BenSon

That's a big misconception. Yes, a number can be divided into infinite fractions, but that has nothing to do with an object's motion.

 

For example, let's say an object is moving at a speed of 10 cm per sec. In order for the object to follow your theory, it must slow down constantly and never stop moving. But in the real world, the object would keep a consistant speed (assuming it isn't acted upon by an outside force) and eventually pass whatever barrier you designate.

I wasen't realy thinking 'real world' just mathematicaly. Its realy hard to explain what I mean but i'll try. If there is an infinate amount of numbers between any two numbers how can it not encompass all numbers. Example there in an infinate amount of numbers between 1 and 2 but 3 is not in there. How can you have an infinate that is in a defined range and not express all numbers is it realy infinate then?

I have had a similar thing happen to me.

 

For my stat class, I had to flip a paper clip and see which side ended up ~100 times. Lo and behold, one time it landed on its edge! I couldn't even balance it there when I tried to! totally screwed up my results.

How did you tell which side was up?

I not sure which maths forum to stick this in so I'm putting it here I don't mind if it gets moved though. I was thinking about this earlyer and its been bugging me for a while now. Say you have two numbers 1 and 2 isn't there an inifnate amount of numbers between them? Like 1.999' So how can we ever get from one to the other? Does that make sense I'm going crazy here!

I just find it funny that the bible code 1 was written before 9/11 and failed to predict it while the bible code 2 written after 9/11 did predict it...whats the go there?

Note that geometric units are used throughout the paper. This means that c = G = 1. Then the equation for the Schwarzschild radius you gave here simplifies to r = 2M. In the paper, R = 2M. Then the escape velocity equation you gave here simplifies to v = sqrt(R / r), the same as in the paper.

I thought geometricized units were exclusively used in generaly reletivity? maybe I'm wrong. So does it work when you use normal units?

since in the dark ages if you were left handed, you were burned at the steak because you were a demon (because you weren't "right" handed...). That would make it less common via natural selection. And various other factors that we aren't taking into account.

Actualy funny story, my dad went to catholic school and was left handed so they forced him to right with his right hand so now hes ambidextrous. So much for 'dark ages' huh?

`Scott

This is a post about what you think would make humanity perfect. That is my aspect of a perfect humanity, whats your? Do you have a better idea, Mr. Critism?

How about what we've got now but with no guns?

`Scott

Ok, yes... but that's only the using of the hands... You're right handed because you use the left side of your brain... the "logic" side of your brain... now "equimanual" people use less of their left side (the logic side) and more of the other side (commonly associated with creativity). The problem is that creativity can get in the way of logic when used too much... And, the ability of using both hands is not a significant advantage (unless you're a sports player... you get paid more... grr.)

I would dissagree, I think by having a balance between both halves you would get the best of both worlds. But what would I know I'm not 'equimanual';)

`Scott

How so? What advantage does an ambidextorous person have over a right handed person? Because a right-handed person uses the left side of their brain, and the left side of the brain is more logical... it might make sence that that person would have an advantage over one who uses less logic...

An amibidextrous person would have that same advantage as the right handed person and then some. Also I think being well coordinated with both hands would be an advantage.

`Scott

Quote from the link

Newton’s (and general relativity’s) equation for escape velocity is:

v = sqrt(R / r)

And earlyer you state

Schwarzschild radius ® The r-coordinate 2 * M

This would mean that you say Newtons equation for escape velocity is

v=sqrt((2Gm/c2)/r)

as the equation for a schwarzchild radius is r=(2Gm/c^2)

However I think you will find that newtons equation for escape velocity is

v=sqrt(2Gm/r). So you appear to have incorrectly stated newtons equation for escape velocity. Is this a major problem......?

`Scott

If I may I would like to tack on another question. Why are there more people right handed then left handed and even less ambidextrous people? Wouldn't evolution favoured the ambidextrous?

Have a look at your countries professional physics body (Institute of Physics for the UK etc...), and science publications such as new scientist for jobs...

I have been looking at some job websites but unfortunately there is not many of them. Also the kind of research I thinking of is theoretical like string theory and other up and coming theories.

`Scott

If your car is just sitting there, yes. All of the gas molecules impinging on it give it a small speed, assuming it has three degrees of freedom. (This concept was one of the questions on my acceptance oral in grad school)

Thanks for the help:-) Can I ask you how much oppertunity there is for research in physics? I don't mean is there anythig left to research but how many positions are available in research. Thanks.

Good question, but i think i was thought in elementary skool that mass is the quantity of matter in a a body. BUt , i know that most of us know this definition, so then what is matter. i think that is the new question?

I think matter is fermions like quarks and electrons. But what gives matter the propety of mass?

`Scott

1/2 mv2 = 3/2 kT

 

T = mv2/3k

Oh right kinetic energy of an ideal gas (right?). I see your equating the kinetic energy of a solid mass against the kinetic energy of a ideal gas. So for the car to be in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings they must be equal, I think I get it...Thanks:-)

The average kinetic energy would be 3/2 kT, k= 1.381 x 10-23 J/K. That means for a 1kg object to have its center-of-mass velocity be in thermal equilibrium at 10-40 m/s, it would have a temperature of about 2.5 x 10-58K

 

At room temperature (~300K), that same object has a COM speed of about 10-20 m/s, but the problem is that T goes as v2. At that temperature, the wavelength is 10-13 m. At the slower 10-40 m/s speed, the wavelength is 10-3m, so it's still small - Planck's constant is a very small number. Once you get much above atomic size, it beguns to get very difficult to see wave-type behavior.

Thanks that makes sense i am a little lost on how you first worked out the temperature though.

technically every time you walk through a door you get diffracted a tiny bit.

I don't think so we were always taught tht diffraction occurs when the wave passes through a gap that is similar is sive to the wavelength. I think the door is alot larger then your wavelength.

`Scott

I think you can answer your own question if you calculate the temperature of an object that had that average speed and was in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings.

it would have to be very light and moving slow then which would mean experiments to confirm it could take years. the experiment to prove it is diffraction but in order for this to happen with a macroscopic particle the necessary velocity is tremendously slow. why not use a molecule or an atom. they are after all real things.

I think it would just be wild to see a visable thing as a wave.

`Scott

Oh yeah, I understand that we can observe the particle as a wave (such as an electron or neutron) but I ment macroscopic objects. How about this we have a model car something small just wheels on a board on the slightest incline you can imagine in a controlled environment woulden't it be moving so slow that we could see it as a wave? What would it look like?.

Bummer about that mass thing, explains why my teacher coulden't tell me if no-one knows. Could someone elaborate on the higgs field a bit?

`Scott

Ecoli,

hmmm... interesting point. I fear though that the number of fathers who feel abused by abortion is far outnumbered by the number of fathers who abuse it. How many mothers are left to care for the children when the father leaves her?

I agree, but the bad behaviour of the many shoulden't condemn the few.

And what about the fathers who are protesting? (if that's really who they are)... sure they may feel abused by the system, but what if was the other way around? What if these protestors had babies they can't afford to take care of... sure its easy to protest, but its something altogether different if you put into a situation where you need to abort a child...

 

and besides it's not like the mother is taking any pleasure aborting a baby... I'm sure it's a terribly hard decision to have to make. Do you think that these women are happy having to excersize their right to choose abortion? Can the people protesting really say that these women are immoral (which they do). They don't know these women personally, how can they judge them without knowing the situation these women are in?

I never said that the mother took pleasure in aborting the baby...I'm interested in knowing where you got that from:confused: . However I'm not advocating these protestors I for one would never protest an abortion centre, as I said I'm pro-abortion, i'm just pointing out that the system needs to change.

Aumsonata,

I believe that many of those people that protest are not really concerned about the mothers at hand or the aborted babies. More, they are interested in a political agenda that takes away a woman's right to choose and completely ignores the issue at hand: there a too many babies being born to women who won't or can't take care of them.

Granted but what about the mans right to keep their child. They are fuly responsible once it is born weather they want it or not. But have no say in its well being before its born.

I think the that until society finds better ways to support and assist single mothers, find good homes for orphans, and protect women from sexual predators, we have no right to enforce regulations that prevent a woman from doing what she sees fit for her own survival.

About the bolded part, I think your refering to making abortion illegal. I agree that it should be legal to aboprt a baby, but how about 'regulations' that protect the rights of both parents?

`Scott

EDIT: I'm thinking about what you say ecoli in post #3 and #5. About those guys who protest everyday at the abortion clinic it makes me think what a fine thing it would be if there really were a Hell so that those guys could suffer eternal torment for being such jerks. I'm responding here so yours can be the last post, out of respect actually, since you speak your mind on a controversial subject.

Over here abortion is not as big an issue as in the US. I can agree with you martin that from our perspective these guys are behaving in a very jerkish manner. However have you considered why they may be protesting? What always gets me about abortion is that the father has no say in what happens at all. Perhaps these are fathers of aborted babies. Who feal betrayed by a system that would take their child away if the mother says or make them pay child support for 18 years without any consideration to what they want. I'm pro abortion but I think the current system sucks in many respects.

Scott

We have finished learning about this in school and I have a problem with it.

The equation we get taught to use for this is

Wavelength = h/mv

Why can we not slow somethings velocity down sufficiently to cause an observable wavelength? Like 10^-40m/s.

Also while ive got a thread open what is mass? Why do some particles have it while others dont?

~Scott

I must apologise if someone has already said this but I only got up to page four. Ok how about this for a model of the universe, it is a sphere with an expanding radius. We all exist on the surface of the sphere sort of like spacetime only curved not flat.

`Scott

I think the graviton is predicted as massless because it can be propagated over infinate distances like the photon wich is also massless.

~Scott

"The Sum of the Parts May Be Greater Than the Whole"

I wasn't going to bring this up but seeing as someone brought up biology why not? How about the binding energy in the nucleus, the mass defect causes the sum of the individual nucleons to be greater then the nucleus when its bound together. Well thats what we get thaught in highschool anyway.

~Scott

That's actually a separate issue. In a reflective box, the wavelength must be a multiple of L/2 (i.e. you need to fit a standing wave in it) so a wavelength longer than L/2 will not "fit." But as long as you fulfill the standing wave condition, you can keep adding photons. Classically it's just a higher amplitude, which means that the field strength is higher.

 

I suppose a high enough energy density will eventually have GR implications, but no quantum mechanical restrictions I know of.

Ok thanks. Hey I see your a physics expert you don't have to answer this if you don't want to but I'm just deciding what to do at uni and I was just wanting to know if you do research and if so what? Also would you reccomend physics as a career choice or if you could choose another area of science? Actually this question is to other professional scientists as well. Thanks.

Scott

Ok, does a photon take up space? and if it does there must be a limit to how many you can put in a (100%) reflective box. So what im asking whether or not it is possible just considering the space issue.

Scott