DrP

Seconded! I've been following this thread for a few weeks now (why!? I hear you ask!!! - I just do not know!!) - It is obviously rubbish. There is no way it becomes invisable or levetates - it IS complete BS! "CLUNK!" - (That was the sound of my open mind closing up to this subject). PS - Merry Christmas!

Not quite the same, but the Germans made a gun (or an attatchment to one) that would allow you to shoot round corners. Here it is: http://www.iwm.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.2482 I don't think it was that accurate, but it allowed covering fire to be layed down without having to stick your head out from your cover. Looking at the picture further it appears that it had a periscope sight with it as well, so it could be aimed.

My old supervisor told me about a 500 page chemistry thesis he had to read as an external for some guy. He flicked through it on the train and when he got to the viva he told the guy well done but then sarcastically asked him when volme two was coming out. Unfortunately the guy took him seriously and thouht the prof was suggesting he followed up his thesis with a post doc on the same subject untill it was explained to him that he was joking. Well done ajb.

It's the way you tell 'em.

This is what I'm talking about exactly - I'm suggesting a total collapse such that the wavefunctions of the smallest sub-attomic particles actually superimpose on each other, much the same as electrons do in a Bose-Einstein condensate. (pure speculation though). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Thanks - I know it's not the same, I'm just saying that under extreame conditions some laws get broken. Something happens in a black hole that we can't explain and I rekon we might end up discovering some kind of situation where matter gets super imposed or space gets folded in or something else we don't know about yet. It's just recently I've been thinking about it all occupying the same space by collapsing into the same wavefunction - similar only to the B-E condensate as far as I know.

I was going to post this as an idea in speculations, but I think it is relavent here. I might have seen a discussion similar to it in the past, which got ripped apart, but anyhow, this is what I have been thinking recently in relation to infinite mass at a point and have been meaning to ask about it again in speculations. At absolute zero there is no energy left in a system and things stop vibrating. You get something really weird happening where electrons can actually break all of their exclusion laws and actually occupy the same energy levels as each other. This means, I assume, they can occupy the same space. This is called a Bose-Einsten condensate. My speculation is that at the other end of the scale with infinite presure, temperature, mass and presumably gravity, at the centre things are SO tightly crushed and compact that there is no longer any room for vibrations to take place (if light cannont escape or move out - nor can matter, even down to the level that the can be no vibraction as this would mean matter moving away from the centre during half of the oscilation). If this is the case then this is similar to the situation at 0K where there is no energy or vibration and everything colapses into the B-E condensate. Maybe at infinite pressue, K, and gravity matter ends up collapsing into the same volume in a similar way to the how it collapses into this B-E condensate so that not only do we now have electrons in the same energy levels, but all matter in the volume co-existing within the same volume, which would be impossible under any other conditions other than infinite density. I would like to call this 'state' of matter "The DrP condensate" if no-one has any objections. I'll do the maths later on..... Obviously matter with infinite energy is alot different to electrons with zero energy, but I reckon that all the mass is broken to it's smallest particles and even busted into pure energy inside the black hole, thus allowing (at the infinite density inside the singularity) ALL of the individual quantised bits to occupy the same wave function / energy level (because there is no more vibration and they fall into the Bose-Einstein or the DrP condensate). Thus any extra mass or energy that gets sucked in past the event horison will be stripped to base sub attomic particles and then further broken to pure energy and then crushed into the same wavefunction as the rest of it as one super massive, but infinitely small point - the singularity. Any thoughts?? Is this pure crap or resonable speculation. Obviously I am joking about calling this the DrP condensate - but I think this superposition of matter could be possible under the right conditions - such as in a black hole.

Hmm - I see her clearly with her left leg in the air spinning anticlockwise. My wife say's it's her right leg in the air and she is spinning clockwise. She has an astignatism also.

Just surface tension really. Here is wiki's entry for surface tension: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_tension QUOTE: "Surface tension is a property of the surface of a liquid. It is what causes the surface portion of liquid to be attracted to another surface........"

I'd say that it is probably the surface tension of the water.

That is pretty cool. Did they come up with any reasons as to your unusually high resistance to germs? Can we experiment on you?

Will it just wash out of a mushed up bulb? You could play with various solvents to get the right one and then Soxhlet it out and then isolate it from the solution with some kind of distillation. (? just thoughts - I don't really know). I saw Ray Mears washing poisons out of roots by mushing them up, putting them in a mesh and danling them in the river for a day or two. Much like the Soxhlet, you get a continued flow of fresh water/solvent flowing through the mush continously.

Millikan supposedly threw out 50% of his results from his famous Oil Drop Experiment. Half of his results gave him a quantised measure for charge of e-. The other half were pretty random. He (quite rightly) assumed that the random results were experimental error and that the hundereds of results he got with the charge being spot on e- were the correct ones. How this relates to the above I'm not exactly sure, but feel that it is relavent to point out that not all models can be reproduced exactly and repetively every time due to their complexity and due to the inacuracy of the experimental procedures. He repeated his experiments THOUSANDS of times before concluding that it was way more than just a coincidence that 50% of the time he got the "right" result and that the value of e- was fixed and the same for all electrons. e-.

I wouldn't want to be touching the bodywork of the car! I think that would be chancing it. I saw a parked car get hit by lightening - it bounced and all the electrics went wild (all lights flashing and alarms blaring). Watch this! Top Gear's Hamster being struck by lightening in a car (Well 800,000 Volt artificial stricke). He explains alot. - this IS kinda cool.

I think that you need to make sure there are no nuclation points anywhere (like undisolved crystals in the supersaturate, or scratches in the glassware). However, I haven't actually done this experiment myself, but have seen it done and own warming devices that use he reaction for heat. You can reverse it by heating it up and re-disolving. Finally, which is what moved me to post, is that you shouldn't assume that your reagents are pure simply because they come from a chemistry lab. They could become contaminated anyhow. In this instance, though, I'm not sure how it would effect the reaction.

Fiiiight!! My money's on the goat!

There is also the James Bond style cloack that used conducting polymers to project an image on one one side of his car that cameras took from the other side. The Japanease done this with a coat. http://www.howstuffworks.com/invisibility-cloak.htm

Well - the guy who started this thread hasn't answered yet - perhaps he took your post seriously, tried it out and IS now dead. What do say now? What are you gonna say to his momma!? Hey?

Example - here are a set of results for Voltage V (volts), Current I (amps) and Resistance R. We are measuring V for a known Resistance of 2 ohms with varied I. I=1. R=2. - measured result for V = 2 I=2. R=2. - measured result for V = 4 I=3. R=2. - measured result for V = 6 I=4. R=2. - measured result for V = 8 etc... The values measured for V are a set of results. If we then plot V vs I from the above results then this gives a straight line with gradient R. We can conclude from these results that V is directly proportional to I for a fixed R. Does this help? The values are the results. The statement that V and I are proportional is the conclusion drawn from the results.

Darn - my sage like advise has gone to waste!

There is something you need to learn when talking to women. Watch and learn!! a-ha. hmm.. yea.. Hmm.. OK. Definately.. True. Oh? yea! (nods). hmm. yep! OK Alright. You see that dethfire?! Talking to girls is easy - That's all you need to know - it's "win"-"win"!

It's probably alright by now if you haven't had any pain - wash it if you are worried as a precaution. You should be alright by the sounds of you. In future you should wash your eye if it happens again. LoL - That goes for me also by the way!

If you are familiar with the MSDS then you would have rinsed out your eye under the tap at least for 15 mins. Then - if irritation persists, you consult a doctor. Standard with most of these things. Being fair - the MSDS you have might not say to do this as I haven't read it, but I bet your bottom dollar (or just your bottom) that it says to rinse for 15 mins with water then seek medical attention if irritation persists - it's pretty standard. General rule 1-read MSDS before working with anything. 2- If you haven't read the MSDS and you get it in your eye, your best bet (if someone isn't on hand with the MSDS and some quick advice) is to rinse it with water continuously for at least 15 mins, then seek medical attention if irritation persists. Most MSDS's have this advice.

I still disagree by definition that "sound" needs a receiver. Philosophically I conceed that we can argue that you cannot prove anything either way. Scientifically I still stand by the answer "yes" - it makes a sound by definition of the word sound in my dictionary.

I don't buy this. It is the same as saying "does my next door neighbour exist at night, when I am in my house and he is in his"? I can't see him or hear him because I am in my house and he is in his - so how do I know he exists when I go to bed? He might only pop into existence when I go into the garden - then I see him outside, but when he goes in he disapears. I know he exists. With your line of thinking there you cannot prove anything at all. I can draw reasonable conclusions based on the way the rest of reality works to assume that the world existed before I did, just the same as I can conclude my neighbour exists and that the tree makes a noise or a sound when it falls when there is no-one there. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Exactly - "may" be heard - it doesn't actually have to have been heard for it to be a sound. A sound is a sound whether it has been heard or not - by definition of the word in any decent dictionary.

Yea - I know - philosphy was a kind of science anyhow in those days was it not? To answer this question properly one must know what definition of the word sound is being used. Do we have dictionary dating from around that time? (Not one of those cheap $1.00 dictionaries that tom uses () - a proper one). Am I right in saying (as I come from a science background not philosophy) that the question was designed to encourage intelligent debate, NOT to have an exact answer? (unless you look in a decent modern dictionary - in which case the answer is just yes).