dragonstar57

lol IK but I didn't want to start a new thread and its fairly close to the thread topic.

Apologies for not specifying. I was talking about the US is there a party a little left of the democratic patty

Could sodium be used as a battery like lithium

What kinds of campaigns and how do u find them and what kinds of education would be best? I like polotics but would hate to give up my interests in physics' chem' programing and technology *ps. I wrote this on my droid so sry about any errors/typos*

As a teenager intrested in polotics how does someone get into polotics?

something I've been confused about for a while. I understand the idea of how it works but the current level of the development of the technology is not clear. i have heard several things recently on the topic. 1.) it is now known fact that cold fusion is impossible 2.) fusion has been established but the energy required to initiate it was greater than the output. 3.) fusion has been established but the hydrogen production requires more energy than the fusion produces or is to dangerous. 4.) fusion has not been established because we have not been able to achieve the energies required. 5.) robotics are not developed enough to maintain the reactor. 6.) none of these things are problems it is just a mater of the economics of it. ps. I do not feel this should be in speculation but because I did not know where to put it and because it has potential to stray from strictly accepted science I placed it here if you (mods) believe that this thread is worthy of a more respectable section please move it.

why did they not use the LHC? ps. TY for replying so quickly

idea one:the distance is shorter than the cern people think it is. conclusion(s) that can be made if true:1.) all LHC experiments are flawed because of a input error for D. in v=d/t 2.) this input error would effect all particles in the LHC and could be replicated proving that any particle can move faster than it hey ought. (weather this is above or below C) therefore I theorize that if a particle with a known velocity was sent along the same path than we could use V=D/T to calculate the distance just as accurately as the speed of the neutrino was clocked. if they did not know exactly how far the two are apart than the whole place would be useless. lets assume that the brilliant physicists working at the largest particle accelerator in the world have at least some idea what they're doing. ps. if the distance is really messed up than i might not be so confident in their assertions that a microscopic black hole will not form and destroy the earth anymore.

following this logic if a photon were thrown down the LHC it would go faster than C?my point being that if you want to prove it is not the distance send something we already to have a V=C and it if it apears to have a V>C than it is the distance down the LHC?

ok just to be clear NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO and NO yes the ice has been melted but our definition already calls that melting. and for the purpose of this conversation anything that fits our definition does not fit yours. to be clear all of your examples have been melting or been absolute nonsense like melting something that is clearly not melting. you are saying that ice melts when heated to it's melting point weather you freeze it or not. (which is true) but if you cooled it again then it would freeze again (so this is melting and not hals melting) if I said that not all dogs have spots and i can give u an example of this by showing you a dalmatian you would not be the only one scratching your head and saying "WTF" or...maybe YOU would be the only one not.

I don't know what your saying, the sol is crap in most of the world. it is just bearable (barely) in the us. really the sol can be broken into categories. medical: SUCKS ALMOST NON EXISTENT UNLESS YOU ARE @ LAST MIDDLE CLASS diet: consists of high fat beef and pork (wouldn't have it any other way ) housing: sucks better than mud huts but having a nice house is not "unsustainable" cars: again the avg car where i live has to be large and a gass guzzler smart cars are just not viable here or many other places in the us. I don't know how many agree with me but way before i care about whats happening in the 3rd world i care about the 2x cheese burgers on my plate. if those are threatened then i rapidly stop caring about the 3rd world. i don't care how bad others have it. it is as bad as i could imagine it as is in the us. when people say American sol is unsustainable they meant the American diet is unsustainable and that is the minimal for a half way decent life.

please give an example of hals melting which does not fit the definition of melting as has been set fourth by the consensus of posters . I understand that you are saying that to hals melt it may or may not be reversible i just want an example of a situation where it is not reversible. i am not claiming that non-reversibility is inherit in "hals melt" if I say "dragons are green and are scaly" amd you say "they are green but do not have to be scaly" it would make perfect sense for me to ask for an example of a non scaly dragon. (and if you don't post an example with explanation of whats occurring @ the molecular level i doubt anyone will believe that you are anything other than a troll)

if it were the distance being shorter than they think would they not be able to send light through at "V<C"? or @ least appear to do so

people like to say the the western standard of living is unsustainable but no one really cares thats why most of the world is in poverty. the western stranded of living is as I see it the minimum acceptable level. (i have no real argument for this but plants are just gross. all vegetables and most fruits are just revolting to expect an entire planet to eat that alone is just terrible) less people = a higher sustainable standard of living

...you said that they don't need to be able to return to their original state.so what would be an example of something melting without being able to return to it's original state? if you say "dogs are a four legged animal which may or may not bark" and i say "name a example of a dog that does not bark" i am not saying you are claiming that all dogs do not bark.

the caution of the scientists make this even more interesting... but hasn't it been well know that neutrinos can move at S>C for decades?

I think you say that to be hal's melted it does not have to be able to return to it's original state so therefore i was asking for an example of hal's melt where it is not capable of returning to it's original state

isn't this old news? i was about to post this same article in a thread called "a fail so epic..."

hal could you please explain what is happening to the molecules as an object "hals melts" but is incapable of returning to it's original state?

1. a policy limiting population growth would only be a " draconian, authoritarian policy" if the penalty of breaking it were a prison, death etc. while I did not wish to limit discussion an incentive for people to have 2 children (or none preferably) would be the best way to enforce such a policy. while i have never said it in this thread i would like to see a global population that can have a western standard of living without needing extra planets

it's really starting to seem no one is in business for anything other than profits anymore (whereas personal pride in the product and quality was once an element.)

I was merely commenting that the quality of discussion was suffering by the repetition and was attempting to lead the conversation into some new territory. it was starting to be a ya'huh na'huh lvl debate and i was concerned about possible admin closing of this thread

one does not have to prove that higher resource consumption makes the resource being consumed less available. it is widely accepted that there are too many people on earth. it is also widely accepted that this is contributing to global warming and resource depletion. I suggested a solution for it in my OP to open discussion about the population issue. this is a problem, it may not be a "oh my god we are all going to die any day" problem but it warrants a solution. as I know it the only way "nature" can take care of too high population is a mass die off.

What is a joke, is to take something that is not adequately explained by the current explanation and try to solve the problem with wild speculation. and the idea of interdenominational beings helping is completely unfounded

it would be far more scientific to move to a hypothesis that these civilizations were just had superior technology (were a little smarter) than the Romans not to interdenominational beings.