insane_alien

both my parents have dark hair and in my early years i was blonde as was my brother. my hair darkened with time to the black it is today as did my brothers i don't think you can use the hair colour of a young child as an indicator.

well there isn't really much you can do about it. there are a LOT of molecules in a cubic inch of air. enough that 10million doesn't really make that much of a difference. luckily, most flows and transport phenomenon are a lot faster than 10million molecules per second so you don't have to wait a few million years to pour a cup of tea.

its either a firewhirl http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_whirl or it is as the caption says, lightning striking a fire.

the reason the previous sources did not mention it is likely that the term 'grey matter' is very infrequently used in the field. its a colloquial rather than proper name.

okay, in 1 cubic inch of air(at STP, standard conditions) there are 0.722mmol this translates to 4.348*10^20 molecules so if we divide this number by 10 million we will get the number of seconds to empty the container. 10million is 10^7 so we get 4.348*10^13 seconds so thats 1.379 million years. so yes, it is wrong.

the boiling point of water at atmospheric pressure IS 100*C it only changes if you make a solution (ie adding something to it.) this will tend to increase the boiling point for most things(such as salt or sugar) but will decrease for a certain few (ethanol) what the article is talking about is super heating, a potentially dangerous meta-stable state where the water is above its boiling point but is still a liquid. in this state any nucleation point introduced will initiate vigerous boiling once boiling occurs then a temperature of 100*C is maintained. also, the experiment where they measured 99.7*C for the boiling point, that could have been many many things. thermometer error, local atmospheric pressure drop etc. etc.

you don't believe that men have sex with men and women have sex with women? luckily, reality cares not about beliefs so you do believe in homosexuality? you can't say its a choice if you believe it doesn't exist. its a sin according to one specific moral code which is dated in many areas (to the point were some of its rules are flat out ignored by even its most strict followers) its not a sin according to many of those who do not follow that specific code even some who do follow that code. how is it bad for your health? sex has generally been shown to be good for your health (of course there are STD's which aren't good but you get those from heterosexual intercourse as well) whose morals. all morality is relative. how is it not "right" two people who love each other want a physical relationship as well as an emotional relationship? thats somehow wrong? whats wrong is telling people to deny what they feel. if someone came up to you and said it was morally corrupt to fancy blonde people and that you should stop or you'd go to hell. who does homosexuality harm? nobody. it doesn't ev en impact on those outside the homosexual relationship in terms of quality of life. they may disagree with it but i'm pretty sure I could find some people who would disagree about anything.

why? you can have electric prop powered aircraft. at another extreme you could have EHD thruster propelled aircraft

but a value of 2 from 1+1 and a value of 2 from a 20 page calculation have the same value. the method of arriving there doesn't affect the actual value. if i give you £1 by 50p +50p and a £1 by 20p+20p+20p+20p+20p then the pounds are equally valuable. It would be possible to build a numbering system that includes the history but i fail to see what possible applications this could have.

its not that strange. DNA does not age very well as it is quite tasty to bacteria and will react with oxygen. any early human DNA is at the very best, heavily fragmented and sparse.

they probably had a variety just like us.

liquids and solids tend to be a few orders of magnitude denser than air so historically the error in measurement from the instrument exceeds that from buoyancy. it is important if you want super accurate results though.

well, ma.ybe not those two but they don't yet have a massive fraction of the energy market.

no, not many planes would fly at 50km but generally the whole point of putting the maglev in a vacuum tube is to eliminate the problems of going supersonic. this means you have to get the pressure low enough that the shockwave generated is not going to add any significant stresses to any part of the system. at 100Pa you're starting to get a mean free path you can measure with a ruler (well not quite as its still about 0.01mm) but on the scales we're talking about it means the shockwave is going to start getting a bit fuzzy.

partial vacuums help, but to get better efficiencies than an aircraft, you'll need a hard-ish vacuum. i mean, its not going to be LEO levels of vacuum but below a millibar. there will be an optimal point but that will be dependant on quite a number of factors such as the geometry and target velocity of the train.

point of note, helium three is He-3 H-3 is Hydrogen-3 (also known as tritium). these are very different materials.

I've been involved in scientific debate, what you are producing isn't it. What you are producing is semantics which are only in question by you. again, incorrect use of language. being a dick and bollocks are two different things. bollocks is what you say, not what you are.

Hal, you're not being a clever debater here, you're just being a dick. we've explained the scientific process to you and why certainty can never be 100%(although it can get so close than you can round up if you want) and why that is acceptable. if you are going to continue to just ignore everyone and use the inappropriate definitions of words then i suggest you find another forum because you're not going to get far here. people will quickly tire of the intellectual dishonesty.

when working with a computer model it is good (and i'd argue necessary) practice to run some validation experiments where you recreate a historical real experiment and retrodict the results. If the model consistently matches reality under a variety of scenarios then it is probably a good model and can be used to perform virtual experiments where performing them for real could be prohibitively costly, difficult etc. It would also be good practice to actually perform a real experiment to double check the model although the testing regime may be reduced to a confirmational run rather than a full blown experimental run.

why? the disproof is trivial. 3!=<3

nope because it isn't <3

By following your logic then nobody should do anything because then there is a risk of somebody dying. BUT WAIT! if we do nothing then everybody WILL die as they won't get food, water or sanitary conditions! seriously, risk-free is an unattainable ideal. the true goal is 'safe enough' Fukushima was hit by a catastrophic earthquake and tsunami, and soem of the biggest ones on record. It was an unforseeable scenario. there had been no record of an earthquake that big in that area. They knew there were earthquakes in the region(what dolt wouldn't) and they designed it to handle the biggest ever recorded. and you know what, I'd say that is a suitible amount of risk management. sure, a bigger one could have hit the day after it came on line but the chances were low. very low. astronomically low. and thats the point. the risks were low enough that it was deemed acceptable. just like you deem the risks of driving, walking and eating are low enough when compared with the benefits that it is a worth prospect. nuclear energy is safer than EVERY other form of electricity generation. but hey, lets stop all of them then.

Its also worth pointing out that of those 30000 deaths, not all of them have happened yet. Now, I don't know about you guys but, if I had been involved in an industrial accident and lived a good long life after it and eventually died of cancer that may or may not have came about due to that accident then I wouldn't exactly be very miffed about it. I mean, to me it would seem, after 25 years, even though you can find a statistical relationship, any cancers contracted from now onwards may not have been caused by chernobyl. There's far to much play on numbers and exagerating a statistical significance from the microbial value it is up to a giant obese hippo of a number.

because when considering many billions of electrons you probably CAN make an analogy to various other systems as everything smoothes out. but on a quantum scale you can't really say the same. think of it like organising a very large multiple choice game. you can probably predict with a good degree of accuracy what percentage of players will pick a certain answer assuming oyu have a large ie >1000 number of players. but you could not predict what a single player would pick based on the same methods.

yes, of course you can. as long as it only has one end in your case.