>>1547
I am only talking about personailities being predicted by the time of year they were born in, nominally defined by the stars that happen to be above at the time. It is entirely scientific.
The only real opposition seems to be based entirely on reductio ad ridiculum.

>>1548

No.

>>1549
As demonstrated in this thread.

>>1549 That's the second time someone's done this in this thread. If you can't contribute, don't bother posting.

>>1550
This thread has only demonstrated quite how blindly people will follow "science" to the point of unscientific dogma. People like you.

>>1447
What you have said there is that a graph displaying a ratio in both x and y axis does not impart any useful information.

That makes you a cretin. Lrn2ratios.

>>1448
eh what?
its a chart lad, the elevation is in metres.

>>1447
Not >>1445, but I don't see what's so TROLOLOLO about this. I don't know what GOCE is, hence the map doesn't make very much sense to me like this. Latitude/longitude in degrees is pretty much the only sensible interpretation for the labeling of the axes, but I have no idea what the colouring means. A unit might help. And it's certainly not elevation in metres.

>>1523
>Latitude/longitude in degrees

yes well done captain obvious

>not elevation in metres

okok this was a simplification on my part. It is geopotential height, with reference to mean sea level, in metres.

>>1524
Alright. Just putting that below the colour key would have helped tremendously, and if you just had the diagram like it is and not the information that it is from GOCE, I consider it undebatable that the diagram would be useless.

All right! I admit it! I don't understand!

Someone, please, explain this to me: why are 'heavy' particles harder to find? I would have thought they would be easier.

>>1493

The heavy ones sink to the bottom of the doohicky, so they have to rummage through the LHC sump to get through the light ones and down to the heavy ones.

>>1493
"Heavy" means they have more energy (remember E=mc²), which means that you need more energy to create them in the first place.

>>1492

Mentally replace it with 'muslims' then, if it really bothers you that much.

>>1495
Thanks very much. That's much clearer.

_{I think.}

>>1479
As someone who's (instantly and obviously) allergic to wheat, barley, corn, and many other cereals when eaten* I can confirm that whatever there is in beer, even weissbiers, doesn't cause me any more hassles than the next man. Whisky likewise.
Damned if I know what the missing part is, but I'm happy that it's not present. Not least because there's a beer festival starting tomorrow, and it's within walking distance.
Sorry, no science, just anecdotal from a self-experimenting guinea pig, to whom this stuff matters.

*(lips swell up & crack, tongue swells up, ears go red (corn only), speech slurs, makes poor decisions and has a 2-day hangover that alcohol has never achieved, despite much trying)

>>1481
That wasn't meat to be an /emo/ whine, despite sounding like it. Much more an offer to try random shit, to see what happens, and an expression of interest in finding the same answers you're looking for.
Another datapoint - alcohol-free beer is also fine, so it's not that the alcohol counteracts / makes ignorable the effects.

>>1400
In principle you're right, but they actually did send two airplanes (one westward and one eastward). and you also have to take General Relativity into account to explain the results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

>>1399
It's more like a couple of nanoseconds. You'll never experience relativistic effects to a magnitude that you could actually measure it with nonspecialised equipment on earth.

>>1405
You can measure it easily enough with stuff from ebay, though, if you're prepared to wait a couple of days up a mountain.

http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_60/iss_3/16_1.shtml?bypassSSO=1

>>1440
I read about that guy/experiment, it's very cool actually.

An additional question. (A warning, this is probably very infantile

So, taking into account time as a constant present idea, does this mean that the pre big band universe was simply a timeless universe? Not as in nothing happened, but everything happened at once (as in the whole universe, beginning to end), time being almost a theoretital 'brake'? I mean taking into account the behavior of light as a constant even in different frames of reference, doesnt this point to the possibility of timelessness?

>>1480
talking about anything prior to a few billionths of a second after the big bang is totally pointless because you have no comprehendable frame of reference.

Sageru for seriously discussing a pointless topic.

>>1463
>pure energy
You mean gauge particles.

>>1459
>>You clearly have no concept of science and are a completely deranged cretin.

Harsh m8, he could be from a country where science hasn't advanced far beyond making fire.

>>1475

So London?

>>1476
London's last experiment with fire didn't work out too well.

>>1477
I chuckled, thanks for that.

>>1451
protip: Don't admit you're underage.

>>41

Am in IT does that count ?

1451 could just be a retard, celebrating a 'deferred success'...

>>1468
I'd happily express the exact same sentiment if I were in a different mood, but please don't associate a young adult's unquestioning agreeability to regimented education with intelligence, or more to the point, the initial rejection of such, with stupidity.

>>1468
>Too young for this?
From this we can infer he is of the average age to be doing GCSEs

>>1458
This.
An infinitely small difference is still a fucking difference.

Is it just me or have there been an increasingly high percentage of retards on this board recently? Sage for the insanely high levels of stupidity on display.

>>1460

According to wikipedia this is a rigorous and thorough proof that 0.999... = 1. It does make you seriously question the validity of a lot of wikipedia.

>>1462

It's accepted globally according to this and other proofs.

>>1460
Maths teachers are very familiar with their poorly educated students' reluctance to accept this academically recognised fact.

>>1466
And for the avoidance of doubt, I was referring to the fact that 0.9... is exactly equal to 1.

>>1376

Because you need to be going unfeasibly fast (mach 4.5+) already for the scram jet to kick in. The theory isn't new, just the application.

>>1377It also needs spiffy materials that haven't been around all that long, and simulation tools to avoid having to run thousands of abortive test shots. Not being a clear proposition as a weapon seems to have meant limited development funds.

>>1379

I see now.

I'm clearly not very well acquainted with the sector of...materials and aerodynamics? Not sure. Know any decent websites for news and general knowledge on this kind of stuff? Would be much appreciated.

>>1383
>materials and aerodynamics?
Aeronautical engineering?
My uni has a department that does that.

>>1396
Congratulations on being at a fucking university. Now back to the topic in question? Do you study fluid mech or aeronautics? No? Then piss off.

>>1409

I drew that.

Sage for bragging about my snow canoe.

>>1418
Liar.

>>1436

No, no, it's quite true. I drew the diagram.

FUCKING MAGNETS

>>1437
No, you really didn't.

>>1424
The amount of oxygen available isn't a matter of 0 or 1.

we do this in my science dept with a bottle from a watercooler and some ethanol swirled round it... called a whoosh bottle.

>>1423
So if one attached it to a fleshlight it would be like a super-fast blowjob?

>>1429

Jesus Christ. I can't beleive someone thought of this. Reminds me of the guy who attached it to a fan.

You could always try it. I can imagine there will be the most amazing excuse and story for A&E. "Well, I was just [...] and then I tripped and fell!" The mind boggles.

>>1429
No, it's far easier - and safer - to put the fleshlight in a blender and let the blades spin it around. Feels good man.

>>1427
How many times has your house blown up since?

Am I right in thinking that it also has a fair amount of ethyne?

>>1430

Indeed. Very cosy.

>>1431

Only once, but I forgot to wear my cloak that day, so it is understandable.

It'd be great if we ever could gather resources from outside Earth, but even getting fuel from the Moon would cost more than it would be worth right now. We'd need a space elevator and more efficient space transport.

>>1411

Earth's energy crisis solved, now how are we cooking this duck?

>>1473

With fire or microwaves I hope.

>>1306
CHOON

>Can it project fog 50 feet down the darkly lit alleyway?

I can, given enough beer. Might not be visible but will be guaranteed to eliminate enemies, thus leaving you enough time to laugh maniacally before escaping/claiming ultimate victory.

>>1334

If you want to see what I want it like, go and watch that episode of Only Fool's where they run down the alleyway towards the muggers dressed as batman and robin. That amount of fog.

>>1337
Flank-mounted smoke-grenade launchers?

Also thirteen thirty-seven.

>>1293
This sort of stuff does not belong here. Kindly remove yourself, you know nothing of our work here.

>>1341
I, for one welcome our new unseeable, bacterial overlords.

>>1346
I take it I am not the only one hoping for some far sighted bioengineer to plunge us into an Oryx and Crake type scenario??