thedarkshade

AFAIK you need to get down to -253 C to get liquid hydrogen and minus 6 more and you get solid hexagonal hydrogen, so this is a big enough reason that in normal conditions you can get only gas hydrogen.

Oh there are a lots of them out there, but unfortunately they're all fake. BTW, the OP mentioned Kaku, a person who I truly admire. When read his "Visions" I found it very exciting, but I was missing something while reading it, I was missing the sense of reality. Kaku can sometimes make some really extravagant predictions (or his opinions) on how science will evolve, and sometimes I think they look pretty childish. Now why do they look childish? Well because there yet is not global awareness of how important science is. I can tell that looking in my own country. Nobody cares about it, very few people are interested to understand and share with the others the fascinating world of science. Human stupidity is just way to high to understand that wars with ethnic bases are nothing but a huge degradation of a modern understanding of the world. So the only real and practically impossible thing to do is end the hate existing between nations, religions and ethnicities and when that is done, Kaku's dream might come into play!

I would agree on this Mr Skeptic, but in this particular case unit conversion is actually pretty simple, basic physics stuff, so I guess the OP will have no problem on doing that.

Why distorted? It would just 'shrink' (contract) with respect to the velocity it is traveling with. You can even calculate it yourself using Lorentz contraction.

No, because that would mean that we would continuously get denser, which it actually doesn't happen.

I'd say complex life is still life, but lie YT I too think that there must be a starting point, a cell from which more advanced life forms could possibly evolve. But yet, there is not reason why life in any other planet has to be similar to our form of life.

OK, I know that and I know you know that too, but it's much simpler, that's why I posted it!

Oh, brilliant Cap'n:D

Experimental uncertainty (probably) means being unable to get all the certain informations for everything that happens in that particular experiment. It might be the instrumentation, differences in experimentation procedure done by individuals and other factors that eventually effect and make it be called "uncertain".

Care to share a link

Time is not an illusion, our perception of time is an illusion. Maybe you'll be lucky enough if Edtharan comes around and he will give a gooood explanation why.

You don't really really need all that formula. To convert m/s to km/h just multiply with 3.6 and to convert km/s to m/s just divide with 3.6

Don't-give-a-sh*tism????

People have different tastes for everything. Some people like rock, some people like classical music and some other like rap. The same thing stands all the things in life. Some people dream to be a TV star, some other prefer art and some do indeed care about science. There is this groups of people that likes to explore, to see how things work, to understand the reality around, to have a rational sense of (hopefully) everything, and the best way you can do this is through science. It is this magical thing which indeed is very very interesting. The best of it is that it clearly has practical uses, which makes it not just be interesting, be interesting and useful at the same time. What could be better? Where I live, unfortunately very little importance is given to science education and that I believe is due to political issues which have been giving us a really hard time. It is crucial for a country which wants to have a good development to invest in science education, because it is an investment that certainly pays back. I am really glad to see how the number of students interested in sciences generally is rapidly increasing. This indicates the general awareness of the importance of science. Once I heard Richard Dawkins saying (I think he was quoting someone) "Science is interesting, and you don't agree than fu*ck off." - A rough way to put it but indeed he is right (as always).

Put it anywhere, just don't stop me from having fun,

You surely had a hand on that, I assume.

Huh? Jeez, this lack of sleep is killin' me!!!

You know, evolution has its strange and blind ways of working, but it keeps ending up with the best solutions.

What don't you just try it Magnethos, just give it a shot man, it won't hurt!

This is a fragment from a lecture in "Physics For Future Presidents" physics course, lectured by Richard Muller That indeed is a rough 'explained idea' for reasons that we all know!

HallsofIvy's got a point. You can't have more than one everything, but everythingness surely includes a lot of things of whose nature we might not be aware at all. Universe is just way too big! Huh? That would really depend from where do you 'look' it from. And by budding I think she means the 'contact' of mini-universes with one another to form THE UNIVERSE.

Where's the problem fungulo? Could you just post (LaTeX is possible) what you have been trying to do so we can, hopefully, check your work and tell you where were you wrong.

The daddy Bush, so we could end two Bush's at one time!

Maybe she's the author of that:rolleyes:

It's kinda weird again 5614 that our symbols differ. When we have to deal with such problems (which we did long time ago) we used [math]v_0[/math] for initial velocity and [math]v_1[/math] for final velocity. Now I have noticed that these symbols differ from one country to another, but isn't there a convention that regulates which symbol stands for what?