JaKiri

Whut?

I thought they didn't like sunlight in art galleries, because it fades all the pictures.

Dude, there was NO evidence that he was developing WMD's.

They use the fact that U238 compounds will be heavier than U235 ones, and seperate them physically. Nuclear reactors are used to, like, generate electricity duder.

If you mean 'This is why peopel have to use a nuclear reactor, to fish out the 235 which can be used in nuke bombs!', you're incorrect. The uranium is seperated in a purely physical/chemical process. A nuclear reactor would be pretty useless in creating fissile uranium because its fuel is fissile uranium. It's like expecting a car to produce petrol. Plutonium is produced in nuclear reactors though :coolio:

If 'geostationary' is good enough for my physics supervisor, it's good enough for me.

U238 has a half life of several hundred million years, if that helps.

Sliced and diced.

Where did anyone say you'd have to store it in orbit around the moon? If you've got a rocket system set up anyway, you may as well have them transported to CEO.

You speak craziness, earth boy. The thing you suggest will scale up much more poorly (and expensively) than glass.

It's not a question of not wanting to try, it's a question of not needing to. I love mathematics and physics, yet did absolutely no revision for my A-levels.

I think you've missed his point. It's much easier to get masses into earth orbit from the moon than the earth. He didn't say anything about using them directly after launch, after all.

I've never tried.

Of course it's a typographical error you buffoon!

I was confused because he typo'd my mispelling

Except it says 'their' And Duncan, bless his little cotten socks, appears to be telling me that there's a spelling mistake in my post if you edit my post to have a spelling mistake in. Are we following the Bertrand Russell guide to rigor?

The one that had been moving (and had undergone ACCELERATION; that bit's critical) would show a smaller amount of time has passed. They've done this, with atomic clocks and 747's (or something similar)

The 17,300mph is the centripetal velocity (I doubt that any weapons satellite would be in geostationary orbit; they'd be in low, small, quick orbits like the spy satellites). Here's an example of why you don't add that on: When you drop a ball from (say) 2m, does it move forward? No. That's because it's attracted to a central point, and all rest frames are valid (remember, from the perspective of the surface of the earth, a geostationary orbit is, well, stationary).

It's a pop science magazine. That doesn't stop it being a decent read (I subscribed myself for years, although now it's more of a biology-y thing, and the physics is at a too low level anyway. I just read feedback atm). But it being a decent read doesn't mean it's a journal, which has a very specific definition, involving peer review and the like. And, to be honest, it's clear that some of the tosh in New Scientist doesn't have peer review.

I prefer the Kyoto arc to the OVA's (although I have them already). Not seen Kite or Jin-roh.

All rest frames are equally valid.

Where are you getting this 17,300 figure from?

I don't see why you shouldn't just use a bomb.

I saw a show talking about how all the evidence pointed to a lone gunman. As it had proper pathologists and the like on it, and was made by the BBC, I trust it rather more.

A space elevator would come in handy.