CaptainPanic

What are your ideas about it? We don't know who you are, or what you want to achieve in your life. It is impossible to answer this question.

Unfortunately, it seems (to me at least) that education often focuses on cramming as many facts into the students' heads as is humanly possible, rather than focusing on teaching methods and making the students understand things. The result of this can be that people lose sight of the bigger picture, which is necessary to use knowledge creatively to solve problems. I do not think you are experiencing a degradation of your skills, but it might be that you have thusfar not yet learned and understood enough about maths to see the bigger picture. How soon you do get this big picture depends on yourself and the methods used to educate you. I remember that at university, I was pretty clueless myself in the first couple of years. I was learning a lot of random topics and had no idea how to apply any of that. And then at some point, it began to dawn on me. At my uni, the bachelor was the period of cramming facts into the heads of students, and the master was a period to learn how to apply all that knowledge. I am not sure what kind of education you have followed, so I am just telling you my own experience.

I do not understand the arguments why private business would be better at running an emergency service? Comparing a privatized emergency service and a public one, I would say that: 1. Management and allocation of resources (money, people) is just as efficient in both cases. There is no inherent reason why public organisations should waste resources simply because the financial pressure from shareholders is absent. 2. Private organizations must pay shareholders. I am quite aware that history has shown that large government organizations (Soviet Russia) can completely f*** it up, but using this example as proof that any government-run organization is inefficient with resources is a logical fallacy.

Selective breeding?

Solidness is something that is much related to the scale you look at. At the atomic scale, the atom is mostly empty. At a little larger scale, it might be empty, but it is still very (very!!) difficult to push a second atom really close to the first atom. So, even though it is empty, the space is "claimed" already by that atom. The empty space around the nucleus really belongs to the atom which occupies it. But the easiest way to answer your question is to bang your head against a brick wall. You will soon find out that this is in no way an illusion. It is very real, and very solid. Remember that the definition does not say anything about whether it is empty or not: sol·id/ˈsälid/ Adjective: Firm and stable in shape; not liquid or fluid: "frozen solid". Noun: A substance or object that is solid rather than liquid or fluid.

! Moderator Note Topic was moved. It sounds exactly like an exercise in a textbook. yesspee, please show us what you have already tried to do to answer this question. We don't give the answers here... but we will help if you are stuck somehow.

I think the general idea is to leave the ordinary launch vehicles to the commercial companies, like Ariane Space, SpaceX, Sea Launch, etc. The official follow up on the Space Shuttle is the Ares program (Ares I and Ares V). But I am not sure why NASA bother with that, when the commercial companies seem capable of launching stuff into orbit already. Either you privatize and outsource, or you don't. To do both is a little weird to me.

I think graphite or some ceramics. Both are far from ideal for equipment with moving parts, like a press. To be honest, I would recommend any workaround solution you can come up with. Make sure that the parts which are at the highest temperature don't need to move much (for example, they only press against each other), while the actual pistons or whatever causes the movement is far outside the hot area. Disclaimer: I'm not an expert regarding process equipment at these temperatures.

Yes, they add up (somewhat). But I think it is a little too simplistic to say that the two sleeps of 3 and 4 hours are the equivalent of 7 hours. It's not maths, it's sleep... and because there are different stages of sleep, all of which are important to how you feel when you wake up, the equation is probably more complicated than you suggest. But there is a lot of evidence that such a sleep was very common. In the middle ages, it seems it was very common to wake up in the middle of the night. The BBC have an article about it, which I think it fascinating.

Yes, there are certainly more books. But I cannot help you further. Search carefully on Google, and you will probably find information too!

NaCl / water solutions will be in some books or maybe even online. If you have access to it, try Perry's Chemical Engineering's Handbook (check in the index for density of inorganic aqueous solutions). They list the density for different temperatures and different concentrations. I don't think I am allowed (copyright law) to copy the whole table onto a public forum though. Sorry. Here's a list for different concentrations at 25 degrees Celsius. As I said, looking it up in a book or online is generally much faster than trying to learn the (nasty) theory. I am actually a professional in these things. Take it from me that this is the method everybody uses.

Yes, there are: the complicated thermodynamic models (such as UNIFAC, NRTL, etc) try to approach the density. The theory of "thermodynamic excess properties" explains this a bit, and there is such a thing as excess volume, which describes the non-ideality of a mixture. But in all fairness, you're much better off to just look up the density in a book or online. A good keyword in your search is a "binary mixture" (a mixture of two components). Searching for density of a binary (liquid) mixture might reveal something. Are you looking for any solution in particular, or only the general rule?

What I meant to say is that if an ICBM can get anything into space (and keep send it on to an approaching meteor), this object - let's call it a satellite - could perform some action on that meteor at a long distance away, so that a small correction could prevent a collision. But I have no idea what you are talking about? Perhaps just a joke that I don't understand? FYI, an ICMB is essentially just a rocket. It is not necessarily for weapons, even though thus far it seems to be used as such almost exclusively.

I do not think they can. The main problem of a very large meteor is the huge kinetic energy it contains. If you blow that up with a nuke at 40-50 miles altitude, you will still get a very large shock wave, which will still destroy a continent. Also, you would need a truly enormous nuke to actually turn a very large meteor around. And that is why everybody seems to focus on knocking such a meteor off course much earlier (we're talking a million times further: 40,000,000 miles away or so). Then you need a normal rocket, not an ICBM. Perhaps, we should be asking ourselves if an ICBM can be used/upgraded to get anything into space?

You ignore my point. But perhaps I can give an example: let us assume you are a member of a football team. And you are also member of a band. The band wins a prize... does this mean your football has anything to do with it? Probably not. What if I said that the football team is notoriously bad at playing music? And what if 2 more band members also play football? I could then argue that we know the football team is awful at playing music, and the majority of your band is in the football team, so it is ridiculous that you ever won a prize for good music with your band. I hope you see now that your argument is false, and indeed a logical fallacy. So, there you go: NATO has nothing to do with the EU as a whole. The EU won a prize. NATO is irrelevant.

Pax Romana is probably a period which comes closest to it. Not exactly the same area though. But this is precisely why Europe deserved it. For once I think the peace prize is not a complete joke. At the same time, the prize is only 1.1 million euro, which is not much for >500 million winners. It's about 0.2 euro cent per head of the population. The Nobel prize committee thus far haven't contacted me to get my share of the prize yet. Regarding the weird claim that because most EU countries are in NATO as well as the EU, the EU shouldn't get the prize, I completely disagree: There is an overlap between EU and NATO countries, but the EU is certainly not a subsection of NATO. NATO has nothing to say about the EU as a whole.

I want to warn you against asking for medical advice on an anonymous internet forum. People can write pretty much anything they want, and the moderators (I am one of them) cannot check whether the advice is correct or not. To follow up any advice is potentially dangerous. The only advice that makes sense is to tell you to see a professional.

! Moderator Note Curious, I have removed all the bold fonts (seriously, you make the entire post in bold). Please have a look at our etiquette guide, especially the part about emphasis features. Also, I encourage you to get views to your post by making it interesting, not by using lots of graphical tricks, like ********* █◥█◤. Finally, the topic description ("Must have a look at it !!!!!!!!!") adds zero information.

In a debate where the two sides argue about mostly subjective issues (or, at least non-scientific issues they cannot prove, like the economy), logically there cannot be a winner. On this forum, anyone using the debating style of both the candidates would soon be suspended and then banned for consistent use of logical fallacies, ad hominems (personal attacks) and trolling.

Can you provide something like a drawing or picture of the problem? How big is your system? Are we talking about 1 MW or 1 GW cooling? And do you internally recycle the water, or take in fresh water from a surface water, like the sea, a lake or a river? Without any additional info, I would suggest that you just scoop off the foam.

I agree with Ophiolite. There are no technical barriers anymore. There may be some economical barriers, but I actually doubt that. It seems mostly just human stupidity.

It's a bit of both. The natural balance changes slowly over time. But most scientists seem to agree that humans are increasing the speed of this change.

I am glad you corrected yourself a little later. For those who don't know, I am not American. Therefore, I don't care about your national (internal) issues, or how much tax you pay. I find it fascinating, but it's none of my business. But I do live on this planet too, and what you guys vote affects me. The USA is the largest military power, the largest consumer of energy, and the largest economy. So, why (not) drop it? Because Romney is a lot more likely to suck its NATO allies from Europe into another pointless war, probably with Iran, than Obama. Because Romney is a lot less likely to solve the situation in Israel/Palestine, because he simply chooses sides with the Israelis, rather than negotiate for stability. Because Romney is a lot less likely to impose more strict environmental regulations on industry than Obama. Because Romney is against the Kyoto protocol, and it is my belief that he is against any international cooperation regarding the climate. Because Romney is a lot less likely to impose more strict financial regulations on banks and investment companies than Obama, although I doubt Obama will. In short, because I think Romney is a disaster when it comes to all international issues: war/peace, the environment and the economy. And that affects me too. Does that answer the question? Let's get back on topic: whether you should leave all the decisions I described above to a guy who thinks jet airplanes should have windows that open.

If Romney would have said this (what you just said), I would not have thought it worth starting a thread. That makes perfect sense. Maybe you should become his spokesman, so he doesn't make such an ass of himself.

It would be interesting to know how much matter we are actually talking about in comparison to our atmosphere. I think it's not too hard to calculate (at least not an order-of-magnitude estimate), but I shouldn't be spending time on that today.