greg1917

Holography is generally viewed as the technology that will bring massive amounts of data storage on a very small scale. Something the size of a sugar cube could hold hundreds of gigabytes of data: http://physicsweb.org/article/world/13/7/7

If its any help, the equation linking the two is as follows: E = kT E being energy in joules k being boltzman's constant T being temperature (rememebr to convert into Kelvin)

"so it may be possible that venus is crawling with silicon based life" Under what we know, thats so immensely unlikely its not even worth bothering to consider. "is it not possible that silicon based life might not require oxidization at all but may use some other element as a catalyst" Again immensely unlikely. "another form of silicon life would be sentient computers which would not be biological life at all" No they wouldnt. How exactly could they possibly come about in the first place without 'biological life' though?

Engineering.

Yes it takes special equipment, which is why so few countries around the world are able to produce enough to make nuclear weaopns. http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/isotope_separation

"I think the main idea is that air masses develop a large charge through some process we don't fully understand. This probably involves frictional contact between water droplets which leads to charge segregation inside the cloud. When the potential difference between the cloud and the ground exceeds the break-down potential of the atmosphere, a tongue of negatively-charged particles invisibly descends from the cloud to the ground in a path of least resistance until contact with the ground is made within a few seconds. As soon as this happens, a massive flow of electrons travels down the channel in several pulses, to form the lightning bolt. This bolt is a channel perhaps a few centimeters wide, but where frictional energy heats the air to nearly 10,000 degrees. There are thousands of these bolts of lighting going off every minute around the world, and this helps keep the atmosphere at a fixed voltage relative to the ground of about 250 volts or so. " Directly lifted from: http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11788.html

Becuase theyre entirely relevant to everything in physics and chemistry. Physics deals with just about everything, chemistry specifically looks at electron behaviou much more closely. Particle is a very broad term.

Its a theory which is very likely to be true and is being taught to every single high school chemistry student in the world. No one has proved it to be true because proof in this sense is nigh on impossible to obtain. Seeing as pretty much all of chemistry is based on this system and seems to comply with experimental evidence and help explain it, I see no reason to beilieve it isnt true.

This is definitely pseudoscience, 424319 isn't quoting any established scientific journal, just a random book he's presumably hoping we all rush out and buy. Heres a tip - buy a real textbook and not whatever 'Thing and its law' is.

Well look at it this way, it must have endured stronger winds than this if its such an old building. The fact it is still standing means its strong enough to stay up. But if you dont want my voice of reason then OH MY GOD YOUR GOING TO DIE ARGHHHHHHHHH

I got sick of Glasgow so I moved to St Andrews where Im doing a Chemistry degree. Good shoping and nightlife, but some of the people should have been shot at birth - see Sauchiehall St on a saturday night.

No im Scottish. And dont ever call me a german again. ever.

Whereas I pay NOTHING to go to university. Thats the square root of zero. Or the number of people to have walked on Mars. My tuition fees are FREE. I laugh so hard when I hear of American uni's charging 20, 30k per YEAR for education!!!

A good one is oxygen - if converted into ozone (thats O3 instead of O2) it becomes quite toxic to in inhale for humans.

'Upset' us? the reason weve advised you not to do this is because its a ridiculously stupid, moronic, ignorant thing to do - you wont gain anything out of it. Question 10 is completely uncomprehensible. Youll have to rephrase it because I have no idea what your talking about. Similar with question 13. 'romantic'???

Do you have any idea how disgusting tap water is? Its nowhere near sterile enough to be injected into your bloodstream and in any case its dangerous regardless of that. Your blood keeps itself in check using several finely balanced mechanisms. Injecting random chemicals and tap water into a vein is stupid and irresponsible. Since when was using drugs worse than injecting yourself with random chemicals for the sake of it? Your clearly a high school student who hasnt covered more complex aspects of chemistry and biology yet. DONT inject yourself with anything for the sake of it - thats not experimentation in the pursuit of knowledge, its ignorance.

Id strongly recommend against injecting yourself with ANYTHING - if you alter your blood pH you could do tremendous damage and possibly pass out.

type

hyphen

rock

Without any maths its not a theory of any kind anyway, dont worry. The reason you cant understand it (neither can I by the way) is because he's using a communication medium which in no way suits physics. Pictures and paragraphs are no substitute for maths.

That was constructive wasnt it? Dont bother posting crap just because you cant give someone an answer.

Loads of people have been banned. Some for excessive cretinism (adam). Some for being porn bots. Some for using abusive language because their crackpot blackhole theory was dismissed by more intelligent learner. (black holes being one of a number of examples). Some for using abusive language for the sake of it. Others for various reasons. As mods we use a 25 point warning system. If members commit offenses they get allocated a number of points depending on the offense. When that totals 25, a ban results. read the site policy page for more.

Of course I can follow words. In this case, your words are wrong. The reason they are wrong is that you are trying to describe physical phenonomen with irrelevant pictures. If you had used equations like a real physicist this thread might not be in pseudoscience. If you have never seen equations yet feel qualified to make grandiose theories like this then clearly physics isnt your thing. At all.

This would make a very good science fair experiment provided you are careful and are aware of the reaction conditions. Ammonium triiodide, if made in small enough quantites, can make an impressive flash and in a safe manner. I cant rememebr the exact recipe but the final stage of the reaction is cooling a liquid to a solid. as a liquid its perfectly stable - however when solid, NOW it becomes the explosive little rat were looking for. Dont do this final stage in a beaker. My chemistry teacher did this, and the reaction was so quick it blew the bottom of the beaker straight out. Instead, just pour a little onto some filter paper. That way there'll be no shards of glass flying around when it goes. Also, bear in mind the activation energy curve for the decomposition is absolutely miniscule. Breathing will be enough to make it go, so ANY sudden movements and its gone. best to let it cool and not move it from that spot until you set it off. Basic rules apply, safety specs etc. Other than that, its a good idea and will make a cool presentation.