mmalluck

GR doesn't play the role you think it does. Time dialation is dependant on your reference frame. If your sitting on the sun, earth-time appears to be moving slower. If your sitting on the earth, sun-time appears to be going slower. On which body is time traveling more slowly? Niether. The sun is about 8 light-seconds away from earth, so anything that happens to the sun will be not be observable to use for a full 8 seconds. As the sun expands to become a red giant, the surface of the sun will be moving closer to us, so this lag will shrink, until the sun eats us.

I've always been told the slower the cooling process, the larger the crystals will be. The best way to do this would to heat up until it's all melted and then use a oven to slowly cool the bismith over the course of several hours to a day or more. You'll have to play to get it right.

You must ask yourself why does hot air rise and cold sink to begin with. The answer, my friend, is density. When water freezes, it forms crystals. These crystals take up more space than liquid water normally would. The same amount of matter, but more space equates to a lower density. It's the same reason why you shouldn't freeze water in a glass container. The ice expands (as well as becoming less dense) and cracks the container.

"It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea." - Robert Anton Wilson I think that about says it. Given enough time liberal ideology is accepted into society and becomes the conservative viewpoint. If people sat down and actually thought about this, then there would be no issue with the whole liberal vs. conservative deal. /example/ Are the magority of conservatives still fighting to reinstate slavery? (I say majority because there's always some wack-jobs out there that will.) What about to keep a women in the home and take away thier right to vote? These were conservative viewpoints at one point in time, but no longer are. The liberal views at that time are now part of the conservative views of today. Ta da!~

The current the power source supplies is dependant on the load resistance, but the power supply can only provide so much current. The current values you are given are the maxium current the supply can comforable source. Using a resistive load that requires more current than the supply is rated will A) cause the outputted voltage of the supply to drop due to it's own internal resistance and/or B) cause your power supply to burn out. You shouldn't assume the source will only try to supply so much current. Most of them are dumb and will eat themselves if given the chance. Now I don't know a whole lot Peliter junctions. They may require a you to add a load resistance in series to keep them from drawing too much current (much like a LED), some of the data sheets I've just pursed have suggested this. Like this one for instance: http://www.alltronics.com/download/25U012.PDF Imax is 3 amps Vmax is 16.4 volts Module resistance is 4.9 Ohms at this power level. Like a diode, the 'resistance' the device displays is dependant on the voltage across it and the current through it. They're odd little devices. Lets play with these numbers. We'll apply 16.4 volts across this module. 16.4V = I * 4.9 Ohms Solving for I we find it wants to draw 3.35 amps. This would exceed our maximum current (3 amps), so we need to add a resistor to our setup if we're going to run it at this voltage level. 16.4V = 3 amps * (4.9 Ohms + x Ohms) Solving for X we find we need an addtional .57 Ohms. Now resistors that small are had to come by. We can place a larger resistor in there and everything should still be fine. We go to our box of resistors and pick out a 1 Ohm resistor. Going back to our equation: 16.4V = x Amps * (4.9 Ohms +1 Ohm) Solving for x we find our setup will only draw 2.77 Amps. Everything is happy. The only trick now is deciding how much power our resistor has to dissapate. Most resistors are only rated 1/8 a watt or a 1/16 a watt. They're not made to handle amps of current flowing through them. P = (I^2 * R) so P = (2.77 Amps ^ 2 * 1 Ohm) or the resistor will dissapate 7.67 watts. That's a pretty beefy resistor you'll need.

I got the voltage of decay from Wikipedia. Everything else, I just reasoned/calculated out.

You'd need more than a bag to put them in. You'd need something along the lines of a high pressure vessel or blast chamber. The repulsive force of any considerable amount of electrons is amazing. My physics prof once said, "If you could take a person and force 1% more electrons onto thier body, thier body would explode from the increadable repulsive force of the electrons contained on the surface." Now where you'd find a volenteer for that, I don't know.

Remember even if the player isn't switched on, the tritium is still decomposing and the battery is still running dead. I think the problem with the batteries may be the amount of current they can put out. Lets say we can cram a mole of Hydrogen into a battery (that's 22.4 liter of tritium at STP). That's 6.022*10^23 atoms of hydrogen. Now over a 12 year period half of that hydrogen will decay. That's 3.011*10^23 atoms. Each decaying atom will release one useable electron. So during the 12 years the battery will give off 3.011*10^23 electrons or 7.95651*10^12 electrons every second (on average). Yes, I realize the decay is exponetial, but for the sake of making the numbers easy will assume a linear decay. What is this in terms of current? Amps are measured as coulombs per second. There are 6.2415*10^18 electrons in a coulomb. So our battery can put out about 1.274 * 10^-6 amps. That's a mesely 1.27 microamps if we can capture every electron the tritium releases. You're not going to be cranking a car, running a cd player or powering anything larger than a wristwatch with a measily 1.274 microamps. But wait, I said earlier that the electrons released by tritium will have an average energy of 6.5keV. We can take this into account to help us. We'll assume can put a perfect transformer into our battery to trade off this high voltage for a higher current. Lets say we want our battery to output the standard 1.5v that most disposable cells are. We make the voltage 4333 times lower, but get 4333 times more current. Taking this into account we now have a 1.5v battery that can put out 5.524 milliamps. This is still pretty pathetic as far as batteries go. To get better numbers we'd have to use more tritium. A mole of tritum cost around $60, so to get any considerable current out of this battery we're talking $$$$$. Even if we do spend lots of money on more tritium, my example assumes everything is 100% efficent. Sadly it's not. Not every electron will be captured, nor will the transformer we use to adjust the current. Again, there's no cranking cars, running CD players, or putting the battery companies out of business with this technology. Sorry to be the party-pooper, but the numbers don't lie.

You want some clear, or mostly clear casting resin. Casting resin is a special two part epoxy you can get at craft stores and the like. You can also find it online, a quick google picked up this place: http://www.creative-wholesale.com/casting%20resin.html As you can see you can add dyes and what not to make it look like amber if you like. Here's a how-to for casting insects: http://www.atshq.org/articles/rhysresin.pdf Before you cast any the insects you like, I suggest you play with the mixture. There's an art to how much hardner you should use for a given mold. Too little hardener and the stuff stays tacky. Too much and it'll heat up, crack the plastic, and/or cook the insect. You also have to mix this stuff really, really well or you'll end up with gooey spots. All this is in the how-to. Give it a look it has some good pointers.

What about scrubbing away the oxide layer with some steel wool or a metal bush and then using a high tempreture clear coat to seal everything?

I think I get what you say about nature compressing information down into some other form. We see this in engineering often. There are so many formulas that are taken for granted, that take our unbounded world and simplify it. Compression of nature through math and science. Let me see if I understand systems as you're describing them: A level of order may arise from chaos, and from several of these ordered systems, a new organized larger system may arise. Does the larger system relate back to the smaller now sub-systems that make it up? Yes. Can a change in one of the subsystems effect the operation of the supersystem? Also yes. It's just levels of abstraction. That's all. We use that in chip manufacture all the time. Do you really think people map out were each of the hundreds of millions of transistors in today's computer chips go? No! We plop down ALU units, memory units, buses, and registers. The individual transistors are no long important except in some situations. How is this different from standard reductionism? I propose that nature works through abstraction. It uses these levels of abstraction to move forward and no longer considers the smaller subunits except in certain cases. I don't think I agree with the wave function stuff. You're making a very general point, because all energy, all force, and all matter, can be viewed as waves. We live in a analog world. Nothing we experience is anything but analog. It's kinda like saying life arises from atoms, which is true, but not something unique. It just is.

This is a link for a device that can measure 'internal-coherence'' date=' but the site makes no effort to define what internal-coherence is. It goes on to say it's a bio-feedback device and that "Heart Coherence IS measurable - and can apparently measure passion and biological sustainability". I call BS on this. The device can measure galvic skin response, electrical signals from the heart (EKG), and the electric response of nerves. That's it. It doesn't measure magic-love-waves. That has to be inferred from the data. If you can tell me what passion looks like in these terms of these signals than you can say the device infers your level of passion, but does not measure it directly. I'm not saying all bio-feedback is worthless. Bio-feedback does have some merit. It shows that the conscious mind can exert some form of control over functions of the body that are mostly thought to be involuntary. Through meditation and concentration, things like blood flow through the skin (IE skin temperature), heart beat, and moisture level can be controlled. It's not much different then looking in the mirror and learning how to wiggle your ears. These bio-feedback devices just give you a 'new mirror' to look into. The human brain has many fold more chemical-receptors than any other organ of the body. Why isn't the brain seen as the controlling center of the body and emotion? It regulates all other organs and can even exert conscience control over them. Do heart transplant patients suddenly love different people after receiving a new heart? What about people who are given mechanical hearts? Do they loose the ability to love all together? These are observable holes in this argument that have been mentioned before, but no one has tried to address.

How much larger would it have to be to fuse Tritium or Deterium and therefore become a brown dwarf?

err, okay, I stand corrected.

But it's not. As I stated in #23, all of the electrons released by tritium will have an energy potential around 6.5KeV. It doesn't matter if one atom or a million atoms of tritium decaying, they all release electrons at the same potential (6.5KeV). The maximum current, on the other hand, will be proportional to the decay rate. Current is a measure of the number of electrons passing through a given 2D window of wire of known conductivity in a certain amount of time. These electrons are product of the tritium breaking down. So if 100 atoms decay, we'll get 100 electrons traveling through our window of wire. If only one atom decays, then we only get a single electron flowing through our wire (IE an itty bitty small current). Since very few electronics operate around 6kv, I imagine this battery will need some kind of DC-DC converter to turn the output into something more useful.

The voltage the nuclear battery can output will remain at the same level as long as there's material breaking down. Electrons released by the breakdown of tritium have an average energy content of 6.5KeV. If one atom or a million atoms of tritum break down at the same time, we'll still see 6.5kv across the output of the battery. The maxium current the battery can substain will fall as the battery ages (Fewer atoms of tritum decaying ->less electrons moving -> less current). Now considering the average energy of electrons given off by tritium is 6.5KeV, there will be some kind of transformer built into the battery or the device to drop this voltage down to a level used in today's electronics. I like the idea of a little battery that can shock the bejesus out of you.

http://www.4hv.org is a good form for anything dealing with high voltage electronics, from Tesla coils, to railguns, to coil guns, and anything that makes sparks. The people are rather knowlagable and they use a application process to keep the rift-raft from flooding the boards with crap post. It's a really good resource.

By blocking a magnetic field, what you're really doing is giving the magnetic lines of force a more attractive path to travel thru rather than random stuff outside of the box. Wrapping the box in any ferric material should help. You want a material with a high permability and a decent cross-sectional area. It's a lot like burying your box within a transformer core. Mu-metal has a very high permability (hencer being called mu-metal) that can take a lot of magnetic field before the material becomes saturated (you can only cram so much magnetic field within a metal object, when it becomes saturated, additional magnetic field has to travel outside of the material). Mu-metal can kind of suck though because it doesn't do well with too much bending. If you bend it too much you destroy the magnetic domains within the material, it's permability falls, and it becomes saturated more easily. The biscut tin idea that YT is talking about adds an air gap to our magentic path. Air by definition is free space and can not saturate. Most of the magnetic field will bunch up around this gap as it leaves one piece of metal and heads towards the next. This can be useful

To use one of my IM quotes: "I cannot prove that electrons exist, but ... I have a high voltage cattle prod I'm willing to apply as an argument on their behalf." - Seth LLoyd But really electrons are physical entities. You can have electrons and electric potential without a magnetic field (such as charge stored in a layden jar, capacitor, or surface of a balloon), as you can have a magnetic field without the movement of electrons (like in a bar magnet). Now is an electron a tangible object? I'd have to say no. Electrons, as most particles smaller than an atom, play a probability game. As such, you can never be sure where an electron really is. The best you can do is say I'm 98% sure the electron is somewhere in this area, 70% sure it's within here, and so on. Electrons and photons both share this uncertainty principle, and electrons have been used in the past to perform the rather famous double-slit experiment. The electron is a quanta of charge where as a photon is a quanta of energy. In this sense they are both analogous to each other. Unlike light, electrons have mass, don't travel at the speed of light, and their energy is directly related to the speed at which they travel (the higher the voltage potential, the fast electrons travel). Photons on the other hand, have no mass, can only travel at the speed of light, and their energy content is determined by the frequency of the quanta.

I skimmed these articles, and while filled with jargon. I wouldn't say they help your cause. http://web1.tch.harvard.edu/research/ingber/PDF/2003/Tensegrity1.pdf This atricle talks about cellular tensegrity. It talks about how cell's and tissue's shapes are governed by the forces acting on and within them. Nothing too mind blowing here. http://www.soulinvitation.com/heterofi/heterofi.htm This article talks about sin wave multiplication (the heterodyning stuff your talking about). When you multiply two sin waves together, the resultant wave contains the orginal frequencies plus a sum and difference of the frequencies. Again, this is nothing new and has been known since WWII. http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/Essays/PWA.2colApeiron.pdf This article wants to turn the idea of wave propigation on it's head, but inorder to do so, claims that the universe needs to be filled with a fluid-aether first. All waves and matter are merely reactions, waves, and resonatnces within this aether. It's like string theory as in it's a novel way to view the universe, but without any math, it useless. http://www.fractalwisdom.com/FractalWisdom/fourattr.html This article contains a lot of nonsence how everything can be broken down into 4 things. It's hardly scientific. It's more philosophy. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science This one concludes that intellgent design is nessary. It takes a long time to conclude this. http://www.templeton.org/humbleapproach/complexity/default.asp#TheChamberedNautilus This is a link to a picture of a Chambered Nautilus and a poem. http://www.thymos.com/tat/emergenc.html More randomly structured psydo-science theories. http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/1402/EvolutionOfComplexSystems.htm A proposal on order arrising from nature. Probably the most 'scientific' paper posted thus far. http://www.calresco.org/attract.htm More theory on how order can arise from chaos given a simple set of rules. How do these articles relate to your love-waves again?

But before the universe was formed, there was no existance, nothing to own, nothing to understand. All there was was lots and lots of nothing.

Wikipedia says that the radiation given off by tritium isn't even strong enough to penitrate the skin and for the most part is safe. You just shouldn't breath it or eat it. Only then it may cause you problems.