Ophiolite

Set the ball down at the top of the cliff. it sits there. Work is no longer being done. its potential energy does not increase. You have chosen a complex variant of the problem' date=' where you are [i']holding [/i]the ball. it is now unsupported. The work being done by your muscles is not contributing to the potential energy of the ball, but is simply maintaining your hand/arm/all ins its current position.

That was a real jewel. (Joule?)

LedZeppelin you have to stop thinking in only three dimensions, believe ten impossible things before breakfast, and comfortably hold two conflicting points of view in your head at the same time. If you can do all that you may just begin to grasp it. Alternatively you can become really good at esoteric math and pretend you actually do understand it.

Here you go, straight from those nice guys at command central:http://mars4.jpl.nasa.gov/msp98/news/mco990930.html Rather looks like Lockheed Martin need a QA team rather badly: http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1217572004 And here, re-Hubble, an interesting perspective from a psychologist. "the Hubble hypothesis and the developmentalist's dilemma', published in Development and Psychopathology, 9 (1997) http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00001009/00/s_Dilemma.pdf

Now that is interesting. To quote a well known poster 'could I see some sources please'.(P.S. I think Mad Mardigan was using hyperbole as far as Hubble is concerned. It was just a slight error in the grinding of the mirror.)

ed, Zubrin answers that with greater passion and eloquence than I ever could in the book referenced in my previous post.

Read: 'The Case for Mars', by Robert Zubrin ISBN: 0684827573 Visit: http://www.nw.net/mars/ where the Mars Direct plan is discussed. Join: http://www.marssociety.org/ the Mars Society and help make it happen.

No English channel (and in the interests of European harmony: La Manche? Non!) No white cliffs. The Thames a tributary of the Rhine. Human settlement on the now deluged Dogger bank in the North Sea. Separation didn't occur till sea levels rose at the end of the last glacial retreat and the present channel was eroded. But thereafter there was probably periodic settlement by boat. Referring back to an earlier post of yours in this thread. The UK is on the same plate as nearby Europe, so no closer proximity there I'm afraid.

I'm feeling lazy today and can't be bothered to go check for a reference to this. Do you have one handy? Also can you (or anyone else) confirm that the neutrino mass referred to by SubJunk is what explains the apparent shortfall in neutrino production by the sun.Thank you in advance for doing Ophiolite's thinking for him on an off day.

It's worth emphasising a point Sorcerer made, but I don't think you picked up on. This movement is occuring over thousands of years. The average distance moved each year is of the order of one or two miles on average. This is not a matter of great treks by a small band of humans over thousands of miles, it is a case of a gradual extension of hunting territory over decades, probably punctuated by a more serious move of the order of tens or even hundreds of miles when confronted with some natural catastrophe. I'm not sure where you picked up the reference to how humans reached the UK. The only UK reference I can find in this thread to the presence of National Geographic in dentist's waiting rooms, and the authorities are all prety much in agreement that they arrive by post and do not actually walk themselves! Easter Island is an easy one. The Polynesians discovered and settled it around 400AD. By that time they were skilled sailors and ocean navigators. It is only 1600 years ago.

Double Quoi? with a big feathery hat on! I guess if it doesn't exist, neither does kinetic energy, so we can all go out and drive as fast as we want with impunity.

Sorcerer, take a note out of your own book. 'What you know and what you think are not necessarily the same.'There are enough reputable scientists out there who also see the time-complexity issue as a problem that for you to dismiss it as a 'chemical reaction' is trite and frankly beneath you. Unless you can come back with for example a step by step series of processes by which we can move from 'primordial soup' to RNA I see little point in the continuing the discussion. I am open to the possibility that life may have had time evolve on Earth, but certainly the steps by which this occured have not yet been elucidated. There are real problem areas. You seem unwilling to even recognise these - hardly very scientific of you.

There is hot debate in the field of anthropology at present' date=' brought on by just such conflicting evidence as this. I understand that there is less genetic variation in humans than in most animal species. I seem to recall this is due to a 'choke point' around 80kya when we almost went the way of the dodo. Perhaps one of our biology savants can comment on these two points. In the UK, following a long established tradition, this issue will not appear in dentist's waiting rooms till April 2017.

I see where the confusion has arisen. When I said 'extreme discomfort' I was referring to intellectual discomfort, brought on by what I view as a mis-match between current explanations and available evidence.

'Some went to Oxford' and 'some went to Cambridge', does not exclude the possibility that some didn't go to either. Bloodhound was seeking to clarify this ambiguity. Since this is a thread on improving one's english it seems a reasonable, and important, clarification to make. Still, we are all agreed - Monty Python, pretty good.

Nice thought. But we haven't done much of a job of it so far: international co-operation. (Yes, I know there a plethora of examples of such co-operation, but they are small scale and in comparison with a manned Mars attempt, trivial.)So Mars by 2010? Let's pretend we are having a serious discussion. 2020? Possible, but no. Who's going to go? Not the US. The will isn't there guys. Russia? Can't afford it. Europe? Not really interested in manned spaceflight. China? The only realistic hope. And after all Mars is red.

I think I usually have a pretty good idea of the distinction (of course I don't know that for certain). Did you think there was some point in my posts where i did not remember the difference between them? If not, I'm not quite sure what you intended to say.

No. Speeches are terrifying. Use the adrenalin rush to your advantage. But prepare. preparation. preparation. preparation.Also don't be afraid to use the pause. Gather your thoughts, prepare for the next statement. Glide into it.