RVonse

I think their words about the electrolysis conversion is that 1.3 units of electrical power only yielded 1 equivalent unit of hydrogen envergy. Another words if the electrical energy was instead powering a resistive element it would heat 1.3 times as much as burning the hydrogen that was converted. Personally, I don't think that sounds so bad. But they said its not good enough effeciency to provide practical hydrogen conversion.

I was just watching a PBS documentary and they stated that the approximent effeciency of electrolysis (changing water into hydrogen and oxygen) was about 1.3. I guess that would mean it takes 1.3 watts of electricity to yield 1 watt of hydrogen if it is burned. Meaning after the hydrogen is burned you get your 1 watt of energy back plus the original water. So far all this makes sense to me. Then the program went on to say that the photolysis process nature does in leaves is much more effecient but that so far, no one can duplicate this process to manufacture hydrogen directly. But if a break through comes in this photolysis it would solve the energy crises mankind faces today. So what I am wondering is just how effecient is the process of photolysis anyway? Surely it can't be that much better than 1.3 to 1? I can not imagine a process that would yield more energy out than you put in. I had always thoguht the energy driving photolysis came from the sun and that was an equiavalent amount of electrical energy similar to electrolysis. Is this not the case? What am I missing here?

Is it fair to say that the universe can not be expanding any faster than the speed of light?

Swansont, What I meant by that was that light can always be depended to arrive earth traveling at C. And that it always arrives at C even if it comes from a star that is moving high speed approaching earth.

So Are you really saying with the illustrations that the frequency of light has nothing to do with the speed of light? And that the frequency or color will doppler but not the speed which is still constant at C? Kind of like an electromagnetic RF carrier wave that is modulated at a certain frequency (color)? Is that how light behaves?

According to relativity light must always travel the same speed regardless of the frame of reference. As I understand it, relativity was based entirely on the premise of Michelson-Morely experiment which concluded once and for all that light behaved differently than sound waves through a medium. So how can a doppler shift be observed for stars going towards or away from the earth? If the speed that star light approaches earth is exactly C, then how could there be a red or blue shift? Doppler effect makes sense for sound but not light.

I read somewhere that viewing the future might be theoretically possible if a large enough gravitational field can take advantage of time dialation effects. Also if a corridor was placed between a singularity and regular space, the time will be different on both ends of it.

Neither magnetism or gravity is understood by anyone very well. Because if we knew what these forces really were, we would see anti-gravity cars by now.

Ok, that sounds reasonable for acne. Still there are problems I see with this theory. For example, why do cells appear to follow an intelligent path even after reproductive years? We may not prefer the path they take but it is hard to argue the path is not intelligent. Because if cells were not governed by dna intelligence, people would grow old in different ways and it is clear they do not. For example, when people get older they generally develope grey hair and go bald. Men almost always go bald in all the same places(forehead and top back of head) yet woman do not. Men also grow hair in other places (in ear canals). Surely there is something still instructing cells to grow this way or you would not be able to predict common traits to old age.

The example was not so much the auto industry as to point out that companies who lay off workers are also reducing their opportunity to sell products. If you look at the U.S. trade balance it is pretty obvious. China is building manufacturing capability at an explosive rate right now while Americans are borrowing money to consume their products. Do you think this process helps us to become more wealthy and prosperous?

As Ross Perot said there would be "a giant sucking sound" to Mexico. He was almost right but the sucking sound is going to China mostly. As for being bankrupt, our deficit spending is so out of control right now each U.S. citizens has now borrowed $20K+ and a lot of that from Japan, China, and South Korea. Those are the countries that save and make the money, we are the country that spends and borrows the money. It is a situation that can not continue much longer. After a person loses his high paying manufacturing job then has to re-train for another field. At a minimum' date=' he would have to get a 2 year AA degree in some sort of technical discipline. So he loses 2 full years of wages plus the expense of college plus the experience he had in the manufacturing job. This probably doesn't sound like much to you but it adds up to a lot of people and some of them have changed careers more than 1 time. Thats a lot of waste that economists conveniently don't mention. If Bush was really interested in helping the middle class he would offer tuition assistance or free college for high school graduates in need. Perhaps but I am appalled by the lack of performance of CEO's and their corrupted pay system. They head companies that go into the toilet and then make millions anyway. Is that pay for performance or corruption? Or perhaps this is your version of capitalism?

I don't see your point. In the first place I consider Japan a 1st world economy and their workers are getting paid pretty close to the U.S. There are many Toyota and Honda plants in southern states that employee U.S. citizens. Even though they are making Toyota's in Alababma, the workers are paid enough to be able to afford to buy those same cars. Contrast that to Wal-Mart and China. Here we have a non-union company that pays rock bottom wages here and child slave labor wages in China. Yes, they end up having the best prices on their shelves. But none of that matters if the end result is poverty and low income taxes for the state. China benefits but we don't. So if we must outsource, we should atleast do it with 1st world economies or we are just racing to the bottom of the barrel.