antimatter

One of my teachers told me that it is the other way around. He said that centripetal is an apparent force because it is just a form of intertia, and centrifugal is stand alone.

How would that happen?

Well, right, that's one of the groups I mentioned, the religious fanatics. Aside from them it's just the consequences people are worried about it.

It isn't the actual sex that bothers people, but rather, it's the ramifications. The people you hear complaining about sex in my school are most likely worried that the majority of the kids who are or will be having sex are irresponsible and are just giving in to their primal desires without a thought of anyone else. The other people you hear complaining are those religious stiffs who think it's wrong to hold hands with someone.

Ah I see, so in those averages there is an increase in temperature?

Can't you use the 'cycles' argument against that? When I tell my physics teacher this, he says that it's all just cycles of temperature and that this happens all the time, it warms and then cools.

So I'm writing a paper, and I look outside the window and see snow. Now, it's April, it's cold, and it's snowing. Snowing hard, and the flakes are much larger than they've been all winter. It's not really accumulating, but it's been coming down for almost an hour. I live in the East Coast of the States, and we haven't gotten snow after March in quite a while. I don't know much (anything) about weather or meteorology so I'm curious as to why this is happening. Any explanations?

If stars burn out, won't there be other stars? Even if the other galaxies start drifting farther away, how will that really affect us? I was under the impression that most of the other galaxies don't affect us quite as much (except gravitationally).

No, that there really is no data to disprove global warming. What he is saying that the intentions aren't enough to justify the cause, only data.

I've been reading a bit lately about the possible fate of the universe. So far I've seen a few models, and they all seem interesting to me. I've seen threads about these prophecies individually, but I'm not entirely sure which one is most plausible, so I'm curious as to your ideas. First off is the Big Crunch, the idea that when there is enough matter in the universe, gravity will cause the expansion to move backwards, thus collapsing the universe into a black hole singularity.The next one I found was called the Big Chill, the idea that as the universe is expanding, matter will get spread more and more thinly, until the temperature approaches absolute zero.After that, there is the Big Rip, which says that since the fabric of the universe is constantly expanding, the observable universe is shrinking, and that when the size of the observable universe is smaller than any particular structure, tearing will occur.Finally there is the Big Bounce, which says that we live in an oscillating Universe, and that everything moves in a cycle, and after our universe collapses, there will be another Big Bang. These are all very brief summaries that I pieced together from several different resources. I'm not so sure of how accurate they are, but it has been interesting to read. Seeing as I don't know much about astronomy, I'd like to hear everyone's opinions on which one is more likely, and any possible corrections to the summaries that I've given.

I assumed that weaponization meant what Mr. Skeptic was talking about. Finding a spore that could carry the virus, and modifying it to suit your needs. By the way, you say that most biological agents are lousy in regards to delivery. Why?

Numbers aren't patterns. They can be arranged IN patterns, but they are not patterns themselves.

I don't quite get what you're saying when you wrote that we can expect to see a mutation at or near the antibody binding site. Is it that because of the constant mutations, this new vaccine will cease to be effective at a certain point?

Is that your opinion? Or your interpretation of what he said?

To be honest, my physics teacher has a PhD in Geology... He is a bit of a conspiracy theorist, though. He said global warming is a scheme by the U.N. to unite the countries. I don't think that I should have told him about Watchmen. It isn't a religious school (I know you were talking to Cameron, but oh well), it's the only public high school in the town.

I'm curious as to what you mean by 'philosophy of numbers'. The way that they function? Philosophy is defined as the investigation of truths and principles, so is math a way of describing the truths and principles of the world through numbers?

I'm not too familiar with it, can you give me some more specifics?

Good find! That was an interesting article indeed. I agree with Mr. Skeptic. It seems too perfect that they found a part of the virus that never changes. Sure, it'll work for a while, but there'll be a few strains that it won't be able to combat. I don't know that much about Immunology myself, but I'm willing to bet that the part that they think is stable might end up changing because of this. Who knows?

It seems like they are trying too hard. In the second link specifically. My Physics teacher went on one of his anti-global warming rants today, and he said that we're in a period of cooling that won't go away for a long time, and that it is all part of the natural cycles. He said that when everyone thought the temperature was rising, it was the same as how everyone sees the temperature lowering right now. (Sorry if the post is incoherent. Studies and sleep deprivation has robbed me of any sense of cohesive writing).

To be totally honest, I'm not entirely sure myself. I stated above that I believe it is a tool to be used as the language of science, but according to others it is much more. I feel that describing it as just the study of patterns is honing in too specifically on one aspect of the broad field.

Ebola is definitely not the best kind of biological weapon. In fact, while it's disturbingly dangerous, it usually kills the host too quickly for the virus spreads. It incubates in around 5 days, and then kills the host in the next several days. It's too fast. I agree on rabies. It causes encephalitis, which is deadly enough, and then takes 2-12 weeks to incubate before symptoms start showing up. It's transmitted through the saliva of an infected animal, so it shouldn't be too hard to taint a water supply. The problem is, modern medicine can deal with rabies quite easily. Immunizations against it are also a possible threat. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged So with all of this genetic engineering, how could you actually find a spore, insert the genes, provide plasmids and just overall do it without some state of the art lab? I hear all these stories and read these medical thrillers about terrorists making these bio-warfare weapons in their makeshift labs, but it doesn't seem at all realistic. What technology would it actually take?

With all the electricity generators, I imagine this would be much bulkier than the average grenade. I was thinking something more along the lines of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDwgsZTQSyM

I think that you're over simplifying it. Sure, math frequently involves patterns, but that is not what it is meant for specifically.

How would the grenade be made to contain the antimatter though? You'd need to have a perfect vacuum, an electromagnetic field, and then some way of releasing it on contact. The math shows that it would be devastatingly powerful, but it's almost impossible to do.

How is it more than just a language? Maybe I don't have enough experience with it, but to me it just always seemed like a tool in understanding science.