DrP

Exactly - in fact Amy W is a great advert for the anti drug campain I reckon. "Take drugs and be like the celebs..... DEAD"! Let them get on with it - I think young people will soon think "sod that" to taking drugs when these morons start dropping dead or coughing their guts/lungs up on stage. Think of the reduction in cost to the NHS if you were to just let the Heroin addicts contine thier habbit. Instead of all of this expensive methadone, policing and hospital care there would be just be one funeral to pay for!

Yea - there was a big debate about it on the radio the other day. I don't see how it could be enforced for the reasons you stated - it could be a fake photo, they could have been pretending with flour etc.. If you got a human witness to say "yep! I was there and she was doing it for sure your honour" then I think that might back up the evidence produced in a photo - but I hope they don't adjust the law so that pictures alone are enough to convict. Even though what they are doing is wrong, I believe it would be a massive loss of freedom and civil liberty. I think so anyway...even though my politics are quite right wing (well -fairly right of centre - I'm no fascist).

He threw the ball so that it came to a halt then right? Therefore it stops on the track and has no velocity wrt the track. So it should have a velocity of 20 m/s wrt to the train (as the train is going 20 m/s). (oh and zero if you mean after the train has continued on and come to a halt) To do this however hwe would have to throw the ball at 20m/s wrt the train (as the ball ON the train is already going 20 m/s in the direction of the train) backward, thus cancelling out the balls velocity and so it remains level with the track. IF!!!! he threw it fowards at 20 m/s (ignoring friction gravity etc..) the ball would continue to travel at 20m/s away from the train but would actually be going 40 m/s wrt the track. To answer your question (as it seems like a trick) I'll say 0m/s because the train comes to a halt at the station and the ball has stopped also. If you mean whilst the train is still moving (i.e. before it pulls into the station) then 20m/s I am finding that I want to type the following sentance to end this post: "Whats the hidden catch then? What crap are you going to come out with now?" But I don't want to be rude. PS - someone please correct me if I'm wrong here - it seems REALLY simple, but I may have missed something. I have a couple of questions myself about relative velocities as you approach C, but will will post them at a later date if thats OK. I thought I understood it but have got confused reading some of the recent threads regarding the matter.

You can have cesium but not sodium!!?!?! Whats that about then?!

Maybe in Rio - not sure if we can still do it here in the UK. I'm only going by what someone told me so I could be wrong, but I think the health and safety crowd put a stop to it. How can we check this out?

It depends how fast he is traveling relative to you.

If I ruled the world - you could all come round to my big house for tea! (and none of you would dare refuse my invitation MUHAHAHA!!)

You will be able to reduce it down to a white solid. Just to check (I'm sure you know this but just to be safe) the initial reaction is very violent! i.e. it explodes with enough sodium! It is (or was) a standard demonstration in schools as to the reaction of groupI metals with water.

Don't suppose you could bring some sodium over next time your in the UK?...... erm.. suppose not really! I'm thinking of getting Hazel to nick a small bit from Simon for me.

Electroysis of sodium chloride is done in the molten state and is quite dangerous (especially if you dont know what you're doing) and requires some sturdy apparatus. I really like elemental sodium and would love some for my element collection, but am too much of a coward to produce it from molten NaCl. All too hot and reactive.

I agree - it is nice to think about them as things that could be. But not to try and publish them as real science. I mean come on - the earth birthing an asteroid as a seed for another planet! I really don't want to slag the sweet little idea off but it really is ridiculus! Well that's the whole point - it is not! A fish is not possibly a goat! A planet is not possibly a tree. I cannot possibly believe this dross.

It's actually quite a nice romaniticism.. I used to let myself daydream and think about the solar system being one big atom with the sun at the centre and the planets as electrons etc.. but then you have to wake up, smile and say 'that was a nice idea - it cheered me up for a moment, but, it's obviously fantasy so lets get back to the real world' When I saw you picture of the tree etc. I let mind wander into thinking about a living earth with trees and stuff - and we were like ants on the tree.. and we all love each other... and it made me smile a bit. Then I though 'what a nice idea...... obviously complete fantasy though' and then got back to work. I'm off to hug a tree.....

yes - you can get the water to go to a higher temp whilst cooking due to the higher pressure - Thus a faster cook.

Allows the boiling water to go over 100C whilst cooking at increased pressure. Thus a faster, hotter cook.

But I don't want to buy an I-pod.

What is the log of tree monutely? Excuse my ignorance but I've not heard of it nor can I find anything about it by searching.

Fully accepted.

Your right - that's why I had hoped to cover my statement by beginging it with the word 'maybe' I was deliberately being a bit ambiguous because as you have pointed out we are nowhere near getting anything near it or even knowing if it is possible.

I don't know if this is the accepted answer, but it makes sense to me like this: NOTHING divided by anything at all, even itself, is still NOTHING. If you divide nothing up, even into no parts - there is nothing still nothing there.

Maybe if we come up with the grand unification theory and unify the forces. But this is beyond us as of yet.

I THINK that means that the horisontal acceleration is constant - i.e. the 22N force is always horisontal and doesn't start to angle down towards the ground as the rocket tilts. Otherwise the question would be alot more complicated.

Perhaps the author realised it was drivel and closed it down. PS - I've realised I might have been a bit insensitive to jizsplat's feelings in this thread and hope he takes no personal offence and acepts my apology for anything that might be considered rude, piss taking or derogatory in any way.

Yea - you are right guy's, thanks. The ways you mentioned were best. Snow makers do work in a similar way to what I suggested, but they use compressed gas expansion next to the nozzel to freeze the vater vapour spray into small ice crystals. I was just thinking allowed.

Not just is there no evidence of it - it's obviously wrong! It's like saying (to explain waxing and waining)'the moon is made of cheese and every month it gets eaten away alittle by little by clangers and gets put back again when the giant interstella cheese delivery man replenishes its supply'. Where can I publish my theory where it will be taken seriously?

I'm no expert and can't go into the detail that hermantrude can, but in laymans terms, if you want it simpler.. There are receptors in the nose. Actual molecules (gass, vapouror individuale particles) from the material itself are breathed into your nose and settle on your receptors. Your brain works out what the 'smell' is by processing the vibrational and shape like information the receptors give it about the molecule being smelt. (I am aware that this could be explained alot better and may even be slightly wrong.....but I think this is the general gist of it and I hope it is an easy to understand model of what happens in short).