p1t1o

Can you observe/extract information from a 100% non-radiating object without bouncing anything off it? Without bouncing photons or electrons or anything off it? Without touching it or using fields of any kind, no EM radiation, electric or magnetic fields? Without dumping energy into or extracting energy from the object, in any way? Yes. Information can be extracted from an object using only probability, statistics and quantum weirdness. It is enough that the possibility exists, that a photon could impact an object and reveal its presence/properties, the photon never has to touch it for the possibility alone to affect the results of the probe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur–Vaidman_bomb_tester It is a real effect that has been physically observed.

Flipping great, just what I need - more ways to play Skyrim.

My other half's family are like "THIS is what I want, if you and dave and steve and shelly go in together you can all afford it. Ill send you a link for where to buy it. And by the way we're getting THIS for such-and-such I need XYZ cash from you. If you want to get me anything else Ill send you a list of clothes and jewellery I like" This went on for several years (it DID make shopping quicker at least) but it finally broke me and I have called a moratorium on requesting gifts. I will use my special talents to choose something I think you will like, and if you dont like it, you can lump it. So no more group presents chosen by the recipient, no more lists of links to some boring-cheeks clothes outlet, no more shopping mall vouchers - now its animal-print crockery, adult lego sets and beard oils for all! hohoho! I hope you like this bleeding candlestick in the shape of Eleven from Stranger Things, sister-in-law! **edit** (In case that sounded like Im chosing things at random - I do actually hope she likes it, its pretty cool)

I dont live near many big shopping areas, that might make a difference. All the hoo-haa about the iphone X release, that sort of thing I find worse for me.

Honestly I dont percieve a difference in that with christmas, its equally bad all year round. BIRTHDAYBIRTHDAYBIRTHDAY HOLIDAYS!HOLIDAYS! DONT CHOOSE ONE YOU HAVE TO GO ON THIS ONE! ATTEMPT TO BE FRUGAL, REALISE CHEAP=CRAP, THEN REALISE EXPENSIVE=CRAP WHAT PHONE THIS PHONE IPHONE WEDDINGWEDDINGWEDDING BABIES AND MORE BABIES BABYSHOWER?! WTH?! And people wonder why I spend so much time in the computer.

I cant get enough christmas period, I wish more people wanted it to last longer

There must be a better reason that the technology hasnt been revisited since though?

BishBashBosh got your back http://www.astronautix.com/g/gnom.html A vintage Russian ICBM. Cancelled before entering service. I presume these things did not become common because simplicity trumps the extra performance, but Im not sure.

Im gonna go leftfield and say the little solids that propel fireworks. Because no matter the size, every solid rocket I see, from SAMs to SSRBs, all I see is simply a scaled-up firework - and that gives me good brain feels. *** All the different liquid ones are much of a muchness, but I like SABRE because its fancy.

Yes, it is much better to let them fight amongst themselves...we cant risk giving them a common enemy.

This is not how science works. *** No. Because I have yet to see evidence of it. Why would I believe otherwise? I believe its possible.

I cant say asteroid are an area of expertice for me, is it possible for asteroids to be formed without being related to a star? A truly interstellar object? Can you get accretion like that without it being the ashes left over from star formation? Like if a cloud of gas/dust collapsed but did not have enough material to form a star? Im guessing not but ???

Yes it is, you just have to thrust inwards once you have attained your desired speed (which will be attained with a combination of prograde and inward (anti-radial) thrust). In this manner one can have any "orbital" (I think technically its not an orbit) velocity you want from zero to <c. For slower-than-orbital speeds, you thrust outwards.

My all time favorite (large-size) plane.

Yay! The Sprint Missile, a last-ditch ICBM interceptor designed in the 60-70s, travelled so fast in the lower atmosphere and got so hot, that the flame from an oxy-acetylene torch would have cooled it down. What happens when you open a scuba-tank at the bottom of the mariana trench? It fills with water. Some of the most toxic compounds in existence appear in bad shellfish. Under the right conditions, the human eye can detect individual photons of visible light. The human retina responds to X-rays in the same way as it responds to visible light. We can literally see in the X-ray spectrum. Yes we can see it through doors + walls. It doesnt come up often because we cant see it that well - the source has to be quite intense and staring into intense X-ray sources is...somewhat ill-advised.

You should totally make a standalone thread for comments like this!!! For some reason I cant seem to phrase that in a way that doesnt come off as super-sarcastic in text form, but Im not I swear.

Can think of several answers. -they could rely on other forms of braking (chute, wheel brakes) especially if the structure is lighter. -the elevons and/or ailerons could double as air brakes (pitch up moment countered by canards, this also has the effect of increasing the weight on the wheels, increasing brake effectiveness there too.) see pic below. -gear doors could double as air brakes (cant recall where but I have seen at least one aircraft which uses this) -the design was never mature enough, they were never added (or they were, you just cant see them on any published material) -what @Exploro said Gripen on touchdown, note deflection of canards and wing surfaces - you can also see how the weight on wheel is increased, by the compressed nosewheel):

It can easily be more pronounced than that, at the highest observable levels of redshift, soft X-rays can be shifted into the visible, UV will be right down in the radio spectrum.

woops

https://qntm.org/bandnames

Debatable, it may only have Earth's mass, but at 9mm radius, the force of gravity will be quite severe. Quick calculation show that the force between it and 1g of hydrogen at a distance of 1cm will be 4e15 newtons. VERY rough calc shows this is sufficient to move it (the 1g H2) 2km in the 0.1 microseconds or so it takes the hole to move 10cm. So it can at least be shown that the influence radius diameter is >9mm, how far it practically extends is anyones guess. **edit** I think im a couple of factors of ten out, or more likely the calculator I used was not suitable for relativistic situations, since 2km in 0.1us is somthing like 60c... I think the conclusion is unchanged.

Its should be noted that it will influence a column of matter much wider than 9mm, but on the other hand the radius (9mm) will severely restrict the rate of matter in-fall, not least because of the radiation pressure caused by that 40% matter conversion.

Dont make up stats please, this is serious. At no point did I say you shouldnt raise awareness, just not one type over another. I covered this point exactly with the example of racism I used in my comment.

Remember the results are skewed because we are already self-selected as quite an "into it" group. We're not just forum members, we're forum members invested enough to click on a poll to see what the age ranges are. Many members won't be that interested, or even see the poll. And many more KSP players won't even have profiles here. Its an informative result, to be sure, but its by no means representative of gross reality.

So I was wondering something when I saw an ambulance negotiate a busy junction against red lights. Two cars had a low speed near-miss when getting out of the way of the ambulance. If an ambulance is on the way to an incident, and a traffic accident occurs immediately ahead of the ambulance (the ambulance is not involved in any way), does it continue on to the initial incident, or stop to assist? Both incidents are definitely in need of paramedics. One question is, does anyone know anything official, naturally if there are official guidelines for paramedics they may not be the same everywhere. Second question is open for discussion - what SHOULD they do? Lets assume for the moment that the initial incident and the immediate one are of comparable severity (although this is largely moot as "severity" can be subjective and it also could not necessarily be ascertained with any accuracy in the timeframe discussed - or perhaps you think it could?) I honestly cant find a reason to feel strongly one way or the other, about stopping or continuing, every scenario has the good or bad cancelled out by en equal and opposite reaction. You could try and take into account every wasted minute or drop of blood to calculate a logical answer, but you could never do that in the field.