CPL.Luke

out of curiosity how would that pressure manifest itself? If the energy was being carried by gamma rays emanating from the source of the blast. and they came into contact with a piece of paper, would that paper react as if the number of newtons(p*A) givin by severians formula were pushing on it, or would it react as if a very small force were acting on it, coming only from the gamma rays that were absorbed by the paper.

and why pray tell would a blackhole createanother universe, or have anything to do with the universe forming.

no, but lots of people leave poor neighborhoods. there's low income housing everywhere, and personally I don't believe in society is the root cause of everything, and while you may struggle with low wage jobs, there are always ways to get out of such predicaments, its the belief that you can't get out that keeps peopledown more than anything.

severian by polygamy are you also refferring to polyamoury? It seems to me that while the latter has been accepted more in recent times as bit odd bt alright, the former like gay marriage still hasn't found acceptance.

there is also something to be aid about those people moving to areas that have access to better schooling rather than complaining that somebody else should help them.

however at that time the average smoker could smoke several packs per day, today I'd imagine that number is significantly lower

I doubt any aditive would be effective as you would have to alter the timing of he engine, and due to the density testt it wouldn't add much power

and you have just restated the mistery of pyramid construction. Somebody always comes up with a way they could have done it, and then someone else shows that they couldn't have done it that way etc. etc. currently the ramp idea is the most popular one however this thread was started to explore another newer option which seems to be credible.

you can always perform a fourier transform in order to get an exact equation for the graph, (although it may only be in the limit, as you would have to approximate the integrals)

of course that is the average risk which takes into account people who smoke 10 packs a day. I'm only interested in the people who smoke 1-2000 a year.

yes but human tissue allows them to pass through far more easily than gamma and x-rays (which is the conventional form of radiation therapy) and as such if you doped the tumors with a specific chemical that would absorb the radiowaves, then it would be far more effective. do you have a source for the use of visible and uv to treat cancer? those wavelength shouldn't be able to penetrate deep enough to impact the tumors, also it would take a tremendous amount of power to heat the tumor to the point where it would be damaged. Whereas x-rays and gamma rays attack the tumor by damaging the dna and thus stopping the tumor from growing.

ecoli- its true that everyone will be effected differently however we should still be able to acertain the probability of a person being effected in one way or another.

like I said I like smoking and am not interested in quitting, I don't smoke alot but I am curious. I have seen enough evidnece to know that smoking does effect your health however that is something I'm willing to accept. I am curious as to the incidence of illness, I've seen the lung cancer versus average number of cigarrettes smoked graph, however that is not useful in finding the probability of developing cancer as a smoker. I do appreciate your concern, but I am not interested in quitting.

there is nothing in relativity that says something can't turn 90 degrees in an extremely short distance, it just gives you a framework to calculate the force required. (although truthfully relativity isn't necessary here newton would suffice) also any scientific version of a UFT would reproduce relativity. relativity says nothing about how the universe began, how it will end or anything of that sorrt. It provides a theoretical framework for the way co-ordinates transfrom between frames of reference. also I would like you to know that I personally have conducted the michelson morley experiment and have confirmed that there is no ether.

So I've taken up smoking in the past year as a somewhat regular habit, and I'm curious as to the incidence of smoking related illness as a function of average number of cigarrettes smoked in some time frame. I like smoking so I won't be giving it up completely any time soon, but it would be interesting to know what I was risking and possibly what risk threshhold I'm willing to accept.

yeah we do... but using high frequency radio waves (more in the microwave band) could allow for more specific targetting. wouldn't visible wavelengths be absorbed by the skin?

yeah since you gave part of the problem in english units there was no need.

yes of course but I don't think the poster grasped that

mg mu= ma mu*g=a 3.34*32=~109 1375=53*t^2 5 seconds roughly, which would be an impressive time. it should be noted I used some guesstimations for the arithmatic

although he is using salt-water, the salt could catalyze the electrolysis reaction and thus produce a net gain of energy, however that would be unlikely, and it looked like he was using some very powerful microwaves. his idea on cancer was interesting though, although if you had a chemical that targeted cancer cells and why not put something into it that would kill the cells without the radio waves.

i think what your thinking of is nitros oxide or nos, you couldn't mix the stuff into your fuel, however it will give a motor a good boost. as for fuel additives, I can't think of anything that would help you except mixing an oxidizer into the fuel, and that is very VERY dangerous, and would probably lead to pre-ignition and actually cost you power rather than adding it.

bombus, what exactly is the traditional method for hauling 10 ton blocks 600 feet into the air? also the paramids weren't built by slaves, recent evidence indicates that they were merely farmers who found work building the pyramids during the off season where there was little to do on a farm.

particles are not fields. gravity is not the product of static charges (why wouldn't a charged balloon be lighter/heavier) hydrogen is an atom not a molecule, and its charge to mass ratio is not 1:1, that ratio is both non-sensical as it would be dependant on units (which need to be provided) and the hydrogen atom is electricaly neutral. Also your ideas on the interactions between positive, negative, charges and a neutrally charged particle are wrong. When something has 0 charge it does not have any interaction with electric fields. as far as unified theories go, there are many and some have very strange effects, however in tesla's time he didn't have any of them. Furthermore I do not believe Tesla could have scratched the surface of any deep theoretical physics as he had a horrible track recored as far as theory goes. No scientific theory of the ether ever included a frequency, in fact because all light would have travelled through this material we could easily probe it if it existed. And as far as UFO's go, its entirely possible that you have witnessed some sort of craft, however they were not powered by anything that you mention.

actually electro-motive devices have been around for quite a while, they are just incredibly weak and don't work in the way you say. its interesting that tesla may have worked with such devices, as the first patent wasn't filed until 1955 by JJ thompson. however knowing that tesla kept most of his experiments secret I wouldn't doubt that he could have toyed with such things. however the way these devices work is simply one of accelerating charged particles across a potential similar to an ion engine, except instead of electrons charged air particles are sent across the barrier. you can see such devices on the internet by googling "lifters" but again the device produces very little thrust. One possibility would be to increase the voltage applied to the device, however eventually you encounter electrical arcing and you lose the desired effect. it is interesting however that thompson originally pioneered a device in the shape of a saucer (which turned out to be a very inefficient method of generating thrust). sorry but unfortunatly this is a dead end in terms of fanciful methods of thrust. also your knowledge of particle physics is a bit off, everything is not made of electrical charges (there are a great many particles that lack any electrical charge) and while the electric field is far stronger than gravity, because of the presence of negative electric charge, on the large scale gravity is far more active in the universe.

it is an exercise in deriving it, but it appears that some trick is needed to solve the de, and I'd much rather here about the trick here and maybe discuss the physics with somebody than read a wikipedia article.