Delta1212

Well, nuclear weapons get closer to the energy range but swing in the other direction on size. You can't localize the explosion very precisely in comparison to the size of a billiard ball. I suppose what you'd need for a more accurate analogy would be a bullet that hits with the force of a nuclear blast. Maybe a bazooka would have been a better analogy just for illustrative purposes.

Trying to precisely arrange atoms using photons with that much energy would be akin to maneuvering colored billiard balls on a table into the shape of the Mona Lisa by shooting them with a handgun.

Citation for the curious: http://www.mediaite.com/online/roberts-scalia-surprised-some-people-own-more-than-one-cell-phone/

You're missing what he said. There will be gaps. But you have to get really, really far away from the light source before the gaps will be wide enough that you will only occasionally get hit by a photon that traveled on the exact right path to reach you instead of detecting them continuously.

Particles and waves are not an either/or thing on the quantum level. A photon is both a particle and a wave. (Or, more accurately, has properties of both a particle and a wave).

Velocity is a vector, which means a change in direction is acceleration. Circular motion requires constant acceleration.

Just to point out, Einstein was ethnically Jewish...

You have 46 chromosomes. Unless you're twins, you will be able to find differences in 45 of those chromosomes, but the Y chromosome will always be the same in two males who share a father.

Normally, I don't ask questions on here because I figure Google is probably faster and there is no need to bother people with questions I can easily find the answer to myself. That said, I've had a weirdly difficult time in this case finding an answer to what seems like a relatively straightforward question, so maybe someone here can help me out. I'm trying to find two things, and I'm having the most difficulty with the second. I need to find the drag on a cylinder with a height of 1(unit), or a cylinder with an infinite height or a circle on a 2D plane for a fluid with a given viscosity and density. Any one of the three works. I also need to figure out the rate at which the rotation would be slowed in the same liquid for whichever one of the above three objects I use. This is the one I've had the most difficulty with because everything I've been able to find has been for spheres rather than cylinders. All I need is a set of formulae to solve both problems for one of the three mentioned objects.

Of course, we all know how this match ends, right? They get into a tussle, go over a waterfall together and are presumed dead by everyone, although both survive. Draw.

Sherlock has a cocaine habit, so I don't think he has a leg up there.

If you could store all the required information about each atom in the human body as a single bit (which you can't), storing a model of a single person would require enough space to store almost a million times the amount of information that passes through the entire Internet in a year. Mapping, storing and rebuilding a human one atom at a time is not a realistic goal.

Qualifying anything as positive or negative is inherently subjective unless you believe in an objective morality woven into the fabric of the universe, generally put there by some sort of deity. You can objectively state that something happened. You can't objectively state that it is good or bad that it happened, except insofar as it is an objective fact that it is good or bad within the context of a given, subjective, framework of values.

Two points, I don't think your understanding of how chemical bonds work is entirely accurate, and also dust and ash are both solids. They're a bunch of tiny particles of solid materials, but they're still solid. And just to throw in a third point: wood isn't a pure chemical substance. It's a very complex structure made up of a wide variety of chemicals that all have different melting/boiling points. You cannot melt wood or make it undergo any other phase transition as a single unit.

There is a lot of misinformation about quantum computing on the Internet. It's main advantage over a regular computer is not that it is inherently more powerful, there are just certain types of problems that it is better suited to handling. Predicting natural disasters is not one of those problems.

Or, alternatively, the stirring was just to keep the juice from settling and any cooling the device did was separate from the stirring mechanism.

Actually... I think those are kind of flipped. I think intelligence is more closely tied to a sort of mental flexibility, problem-solving ability and tendency to rapidly make associations, whereas wisdom is largely about knowing things. Being able to work with complex math is a mark of intelligence but not necessarily wisdom. Knowing not to touch a hot stove because the last time you did it burned you is wise but not necessarily a sign of intelligence. When presented with a problem, an intelligent person can work out a potential solution. A wise person knows what solutions have been applied in the past and which ones did or did not work.

Leadership is about convincing people that agreeing with you will get them more of what they want than disagreeing with you. A real persuasive leader can accomplish a great deal, but when what the person you are trying to lead wants more than anything else is to make you look bad, you're starting with a handicap that is just a bit difficult to overcome, no matter how good you are.

Just out of curiosity, I compared abortion rates to birth rates for the same period 2000-2009. The abortion rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women) fell by 7%. The birth rate (number of live births per 1,000 women) fell by 6%. I'm wondering if increasing access to birth control, suppressing the birth rate and especially those pregnancies falling into the category of "unwanted," may have played the larger role in the drop in abortions, rather than the abortion being made legal having a suppressing effect 30 years on. (Although looking at it from a cycle of poverty perspective, I suppose if the people whose children were mostly likely to grow up and get an abortion instead got abortions themselves at a higher rate after Roe v Wade, you'd ultimately see a negative trend in abortion rates generationally as a result).

If physics is a racecar, you are asking how fast it would go if you took out the engine. When the overwhelming response is "Well, without an engine it's not going to go at all" you come back with "Yes, but we could replace the engine with something else." While this is true, what you replace it with will radically change the answer to the question. There are an infinite number of potential replacements, most of them probably aren't compatible with the car and even figuring out which, if any, are compatible is a monumental task. It's doubtful anyone here is going to put the amount of effort into rigorously coming up with a working solution, which means all we're left with is speculating about what may or may not happen if you replaced the engine with something that may or may not even fit under the hood of the car.

Well, yes. I'm not sure I'm seeing where the confusion here is. Also, every frame behaving exactly the same way within said frame is one of the central pillars of relativity. If different (inertial) frames behaved differently to observers within those frames, that would undermine relativity, not give rise to it.

I'm not entirely sure you can have fewer abortions and fewer unwanted children born as a result of legalization. I mean, I suppose you could if you assumed that making abortion legal made more of the people who gave birth actually want their children, or the decrease in the number of abortions was from a group that actually did want their children but got abortions anyway only so long as it was illegal. To be clear, I'm firmly pro-choice, but at first blush those two outcomes seem contradictory.

Let's put it this way: the effects of density are frame dependent. Let's say you have a black hole and a star of the same mass that is exactly half as dense. You accelerate the star to a speed such that it is length contracted to half its rest volume. It's now twice as dense, but it's not a black hole. You can't compare the density of the black hole at rest with the density of the length contracted star. If you accelerate the black hole to the same velocity, the black hole will increase in density by the same proportion as the star, and that's the density the star needs to achieve to become a black hole in that length contracted frame. There's not a universally correct frame, but length contraction doesn't change how an object interacts within its own frame, and every frame can determine what an object's density in its own frame is, which is the density that determines how it behaves.

Not only is it possible, every species is descended from a common ancestor if you go back far enough. Every major car species was once a single species that branched out into all the current forms. Every species of mammal was once a single species that branched out into all of the various mammals. Every vertebrate was once a single species. Every animal was once a single species. Go back far enough and humans are descended from a population of life that also gave rise to plants.

You also have to factor in regularity of interbreeding to some extent. Even if it's theoretically possible for two animal populations to interbreed and have viable offspring, if they never do for behavioral or other reasons, they may be considered separate species. The line between species is often quite blurry and imprecise. These are categories that we're imposing on nature to make sense of it rather than categories that have an independent, "real" existence.