MetaFrizzics

about twenty five dollars plus tax. my general rate is $150/hr. Okay seriously: A prediction comes from a hypothesis. It is usually a corollary or implication of a given hypothesis or theory. The hypothesis itself may not involve a physical prediction directly. As an example, the electromagnetic field. Originally constructed to allow physical predictions, its very existance beyond simply as a construction in a given theory is in question. In the 19th century when physicists sought mechanistic and deterministic explanations for everything, the 'field' was considered real, and a property of the 'aether'. After Einstein's reformulation of electromagnetics (Special Relativity) the aether 'faded' in importance, and the 'field' was reduced to the status of a mathematical construction. The predictions of the hypothesis (SR) would be that the 'speed of light' would remain a constant in any inertial frame (at any given speed of the measuring device).

Don't you need a catalyst such as platinum, and another element for the carbon to combine with besides hydrogen? Perhaps a surplus of oxygen could allow the process to speed up.

This looks like an electro-chemical effect: In fact to electroplate with silver you use a low voltage of about 2 volts. This threshold may have a bearing on the collision complex through average velocity of regeants. Also, I would investigate the effect of inevitable impurities and oxidation byproducts whenever dealing with iron. I seem to recall 'balling' and skin effects with iron surfaces in a variety of situations.

How do we measure frequency when dealing with single photon packets? Frequency measurement is easy with sound, or low frequency devices. But we only deduce frequency indirectly, like we deduce speed, at very high numbers through Moire interference patterns. This I think is beyond Heisenberg's principle, and into physical limitations in the construction of measurement devices.

It seems you are slipping into the 'perpetual motion' realm of flako-science. (1) Magnets don't give you something for nothing, even if that something is 'spin'. You cannot get more spin out of the magnet by proximity. Obviously you can stroke a piece of iron to magnetize it by creating a 'moving' magnetic field that in turn induces a current. In this case, the energy comes from your action of stroking, and all the magnet does is provide a mechanism for energy conversion like a pulley or lever. The magnet cannot actually 'magnetize' other objects. (2) Magnets lose their magnetism through the 2nd law of thermodynamics like most other objects or manifestations of 'order' (really local low-entropy reservoirs). Eventually, they turn to crap through a process of randomization of spin momenta. This process can be sped up by using a varying electro-magnet driven by A.C., as is done in an erase-head on a tape-recorder, or a de-gaussing circuit on a computer monitor. Magnets don't give birth to little baby magnets without a lot of energy consumption, just like with real babies.

Yes thanks Swansont. I guess I could have worded my questions better. I was thinking that *any* activity by a human being could just be counted as 'heat generation' in the sense that even organized transport of weights is always imparting energy to the environment in the form of kinetic translational (or potential) energy. So I can't get my head around the idea that 'heat production' will be only 20% efficient! (Is the other 80% wasted as heat? LOL) I think too I hadn't really thought through the air-conditioner idea, but I suspected (still suspect) complications because the heat cannot be 'radiated' out of the room via the six walls, since the temperature differential is opposing it. (i.e., if anything heat from outside is leaking in). But now thinking about it you are right I think: the load is directly transferred to the air-conditioner and not diluted by any mechanism I can forsee.

There is an easy way. You use an animated screen capture like DemoCharge2005, save it as an animated GIF, and then port the file into PaintShopPro 7 which has 'Animation Shop' built into it (or accompanying it). Animation Shop is an easy program to use for editing and creating animated GIFs. That's how I created my AVATAR. When you are capturing the screen, you can choose to only grab a portion of the screen, i.e., the window which is playing the video. This will save memory. Don't grab too large a piece unless you have unlimited memory and hard disk space. Don't grab too long a segment either. Final advice: You can use a '30 day free version' of DemoCharge, but it puts its own logo across portions of the screen. You will work around this by selecting a slightly larger area. You can crop away the extra unneeded parts of the screen in Animation Shop. This can all be done for free if you download the demo version(s) I have mentioned. Good Luck! Let me know if this works for you. There may also be other programs which can do a similar job, at least of editing, like Adobe AfterEffects (rather expensive) for just a quick screen grab. They used to sell something for Windows 95 called ScreenCam which was great, but it won't run under Windows 2000/NT.

Henry Fonda Sr. in Once Upon a Time in the West. The only Western of notice in which he reverses his usual role, and plays the best and meanest bad guy in any Western ever. (Fonda is usually a hero/marshall). A real movie about actual men, not wimpy punks. It has every great Western actor in it except (notably) Clint Eastwood. The whole thing is a surrealistic piece of legendary Bigtime Hollywood spagetti Western in its final polished form. Every character gets his own introductory scene. One of the best roles and characters Jason Robards got to play. The enigmatic mystery hero is a 'young' Charles Bronson. A Slow bigger than life movie that sucks you in and rivets you for 2 hours. The interaction between Fonda, Bronson, and Robards is intense and legendary screen magic of the caliber of Casablanca.

It seems to me that Computer Engineering, to be meaningful (i.e., not just computer programming for business applications) would require or amount to a degree or recognition of achievement in solid state physics, at least to get a job say with Intel designing chips and intracommunication systems, or designing instruction sets like RISC engines to execute Turing type algorithms efficiently. This would in my mind require considerably more than the merely advanced mathematics to be taken seriously as a computer programmer for serious applications: For instance, one friend of mine who writes and maintains code for a firm that supplies high tech business software also has a Master's Degree in Economics as well as a BSc in Computer Science. Another friend who does serious work in animation has an advanced degree in Mathematics. That's only computer programming. For the lads who work in labs designing computers and chips, electrical engineering is also a prerequisite but I can't imagine that would be enough. More like a Physics degree would be required even at the ground floor.

All is not lost by any means. Every philosopher worth his salt who wants to discuss a concept simply offers a brief preamble clarifying any terms that he thinks might be misunderstood because of such circumstances as above. Your original 4th question "in a physics classroom" is easy to answer: (a) In a *high-school* classroom where students are not expected to have formed strong careful opinions, the teacher would probably go out his way to indicate what exactly is meant. Then a discussion like the one we are having about advanced physics might follow, qualified by an informal approach without mathematical details, simply to introduce a few surprising concepts like 'particles springing out of nothing'. This would be more for the purpose of arousing interest and stretching the students' minds to consider ideas they may not have heard of before. (2) In a more advanced class, like an introductory physics course in University or College, there would probably be much more careful discussion of definitions, especially in the context of problems handed out to the students which they are expected to solve properly. So here it would be more important to make clear what treatment was expected by the professor in order to achieve full marks. Now to your original 3 questions: (1) This seems reasonable provided you are willing to commit to Newtonian Physics for your world-view for the purpose of discussion. By the way, there is no reason why you can't believe in Newtonian Mechanics instead of General Relativity. Many scientists do, and are skeptical of General Relativity for various reasons. (If you embrace General Relativity, you appear to be committed to the physical existance of *not* space, but a 4-dimensional 'spacetime' which has real properties like a flexible geometry that is affected by the distribution of mass in it. In this case, you can't just pretend there is something called 'empty space'.) (2) The issue of 'expansion' is an interesting one. For instance we again have to commit at least tentatively to a physical philosophy to help define our terms and describe 'acceptable' cases of experiments to verify our theoretical ideas. For instance, you might embrace the idea of Machian Relativity of Motion, in which case, if there were only two objects available, you might not be able to distinguish whether the two objects were expanding side by side, or simply moving toward each other. You'd need a third object to further clarify what was meant or expected. On the other hand, you might feel that ideas like 'expansion' can only have physical coherent and reliable meaning when they are referenced to objects that have mass and extension in space. Then you might argue that there can be no discussion of 'expansion' of 'space' since this philosophical concept is just a meaningless abuse of a term. (3) Yes gravity would be a factor in the above problems, because you'd have to decide or try out the question of whether gravity was a 'true force' in the Newtonian sense, or just an illusion caused by the curvature of spacetime etc. These are not easy problems to make up your mind on, but are deep philosophical questions at the very core of our understanding of the world around us and our ability to grasp it.

Lets say the average person walks at most a mile a day, and functions essentially as a 100 watt heat lamp. What about an olympic athelete or weight-trainer, who works out semi-daily in a gym? I am guessing the heat-output is seriously cranked up on such a person. Is Arnold Schwartznegger equivalent to say a bank of four food-warmer infra-reds? (1) What is the maximum sustained heat output possible for a healthy adult? (2) If you have a standard window air-conditioner cooling a normal livingroom or office, what is the additional load five warm bodies put on the system? (3) What is the actual temperature required for comfortable nudity and moderate exertion (like you know what)...?

(1) Such a pill would be useless, unless you also adopted a lifestyle similar to that of a Quaker or Seventh Day Adventist: No alcohol or other dangerous solvents, no recreational drugs, etc. (2) Statistical hazards would remain, such as car accidents, injuries and scarring, resulting over long periods of time in a condition resembling Leprosy. In leprosy, nerve endings are deadened, leaving beggars vulnerable to injuries from inability to feel pain. Eventually, fingers and toes are injured repeatedly, and become stumps. (3) The Environment would have to be seriously cleaned up for everyone, so that industrial diseases were a thing of the past. Otherwise again accumulated damage including genetic damage over time would destroy the body function by function. (4) The 'Vampire' Syndrome: Long term exposure to seeing 'friends' come and go (die) would eventually take its toll and completely distort one's mental worldview and lead to boredom, loneliness and experimental 'evil' behaviour similar to that envisioned in Jekyll & Hyde, Frankenstein, Dracula, and Dorian Grey (all stories which explore the dangerous results of power and priviledge such as immortality). The distortion of personality and 'soul' would be so extreme and monstrous that the 'person' would no longer be recognizable. (5) The Elitist and Class System which would inevitably arise from such unfair advantage, and would necessarily be controlled and regulated by economics and poorly implemented ethical standards resulting in favouritism. Only now, the only potential that democratic reforms ever had to allow overcoming class and race bondage would be overwhelmingly entrenched and impossible to overcome. (6) The Shockingly Serious choice of opting for Eternal 'purgatory' in a kind of endless treadmill instead of following the destination of the rest of mankind, including the billions of people who have previously been born and died. The barrier erected between oneself and the rest of humanity would be similar to the one described by Jesus in the parable of Lazarus! (Luke) (7) The requirement for an entire Specialized Medical system to monitor and identify any genetic change or damage, and have technology in place to make repairs. Economically, this would present a ridiculous burden on an already resource-taxed world. (8) The inevitable fact that some people would not respond, or not respond adequately to such medical treatments, again creating a 'sub-people' relegated to a different life-potential (i.e., a 'servant-class') and hence philosophical/religious outlook. This would naturally result in severe competition between ideologies, and war.

(snnniffff! Honk!) ...brings a tear to my eyes.

In Newtonian gravity theory, the bulge and mass allows you to calculate the rotation relative to Absolute space. However, independant experiments seem to confirm that Absolute Space and the backdrop of fixed stars are more or less synonymous. This means that you can go the other way and calculate the mass of the earth by its bulge and the speed of its rotation (relative to the backdrop of stars). In General Relativity, there is a similar argument, but it is based upon the gravitational field (geometry of spacetime) rather than 'Absolute Space'.

Well, personally, I tend toward Hamiltonian formulations of conservation laws. But that stuff is so abstract I have to wonder sometimes. These are good questions. But if conservation laws are misformulated, the argument is weakened. For instance, we have two different versions of conservation laws now, one for Newtonian physics and one for relativistic calculations. Yeah that's a zinger. What the hell is autodynamics? Alien: A neutrino by any other name would miscalculate just as sweetly. "That's just a cover story..." Yes, for some time the pollution index in Toronto has been worse than Los Angeles in the 80s, but they have been downplaying it for the "Toronto the Good" image, in spite of old people dropping like flies over there. The closing theme from Dr. Strangelove: "We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when..."

I think in that case a philosopher would want to 'predefine' the word before use. The 'classical' or common-sense definition you are connecting to 'void' is probably based on a combination of modern usage by non-scientists and dictionary attempts. I would imagine that by etymology it is an imported word, possibly Latin or Greek in origin, and borrowed into English by philosophers for the express purpose of starting with a 'clean' word they could define themselves, as opposed to say 'empty space'. But it might have originally been a religious term to do with hell or purgatory coined first by theologians. Perhaps a history of English usage encyclopedia could help.

Obviously, the first thing it is observing is the law that says every govt. funded physics research project's budget must expand to fill the quantum flux void created by budgets located in the backward light-cone. You will always find neutrinos of various flavours using Neopolitean Group Theory. Sadly, most 'physics research' budgets are carefully proportioned to front diverted unauthorized funds for covert military ops. So Neutrinos will always occupy more states than can be filled by previously built particle accelerators. For instance, at least 30% of Ontario Hydro's budget is used to fund American military projects with Canadian taxpayer's money.

By the way here's an amp I built: It is the lowest distortion tube power amplifier ever made. In this case I used vintage tubes from World War II surplus JAN (Joint Army Navy Contract) military spec batches.

(1) What country are you in? (or continent if you prefer not to tell). (2) In what country/place/culture is torture allowed and seriously discussed by neighbours? (besides the US I mean). Your original post is so shockingly off the wall or stupid that I must assume it is a hypothetical (double-blind taste test) scenario, for a psychology or politics class. Rather than alarm people needlessly, can you confirm that this is hypothetical? Your second post is equally disturbing. Can you explain yourself by say pointing to traditions or practises in your culture, religion or place of origin?

What interests me here is whether there really is a possibility that the Neutrino is really one of Einstein's blunders. (as opposed to say, Weinberg's or Dirac's).

Don't forget to note the errors in your first diagram: (1) The friction force is pointing the wrong way. (2) Apparently there is no friction force in this question! (3) You didn't take notice or remark on the simple opposing force of the ramp. (4) You failed to break down the gravity force into (useful) components. Don't worry that it all seems overwhelming the first time you deal with these things. I wouldn't have got the 'smooth' surface thing myself in your shoes. It seems perplexing how people 'know' how to divide up or break down forces into the right components at first. This comes with some experience looking at answers to these questions, solving a few yourself, and finding people who can explain what the essentials of the problem at hand actually are.

Can a mere phrase convey a moral principle? I had to think about this: It requires cultural background and a knowledge of moral 'cliche's: (1) "the early bird". moral principle: (opposite of sloth). requires knowledge of maxim. (2) "Caesar's coin". moral principle: hypocrisy. NT Jesus dispute - background. (3) "the sawed-off limb" moral principle: undermining your own support. You could use these phrases in a warning sentence, like: "Remember the hand that was bitten".

The aliens used Windows XP. If only they had sent scouts to steal Linux first.

123 oops delete this. My message was entered twice.

Ridiculous. Machian Relativity Both heliocentric and Earth-centric views are 'incorrect' if one accepts Machian relativity. From the Earth's point of view it is better to view the sun as travelling around the Earth. Only if one were standing on the Sun would it be reasonable to view the Earth as travelling around the sun. Solar System-Centric View It is only when all the other eight (+) planets are considered that the Heliocentric view becomes preferred' date=' since from this view the orbits of the [i']other [/i]planets are simplified and easily drawn. This is a pragmatic choice. Absolute Space From the view of Newton's postulate of Absolute Space, the Earth appears not to be accelerating significantly from that inertial frame, or else it is moving at a constant speed relative to Absolute Space. This is deduced by the relative effectiveness of Newton's Laws for inertial frames. This discussion ignores angular momentum however: from the Newtonian view it appears that the Earth is in fact rotating absolutely, since the equator bulges. This gives no true indication of translational (linear) motion however, or orbital frames. The only thing that can be said about the Earth absolutely is that it is spinning (independant of motion of itself re: sun). Newton's 3rd Law Now from the point of view of Action - Reaction, one could with reasonable assumptions presume the Sun as the heavier mass (based upon Solar system behaviour), and from this deduce that the Earth must move *more* than the sun for the preservation of momentum and exchange of energy between the two bodies. That is, the earth must be moving more because of the sun's greater inertia. Yet both bodies must definitely move according to this law. Galileo was Wrong, not the Church If by 'proven long ago' you mean in Galileo's time, this is just nonsense. Newton had not formulated the Laws of Motion or deduced the force behind Kepler's observations, and so Galileo could not have 'proven' that the Earth revolved around the Sun. In any case, the idea that the Sun did not move was wrong before and after Galileo's time. The fight between Galileo and the Church over Heliocentric versus Earth-centric was an exaggerated 'Black n White' argument similar to the ridiculous dispute between Catholics and Protestants over 'free-will' versus 'predestination'. Both sides were idiots. Elegant but Impractical All Galileo had to make his case more attractive was the simplification of the orbits of the other planets. This would be an argument similar to the superiority of Special Relativity over Newtonian mechanics. For ordinary masses and non-light speeds, Newton remains simpler and more useful. Special Relativity is really an Electromagnetic theory. Likewise, for the ordinary man on the ground, it was better to continue to view the orbits of the planets as giant 'curly-cues' across the sky, and let astronomers work out the horrible details of converting 'orbits' between views. General Relativity? Finally, Einstein stepped in with his gravity theory, only to surprise everyone by showing that there was indeed 'absolute motion' relative to the gravitational field or 'curvature of space' which was itself influenced by the distribution and motion of mass in spacetime. What this meant for Galileo's argument versus the Church is still really rather complex. Again, as with Newton's laws of action-reaction, General Relativity predicts that *both* the Earth and Sun move. A bit disappointing for extreme Heliocentrics. The best we can hope for when all the dust settles is that the sun moves *less* than the Earth.