Anjruu

I have a Dell Dimension 4600 with around 30 Gb free on the internal drive and another 200 on an external drive, and an Intel Penitum 4 processor. I have 1 Gb of RAM and an NVIDIA Geforce FX 5200 video card. Recently, I bought Oblivion, a game by Bethesda Works. I started it up, and it has very low graphics, and at times the game would crash. It would crash less if I lower the graphics settings. I have all the recommended specs for my computer except the graphics card; the makers recommend NVIDIA Geforce 6800, but my graphics card is on the minimum system requirements. So it seems to me the problem is with the graphics card. Would you all agree? I was wondering if I should upgrade my graphics card, what kind to buy, where to buy it, and how much to expect to spend. The reason why I'm asking is because I looked at a couple of websites that sell them, and the numbers and make confused me. I'm not particularly savvy about computer hardware, and I was just asking for your all advice.

This is silly, again. Every time we get into one of these discussions, the starter screams "keep an open mind!" or "why not believe!" or "You can't prove it false!" and everyone else screams stuff about the scientific method and how they have no proof and youtube is not reliable, etc. I think that you are confusing "not believing" with "not believing and not having the potential to believe ever ever Ever EVER." If people are scientists, then they will start to believe once there is proof. Furthermore, when in doubt, maintain the status quo. What is believed now has an inherent advantage over any other idea, until it is proven by multiple people during multiple tests, over the course of a long time to be false. So, when we say "we don't believe you," we don't mean "you are wrong." We mean "you do not have sufficient proof, your theory does not explain anything not currently explained, there is not reason for it to exist, and there is significant reason for it NOT to exist, BUT give us GOOD evidence using GOOD science, and have OTHER people do the same, and we will consider it." Wow, this has gone on forever. Whatever, point is, sorry, you don't get support now. But don't storm off or take it personally. Wait and give us evidence, and we'll try to pick it apart, but if we fail, then we'll believe you. Its not personal, and we're not being close-minded. But the burden of proof is on you, and you haven't proved it yet.

My physics teacher, being the wonderful person she is, has assigned my class a project. The goal is to "build a car that is self-propelled." It basically means a propeller. I was wondering what the best design was. I figured 45 deg skew along the axis, and as large height- and length-wise as possible, but what about depth? Having the fans extend backwards? Anything else we should think of?

Dear lord, from what I've seen in my life guys distrust girls, and girls think guys are stupid. I really don't see what all the gender-tension is about. I'm male, for reference.

Yeah, great idea with the book club. Any particular date we should try and read it by, so we can discuss it?

I like the idea presented in a couple of sci-fi books, such as Pastwatch, by Orson Scott Card. It says that each moment is distinct, separate and largely unrelated. So if you go back in time and killed your grandfather, you have changed the past. True, you will not exist in the future, and you will not have any way that you existed, but that doesn't matter, because there is no connection anyway. It basically says that cause and effect are an illusion. Probably wrong, but simpler. Barring that, the predestination works well. Both are depressing, but at least you avoid paradoxes. EDIT: Man that was explained badly. Oh well, did you all get the general idea?

I think we should get rid of the term 'planet' entirely. Or at least sub classify even more. Have 10 different types of planets, or something, ranging from brown dwarf-sized, super-jovian planets which orbit at 1/10 the distance of mercury, to Pluto-sized planets which orbit as far away as can be imagined, and everything in between. If we want, we can still call them all planets, but the term alone is too vague. That's my two, uneducated, opinionated cents. I know you all didn't ask for it, but you got it anyway.

Ahehe, the lifecycle of a thread. Fallen from respectability in a science thread, like physics or chem, it slowly spirals in speculation, where flaming and other bad habits drive it deeper in to depression, resulting in death, or psuedoscience. Sounds like something my health teacher would describe.

EDIT: Deleted an essential useless post WOW this thread is approaching being completly useless. If you look at the rules for this forum, it says that thread will be closed or deleted if the starter does not supply evidence, and this has migrated from semi-rational discussion to personal attacks. Is it acceptable to ask for a close, or is this against the rules?

To be fair, I think he probably imagined that you were from the US. If you are 3000 miles from a Radio Shack in the US, that is pretty far away from a major city. Doesn't make it excusable, really, because I know a couple of really intelligent and educated people who live far away from a city. What?

Sigh...You are damn right, it is used to heat some things. That said, it is NOT heat, it is NOT the only thing that is associated with heat, and it canNOT strip electrons simply by shining it on a piece of iron, no matter what the intensity.

He was saying that the laser, an EM force, strips away electrons and polarizes the nucleus just like gravity does, so all interactions which we think of as gravity between cool objects, at least objects without a heat difference, are really a result of the electro-weak force. This is the reason why blocks of granite and bags of sand without any thermal transfer will attract each other. Not my ideas or words, his.

Actually, IIRC, the center of mass of the Pluto-Charon system is outside Pluto, so they are saying that that doesn't count. Charon doesn't orbit Pluto, they orbit each other, and that they are a duel-planet system, or something. Those must be pretty rare, though, I think. I mean, what sort of event would have to occur for a planet which formed as planets do, and then escaped from the gravity well of its sun, without being destroyed? Some sort of near-collision with an extremly large asteroid which yanks the planet from its orbit? Nova wouldn't produce these, the heat would destroy the planet, I thought, and anyway, there would still be enough mass. What else?

Ok, good. Now, since it seems that none of us here have the materials, or, if some of us do, then not the inclination to do your expirement, why don't you preform it to the best of your abilities, and then we'll see what happens. It looks like a relativly simple set-up except for the vaccumm chamber, but those are relativly cheap, I think. And if you are correct, the investment will be well worth it.

And when they are rebuked, they tend to storm off, usually with a goodbye along the lines of "I'm sorry that I am smarter than you and you don't understand me." Hey! Look at that!

But, I imagine, the magnetization would not be strong enough to act alone, with out the extra uplift the convection current creates, am I right?

Ok fine. For the sake of argument, lets say we accept that your theory as self-consistent. You don't need to explain it anymore, you don't need to work out the details, you don't need math, you are all done with explaining your theory. Kk? Now. GIVE US SOME EVIDENCE. You know who Lemarck was? He came up with an alternative theory of development of the species, before Darwin. He said that if you cut off the tails of two mice, their children will not have any tails. So, physical changes to animals affected their children. It was a brilliant theory, self consistent, and well worked out. He was wrong, though. He died mocked and ridiculed. This could have been avoided if he had cut off the tails of mice and seen if they had children. Then he would have seen that his theory was wrong. How do we know you are not another Lemark? We don't. Prove that you are not. Give us some evidence.

I get Scientific American, and I really enjoy it, but it is sort of lacking in a couple of aspects, and I was thinking of getting another one. People have mentioned "New Scientist" a lot, and "Science" or "Nature" might be a good pick. Any suggestions? Perferably with lots of general topics, versus a specialized magazine.

Photons are the force carrier particle of the electromagnetic force. Although it is electrons which in this case are, i don't know the terminology, but are instigating the force, it is the photons which are and create the lines of flux. Not the electrons. Perhaps the electrons create the photons, i don't know, this is not my strength, however, IA is correct in that the current theory says dictates that photons are the force carriers of EM. For the strong nuclear force, it is the gluons, and for the weak, i cannot remember, but i think it is either gauge bosons or W and Y particles, or something. I can't recall. And for the love of god can we have some SUPPORT for your theory, please? And do you mind using the Quote function? Its the little speech bubble in the control toolbar. It makes things easier for us. Thanks!

Hahaha!! It took me about 1o minutes, but I finally got it! Nice one!

You know, just posting the SAME ******* IMAGE of something you made out of tinker toys does not prove your theory.

Ok. I understand what you have been attempting to say. By the way, I understood about the polarization of electromagnetism, I was asking about the polarization of gravity. Now, on to the proof. EDIT I don't think this is right. I think the propogation is because the force particles which transfers the force, ie, the photon, is moving. The reason it gets weaker as you go out is because the photons get further and further away.

Ahaha, post it anyway. Those damn kids need to grow up sometime and if you can't learn to fly by jumping off a cliff, then you deserve to be eaten by lemmings. Which is actually the topic of my story.

We going to do this? I have something written for it...I mean, its crap on a stick, but I'll still submit it. After all, you all don't have anything better to do than reading my horrible short stories.

Look at this article in New Scientist. It says we might be able to correct for the degradation of DNA in Ice Age animals.