mezarashi

I'd like to take up Challange #4, and here is my answer: "this" is an English pronoun. In its main usage, it is: 1. Used to refer to the person or thing present, nearby, or just mentioned: This is my cat. These are my tools. 2. Used to refer to what is about to be said: Now don't laugh when you hear this. 3. Used to refer to the present event, action, or time: said he'd be back before this. 2. Used to indicate the nearer or the more immediate one: This is mine and that is yours. Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

I'm not sure what kind of chemical classification this would fall under. Normally, you can have isomers and such for a certain compound say H2O, but you don't have an altering of bond angles. Only a chemistry expert should be able to say whether this is even possible at all, but from what I know, it doesn't seem to be. The way atoms bond is to reach the lowest energy state, and there is only one of such a state. Without any evidence, I would pass it as a hoax. In anycase, the consequences of such a case would be many. This would affect the water molecules polarity and interaction with solvents. Upon freezing, water's crystalline structure would be different, meaning different heats of fusion. Will we know whether this will lead to a higher or lower density? So will the ice of this "strange water" float? It's like the question of asking what if the charge of an electron were to increase by 1x10^-20 colombs, how would physics be different.

An interesting problem indeed. It helped me brush up some of my highschool free body analysis skills. There was a little tricky part but otherwise standard procedure. I hope I can explain it well enough to not have to use any diagrams Given the 3 cylinder system, we know that the cylinders are fixed relative to each other, meaning that they will always form an angle of 60 degrees due to the symmetery. This means that the force of cylinder A on B and C is always constant and proportional to the weight of cylinder A. We have: [1. Fa ] 2(Fa)sin60 = Fgrav, where Fgrav = 400 N as given Then Fa = 230.94 N [2. Fn ] Analyzing any of the two bottom cylinders (either is fine due to symmetry, but I used cylinder C), we can get the equilibrium forces in the x and y directions. Let me know if you have difficulty with drawing out the geometry, then diagrams will be necessary. y: (Fn)cosx = Fgrav + (Fa)sin60, where x denotes theta. The right side is a constant, and leads to Fn = 600/cosx x: (Fn)sinx = (Fa)cos60 + Fb Fb as a function of Fn would be: Fb = (Fn)sinx - (Fa)cos60 [3. Fb] Substituting in equations we get: Fb = 600sinx/cosx - (Fa)cos60 Fb = 600tanx - (Fa)cos60 Three equations but 4 unknowns (Fa, Fb, Fn, x), what do we do? The trick is understanding that at the verge of slipping, or when theta is just perfectly right, then Fb will be zero! You can imagine this if the cylinders are on a horizontal floor. There will be no Fb. If the cylinders are not in equilibrium, then there cannot be an Fb. Cylinder A will undoubtedly push apart cylinders B and C. So with our last condition of Fb = 0, we get: 0 = 600tanx - (Fa)cos60, where Fa = 230.94 Solving: x = 10.8 degrees

That sounds fun. We can do it again =D What a nice way to go off-topic without anybody noticing.

Maybe my arithmetic has gone to hell, but pluging in the numbers, I didn't get the proper total energy back. Could be a miscalculation on my part, but its better if someone checks.

Not so if it's ethical hacking The first step of most hackers-to-be is to become what is known as "script-kiddies", meaning you download scripts programmed by "real hackers" and use them to exploit security on compromisable machines. Good luck, and please don't hack me ^^v

[if I recall correctly] and well, of course saliva secretion isn't a voluntary process. You can't tell yourself to secrete lots of it when you want

IIRC, there are glands under your jaw area that secrete saliva.

I believe your answers are inconsistent with the relativistic energy equation which is: [math] E = \frac{mc^2}{\sqrt{1-\frac{u^2}{c^2}}} [/math] where the mc^2 component is the rest mass.

Fluid mechanics eh... Try studying similitude. It's pretty neat, and then you can test if your calculations match real predictions. It's more of an engineering practice than physics, but you'll need to understand the fundamentals of fluid mechanics to write up an explanation of how it works. ^^

This is like for example me asking: Someone please teach me how to be a genius ~.~ Now I'm not sure if "genius" is innate or learnt...

From my astronomy adventures, I don't think that you can "see" anything beyond Saturn. When they start to turn into dots on conventional (affordable) telescopes, it simply becomes absurd to observe them. Pluto is certianly out of the question.

photons come in "pairs"? and what does that have to do with polarization? ?_?

I could be wrong, but I'm only speaking from experience, and from what I know, this sounds like a complete mess up of your sleeping cycle. I've had such a problem before. For most people, you're body automatically becomes exhausted at around 11pm or 12am, and then you want to sleep. When you take your sleep at night, your body thinks you're taking a nap, and so you only can sleep for 4-5 hours, then feel refreshed for another 7-8 hours. When it's actually time for your body to take the "full-night sleep", you can't, and the perpetual cycle continues on. In anycase, I think seeking professional medical attention would be the right choice.

I guess the explanation from a statistical point of view was not so clear, but what you see here is that London before the bombings was considered "safe" right? After the bombings, we would naturally associate the event happening to the probability that it will happen again. But is this relationship true? Because they bombed New York, does that make New York anymore dangerous than a less suspecting city, say Philadelphia? Due to increased security it may be less an ideal target for terrorists who could target something somewhere else. I don't know how to put this together, but given a fair game of worldwide bombing, there must be a statistical model that shows that the bombings will spread out rather than be focused on just one city.

Which leads me to the question, if we were really never ever exposed to sex, would we know how to "do it"? I mean such a case doesn't apply because we are brought up in a society where well we can observe others. If a test subject were to be raised in complete isolation, would he or she know what to do when meeting the opposite sex.

Well exactly, that's what I'm saying. If simple probability of independent events applied, then it wouldn't matter how many times a place gets bombed, the probability of it getting bombed will still be the same. But because the bombing has an effect on the future outcome, once a place gets bombed, it becomes "safer". So for those of you living in not-yet but nonetheless potential bomb sites, you are at more risk.

Statistically speaking, if something happens somewhere, there should be a lower chance of it happening right? For example, after that big earthquake in Osaka some years ago, Osaka would probably pretty safe to visit, because you wouldn't expect another big Earthquake. Similary, if a place has been terrorist bombed, then immediately following the incident, the place should be very safe. (although there was plans for a second attack, but it failed - because it wasn't statistically viable yet ) Would any of you hesitate to go to London today?

So there you have it... I'm going to always sit in the very front or back now.

Oh ooops, okay ^^v

Yes, search (download.com) for some kind of download manager. I don't have a particular program in my head right now, but I've used one that will automatically download a particular site given the pages are properly linked together.

LOL, I love your answer. UPDATE Oh, and this is even better. Too many great thinkers in our time.

Ah thanks, I think I see the picture better now.

I know that certain species like elephants destroy (by eating all in their path) vegetation and in effect the habitat of wherever they roam. This causes hardship for other species that may have relied on those trees as well. I don't see why because we cause "havoc" on a much larger scale, it would be called "unnatural". Just because we are more intelligent... I think now that we are working on imposing upon our world a new meaning to "survival of the fittest".