Bufofrog

Based on the last post you made I am not surprised. There does not appear there could or should be any cause and effect between the 2 phenomena

I do not follow, surely you do not think sunlight causes earthquakes. Are you implying that the orientation of the earth, moon and/or Sun cause earthquakes?

Yes, it can be done and is done quite a bit to study lightning. I do not know about weaponizing it though.... Lightning Rocket There are some youtube videos that show these rockets and the lightning they 'capture'.

I would think and easy way to do this would be to have a battery bank in the glider and solar cells to charge the battery. When the batteries are charged to a set amount a motor will move a piston and spring arrangement that compress a gas or air and latches which will pull water into a cylinder making glider sink. When it reaches a certain depth or the batteries are low the piston can be released so the gas expands and pushes the water out of the cylinder. The glider will then return to the surface where the batteries can recharge.

I simply entered "low faecal elastase slightly elevated glucose" into google and got some pretty clear results...

Blender is a free open source drawing and animation software. It is quite good, the learning curve is a bit steep but there is a whole community that uses it and lots of helpful tutorials.

I can do all of those things. I assume everyone can. The reason you cannot get a video of your shaky eyes is because the movement is to small, it just seems like a lot from the inside. Have friend look at your eyes when you do that and he will confirm your eyes are vibrating.

I believe the short answer is no. However, I suppose you could call a steel a chemical compound and the steel could be magnetized but I assume that is not what you are talking about. I also suppose you could call a wet cell battery a chemical compound that can produce an electric charge but again I assume this is not what you are talking about. A fuel cell is another chemical way to produce a current. Finally, if you put salt into water you have a plethora of electrically charged ions that make the liquid very conductive but the overall charge of the solution is neutral. Maybe if you went a bit more into depth as to what you are looking for I could better answer your question.

This seems rather confusing to me. You said the gravitational constant is corrected by a=0.01:0.001? Uh, 0.01:0.001 is not a number... Are you saying the corrections is between 0.01 and 0.001? So what is the correction factor? Maybe ':' is some operator I am not aware of. Why is 'a' showing up in the equation for gravitational potential? Did you actually mean 'a' is a correction to gravitational potential?

How about the light is not screwed on all the way and slight movements can either make the light bulb connect or disconnect. Of course the ghost theory is still a possibility...

That actually makes some sense to me. The difficulty is that I can't help but try to visualize this stuff as it relates to my everyday experience which does not work. Thanks for the insight and help Strange, I have to go take a couple of aspirins now...

I have a question that is puzzling me. I assume my problem is due to only seeing the 'pop science' explanation of Hawking radiation, anyway.... If there is pair production near the event horizon and 1 particle falls into the BH and the other escapes, how would that decrease the mass of the BH? Didn't a particle enter the BH and increase it's mass?

I know this is not the only forum that you 2 go 'at it', and it just gets old really fast. I do read your posts unless you 2 are arguing and then I ignore the whole page. It certainly appears that you are not a fan of GR, in that you are looking for the next step in our understanding of gravity. You also seem 'to this layman' to be quite knowledgeable. So why don't you just ignore Beecee and make your points? Just my humble opinion.

Why don't you guys PM each other instead of posting your incessant arguing, it is boring.

Metaphysics? You can disprove a hypothesis with experimentation, but you can't prove a hypothesis with experimentation. An experiment can certainly support a hypothesis, but it cannot prove it. This is not new age metaphysics, it just logic and regular old normal physics.

Well then that sort of dooms your whole idea, doesn't it? When shaving this morning I am fairly certain the person looking at me from the mirror was my reflection. Hypothesis falsified. I guess it is back to the 'drawing board'!

I think it is very problematic to think of reflection in this way, it makes much more sense to look at a light as a wave and the reflection of that wave. In the scenario that you presented, if the photon is absorbed by an electron and then re-emitted, there is no reason that the photon would have a trajectory that was 180 degrees different than the incoming photon. In other words the emitted photon can go in any direction. Based on your scenario of photon absorption and remittance there would not even be a reflection.

I did not read it, but if you think it is a good article then based on you past history it is a good bet that it is absurd, or it is a good article and you misunderstood it.

I'll bet Trump built it, right? This is getting (been) freaking absurd. Reported as inane.

Yes I noticed that. Very quick on the draw...

Yes, but it is not funny. The window glass in the picture you supplied is clearly not perfectly flat and has a fairly large variation in thickness. Perfectly with in the capability of the first century AD.

Safety comes first! So a quick safety tip, make sure to choose a rock weighs less than 500 kg when doing this experiment.

Sorry you do not understand. If it is important for you to place people from different regions in categories based on physical attribute, you are free to do that, seems irrelevant to me. As compared with other humans? Seriously? edit to add: I have a very strong suspicion that soon this thread will take a hard turn to racism.

I think what people are saying is that race is kind of irrelevant. Clearly there are physical traits such as skin color, eye shape, etc. which are regional, but the genetic diversity within a region is just as large as the genetic diversity between the regions.

What is your point? Historical accounts put the eruption at 79 AD. Radioisotope dating corroborates that date. So it would seem that your assertion that Pompeii was destroyed in the 18th century is not correct, which would mean that the 'Gauss' Easter Formula' you used must not be correct (or you made a mistake in your calculations).