insane_alien

depends. if the car with the center of gravity two feet above the ground is 20 feet wide and the car with a CoG 1ft above the ground is 3ft across then the one with a CoG 2 feet above the ground is more stable. stability is a parameter with multiple factors. you can't just take the height of the CoG and magically work everything else out.

most unintentionally scientificly inaccurate. there were a lot of spoofs out there that did a better job intentionally.

to expand, the receiving device collects the signals from at least 3 (prefferably more for increased precision) satellites and using the difference in timings to triangulate the position. no signals emanating from the receiver are necessary. In fact, aside from not having the capability of transmitting, you'd need a big floppy antenna on you phone to transmit to multiple satellites. If you are going to use GPS to argue something, please read up on how GPS works.

none of them provide actual studies. one even dubiously references a study showing cancer patients have low anger scores and then immediately assumes that this means they are repressing anger instead of being genuinely happy. I cannot accept these as evidence as they seem to use very sketchy logic filled with fallacies to attempt to substantiate their claims. even ignoring that the claims are very weakly supported compared to current knowledge with cancer. do you have eny scientific studies you can link to rather than anecdotal evidence?

this seems to have strayed somewhat from the original topic. who cares how many swords are in the bible? hatred doesn't cause cancer. I know some happy people who have contracted cancer (my uncle) I'm sure there are other examples. Does oncology mean nothing to you?

why does nobody seem to accept that GPS can locate places in 3 dimensions? GPS provides latitude, longitude and altitude (height above average sealevel.)

the forum is a place for non-realtime communications. there is nothing stopping you from taking a few hours to digest a particular post. I imagine very few of us are sitting waiting in earnest for responses. I usually just have a wee browse every now and again or subscribe to a thread and pop back when i get a notification. take all the time you want to read a response and formulate a reply.

no. I'm not entirely sure you can treat it as having direction.

kind of. they don't need to be the originator of the evidence but they should at least put forward the evidence by way of referencing so that the evidence can be independently reviewed. for instance 'I done an experiment that proved it' may seem good but how can we tell how good the experiment was? you'd need to post the methodology and so on so it can be tried out to see if the experiment is valid and the results a representative of what you describe. If you say you read it in a science journal then you should be able to provide an exact reference(surely you keep such critical information close at hand and documented in case you need to revisit it?)

cosmic rays may trigger lightning in the same way radiation travelling through a geiger-muller tube triggers a spark but it is not the be all and end all cause of lightning if it was the only factor then everywhere would have constant lightning storms. and it will only trigger in certain circumstances, a highly charged cloud on the verge of breakdown. it'll either release by further increasing the charge (happens over time) or something can make the air inbewteen more conductive(a cosmic ray.)

no but it does provide a decay mechanism

some processes are one way, but barring that, if darkons are true then it is actually the lack of darkons that turn grapes into raisins and photons don't exist. its all baloney anyway.if it was darkons then all sorts of interesting things should be happening. IIRC this was used by our physics teacher in high school to show that there can be multiple plausible sounding theories and to determine a way to test each. as expected photons worked out. primarily because of the photoelectric effect.

and when the remainder of your body starts rejecting the artificial bits? let me guess, you've been playing deus ex human revolution right?

right then, wheels, it is known logs were put under blocks to roll them along. cranes, you don't need them, ramps will do just fine and you can use the partially finished constrction AS as ramp lumber, carpentry is an old skill, egyptians were skilled boat builders. they knew carpentry. as for advanced maths and engineering, you don't need much to know block A goes next to block B and block C goes on top. rinse and repeat. advanced engineering and maths comes in when you are pushing your materials close to their limits, pyrimids don't do that. as for a 'few generations' pyramids started off small and shoddy (the older ones are noticably less well built, simple rubble piles) and they progress to greater complexity and refinement as the CENTURIES go buy. when you've got skilled craftsmen doing something for centuries you tend to get better and this is what we see. invoking aliens is insulting to all parties. especially the aliens.

you mean like this one? http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/23-psychiatry-and-psychology/ its been around for a while.

yeah this got boring when it turned into flat out denial of mistakes. I mean, at least come up with something creative(and prefferably marginly plausible)

the energy is in joules assuming you are using SI. but the equation can be applied to multiple systems of units. full derivations can be found via google.

well, we can actually tell that everybodies eyes respond to colours the same way(well excepting those with colour blindness or tetrachromacy but even those are consistent) so any difference will be in the interpretation by the brain. so the image i get in my brain from being exposed to yellow may be the same as the image you get in your brain for blue but the signal into the brain is the same. There isn't really a way to verify if this is indeed the case however. I know we've managed to pull images from the brain of a cat but they were black and white. If this technology gets better and can pull colours then we might get somewhere I have a feeling that it is one of those things that needs to be calibrated for each individual however leaving us where we started.

mmm its amazing that nothing from bacteriology, virology and epidemiology survives into the future. i think i'll stick to the present.

Then why is it currently defined as one? why has it dropped off the list? you must have something akin to the internet. it would appear to me that such a network is unlikely to just disappear with nothing to replace it especially as it is so useful for communication and collaboration.

Radon is a noble gas. go on look it up. element number 86. oh and as to other questions, this forum actually allows you to scroll up and reread old posts. I don't know if this is a feature that gets lost in the future but it is here now.

ah it is as i feared, in the future 'word salad' has replaced grammar and well... content. can you just answer the questions i posed. most of them should not require much future science to answer.

maybe about the flower arrangement for my funeral afterwords. (I'm thinking "£$! bowel cancer in the #@£")

reinventing the pedalo are we?

and going up beyond that you get fusion of the hydrogen then neutron degenerate matter and finally, blackhole. and then there is the pains of 'how did you get a infinite uniform gravitational field?' and 'what are the walls made of?'