swansont

Why does it have to be an either/or situation? There is a limit to how much money you can effectively spend on a research problem, limited by the number of lines of research and people available to do the research. Yes, because basically everything we eat will contain trace amounts of naturally occurring substances. Even organic foods will contain trace amounts of mercury and heavy metals, etc. Further, the chemical makeup matters. Most food you eat contains chlorine, which is <gasp> a poison gas — when it's a gas. Not when it's table salt. Where exactly does the FDA claim that baby food contains absolutely no mercury?

Gravity. The pressure gradient is from the change in potential energy and density with height.

You need an energy source if it's going to glow continually. Luminescence comes from an electron dropping down to a lower energy level in a molecule, and you need a way to get it up there in the first place. One way to do that is with a radioactive source, but that's probably not a viable solution for the situation you describe. What you'd want is something that luminesces because of headlights shining on it. Such materials exist, but the question becomes will they stand up to the weather and other abuse, and is it cost-effective?

Once you're done hold down "d" to move to the next room.

It's also a matter of system capacity, as Mr Skeptic notes. I recall the proton beam at TRIUMF was measured at roughly a microamp, and later they did 10 microamps with a new target facility (I think that was limited by what the target could withstand, but is probably order-of-magnitude for the system capacity). That gives a power output of 10 Watts per MeV of reaction, assuming all protons interact. I assure you the operating power draw exceeded that by several orders of magnitude. You need a system designed for much higher capacity, that gives multiple opportunities for an interaction.

Right, but since it's an inequality, there isn't a problem.

It's charge + parity (CP), which is why (AFAIK) that antiparticles look like regular particles moving back in time. Because if you reverse CP, and also T, then CPT symmetry still holds — everything looks normal. (of course, CP is violated on rare occasion, with reactions giving more matter than antimatter)

Note: antimatter discussion moved here

Do the inside and outside tires exert the same force on the ground? (think about the turning radius)

The Doppler effect doesn't come into play here. And your equation is just a rearrangement of the one Klaynos gave. No new information.

Antineutron Antineutrino

How is not knowing either a violation of the inequality?

So what happens as you add tilt and make it larger?

Yes, you can get fusion with an accelerator. It takes a tremendous amount of energy — nowhere near break-even.

This is HW. The goal is to help to get you to answer the question. Thinking of the extreme cases (no tilt, 90 degree tilt) might help you figure it out.

I did read your post. Why would you use nine-year averages? Sunspot cycles are ~11 years, so use of other periods will give you a sampling bias. And a rolling average lets you do a more continuous comparison with temperature than "binning" the data. What, precisely, is wrong with the Stanford graph? Other than the smoothing, it doesn't seem to be any different from the nasa graph here: http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/images/zurich.gif We don't see the 11-year solar fluctuations reflected in temperature. One obvious conclusion from that is that the response of the earth (from the oceans) acts as a low-pass filter. I imagine one could do a Fourier transform on the temperature plot and see how much of a contribution there is at 11 years, just to be sure.

They are all made up of photons, if you devise a test to check for their particle nature, but this behavior is more readily apparent as the wavelength gets small.

One problem is that the temperature change leads, not lags, the sunspot activity change earlier in the 20th century, and there is poor correlation for several decades prior to that. As has been pointed out in other threads, the time constant due to the oceans means you aren't going to see short fluctuations like this show up — you have to look at a longer range. Too many factors for a simple correlation to appear, anyway — you have to quantify the effects. http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png "Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. " http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

They can also be "zombified" by a wasp. No need to chop off the head. http://scienceblogs.com/zooillogix/2007/12/scientists_uncover_the_secret.php "Ampulex compressa enjoys licking pieces of wood, long walks on the beach and necromancy."

Shouldn't that be "damn left?"

It's not limited by relativity, because the motion is due to the expansion of the space, not the motion of the galaxy.

I'm not convinced of the the validity of the claim in the first place — I don't know where the number comes from. There are a number of classes of experiments that require e.g. a coincidence measurement, in which you would reject all events that did not satisfy the coincidence trigger. Nobody would go out of their way to explain this, because anybody with a passing understanding wouldn't be at all surprised. Similarly, if you're screening for a particular reaction, you would screen data that won't include that reaction.

That's a classical calculation. That's the point of several discussions on the matter — classical descriptions of the electron fail. You have to use QED.

That doesn't jibe with what I was able to read on Google books. The book continually points out that the electron is a point, and you only get indications of size when it's interacting, and that these are clearly quantum effects.

It's binary as far as having a vacuum or not, (much like pregnancy is a binary state, and then you ask how many months pregnant) but it's not a binary of having a perfect vacuum or not — since there is no such thing, there's no point in making that distinction.