel prize in physics as 'Wouldn't it be nice if we could all get along' is from a nobel prize in peace. In the end reckoning, string theory hasn't predicted anything yet, and hasn't actually done anything yet. If it all (ever) gets worked out, it could be wonderful, but currently to base assumptions or predictions on it is foolish at best.

If people don't have to ask, they'll never learn.

3 is the only one I could answer with any certainty, with justification. And the answer is 'no'. Insects don't have circulatory systems, they get oxygen to, and waste gasses from, their cells by just having holes in them (effectively). This is highly inefficient for anything but the smallest creatures, hence the need for blood vessels and the like in larger critters. Furthermore, if you just scaled them up, their structure wouldn't be able to take the weight (look at a relative comparison between a fly's leg and an elephant's leg, compared to their bodies, for instance), and they'd collapse, although that's not about insects per se, that's about scaling ANYTHING up.

I never suggested this, and your post is unbelieveably badly worded for an 'addition'. I think it sounds better.