granpa

I wouldnt expect them to.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080222095358.htm http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3880 the electron conducts itself not as re-radiated by the edge wave and not as a "probability amplitude wave". It behaves as deterministic non-local micro-object with a spatial density distribution. From the experimental observations of the angles of preferred scattering we may infer that this density distribution has the shape of concentric shells of different hardness, the interval between the shells being of the order of de Broglie length conclusions: In the series of experiments above described I disproved the generally accepted since 1930s opinion that it is allegedly impossible without destroying interference pattern to observe the place, say, a slit, where the electron passed. using the semiconductor sensors xed in the slit's edges enabled me to observe electron's fly not destroying the interference pattern. Semiconductor sensors perceptible to nearby electron were so efficient that appeared to be capable to determine not only the slit where the electron passed through but even the proximity of the track to the left or right edge of each aperture. When encountering an obstacle the electron does not bend around it, as EMWS do, but bounce o it as is appropriate to classical elastic macro-objects. In the scattering pattern of electrons the left side peaks is formed by the ricochet from the right edge of the slit, and the right side peak is formed due to ricochet of electrons from the left edge of the slit, no interference of the electron's flows taking place

I saw this and thought of this thread

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collodictyon

no. they ignite at the same pressure. but stars that form more quickly are hotter and therefore less dense and the pressure inside is less so they can grow larger before igniting. supermassive stars form in the centers of the largest molecular clouds.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0609163

the density of metallic hydrogen is probably between 0.3 and 3 g/cm^3 even ultra-dense deuterium is only 100,000 g/cm^3 you must be thinking of neutronium

teh hydrogen could be entirely converted to metallic hydrogen and teh heavier gases could sink to the very bottom of the atmopshere. I would like to know what the temperature would be right above those heavier elements.

I thought we were talking about this:

the density of liquid helium is 0.14 g/cm^3 and like a gas it is a fluid. pretty much everything else in the universe will sink below it. so yes I would call it an atmosphere. you can call it an ocean if you want to but its an ocean you couldnt swim in. creatures that evolved there would fly through it. they wouldnt swim through it.

huh? our atmosphere isnt compressed to the density of liquid air

once the gas is compressed to the density of the liquid there is no longer much difference.

they're = they are looks like thy are already working on making it into fuel

they're

the easiest way to make degenerate matter is to first make rydberg matter. then it easy collapses to degenerate matter. this is how ultradense deuterium was made.

I found this but I dont have access. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/p57-090 AN ATTEMPT TO DETECT INFRARED ABSORPTION IN LIQUID... so just how well would a 10,000 km thick atmosphere of pure liquid helium keep a planet warm? I have no idea how to set up even a 'back of the envelope' calculation.

so an atmosphere of hydrogen doesnt absorb much IR either?

every 10 degree increase in temperature doubles the amount of water vapor in the air. this increases the number of thunderstorms which transport warm moist air from the ground to just below the stratosphere where it is above most of the infrared absorbing atmosphere. so the warmer the earth becomes the more efficiently its cooling mechanism becomes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAH_world_hypothesis

octopuses sometimes use their legs sorta like wheels. I cant find a video of it though.

if you rotate a conductive disk inside a uniform magnetic field you will get a radial electric current. but for teh life of me I cant see why the opposite happens. (why a radial current produces rotation) wait. if the electrons were truly free to move independently of the conductor then they would not move in the first place when the conductor rotates and there would be no radial current. I guess thats what M S La Moreaux was telling me in post 8

the electric field is a vector field. the magnetic field however is actually a tensor field which in 3 spatial dimensions reducing to a psuedovector.

I can see why the electrons will be deflected by the magnetic field but if they are free to move anywhere within the conductor then I dont see why the conductor moves. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homopolar_motor&oldid=71112902

teh idea of fields having velocities is one that pops up from time to time. the official position seems to be that fields have magnitude and direction but do not have velocity.

the map is not the territory. it may seem in your head that time and space should go on forever but thats just the map in your head. the territory itself is entirely finite in both time and space