Raider5678

She sure does LOVE squirrels. Especially when I go chasing her through town in my PJs because she really wanted to say hi to one.

Well, I probably know less then you. My thoughts is that if time travel into the past were possible, then killing one's grandfather wouldn't matter because you would already be feeling the affects, meaning you already did it, so it never happened kind of, it's just....... it's tough to explain.

Amen

Wait what?

I don't think the turkey would have made much of a difference. The reason is that airbags are deflating as soon as they start to fill. The high the PSI the faster they deflate, so the PSI should have only topped at about 5. They designed it like this so that if your in an accident, its not like getting hit in the face with a brick.

Nah, I'll take your word for it. In truth though, why are we so scared of terrorist? I mean it's not like your very likely to get attacked or killed by one considering theres like what, 330 million people in the united states? And your most likely not a high priority target either. Seems like the terrorist are doing their job, causing unnecessary and pointless terror. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/applying-refugee-status-is-hard_us_564bbf8ce4b045bf3df1a043

If we are talking astronomy, yes. One million years is considered new. But yeah, I would polish up your ideas with an expert in the field before presenting them. You usually only have a few chances to present your ideas before people start labeling you as a nut job if your ideas don't make sense.

"Question: Find out the molar concentration of acetic acid (CH3COOH) solution when 1.24 grams of acetic acid (CH3COOH) dissolved in 155.0 ml solution? Solution: Given mass of acetic acid (w) = 1.24 g volume of acetic acid (V) = 155.0 ml = (155.0 / 1000) L {Because 1 Liter = 1000 ml} = 0.155 L Molar mass of acetic acid (W) = atomic mass of C atom + atomic mass of 2 O atoms + atomic mass of 4 H atoms = (12.0 + 2 * 16.00 + 4 * 1.0) g / mol = 48.0 g / mol And now by the help of molar concentration (molarity) formula we can determine molar concentration of acetic acid, Molar concentration of acetic acid (M) = mass of acetic acid (w) / molar mass of acetic acid (W) * volume of acetic acid (V) = 1.24 g / (48.0 g / mol * 0.155 L) = 0.167 M So when 1.24 grams of acetic acid (CH3COOH) dissolved in 155.0 ml solution, molar concentration of this solution is 0.167 M." http://www.tutorvista.com/chemistry/molar-concentration-formula Yeah, this is copied, but it should help you a little. I DID NOT know ANY of this stuff, this is from the webpage.

http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2016/01/20/senate-democrats-block-bipartisan-law-requiring-enhanced-background-checks-syrian-refugees/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/20/senate-democrats-block-bill-restrict-syrian-refugees-entering-us/79063266/ http://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-democrats-block-bill-to-halt-resettling-of-iraqi-syrian-refugees-in-u-s-1453325005 Thats them blocking laws. And number 3 sort of counteracts what they blocked before, so it's a little confusing. But that's politics for you, they talk and talk and never get anything done.

Is there even a way to calculate this? I mean you would have to account for the force that was put into the turkey, and to do that you need to know how far and how fast the turkey traveled right? I would assume that your using the average 2.5 cubic foot air bag from the driver's seat, which fills up in about 20 - 30 milliseconds. So let's say it took 25 milliseconds to fill up. The pressure inside the airbag would have been 5psi at most. Now you should know that it fills with nitrogen gas, not oxygen. So assuming the turkey didn't launch until it was at 5 psi (highly-unlikely). So it expands to 2.5 cubic feet in 25 milliseconds. So lets assume its a sphere, it moves 1.68 feet in 25 milliseconds, which is 6.72 feet per second, which means it's moving at 4.5 miles per hour( I may have made a math mistake there, I got 13 mph at first). So it's hitting the turkey at 4.5 mph, so considering newton's 2nd law, the counterforce is what is exerted on the table. Someone else do that math.

I could have answered this by looking at my dog. She whimpers, barks, moans, moves, cries, drools, snores, and pants, all in her sleep. I always wondered what she was dreaming about.....

Hi guys, I was wondering how fast the end of a giant pole starting at the center of earth would be if it was "x" miles long. Now I decided to try ang get this pole to the speed of light. This is assuming earth spins once every 24 hours, and that this pole would be able to withstand the centrifugal force. So assuming that light travels at 670,616,629 mph. Which means the circumference of the circle that would be drawn by the end of this pole would have to be 16,094,799,096 miles around. Which means the length of the pole would have to be (2.56×10 to the power of 9) miles long starting at the center of the earth. And if it was this long, then the exact end of it would be traveling at the speed of light. Did I do math wrong here? Obviously we couldn't build something the long, it would reach mars, probably MUCH farther. But just as a thought experiment, is this correct? I included a diagram below. Every - is the pole. Sun Mercury Venus Earth---Mars--------------Jupiter----------------Saturn------- Uranus Freakin long pole.

Considering nobody is posting their ideas, I know what I would build. I would build a giant pole the goes so far above earth, that the end is traveling at least 1/6 the speed of light. From there I would use it to "sling-shot" space ships to where ever they need to go.

Hi guys, I read that if nasa had more money, they could get to mars twice as quick. Now I think they meant the long run, as in getting there in 20 years rather then 40, not the actual trip time (about 6 months with conventional rockets). Now I was wondering what you guys would build if you had ALL the money in the world. Now since this IS a thought experiment, there are somethings that you can ignore. Here are some of the rules for your "world" where you build whatever super thing. 1. It can't ignore the laws of anything.(physics, thermodynamics, etc.) 2. You have unlimited money to do what you need to do. 3. You have unlimited manpower. 4. You have unlimited time. 5. Anything you make must be something we could build today given these standards. 6. You only have materials you could get. Now I don't know whether this is something thats not allowed or not, but I didn't read anything in the rules about it(unless I missed it). But if we make something team style, like we come up with something, then figure out problems with building it, etc, it would be great. I'm pretty sure something like that has like a 0.000000000001% chance of happening. Now to finish, what would you build? Be it an underwater city, a giant space ship, or a advanced microwave, I don't care. I just like seeing interesting ideas.

Trying to remain neutral and not trying to start an argument, may I just point out that this could be said about "non-conservatives" also? I mean, HARD evidence inside politics about who is to blame is almost always cherry picked to suit the person's needs. Let's say for example you brought up a study that shows how conservatives repeatedly stopped government laws from being passed that could help us alot. I could pull up ANOTHER study that shows the same thing, but that "non-conservatives" stopped those laws. In my opinion political debates usually never end up with people changing to the other party, which is a real shame. Try and use some logical reason here. I vote for whoever I think is a good candidate(technically, I'm too young to vote), regardless if their a conservative or not. On a side note yes, usually the people blaming other people are the cause of the problem. But both parties are trashing each other currently, so who does the blame fall on?

Ok. Wow. So say 2 rays of light were to pass each other in the vaccum of space. From the point of view of one ray of light, the other is going a little less then c, or is it going half the speed of c? C = speed of light in vaccum.

I do have a few questions, since I won't have time to read this book. First off, how does potter know about something that hasen't been seen for at least one and a half THOUSAND years. That's a long time for information to be passed down from memory. My next question is why is human kind in immediate danger, and needs teleportation to be saved? Also, an "E-manual" seems highly unlikely for an ancient language. What does the e stand for? Can you point out some evidence presented inside the books that convinced you? Otherwise I'm thinking your just joking around, or promoting this book. I for one, require at least SOME evidence before I even consider something a possibility. After that I look for evidence that the given evidence doesn't match conventional science, so let's see potters evidence. That's what I figured, but i'm not sure. Ark of the covenant?

Hello again. I have a question about why time slows down the faster your going, and why time will not let you go faster then light. Now my reason for this question is that Steven Hawkings says that if your on a vehicle, that's moving near the speed of light, and someone on board were to run towards the direction the vehicle is traveling, time will slow down EVEN more so that they aren't moving faster then light. My question is WHY does time slow down? I understand that speed is how far you travel in a period of time, so time slowing down prevents you from going faster then light. I also understand the reason you can't get something to go faster then light, is that since nothing GOES faster then light, then nothing can push you faster then light. You can't even get to the speed of light because force is mass times acceleration (why isn't it speed?). That means if your moving closer to the speed of light it won't be pushing you as hard as it as in the beggining, making your acceleration slower and slower until it will amount to nothingband you aren't getting any closer to the speed of light. So that's what I understand, but why would time slow down the faster you go, and why doesn't the universe want you going faster then light?

I'm in advance, but in all honesty its simply just tougher grades in my opinion. When me and a non advanced student worked on a project together he got 100% I got 88% because since I was in advanced.I learn in the same class, I just usually don't pay attention. At home is where I do most of my advanced stuff though. I'm teaching myself physocology now.

Q. What do you get when you add the smallest cell in the human body with the largest cell in the human body? A. A baby Yes, im terrible at jokes XD

I wouldn't for multiple reasons. The first reason is that after about 1000 years chances are I won't have any limbs, accidents will probably chop them off etc. Another reason is that if everyone else evolves except me, that would be kind of awkward. Finally everyone I know would die long before I would. This would result in an endless rate of heart break every century or so. I agree.

To start, I don't want this to be a giant political argument. I want you guys to post your thoughts on each of the 4 candidates(Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Bernie Sanders. After that who you would probably vote for. Now you don't have to go into extreme detail, but the basic reasoning would be nice. If you post your thoughts on one candidate, please post your thoughts on a candidate on the other side as well, to keep it even. Also, try to use minor opinions, rather than just saying things that don't really add up at all. If two post counteract each other, or one is proven wrong, they really don't point out anything except that you didn't really research everything you posted about. Again, try not to erupt into a giant argument. Just your thoughts on the candidates. Thanks in advance!

Most of your arguments are built on this simple statement. Low-gun countries have less gun related deaths. Obviously that's true, no guns means no gun related deaths. But then again your also only looking at it from one angle, how many people guns kill. I mentioned earlier about crime rates NOT related to guns, and for some reason nobody addressed it. Looking at it from the homicide rate INCLUDING every other homicide, not only gun related ones, you see a different story. Although this is comparing it to every country, not just cherry picked ones, so this might not count. Also, if everyone in a country doesn't own a gun, crime rates DO go down. If everyone in a country OWNED a gun and were TRAINED how to use it, would crime rates go down too? https://mises.org/blog/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-countries http://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/ And just for discussion what do you guys think of these? http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/miscellaneous-gun-control-information/#BCS http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/

The civil war? The uninion was a immensely armed group, the more advanced guns, the better training, and more men. They also lost just as many as the confederates. In modern time rebbeling against the government would be surprisingly easy. You see, the problem with the army, is that not all of them immediately take arms with the government, by let's say they did. They have to spread across the entire country. Now there are currently a bit more then a million armed personnel k. The united states, but let's say there are 2 million. 1 armed personnel for every 114 people. Even WITH military training they would be over run. Now obviously that's just saying we would have power In numbers, and that's clearly not enough. Just mentioning.

So john, I'm assuming your position on taking away all guns isn't the same as Inows, who would want stricter gun laws rather then simply taking away all the guns? Also, gun free countries are having a small problem with terrorist attacks I see. That's an opinion, not a fact so don't try turning that statement around on me.