Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by danny8522003

  1. Could you not use water as the conductor instead of ionising the air? I.e. shoot the water at someone and put a current through it..
  2. Sounds like a router problem to me... I suggest the same as 5614, reset it.
  3. I suggest using uTorrent. It has a built in port checker so you can verify your ports are clear and can encrypt the packet headers so your ISP can't block the traffic.
  4. Yea it's teh same for us all. Although there is a way you can report your own posts, but that would be very pointless.
  5. Why can't you build it to prove it works?
  6. I'm not sure who to believe either way, so don't start flaming me as im completely agnostic. Having said that ... If the US Government wanted to refute the conspiracy theories, why only release 5 frames from the video that shows the impact? IIRC there are at least 3 tapes that would prove or disprove it, so why keep us all guessing? Also, the DVD entitled Loose Change is available on Google Videos and can be downloaded from thepiratebay.org via bittorrent. I can find a direct link if anyone is interested?
  7. Im not sure i understand, how can we just subtract this frame? Surely if this frame is moving from an outside observer the two masses are both accelerating toward each other. So if im at rest relative to the Earth, wouldn't i see the black hole accelerating towards me at >g? Another way of looking at it: g for the black hole > g for the Earth. But how can you tell which is falling towards which since the claims from both frames are correct?
  8. Sorry to double post... After many many arguments and discussions with my physics teacher, i fail to see how [math]g=-\frac{GM}{x^2}[/math] would hold true. If i dropped a black hole, and a hammer towards the Earth the acceleration would be a hell of a lot different if i were an observer, seemingly at rest, on the Earth. So then surely you MUST have to take both masses into account when calculating g. Is there a relativistic equation that works better than this Newtonian one? If this is just a ballpark figure, then why is this a Law and not a theory?
  9. You cant break physical laws and expect others to still hold. This is just the same as a "what would happen if we were moving at faster than light [...]?" question, you cant so it's pointless asking about it.
  10. Yeah i agree with you Matt, i just like being awkward. Never liked Newton anyway .
  11. Hey guys. I've added a couple of things in but im not too sure about the code atm so it's still very rough. Helping where i can though.
  12. But if im on Earth, the Earth is at rest relative to me?
  13. That's what i was trying to get at... So why is the mass of the sun not accounted for in the equations? [math]g = \frac{GM}{x^2}[/math]
  14. So if i dropped the sun from a height of say ... 20m, it was fall to Earth at the same rate a chicken would? (Excluding air resistance)
  15. According to string theory (what i understand of it anyway), the smallest 'thing' is a string of plancks length.
  16. Opera was the first browser i used after IE and won me over straight away. After that i tried Firefox but didnt get on with it very well, so gave up and went Opera again. When i got my laptop i decided to give Firefox another go, but i started to notice little annoying bugs. Such as the lack of loading previous pages from cache, the status bar that would display the wrong information when i changed tabs, no progress bar, email thing linked to Outlook that didnt work properly etc. So i decided to go back to Opera, and have been delightfully using it ever since.
  17. That's why the star does not collapse in on itself any further than it already has, because the outward pressure caused by fusion roughly equals the inward pressure due to gravity.
  18. And how motion needs to be defined by a specific frame of reference.
  19. Why, nothing travels that distance in a day? (Apart from the obvious)
  20. Use the distance between the centre of the Earth to the moon to find the circumference of the orbit, then multiply by 12000 to get the distance. Then use v=d/t to get the velocity.
  21. We did this experiment in physics too, with both electrons, lasers and sound. They're all pretty fascinating, but the QM explanation is a bit of a head scratcher. Even if you fire one photon at a time at the slits (called Young's Slits), they still build up the same interference pattern as if the photon goes through BOTH the slits and interferes with itself. QM says that the photon/electron etc traverse ALL available paths through the slits at once and end up somewhere through probability to build the pattern. Your physics teacher may also start talking about phasors which explains this.
  22. I really should type faster... His hypothesis is not science because not only is it untestable, it also goes against things we already know. As i've been trying to explain. Things being investigated at the moment ARE science because they have been predicted mathematically and are being investigated.
  23. I dont think Einstein would have dropped an atomic clock through a hole in the floor onto a pillow . Also, motion itself relative to an observer causes time dilation...
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.