Forensicmad

I suppose it would be difficult to tame a crocodile, spider or frog and get it to do what you want at a sound of a command. I'm not sure whether it would have something to do with their blood temperature. Maybe just no one has tried it enough. I suppose another question is; why would you want to make a crocodile do tricks in the circus? I do not think (though it could be possible) that the temperature of the blood affects the ability to tame. What do you others think?

According to wikipedia: "The metre is defined as equal to the length of the path travelled by light in absolute vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second." I think that's the most recent decision as to the proper length of the metre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre And also apparently, "Historically, the metre was intended to be, and is very nearly, the ten-millionth part of the distance from the equator to the north pole." - Interesting

By the way, when you write that quote, you don't write "ten". The joke is supposed to be: "There are only 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't." Close. Sorry, I'm just being nit-picky.

Wow, excellent site. Thanks for the link. I used to be really, really interested in forensics. Used to want to be a forensic pathologist. I changed my mind however, when i found out how badly young doctors are treated in the NHS and how little you actually do (except for looking down a microscope). Anyway, great site. Very informative.

How much are you gonna or wanting to spend? I have a Cowon A2. Its a PMP (portable media player) and has a 30gb hard drive. However, it plays video, music, views photos and text. Excellent little gadget. Battery lasts around 10hrs when watching video constantly and 18 when only listening to music. The quality of sound and picture is phenomenal. You can even listen to FM radio and record off the TV through scart (or play it back through the TV) It costs £300 but is well worth it. Here is a review Here is the main site

Okay..... I would go with #2 It appears my knowledge on the subject is well, very inferior. Oh well. Thats what you get at GCSE higher. Or maybe its just my terrible school.

From what my GCSE chemistry course has taught me, they will seperate. They use the Fractional distillation method for crude oil, so they can seperate out the petrol from diesel and other hydrocarbons. This is only done by the different boiling points. As it gets cooler towards the top of the column, the vapours (compounds) with the lowest boiling boint will eventually run off. Whereas at the bottom where it is extremely hot, those compounds with the highest boiling points will condense and run off. This essentially seperates them all out and runs them off into different containers; just because of their differing boiling points. So in reply to your question, I believe the answer is yes. The 2 organic liquids would seperate out in a fractioning column. The 80 deg C liquid would condense lower down the column than the 35 deg C. However, this is just from my GCSE course. I will need somebody to back me up or contradict me on this. I suppose this helps me revise for my exams.

Before life could exist on Earth, we needed to have the heavy elements like gold/iron etc. In order for this, a supernova had to have taken place. Our solar system is around 4.5 billion years old whereas the universe is estimated to be around 12 billion years old. The first life developed around 1.8 billion years ago (according to http://www.ecotao.com/holism/4_histlife.htm). In order for life on Earth to develop it took the time for a whole star to die (maybe along with its own solar system). Now, in that estimated 10.2 billion years, countless versions of lives could have started at different intervals because all stars are of varying sizes and so varying life spans. For all we know, a supernova could have ensued 8 billion years ago and life developed in the remnants of that. Therefore, it is probably incorrect to think that all life throughout the universe is of the same age.

I think that is correct. I find it extremely annoying when time travel is just thrown into films and whatnot without thinking about the literal aspects of it. For example, the Terminator films. Nevertheless entertaining, they are just... well... wrong. It will take too long to go into the synoposis of the films (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator) Anyway, the point of it is that machines are sent back through time to kill (and protect) someone who later on in the future, becomes important. When they arrive from the future, they claim it is history to them (the future is their past). Now, if that was true, there would have had to be one main/true timeline. The character would have had to survive by himself to get to the future and THEN send the machines back in time. In other words, he is sending machines back in time to protect himself when he has already completed the timeline with no interruptions yet apparently he wouldnt have survived without the machines. (I hope you are understanding this) So, if there were machines there to kill and protect him which came from the future, he would have had to already completed the timeline and so render the necessity of sending the machines back pointless. Its the same in the 3rd Harry Potter film/book when he saves himself with the patronus. He needed to have survived the whole timeline so he can reach the point to then go back in time and save himself. If the timeline is complete, going back in it is pointless and so the plot is corrupt (couldnt think of a different word) So in reply to your comment, no we cannot (or shouldnt be able) to go back in time because as the French call it, it is the Perfect tense. It cannot be changed. If you want to go back in time and save yourself, you would have already had to survived the whole timeline without the aid of yourself and so going back is pointless. Phew. Just my thoughts on the subject. By the way, I am not putting down Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban or the Terminator films. They are both highly entertaining; just a little illogical in my eyes.

Thanks for your thoughts back. It was just one of those things I think about during French or Maths. Its just strange to think that over 165 million years they probably(!) couldn't have built a boat or even a semi-stable structure like a building. Whereas within our 200,000 years, we have gone to space. Funny.

This is one question I have been pondering over for a while; why were the dinosaurs so dumb? I mean, from evidence so far, we can speculate that they first really started roaming the earth 230 million years ago and then obliterated 65 million years ago. Now, they had 165 million years to walk the Earth and evolve into smarter creatures but they didn't. As far as we can tell, all they did was eat, sleep and breed. Not a bad life - except having to run for it every now and again - but why didn't they gain intelligence? The only knowledge of fire they had was that lightning and lava made it (and that it was hot). Humans (Homo Sapiens) have only really been around for 200,000 years and within 100 years, look how far we have advanced. Within 60 years we went from first flight to outer space. Look in that tiny space of time, how we went from primate intelligence to that of today. Now this only occured in the fraction of a fraction of the time that the dinosaurs roamed. How did we become so intelligent in a small space of time when the dinosaurs had absolutely none in the millions of years they had? Is it because dinosaurs had no need to evolve, to become smarter? Is it because we were pushed so far by our early predators that it was merely a matter of study to survive? What are your thoughts?

I think it would be extremely difficult, not to mention time consuming. If it took him that long to make one cell, imagine how long it would take to build up the billions of cells in the human body and THEN, put them all in an exact configuration so they could all function together. Building thousands of miles of blood vessels, miles of nervous cords all, both all attached to nearly each and every cell. And then comes the brain, possibly the most complex thing in the universe - most of it we do not even know how it works. So even if we had the time and intelligence to build the body and internal organs, the brain would probably hold us back. Whats the point of a body with no brain? Whats the point of a computer with no CPU? It would be interesting, yes, but possible(?)... probably not.

Quick question: Is the world going to end before or after the 2012 London Olympic Games? I really want to go and it would be a shame to miss it. Took us so long to get it and now the world is going to end? Typical.

Holy moley! He was blown through the ceiling! I suppose that is one of the risks faced when researching "high-risk chemical procedures". Poor guy.

I got two words: HOLY MOLEY! Thats gotta take some practise

I certainly do believe in aliens. Just yesterday actually, I did my GCSE English oral about the probability of them and my thoughts on the subject. It was supposed to last 2-3 mins but it actually lasted more than 20 including some Q & A. I explained things like methanotrophs, endoliths and other extremophiles to get my point of diversity across. Then I said that even if we did find bacteria (which didn't come from Earth), say on Mars or another planet, it is still technically, extra-terrestrial. Something that is extra terrestrial is then technically alien. They don't have to have spaceships to be alien. Just my thoughts on the subject.

I would have used the name I use when playing on online games such as Battlefield 1942, if I could fit it in that is. The name is White_Plutonium - too long for a username unfortunately so instead I picked the start of my email address. I wonder what a psychologist would make of that.

Excellent. Thats what I will do. Ill make Chlorine 1% (so fire can still exist) Phosphine will be 0.2% And so Nitrogen will be 41.3% So the final list is: Methane - 36% Ethane - 7% Chlorine - 1% Acetylene/Ethyne - 6% Phosphine - 0.2% Argon - 3.5% Hydrogen - 2% Helium - 3% Nitrogen - 41.3% Thank you very much all for the effort you have put in and the info given. It has really helped me. Now I know that fire can exist and I have the knowledge of how to get it to happen. Thanks. Matt

Would 1% chlorine and 0.2% Phosphine work? Or maybe a little less on the chlorine. All I will do is add a little onto nitrogen to make up the differnence.

What would you suggest to keep it safe? I need chlorine to be my oxidiser don't I? And I can always leave Phosphine out. In reply to #29: The planet is supposed to be around the same size as Earth, maybe smaller, maybe bigger. The organic compound I am using instead of water is something called Tetrahydrofuran. I want there to be seas of this on most probably a silica (sandy) landscape. I am really hoping none of this will conflict. The temperature is going to be around -60 degrees celcius.

How about these sorts of quantities of gases in the atmosphere? Methane - 36% Ethane - 7% Chlorine - 2% Acetylene/Ethyne - 6% Phosphine - 0.5% Argon - 3.5% Hydrogen - 2% Helium - 3% Nitrogen - 40% I'm guessing this is going to be a very light atmosphere

Why? Is it dangerous? Toxic? Very volatile? Would you just recommend Acetylene?

EXCELLENT! Thank you very much all. I am just finalising the composition and it so far contains Methane, Ethane, of course, Chlorine are all certainly included. I was having a quick look at Wikipedia for Acetylene and under "Safety and handling" in "Toxic effects", it says: It may also contain toxic impurities: the Compressed Gas Association Commodity Specification for acetylene has established a grading system for identifying and quantifying phosphine, arsine, and hydrogen sulfide content in commercial grades of acetylene in order to limit exposure to these impurities. Does this mean that Phosphine and Acetylene go together well, or badly? The other gases include: Argon (nearly all the planets in our solar system have it) Maybe Nitrogen to make up the difference (it is inert so shouldn't it be okay?) Finally, Phosphine and Acetylene if they go together. If not, I will pick one. Thanks, just one more thing to clear up and that will be it. Otherwise, thank you very much for all your help.

Wow, thank you very much Ryan for all that info. From what info I already had, it appeared the planet would be a little like Uranus. In reply to YT2095 #11: You say that if I had a methane atmosphere, it would not blow up. If I placed oxygen or chlorine in however, it would be able to combust. Because I am steering as far away from oxygen as possible and it is too cold for the gaseous state of chlorine (it is in its liquid state), would there be any way for it to linger in the atmosphere? I know that water 'evaporates' from the sea due to a simple diffusion gradient - the air is unsaturated or something. Would this work with chlorine? Would chlorine be able to stay in the air or atmosphere in a liquid state? (If so, it would probably add a greenish hue to the air but something strange like that is to be expected of an extra terrestrial planet)

Yeah, that was just a little bit of fun. I am trying to make everything coincide with everything else so that it can't be found to blow up if it was enacted here on Earth. I want something that scientists could look at and think maybe this is possible - I want to make them see the diversity (preferebly one that works)