Jump to content

swansont

Moderators
  • Posts

    48044
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    132

Everything posted by swansont

  1. A centrifuge with the appropriate specs. v2/r = 1.5g
  2. The waves add, as I already said. As far as creating a "new" wave, it depends on what you mean by that. That goes for gamma and radio - but you're adding waves that are perhaps ten orders of magnitude different in frequency, and it's not going to look like much is happening.
  3. Deep space is zero-g. Near earth orbit is microgravity only because you are in orbit - there is still significant gravity present. You just feel weightless because you are in perpetual freefall. If you weren't in orbit, but in space near a planet, you'd feel gravity's pull.
  4. No, the waves add. You get interference, though. Beat notes. If the waves are of exactly the amplitude, the new amplitude will double at that point and the light will be twice as bright, but not at a new frequency (which is what would be required to get a new color)
  5. Remember that electrons exhibit wave properties as well. But when you try to measure their size, a particle property, it's consistent with them being the point particle that Dirac theory predicts. It's not like they have to hit "head on" in order to annihilate.
  6. What's it like at night, far from civilization, with no moon?
  7. It's true that the sum of the frequencies would be only a very small change, but you need more than just having two waves of similar frequencies. You have to combine the photons in some nonlinear material. You can then generate photons with the sum and difference frequencies. One common use of this is frequency doubling - take two photons at frequency w and combine them to generate a photon at 2w.
  8. No, one can explain a lot of physics without writing down an equation. It's just that math is a fast way to do it, and to do it quantitatively. Math is the language. But the math doesn't compel the physics; E=mc and E=mc3 are both valid equations and would satisfy any mathematician, and yet they do not represent reality. To draw an anlogy, the English alphabet and language didn't compel the works of Shakespeare.
  9. There is also energy from radioactive decay, which is significant. Life as we know it? Probably not. Life in some form? - not enough info to be sure.
  10. Assuming this happened randomly, would it affect the outcome of the flip?
  11. Ah, yes - Gravity Probe B. But it's not like the probe is news, just the launch. They've been working toward this for almost 45 years.
  12. dic·tion·ar·y n. pl. dic·tion·ar·ies A reference book containing an alphabetical list of words, with information given for each word, usually including meaning, pronunciation, and etymology.
  13. Here is a little more on gaseous diffusion separation.
  14. I refer you to the words of Ernest Rutherford, winner of the 1908 Nobel Prize in chemistry: "All science is either physics or stamp collecting." Subset of chemistry. Bah!
  15. Prompting people when they're offline doesn't do any good. The object would accelerate vertically if the vertical component of the force is greater than the weight. But that information isn't in the diagram.
×
×
  • 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.