JaKiri

No, it doesn't. It's pretty normal for a boson.

c = 299792458ms^-1, the speed of light in a vacuum. And NO THEY'RE NOT ONLY GOING HALF c I gave you the sodding equation TWICE, USE IT.

They still make discoes.

It's not a filthy cat, I sometimes find it sleeping in the bath.

Salt and Vinegar McCoys.

My cat likes to sit on my underwear.

Why not just buy him a chair?

People didn't think the earth being a spheroid was sensible either.

And AW and TSA still aren't working

Most of them approximate velocity from other measurements rather than speed, though.

No. a+b is a fine working approximate until you reach higher velocities.

I know

If you want to add speeds a and b (well, velocities strictly speaking) it IS NOT a + b. It's (a+b)/(1+ab/c^2)

What the yellow rubbery? I SAID I HAD EDITED MY POST. YOU DON'T HAVE TO TELL ME THAT

No. They're actually seperating at 99.999999999998887mph. [edit] And read my FIRST POST IN THE THREAD, I went over this.

Nope. c. [edit] If it WAS c/2, the combined speed would only be 3/4 c.

Assuming it's a vacuum, c.

Those factors are nigh on irrelevent for this question though.

Oh, and to answer the first question: Saying it's the 'electronic structure' is extremely vague. Everything in chemistry is due to electronic structure. The basic reason for this property is the way that metals bond. The outer electrons detach and become delocalised, not tied to any individual atom. The metal atoms are held together in the lattice structure by this 'sea of electrons'. However, as there aren't bonds between specific atoms, the atoms are relatively free to move, which means that you can cut it, bend it, or whatever, with relatively small effects on the rest of the structure.

I don't really see the need of posting these when I looked at my textbooks and found out I was in error about 5 minutes before you posted, and edited to that effect.

I think you'll find that you were the one who brought semantics into it. 'You used the wrong word!' 'No he didn't' 'I don't like this argument'

Hold on, I'm in error. However, it doesn't mean that you're right earlier, though.

Yes it would be, by the definition of 'make', which includes 'To change from one form or function to another:' 'To achieve, produce, or attain:' 'To bring into existence by shaping, modifying, or putting together material;'

At the current rate, I do not feel that attacking either Afghanistan or Iraq was a good move, for the people there or for national security. Or for drugs control, for that matter.

What about it?