pwagen

They've become sissies and have lost their manliness.

While your threads (not sure why you number them, this isn't an index of profoundity) often have interesting questions, this statement is very unscientific and frankly a bit childish. Who are you to say what's manly? What authority do you have to call men "sissies"?

There are three basic concepts. The first basic concept is to blast a cannonball up into the air catch it where gravity pauses it then use the weight of the cannonball to pull down on an elevator type generator until the ball is back to where you shot it from at which point you can re load the cannon and start the process all over again. So you re using explosives as the fuel in the system.

How much energy does it take to shoot the cannonball, and how much energy will you get back from the lift coming down?

 

 

 

The second method is instead of using a cannonball as the weight you can fill the cannon with water and blast the water weight into the air which I ve experimented with using fireworks as the explosive and a soup can in the ground as the cannon and I observed that an explosion set off inside a water cannon squeezes the water inside against the walls of the cannon causing the water to shoot straight up pretty high into the air . Now one of the advantages of using a water cannon is you can build it several hundred feet wide and deep enabling one to use a much larger explosive say a fission or fusion explosive to clear the water out.

 

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but the question remains pretty much the same - how much energy does it take to shoot the water, and how much are you getting back from the soup can? Can you see any experimental error margins when using fireworks and soup cans?

 

 

 

And yet another method in the patent involves pre cutting the earth in a way that you can detonate an underground explosive and pop the piece of pre cut material right out of the ground

 

Pre cut material of what, exactly?

 

 

 

This method could make use of hundreds of millions even billions of killowatts from a single fusion explosive.

Care to show your calculations using fireworks so we can compare that to a fusion reaction?

 

 

This method also has limited amount of fallout because the single piece of precut material absorbs most of the blast energy related to fallout.

 

One of the problems of fusion reactors is containing the energy. Could you clarify exactly how you'll harness the energy if most of it is absorbed in this precut material?

As far as "obscure" anecdotal stories go, I could only find the one linked below. Other than that, I only seemed to come up with the usual "scientists are on the edge of curing x" that sensationalist media seem to love to spout. As for the research being done, and its progress, hopefully someone with an insight in the field can give you a better answer.

 

http://sharpagain.org/how-a-doctor-reversed-her-husbands-alzheimers-disease-in-37-days

I've posted this before, but I guess it's relevant here as well. Especially considering the recent influx of nitpicking - right, wrong, truth, reality.

 

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

 

And after that, I hope we can go back to the other part of the OP - how did he come about his discoveries? The practicality of it all is an interesting question in itself, and would probably be quite enlightening as long as we don't let the issues of semantics spill over into this thread.

How do you define "dimension"?

 

Assuming your hypothesis is correct, how would we go about proving these other dimensions?

because straight woman indeed can look androgyn or unfeminine, but they still look like women!

 

What's your definition of "looking like a woman"? Also, how do you explain lesbian women who indeed " look like women"?

For the same reason some straight women look like men and some straight men look like women. Also for the same reason some straight men look like men and some lesbian women look like women. People are different due to genes, environment and whatnot, and I'd be curious as to how you'll explain singling out the groups that you did.

 

I already posted that i was ridiculed by atheists when I was a Christian. They ridiculed my faith.

 

 

Yes. My mother, a Roman Catholic, called me an "asshole" because I attended an Assembly of God church.

 

You've been asked before why you single out atheists, so I won't ask that again. I would, however, ask you to consider the following.

People are assholes to people that are different from themselves, be it by religion, skin colour or accents. The more different they are, the more likely they are to be demeaning in some way, and the more extremely they will behave. You and the alleged atheists were separated by differences of belief, which is commonly a huge part of one's life.

 

However, in this post you bring up something new. Your mother, the person which you arguably have the most things in common with, were incredibly mean to you because you didn't follow her exact doctrine.

 

Now ask yourself what is worse. People you have very little in common with following their unfortunate human nature and being disrespectful due to your faith. Or your own mother, whom you should be able to trust with everything, doing the same thing for the same reason.

Edit: Not only for religious reasons, but DESPITE her being religious.

 

When you're done thinking, you'll probably realize the futility and uselessness of this thread.

There are HDMI to scart adapters you can buy for a few tens of bucks. However, due to scaling and whatnot, results may vary, if it even works.

From what I can find, raw_input was renamed input at some point. Might be worth replacing it and trying again.

But there is a kernel of truth that overcoming one hardship can often make it easier to deal with other problems in the future. As with most such sayings, though, it over-generalizes by quite a bit.

In the light of this, I'd like to reconsider my post. Even if you get your limbs cut of (physical injury), you might overcome that "hardship". If you do, I guess one can as easily argue you're stronger (mentally) due to it.

If you have your limbs cut of, one can argue you're not as strong as before.

I think many religions are correct of there being a creator, because we couldn't have gotten here any other way.

Well, you're wrong.

And if you want to construct your own religion based on a false premise, you can make up any old garbage.

its how we learn from our mistakes and move on that counts.

It is. And it's that attitude that separate you from the majority of nutcases with their own pet theory. That said, JC has a point. If you are working on an idea which includes a certain aspect of science, it's a good idea to learn what you can about that aspect. If you just guess or come up with your own version of it, it's likely your idea will fall apart when incorporating "the real deal".

What does the multimeter measure if you put the tips of the probes together?

From what I've gathered, it's not that all the others' offspring died out, it's just that their offspring failed to produce an unbroken line of female descendants to the present population.

Do any of the lights in the computer case light up? Do the fans start spinning? Any hard drive activity? "Doesn't turn on" is quite a broad subject.

If you think your story is unique, you're mistaken. A lot of people turn to the irrational when faced with a crisis.

 

There's nothing new here, no life-changing revelation nobody's heard before. So you're a Christian for the same reason the majority is - your upbringing. Good for you, but don't expect people to take you seriously when it comes to your beliefs.

Right, so cancer is named depending on where it originates. Lung cancer metastasing in the brain is still lung cancer. If, as in your example, someone suffering from colorectal carcinoma gets metastases in the liver, they still have bowel cancer, not liver cancer.

 

This means your scenario with "colon cells getting implanted in the liver" is the more accurate one, although I suspect someone with more medical knowledge than me would react to that description.

 

Even though it's not originally liver cells, the cancer will eventually take over the surrounding tissue and affect the liver. How much and in what way, as well as means of treatment, depends more on the type of cancer, progression of the disease, and location, than whether the cells are native to a certain organ.

My point is that's not happening; scientists aren't publishing books and articles about climate change with any sense of context -- purposefully focusing only on the past 200 years without a frame of reference (pre-human data) make our tepid CO2 contribution unprecidented and that's sloppy and, frankly, misleading.

Scientists, however, do have access to, and use, data from before mankind. And we do know why the climate has changed in the past, and how it relates to climate change and greenhouse gases today. Purposefully ignoring this can be seen as sloppy and, frankly, misleading.

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

 

http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

Specifically, which mental illness are you talking about? There's quite the difference between for example depression and schizophrenia. Knowing which mental illness you think is non-existant would help in clarifying your position.

The meat from a cow starts with the cow eating green grass. But did it really start there? What colour did the grass come from?

 

Because not all driving is to the store. Sometimes you need more than the basic rolley wheels and a trunk.

 

Unless I'm absolutely certain I'm never going anywhere but the store, doesn't it make sense to think a bit more versatile when making a three-year investment?

Absolutely. But the question, as far as I can tell, is posed as "a person won't ever use this tool for anything than these basic tasks. Why would they need top of the line tools?". If you usually only surf and check e-mails, but sometimes you want to play games, you might want something better. But let's take my grandfather as an example. He considered getting a computer on which to store digital images. Store, mind you, not even watch. He would have been absolutely fine with an old, slow computer with enough hard drive space. Anything beyond that would be a waste of money.

 

Of course, the question is harder to answer when the person considering the 3 year investment says " I only want to surf", and you go "do you really?".

What about a person who doesn't do animation, music, etc. What purpose does a beefy computer serve to someone who uses it for general uses, like emails, videos, websites, etc.

None, as long as the computer is up to the task it's meant for. Why would you get a Ferrarri to go grocery shopping?

I'm afraid my knowledge of the topic doesn't allow me to give a much more detailed answer than I have. Indeed, treatment of cancer is a battle between medicine and the spreading cells. While such things as radiation therapy or chemotherapy can help in slowing the spread or even removing cancer entirely, there are never any guarantees.

 

Advanced cancer is so called for a reason, and I think it's too simplistic to think of it as a balanced equation. While you can pour glasses out, sooner or later the water system might break and flood the entire bathroom.

 

For some more reading:

 

http://m.cancer.org/treatment/understandingyourdiagnosis/advancedcancer/advanced-cancer-treatment