Mr Skeptic

Well for starters, re-opening closed topics is going to inevitably get you in trouble. Still, if it stays with this specific question you might be OK. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedYes, it should give units of force.

Scientists don't give a rat's ass what a model can explain, they care what it can predict. That's why quantum mechanics, despite its notoriously horrible explanation, is still used to make highly accurate predictions. That's a refreshing attitude. I hope you don't change your mind after receiving some criticism though. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged People claiming to be a persecuted genius so very infrequently have any kind of empirical evidence nor predictive capability, that no one can take them seriously anymore. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well, all I can help is to provide you with a very good source of funding. Use your method to produce Technetium, which you can sell at $60 per gram (used to be $2800 per gram before nuclear reactors became common), and also would make people believe that you aren't full of baloney. Wait, let me guess... you can't do it.

There's a limit to the amount of mass a black hole could have in practice given what we know of cosmology. Not so much a limit to what it can ingest, but to what it can reach in a given amount of time since the start of the universe.

Yeah, I think that you can count on the ether being sterile. You can count on potentially causing an explosion and/or a fire if you autoclave it (bonus points: the fumes can knock you unconscious while the place burns down). If you really think it's contaminated, you can distill the ether.

It's nice to see that someone has made a video to show the hypocrisy in several* of the Democratic Congresscritters. *where several is larger than zero. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Because it's not hypocrisy if it was for a good cause.

Hmm... it definitely is an interesting business model. They create a virtual currency (store credits if you prefer), which they can mint for free, and give away in exchange for users advertising on their behalf, and to encourage new customers. It doesn't matter that they give away their currency because it simply devalues it (creates inflation of the virtual currency) But how do they get their money? Do they sell virtual currency? I see it's against their rules for users to sell money.

Sadly, it appears that the discussion on this interesting topic is going nowhere. Thread locked. For those who wish to continue to pursue this topic, here is some reading material: Maxwell's equations - everyone loves wiki http://www.sfu.ca/physics/associate/emeriti/cochran/MAXoutline.html -- has a 400 page free textbook on Maxwell's equations, problems, and the solutions to the problems http://www.engr.uconn.edu/~lanbo/DeriveMaxwell.pdf --derivation of Maxwell Equations and the form of the boundary value problem http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/wirfor.html#c1 -- the magnetic field of an infinitely long wire. Sadly calculus is required for directly using Maxwell's equations, which is rather hard even on those who know how to do it. The various special cases are much easier to use, and need not involve calculus.

The skin and hair cells are intentionally dead, as they can be hardened by having less water and more keratin/collagen. I imagine that they wear off or are eaten by the microfauna on your body. Certainly a lot more can be removed as a beauty/softening treatment.

Right, the problem could just as easily be that common sense is not as common as people like to imagine. The problem I described (which is a mathematical problem) goes against many people's "common sense" -- either their common sense is wrong, or common sense is uncommon.

No... aging is not solely a genetic problem. If it was, then replacing telomeres would be the way to go.

I'd think they should tell them by the time they're 18 at least.

Sometimes a formal proof goes against common sense. See for example the Monty Hall problem. Even having a PhD does not mean that your common sense matches the formal proof.

Do you consider it incorrect if it is incomplete? You neither proved nor assumed [y>|x| and [math]|x|\geq 0[/math]] => y>0 nor referred to a previous proof for it. It's common sense, yes, but common sense is not formal proof.

Yum! More coal for our power plants please! Get back to work!

I've yet to see a robot government. Every government we have is made of people, and most people fear death. Weapons that are not deployed for fear of retaliation are much safer than the ones that are deployed. Weapons that are never developed in the first place because they cannot be deployed without the risk destroying your country, are even safer.

It's a pretty good deterrent, especially if it gets other nations to also discourage such attacks for fear of being caught in the crossfire. What if they're just building a biological weapon intended to wipe out a city or a stadium, and it co-mingles as diseases often do with some other disease already in that population, into something enormously contagious that becomes a threat to the whole of civilization? There's a rule in biology: there's always exceptions, nothing works exactly as intended. A rouge state still has people in it. And people are afraid of dying. At least some of them are. All it takes is a few conscientious or terrified people to tell on their government, such as the location of an imminent nuclear missile launch, and we can deal with it. The thing is, your examples are different. Let me rephrase these: "There can be no person, such that that person is black and president" "There can be no device, such that that device is capable of going to the moon" "There can be no persons, such that those persons can negotiate a peaceful end to the cold war" "For all people, each and every one of them decides not to have a nuclear weapon" The ones that come out to a universal negative are really really unlikely, unless you are dealing with something like the laws of physics. A nuclear-free world is no more difficult than a murder-free world: all you have to do is convince every single person capable of it to choose not to.

Sure, but I'd rather we have that set to maximum protection. To one extreme, if we have "You can kill half our citizens and we won't retaliate in the least" would be an extremely poor policy, even (and especially) if it happens to be a lie. On the other extreme, if we have "If you kill a few of our citizens we'll nuke you to kingdom come" then we can expect terrorists to enjoy yanking our chain with that policy. The best policy is the one that is uncertain, so no one can try to manipulate us with our strategy, and/or a threat, so people back off due to it. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged What harm would it do though, if humanity is doomed anyways? What if a biochemical weapon turns out to be more deadly/infectious than its creator anticipated? Why should we tell them that we won't nuke them even if they wipe out our country? Best to discourage them from trying. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I believe their should be no nukes, no war, no disease, no murder, no accidents, and no ugly people. Unfortunately, there are things that can't be changed. Just because I believe there should be none of this, for example, doesn't mean I believe we should have no military, no hospitals, and not traffic and safety regulations. We have to play the hand we're dealt as best we can.

A single useage of a biological weapon could conceivably be a threat to the entirety of humanity, if it is an infectious one. Of course biological weapons can also be made from a bacteria that normally is not particularly infectious. A single nuke is definitely not enough to threaten humanity, whereas a biological weapon gone wrong (or designed to be infectious) certainly could. We're not talking about retaliating against a phosphorous grenade with a nuke. But if someone hits us with casualties comparable to a nuke, whether they be biological or chemical or nuclear, they better be afraid we'd nuke them back. There's no reason to encourage the usage nor development of biological weapons. I hope that this decision gets reversed.

We have an enzyme, peroxidase catalase, to break down H2O2 into H2O and O2 (seeing as the H2O2 is highly toxic).

There's mention made of an RPG, in position to fire on friendlies. (Presumably it's one of those high tech fancy spy RPGs that fit inside a camera) The pilot got very nervous after that. Edit: Apparently there was also a real RPG. Wikileaks failed to mention that...

What if you have a standing wave?

I really think they should have leaked some higher definition clips of each part where they identified weapons. And I'm not sure there is any justification for firing on the rescue vehicle.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_drink_diluted_hydrogen_peroxide In 2006 the FDA released a warning against claims (scams) involving human consumption of 'food grade' Hydrogen Peroxide. This is a scam by people who want to make money off other people who either don't have common sense or don't know how to use the Internet.

Eventually the only possible answers to that question are an infinite loop, or "because".

More than in ancient Greece? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece http://www.avert.org/origin-aids-hiv.htm It came from the chimps, and got transferred to humans via bodily fluids, almost certainly blood. The concentration of virus in blood is far greater than in other fluids, and an awful lot of the virus spread via sharing of needles. It can of course also spread (much less easily) via sex, both from man to woman and from woman to man (I don't know about lesbians though). Women could have just as easily acquired it via sharing of drug needles, and, in poor countries, via doctors recycling needles. And what if you like both? What if someone insisted that you could only pick blonds or brunettes but never the other once you chose?