[Tycho?]

Energy causes it, no other reason I'm aware of.

If that isn't a good endorsement, I dont know what is. My dad's job involves getting a lot of stuff printed, so I'll get him to do it fullsized since a) he knows how to do it properly and b) he can probably get a discount of some sort. Thanks for the help.

I saw that article too, or a bit of it anyway. I can't verify it for myself, but the idea is very interesting, certainly moreso than the one that was the original topic of this thread. I suggest you make a new thread. That article was pretty interesting, and a lot of people would read a thread about a reactionless drive.

Simple answer: from our point of view, yes, light does curve. Complex answer: physics geometry spacetime non-euclidian blah blah blah. If you didn't know that light could be bent, I assume you'll find the simple answer the most useful.

Hey thanks for the links martin. That same group has posters of plasma/fusion physics, nuclear physics and cosmology, oh my how will I decide? I'll probably get the one I posted though, I bet it would be the cheapest.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4c/Particle_chart.jpg This is a chart of the standard model (obviously). I'm considering getting my dad to get this chart printed out in full size so I can put it on my wall. You fellows are quite knowledgable so I figured I would ask if this is a good thing. Is this a useful/accurate chart? Are there any (online or mail order) charts that would be better for a young physics major? I wont be needing it for school for at least a year, so it doesn't have to be super-accurate, just enough for general questions and the like.

Xena was a nickname only, never intended for regular use. Plus, he doesn't get total control over it, he couldn't name it "Mike's Planet" for example. Keeping it within mythology, particularly greek or roman is more appropriate, and more likely to be approved by the IAU.

Probably. There are bacteria for damn near everything.

Step 1: learn something about physics. Step 2: post on a forum. You have mastered the second step, but the first step needs some review time. The Standard Model has been extremely successful at predicting the existance of particles.

Yes it is definately possible.

Nice picture. What did you use to take that? I know nothing about bio, so can't help with your question.

I think it will likely stay a planet in common speak. But the whole point of classifying things is so that there is a clear line, so people dont call things whatever they want. It makes sense from a science point of view anyway.

I always find it funny that people who come here with new theories never know a thing about math. No equations, no nothing. Why would they expect anyone to take them seriously?

I have heard about the osscilation as well. Right now we are slightly above (or below) the galactic plane, not sure by how much though.

What is a charged quark component?

As soon as I read this new definition I liked it better than the other proposed one (because it got rid of Pluto and wont bury us under tiny planets), but I notices that the criteria of "clearing their orbital area" is pretty vague. There is a lot of stuff floating around in earths orbital area, is that cleared? What about Jupiter? My problem with the previous definition was the arbitrary use of the word spherical, that you needed an actually numerical definition for spherical when used with the definition. But this clearing orbital area is super vague, and needs to be better defined. I'm not sure how they're going to do that, since there has got to be a decent amount of mass floating around in Jupiter's orbital field. Maybe exclude Lagrangian points, allow those to have mass in them which you dont include in the rest of the definition.

That is neat. How does it work though, how does the electron beam transfer energy into the laser light?

Neato. Now that we know it exists: what the hell is it?

Well its past the point where General Relativity can be "wrong", but it can be not totally right. I've never hear of mini black holes in this context before. If they are so many of them shouldn't we see them evaporate quite frequently due to hawking radiation?

I dont think uranium would undergo fission. Tidal forces would tend to seperate the uranium, making a fission chain reaction less likely. There has to be something causing the uranium to increase in density, so as to get more neutron density. I dont believe a black hole would do this. Fusion is different though. Many large black holes have huge accrection disks; disks of matter falling into the black hole. These can get hot enough to shine in x-rays. Since there is no real pressure on the hydrogen I dont think you'd get too much in the way of reactions, certainly not comparable to a hydrogen bomb. But I'd think at least a bit of it would be fusing.

The side opposite of earth is called the dark side of the moon. Wikipedia says: