swansont

That's true of any explosive, though. But having the energy densely stored as a chemical potential is a lot more comfortable than having it present more diffusely as thermal and kinetic energy.

Depends on the research. I haven't used dirac notation for my job very much at all, but I'm an experimentalist. If you look at papers, I think you'll see it's fairly common.

What about planets that aren't volcanically active?

There's the buoyancy, which gives you the force being exerted back at you, but there's also the concept of unstable equilibrium — any force or motion not directly down is going to cause the ball to want to "squirt out" from whatever is exerting the force.

If an atom could be at rest (as it is in its own frame) it can quite happily oscillate between two states, which is one way of measuring time.

It's a closed loop.

Banned accounts still exist — just in a banned status. Their posts don't disappear.

The "flows under its own weight causes them to be thicker on bottom" part has been debunked.

Since it's Florida, I have to wonder if it coincides with thunderstorms. You could be getting a surge from the strikes or outages elsewhere, though the UPSs complaining for that long doesn't seem to fit. There are dataloggers you can buy, or get a multimeter/voltmeter with a USB connection if you are going to use the computer to log the data.

Ah, the Superman theory. "I have trouble seeing through lead." Technically, nothing "blocks" x-rays. What you have is an attenuation which is an exponential. The advantage of lead is that has a very large attenuation coefficient due to the large number of electrons and dense structure. Aluminum has fewer electrons, and is a much less favorable target for interaction. So you are correct — anything will eventually attenuate x-rays. Lead is used because it is more efficient at doing so than most other materials and is readily available, but a thick block of aluminum could be more effective than a thin sheet of lead, depending in the actual numbers. This shows the mass attenuation coefficient for various elements http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Photon_Mass_Attenuation_Coefficients.png There's also a table here http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/XrayMassCoef/tab3.html For example, at 1 MeV the mass attenuation coefficients are comparable, but lead is much more dense and is a much better attenuator.

We do try to remember to amend the title to include [Answered: Yes/No] to help clarify things to the casual reader.

The rules of QM do not allow the system to get rid of the energy.

Gravity is not the same thing as gravitational potential energy, which is the work gravity has done. The acceleration from gravity is g, the force of gravity is mg, and GPE is mgh (when g is a constant). NOBODY has said that g has changed, or mg has changed. If that was the purpose, it was the right forum, and has long been answered. All the rest is squabbling about semantics, which is distilled in the last sentence here — you seem to think that "state" and "form" have different meanings in this context, and they do not. There is no physics being discussed by you. Thread closed

Like the quoted part explained, the constants are an artifact of the unit system used. By convention, it has a certain value.

Potential energy is work done by a conservative force. Total energy does not change — this is shown by Noether's theorem; conservation of energy is a consequence of physics not changing over time. All the rest is a discussion of semantics of the merits of using "convert," and there's already a consensus. Deal with it. This is a physics board, and the thread is not discussing physics. I don't really see any reason to leave it open.

No, it's not wrong to use "convert." to change from one form or function to another and to exchange for an equivalent are both relevant. Nobody has claimed that the volume of water has changed. The physical attributes of the water are not affected here — it is the classification of the type of energy that the water has. We have potential energy, due to position, and we have kinetic energy, due to motion. The water can also do mechanical work, which will change the energy it has. Didn't you mean to say, we classify the types of energy, potential and kinetic, into different forms and the changes in them due to work being done? Didn't you mean to say, any change is always, not sometimes, reffered to as converting the energy to a different type? Type and form are interchangeable in this discussion. I didn't say "always," because some people might not use it. One could use e.g. transform, change or turn. Potential energy is being converted into kinetic energy, and/or mechanical work. I find it ironic that you feel like I am being obtuse when I am just trying to understand all the terms that are continually missused. If you don't understand what I mean go back to the middle of this post and reread. I asked a question, since there were (to my mind) two options at this point. And I have to note that you didn't answer it. The terms aren't being misused. They are defined in a certain way and are used consistently within those definitions. You appear to want to apply different definitions, and are apparently surprised that it causes confusion.

I never said anything about converting velocity. I don't think anyone has proposed anything about volume (or mass) changing, either. You are the only one bring that up, and it's a non-sequitur, a strawman. A big part of this seems to be a semantic argument about the word "convert." We classify the forms of energy — potential and kinetic, and the changes in them due to work being done. Any change is sometimes referred to as converting the energy to a different type. That's simply the way it is. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Nobody is claiming to convert gravity. Stop it already. What is being discussed is energy, and converting it from one form to another. Energy due to being in motion is called kinetic energy. I have to ask: are you being intentionally obtuse, or are you trying to tackle this problem without the benefit of having taken physics 101? It wasn't clear from your earlier post if you've learned all of this from Google

No, because of there is no turbine, the water has more kinetic energy. The potential energy is the same. The potential energy it started with gets converted into either kinetic energy of the turbine, or of the water (ignoring heat and sound for the moment) No, you are anthropomorphizing the situation (known as that pathetic fallacy). The amount of energy the turbine generates is dictated by the energy of the water, not the the way around. —— Since energy is conserved, you can look at the problem at any point. Right before the water hits the turbine, it has a certain amount of kinetic energy (which was potential energy earlier). This does work on the turbine, and reduces the kinetic energy of the water.

From conservation of energy this could be the case, but it's also possible that the string more efficiently couples to the primary mode and less into the harmonics.

PE = mgh Your potential energy, which is going to be the maximum amount of work you could extract from the water, is zero at the bottom, where h=0. It does not matter if there is a turbine in the way or not. If there is a turbine there, you do work on it, and it means the water has less kinetic energy when it reaches the bottom. [math]KE_o + PE_o + W = KE_f + PE_f[/math]

Yes. The potential energy is solely due to the position. What you have done with it is convert some of it to work, but you didn't have to.

You can't see steam either. What you see is small water droplets that have condensed from steam.

Some people do challenge accepted science, but they only get a serious audience when they do it within the proper framework of science. I saw a poster at a recent conference discussing an experiment concerning the implications of photons having mass, and ways to test those implications, which was what they were doing. And that's perfectly good science to do. But there's a huge difference between "if X is wrong, here's how we would know and here's our attempt to measure this effect" and simply going with "X is wrong, full stop."

Who is doing this?

Here, finally, is a prediction, and something that is potentially testable. Mainstream physics predicts that gravity is solely dependent upon energy density (classically, mass). Even our own sun should change behavior as protons fuse into helium, which means the creation of neutrons and the ejection of neutrinos. This should have some effect in when different fusion cycles occur, since that depends on gravity. Now all that there is to do is coming up with some evidence that supports this.