moth

Bingo!

i need a new card. should i talk to swansont?

thank you for your reply CaptainPanic, i imagine watching paint dry would accomplish more than watching this contraption.

i was focusing on the huge pressure available more than the motion. for a 10' diameter piston and a moderate change in the barometer, i think a ton or two of force would be generated.

maybe i could translate the force to one more suitable for the power requirements of some task, like running a flywheel/generator or something .

if you had a tube with a piston in the center,and you put valves at each end of the tube so when the barometer is high air is allowed in one end of the tube and out of the other end when the barometer is low, would the piston move?

here's something i came across yesterday about producing positrons.

http://focus.aps.org/story/v23/st8

they don't seem to be trying to store the anti-matter, just detect it by it's annihilation.

maybe these guys could store some for a little while.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6991030.stm

what if [math] a = 2 [/math], and [math] b = -2 [/math]

 

im pretty sure the flaw occurs because even though

if [math] a = b [/math] then [math] a^2 = b^2[/math]

it does not work backwards with

if [math] a^2 = b^2 [/math] then [math] a = b[/math]

good point - i forgot negative numbers.my algebra has 20+ years of dust on it.

but a has to equal b or - b, not b and -b, right?

I am a bit confused by this. Here is the equation:

 

[math]

a=b[/math]

[math]a^{2}=b^{2}[/math]

[math]a^{2}-b^{2}=0[/math]

[math](a+b)(a-b)=0[/math]

[math]a=b,-b[/math]

let [math]a=1[/math]

[math]1=1,-1

[/math]

 

I understand that this cannot be true but why does it work algebraically? To my understanding, if [math] a=b [/math], than [math] a^{2}=b^{2}[/math] but if [math] a^{2}=b^{2} [/math], than [math] a\neq b [/math] What am I not understanding?

when you get to [math](a+b)(a-b)=0[/math]

you could say a=1 or a = -1 but not both at the same time.

since b=a a can't equal -b unless they're 0.

i'm pretty sure if [math] a^2 = b^2 [/math] then [math] a = b[/math]

is this what you're looking for?

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/howgeneswork/genelocation

if you imagine the energy being released over several seconds and smeared across the sky as a quick burst, it would add up to an explosion of that size.

if it hit the seafloor, you could split the energy into three parts, air water, and ground since they all have different densities. the numbers from before are just the impact on the ground, ignoring the air.

that's encouraging, if you can look up a number that's close, i may not be too far off.

the main thing (as mr.Skeptic said) is to keep all the units straight.

the 6.5 megatons t.n.t. of energy to the atmosphere was probably given off as sound and light(heat) i guess?

for a 50 meter solid iron meteor traveling at 12 km/sec

the volume is [math] \frac{4}{3}*pi*2500^3 = 65449846949.787cm^3[/math]

the mass is about [math]volume*7.5\frac{g}{cm^3}= 490873852123.4grams[/math]

the kinetic energy is [math] \frac{mv^2}{2}=\frac{490873852.1234kilograms*(12000\frac{m}{s})^2}{2}=35,342,917,352,885,173.9joules[/math]

i think:confused:

not to be a nitpicker, but doesn't gravity affect time not effect it?

i just think the difference leads to misunderstanding.

if motion requires time

 

that would imply that simply inducing time to any circumstance would either speed up or slow down anything

 

so if I have a bicycle and a 500hp Mustang and asked them both to cover 1000ft and that by adding time and time alone to the bicycle should make up for the bicycle's lack of power to keep up with Mustangs acceleration ?

 

is this what your saying ?

so what does "add time to the bicycle" mean?

[north]

and the force applied to the object , has nothing to do with time does it ?

forces, like motion, require time to act (or show a displacement) that is not what you have been saying. you seem to be saying that time requires motion (and now force) to proceed.what you seem to lack is any evidence or any way to test your idea.

what about looking at it from a "selfish gene" point of view? before you were born your genes were dispersed in a population, they come together in you and probably there are more copies after you die.

Merged post follows:

A lot of people believe that everyone is of the same conciousness, just experiencing each other subjectively. How do you think this would affect being born and dying in respect to that person's (the one being born or dying) conciousness?

if we all share a single consciousness we would seem to be connected on another level, and of course we are all connected through time because you came from your mother who came from her mother etc. so if you could imagine all of humanity throughout all our history all at once,it may look like a family tree shaped creature and since we're speculating you could presume it is conscious. in such a situation being born would be like being singled out, and death would be like merging.

So you agree the universe has an infinite volume?

you can't argue with people by trying to stick words in their mouth. that is arguing with yourself.

Perhaps that's why you subscribe to a false BB? Perhaps that's why you claim the universe has a finite volume? Perhaps that's why you say.......

 

LOL

 

Your math and science cracks me up. It is fun, though!

so you are also psychic? how do you know what i believe?

duration-congratulations on your invention of this new math where 1/4 does not equal .25.

perhaps this is why your physics is so flawed.

True because space expanding wouldn't effect light in anyways

~thanks

actually, as photons travel through expanding space, their wavelength increases (and frequency decreases) because they get stretched.

wouldn't the inertial mass of the light coming from a star be less than the mass lost from the star due to the conversion of matter to energy and not enough by far to be dark matter/energy?

well your saying that motion requires time

 

hence the conclusion is that , the inducing of time into any object will produce motion

 

and therefore the motion of any object is based on the amount of time introduced

how do you arrive at this conclusion ? the passage of time does not create motion without some force being applied to the object.

thats not what proposed

 

I proposed is that , if I simply add time to the bicycle , would the bicycle speed up ?

you have to define what you mean by "add time to the bicycle" before the question makes sense.

if you mean the bicycle and the mustang both have n time units to cover 1000 feet and then you add time units to the bicycles n time units then obviously you can add enough time units to the bicycles time n that will allow it to "beat" the car.

 

so if I have a bicycle and a 500hp Mustang and asked them both to cover 1000ft and that by adding time and time alone to the bicycle should make up for the bicycle's lack of power to keep up with Mustangs acceleration ?

 

is this what your saying ?

if time was passing faster for the guy on the bicycle, he could beat anything but light(if time was going fast enough for him and slow for the other).

if motion requires time

 

that would imply that simply inducing time to any circumstance would either speed up or slow down anything

 

i don't understand what you are saying here. could you clarify?

it is obvious motion requires time. you argue time requires motion. a lack of relative motion between two objects just means they are not moving relative to each other. not the end of time. just because you can't tell if time is passing without seeing any change, does not mean time has stopped.

and the essence of momentum is ?

kinetic energy, which is not time.