ydoaPs

The fallout would be next to nothing. As I implied in my last post, it wouldn't really even increase the background radiation levels. Are you expecting random people to be the crew? Do we let random people just walk into the airport and rent a 747 for a weekend getaway? What dangerous levels of radiation? I work in an application with 5000people living right on top of two reactors. Actually, the cafeteria is right above the reactors, but you know what I mean. Also, only a few hundred of us have any training about the reactors. You mean the scale of small cities living in a structure the size of the empire state building with two reactors? Do you actually know anything about radiological fundamentals?

Let's see.........insignificant concentration divided by a HUGE halflife........BTW, most materials have trace amounts of radioactive materials. How much do you think such a disaster would increase background radiation? You VASTLY underestimate the amount of training and safety features. Do you know how much radiation you got last year? It was roughly 300mrem. In fact, if you live in a valley, on a mountain, or if you fly a lot, you got significantly more than that. Do you know how much I got last year from operating a reactor? I'll tell you: 6mrem. What on earth are you talking about?

Why would that be absolutely unacceptable. It wouldn't be much worse than a rocket exploding. You know Chernobyl deliberately disregarded and deactivated safety features, right? Okay, so it blows up.......It's fairly simple to calculate the activity(how radioactive) of the debris. [math]A=N \lambda[/math] where A is the activity, N is the concentration, and [math]\lambda=\frac{\ln 2}{t_{\frac{1}{2}}}[/math]. Now, the fuel has a half life of millions of years. I guess we just need to know how big the explosion is, how much drifts down into the atmosphere, and how strong the wind is.............a rough estimate is that the activity due to such explosion would be extremely negligible. Overbuilding? What do you mean? Sure, there's redundancy, but not much "ovedrbuilding", whatever that means. However, if you provide some examples, I can tell you how wrong you are. Did I mention I operate two reactors?

The ocean would boil long before the sun gets anywhere near it.

Private Message Cap'n Refsmmat.

/me points to photos of planets forming in other solar systems. My oh my, they look an awful lot like accretion discs. But, since science is obviously a popularity contest, so I'm going with traveler on this one.

In order for something to be falsified, it must be able to be tested. It's a true statement by definition and as such does not necessitate proof. Now, if you would be so kind, please answer my questions.

If it is untestable, then it is unfalsifiable, and thus not science by definition. Are there "strange and untestable mathematical" results necessarily implied by quantum mechanics? If so, what?

Maybe you can visit him in jail.

Laptop.....portability is a must for me.

Not really.

y=x2+1 y=-x2-1 ?

What was the equation for? You haven't really given us much information with which to help you.

Pi is dependent on the space. It is different in curved spaces. It is also different if the circle is spinning. Go ahead, provide a mechanism for the radius changing.

You do know that is just a rearranged form of the definition of [math]\pi[/math], right?

The link is to The Onion.

NO! The length of the radius is perpendicular to the direction of motion. The length of the circumference would shrink just as much as the ruler. You would measure it to be the same. You're mixing frames here.

Klaynos, the period is the time it takes to complete a cycle. If the period is that much larger than the age of the universe, it would still need almost 3 more universe lifetimes to complete it's first cycle. EM waves are oscillating electric and magnetic fields. The oscillation in the case is so slow that it approximates not oscillating at all. This photon approximates a uniformly moving field with a constant magnitude. I wouldn't consider it a photon, but others might.

Download FireFox.

Well, iirc, the visible universe is 46 billion lightyears across. [math]v=f \lambda[/math] where v is the speed of the wave(which we know to be c), f is the frequency, and [math]\lambda[/math] is the wavelength. We can rearrange the equation to find the frequency. [math]f=\frac{c}{\lambda}[/math]. Now, we can plug the wavelength in and see what we get.[math]f=\frac{c}{46,000,000,000 \times c \times 1year}[/math] That works out to be 1.6x10-18Hz. Actually, the period would be more useful. [math]T=\frac{1}{f}[/math], so, the period would be 1.6x1018seconds or 46 billion years. Consider the accepted age of the universe is roughly 14 billion years and draw your own conclusion from that.

The fuel isn't very radioactive.........but irradiated stuff......and fission fragments......

The circumference will decrease at relativistic speeds.

Yes you can. Spin it.