Stetson

So, e = mc^2 is wrong then? Because thats the process of transforming one physic object (mass) into heat and others (energy).

 

You sure no one else uses that definition?

Einstein's Relativity equation, E=MC^2 is not a process of transforming matter into energy or energy into matter. It is an equivalence theorem meaning that mass has energy and energy has mass.

Well unless if this 'complex conductor' is static as well, then the principle is the same. Otherwise I've never come across any credible research that purports the flow of electricity in a static generator in the manner of which you speak.

I hope you don't imply that all scientists don't believe in a deity. As well, it can be defined that anybody who uses the scientific method is a scientist in a sense. So when you say scientists don't love, it's hard to see. I consider myself an amateur scientist and I know that I unconditionally love my parents, family, and friends. And the feeling is mutual.

As far as I'm concerned, scientists lead a healthy social life no more than the next human being if not more.

Thank you for the replies, what i'm looking for is some referance to the research done backing this particular statement.

 

 

 

The rest is rather elementary and off topic.

I do sincerely hope that my comments were not referred to as 'elementary' or 'off-topic', as your above inquiry appeared to be lacking of understanding in basic electromagnetic forces. How does one create energy with magnets alone? It can't be done as it violates the first law of thermodynamics (energy can't be created nor destroyed).

I suppose a galvanized steel dish lined with brass mesh should direct it out and away, but the pulse could reflect off of whatever is in front of you and fry whatever you don't want it to behind you.

Studiot has said well a concise statement about entropy, but to address your question directly, I will. Entropy won't help you answer why planets and stars are seperate in their respective systems, at least not by itself. What would answer your question is the Nebular hypothesis or The Solar Nebula Model. These are theories that explain the formation of the solar system.

Well from what I know in my limited experience in biology and knowledge, I can deduce a few answers to your question. When a limb goes numb, much of what you are feeling is the depravation of oxygen to your muscles, usually by cutting off blood circulation. The cells send electrical impulses to the nervous system to alert you of the lack of oxygen, which the impulse is registered as the feeling of numbness. The electrical impulses, if great in energy, can be enough to make you move or wake up if you're in a light enough sleep.

I have taken both classes, and they are great. To give you a short introduction, Chemistry is the study of matter and Physics is the study of energy. Bear in mind that these are vague definitions of their respected sciences. My personal opinion and bias, if of course it matters to you, is to take physics. In my experience I felt I had a better understanding of the world and how it works taking physics, but the same can be said for chemistry. If you can drop an elective to take both, do it. It is worth it for the knowledge you will gain.

Two magnets do not generate electricity on their own. However when you pass a magnet over a metal, the magnetic field causes the electrons in the metal to flow, but only for as long as you constantly move or change the position of the magnetic field relative to the metal.

It is a very interesting article. Anything that has relation to superconductors is a big thing. Superconductors makes using energy efficient and reduces entropy, it's the first step to a cheaper electric bill and advanced technology.

Time traveling into the past is highly improbable. I would very much like to say it is impossible, but I do not like to use the term liberally. Time traveling in to the future on the other hand is possible, Einstein's theory of relativity justifies this.

Moving on to the topic of discussion, if such a thing as time traveling into the past existed, then I could speculate one answer. If you traveled in the past to see yourself traveling into the past, you will not see yourself traveling into the future but rather the past. I'm not sure if I have missed something in the statement, but it seemed perfectly clear and concise.