danny8522003

as for your accusation of his word "Psinetics"' date=' you may be right there, but the study within it is in fact a science, just as relativity is a science. relativity only has mathematical and perhaps a few experiemental proofs on it, though it explains the universe in another way, it is a SCIENCE. Psinetics, that also explains the universe in another way, though it doesn't have mathematics and does not have any experiemental things (except for government and military experiements which he has used to explain what happened on them and what would happen if reconstructed).

[/quote']

For a start, it is not a theory. For anything to be labelled as a theory it must be experimentally proven and mathmatically sound. His hypothesis presents nothing more than vague explanations and a bastardised version of relativity.

 

He seems to present a completely incorrent view of The Big Bang Theory, which he then refutes to his own means (strawman fallacy?). No-one ever said it was an "explosion", it is an expansion of space and time itself for a start.

 

How on Earth would surrounding an object in a wall of electricity create time travel? If this was the case then surely all our copper wiring would be jumping through time as i type this. There is certainly no explanation of how he even thought this up.

 

I could go on but basically the explantion will probably be "God did it".

Why doesnt FF just include all the useful add ons?

Screw it, here's list of them all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_phases_of_matter

There's also a fifth state called Bose-Einstein condensate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose-Einstein_condensate

E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) shows that when v=c the equation has a 0 as the denominator, any fraction with a 0 at the bottom and a number >0 at the top equals infinity. This is why infinite energy is required to speed objects with rest mass up to c and is therefore impossible. If m = 0 we get a 0 at the top.

As posted in the "mass" thread.

Basically, anything with mass cannot b accelerated to the speed of light in a vacuum. Things like quarks can be accelerated to about 99.9% the speed of light but cannot reach it. Only particles with 0 rest mass can reach c.

I agree with both of those values.

Although, yourdadonapogo said use your value for v to find t. This is bad practice because your value for v might be incorrect, so try and use a equation to find another variable that doesnt contain one that you've had to calculate. Then there is less chance of you getting both the answers wrong .

Ok, feel free to repost if you get stuck

You can use Newtons Equations of motion for this as g has been given as a constant.

List all the things you know:

s (distance travelled) = 75,000m

a (acceleration) = 9.79ms^-2

u (initial velocity) = 0

t (time) = ?

v (final velocity) = ?

Here are the equations:

Equation 1 v = u + at

Equation 2 s = ½(v + u)t

Equation 3 s = ut + ½at²

Equation 4 v² = u² + 2as

Find one so that you input all the known values, but have one unknown and rearrange to find it.

First find v, then find t.

Hope that helps.

Very interesting

I get an error in my browser that says the data from the site is corrupted for some reason and i cant view the page.

Using Opera 8.5

Yea, i dont understand how BOTH clocks can be slow. I think i vaguely understand it, using an anology used in the book.

Don't think i was looking at it in a relativistic enough maner, thanks for the help!

--------------------------------------

Although it seems as though both clocks would say 10pm and we'd both argue we were slower than each other, but i think i understand it now.

@the geek

 

 

i believe that a photon is the only particle that can be at

two places at once.

Nah i know electrons do it too. Id hazard a guess that every 'elimentary' particle does.

I'm reading The Elegant Universe at the moment and it states that as people with clocks travel past each other at a significant constant velocity, they BOTH see each others clocks slow down.

This makes complete sense in that everything is relative etc, but i dont see how BOTH can be correct. Hopefully one of the experts can clear this up for me .

Cheers,

Dan

Think of Einsteins equation e=mc^2, this shows that energy is interchangable with matter. Therefore more energy, more mass.

Rest mass gives the mass of an object if it had no energy, i.e. it is at rest. In this way the rest mass of a photon is zero. Using Einsteins we can see that photons have something called relativistic mass. Use hf=mc^2 to find this.

Relativistic mass is an outdated term so we simply say that photons have no mass, they are just a 'clump' of energy.

Again, using e=mc^2 we can see that as an object gains energy it's relativistic mass increases (hence why objects with mass cannot reach c because of the gain in kinetic energy it possesses as it gets faster).

E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) shows that when v=c the equation has a 0 as the denominator, any fraction with a 0 at the bottom and a number >0 at the top equals infinity. This is why infinite energy is required to speed objects with rest mass up to c and is therefore impossible. If m = 0 we get a 0 at the top.

No my figure is in grams for the mass of the sun and a typical black hole is 10 times that. You need two black holes which make 20. Since 1 gram of matter makes Hiroshima (according to 5614), you just divide by 1.

So 7.95568 × 10^35 kilotonnes.

Yeh?

Yea so find the mass of the sun in grams, then multiply that by 20. That's how many Hiroshimas it would be equivtlent to.

mass of the sun = 1.98892 × 10^33 grams

x by 20

That's 3.97784 × 10^34 times the power of that nuke, ouch!

I use NCH Tone Generator when i was trying to set up my sub, it might work well for trying to find those resonance frequencies.

I dont see why not, just plug the numbers into [MATH]V=\frac{nRT}{P}[/MATH]

Most of what I know about multiverse theory (without entering the realm of theology) involves Youngs double slit experiment. If you don't know what that is' date=' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngs_double-slit_experiment

 

Anyway, when the light source is diminished so that only one photon is allowed to enter the double slit, the photons behave exactly the same as if there were lots of photons allowed to go threw the slit. Proponents of the multiverse theory claim this is because the photons are interacting with photons from other universes.[/quote']

 

Isn't this something to do with the wave-particle duality of the photon? Electrons do this as well

 

Also if universes collide in 11-dimensional space like in string theory, are those universes not part of an even greater universe?

A very helpful explanation...

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html#16

Ahh i see, makes sense now. Thank you.

They are the four types of forces each with their own carrier particle that travels at c.

I read that the carrier particle for EM force is the photon, not sure i understand why. Maybe someone can help?

But both the masses have gravitational fields that depend upon their mass.

A pencil and a planet would attract each other a lot less than say a star and a planet, so why doesnt the escape velocity represent this?

Hey guys,

I was doing gravitation today in physics and we were looking at escape velocities. The velocity is given by:

[MATH]v = \sqrt\frac{2Gm}{x}[/MATH]

Now this equation only has the value of one of the masses in, so the velocity is only dependant upon one mass.

My question is why is this independant of the mass of the object trying to escape? If you were trying to jump off the Earth, you would attract the Earth and the Earth would attract you. Although if you had the mass of the moon your attractive force would be higher, so why does this not mean the velocity would need to be greater for the bodies to seperate compared to you having your mass or the mass of the moon?

Everything is relative after all.

If gravity happened instantaneously would this not have to travel faster than light? Seeing as no info can travel ftl this must be impossible.