Rocket Man

they put warnings on guns, knives, blenders, cakes, anything the lawyers feel the need to put warnings on

what they really need to do is kick people out of court when it relates to false advertising, bleeding obdvious dangers etc. people should do their research, and THINK

the world would be a much happier place

thought is a dangerous pass-time i indulge in whenever possible.

however, small warnings such as chemicals and food additives are important, you never know what crap the manufacturers use.

(they even try to hide it by disusing the E-numbers)

i think they're trying to offset higher education with taking the need to think from us.

Fish don't actually produce Omega 3. They get it from thier food. Seaweed is a good source as they produce the Omega 3.

time for sushi!

i take it omega 3 accumulates at the higher end of the food chain.

good question...

i think it's from the glass again, but down this time.

if you cut the flask across the middle, and managed to keep the water from spilling while allowing the top half to slide, the top half would actually move up, implying there's an upward force applied by the water.

since this force normally does no work, there *must* be an equal downward force applied by the glass

pressure is an omni-directional force, so the water at the top is applying pressure which is transfered outward without losing magnitude, (the glass serves to make this happen) so if the pressure doesnt lose magnitude, it will compound as you increase the head of water. (forgive the terminology)

pressure is force per area, there is more force at the bottom, but there is also more area

take a conical flask, wide at the top and narrow at the botom, some of the downward force is taken by the sloping sides and isnt transfered to the narrow bottom.

it's easy to prove, get diffeent shaped flasks and a pressure meter.

actually, pressure can be measured in cm water, mercury, any liquid basically

In physics infinite dimensional spaces occur very naturally. In deed I use them all the time.

"use"?

you must teach me how to travel perpandicular to reality.

speaking of mating to death, there is a species of mouse that die from exhaustion while mating.

heres a bit of relevant information which i have no use for:

there was an experiment where a rat was given a direct stimulus to it's pleasure centre and a button controling it.

it ended up pressing the button in favour of eating and subsequently died of starvation.

measurement is based on true distances, ie 1m = the wavelength of krypton.

the way we see things, size is relative to everything else, it's learned.

a good example is that we see inverted images, the brain processes that and takes key details, "down" isnt even important, all that is is important is that down is the opposite of up every thing else is relative.

the brain is a relational network, if you lived with lenses, you'd quickly learn to get by, the brain doesnt work in numbers, it works in relatives and past experiences. two eyes give depth perception, projection size on the retina is compared with past experiences.

there is no math involved in reaching for an object, it's trial and error, there's a rough guess before you reach for it but when you actually go for it, you fine tune the approach.

supposing your lenses had a magnification gradient, 2 - 0.5 up to down, you'll learn how to recognise relative distances between different the magnifications. given time, you might even be able to play a competitive ball game as if the lenses weren't there. the brain learns how to extract the same key details from the new images as it did with the old ones.

go Edison!

however, i personally prefer my gas-arc-discharge lamps with a touch of mercury and phosphor, also high power LEDs,

by the time i run enough current through my tungsten filaments to get white light i burn the filament.

but there is a compromise!

http://www.powerlabs.org/plasmaglobes.htm

which, unfortunately, seems to burn faster.

i agree with KLB, but i'd take it even further, if sex wasnt chemically pleasurable, the stupid little critters in particular wouldnt be "trained" to reproduce, but take lions for example, i heard it takes about 16-24 hrs to mate, they simply wouldnt do it if there wasnt pleasure involved.

im not sure i understand this, they've done well to depict four dimensions in a 3d environment, but shouldnt it have eight faces?

this just isnt how i see four dimensions

snail,

the only time you can really tell if it effects concentration is if you're working at full capacity, downhilling was my example, it can get nasty. i find it's good in large doses, tinned salmon works better than tablets.

So if I understood you correctly' date=' freshwater fish WILL be fried if that happens?

 

I'm.. trying to get my mind to unboggle. hehe Lightning's always been something hard for me to grasp..

 

~moo[/quote']

 

 

think this way, you're passing a current away from a point, the curent has trouble going through the medium it is forced to go through, so it will take any opportunity to pass through anything more conductive to get away.

in the case of freshwater fish, the fish are probably more conductive than the surrounding water so they will have a higher current density, higher current density means more ohmic heating and more neural/physiological damage.

 

in seawater, the current will avoid fish/people because they have a higher resistance(in some cases) so the current density through the fish will be lower at the same distance because it is shunted by the water.

 

reor, good of you to raise that point, most fish can detect the charge in the water just like when you feel electrical storm gathering or a vandegraaf generator turned on.

also, freshwater is often shallower than seawater, so the current is more likely to go straight down into the more conductive soil. so you're left with less lethal area.

whenever i go mountain biking, i go fast, reflexes are crucial.

limits are there to be broken, unfortunately, such limits tend to go alongside bones.

you can really tell even subtle differences when youre working at near full capacity, i find fish oil helps, i dont really know why, but it does, alot (omega3?).

also, a good sleep and clean high energy foods. (clean meaning low amounts of chemicals ect)

i know you've heard it hundreds of times before, but a good diet is the best way to reach your peak. all of them, all at once. mental, physical, social(increased sense of well being boost confidience)

speaking from experience.

other than that, get fit. it sounds absurd, but i and others have noticed a sharp leap in everything since i started training.

lightning is caused by a difference is electrostatic charge, the charge in the cloud causes the ground to adopt an opposite charge, this charge is neutralised to an extent by the current in the lightning. (the voltage difference reaches the break-down of air and arcs over, allowing the eletrons to move)

lightning can and does hit water

the charge neutralises in all directions into the water because it is the thing with the opposite charge

the aspect of electricity that kills people in water is the current density; ampage per square cm. when this gets to a certain limit across the heart, the heart stops.

more area, less current density.

when lightning hits water, the water can boil explosively due to the heat the current causes

the curent density will decrease with increased distance from the point the lightning strikes and so, the heat produced will drop off as well

(i think the electricity would kill quicker than the heat)

when lightning hits fresh water, there is low conductivity, so any electrolytes will carry the current more effectively due to the decreased resistance. so any fish / person in freshwater is going to carry more current than the water.

however, when it hits seawater, the salt in solution has a lower resistance than the electrolytes in blood, you'll have a current shunt around your body, and cop less current than if you're in freshwater.

so basically, the killing distance is determined by the bolt itself, and the conductivity of the water. fish dont die because they have less conductivity than the surrounding seawater.

i think covalent networks will have the higher melting points, but when the bonds break to become fluid, it will have different properties and boil instantly.

perhaps ionic compounds will have the higher boiling points.

the element with the highest melting/boiling point, i think, is tungsten.

slightly off topic, but are there conditions where helium is soild?

beaut!

did i see that correctly? it looked like you had a large volume of water electrolysing under the anode.

as for fusion, a high power spark, like that from a large peizo crystal arcing across deuterium gas has been proven to fuse into helium, it's not effective though. nor is it cold.

can this experiment be done using a plasma cathode instead? if you had enough voltage you might get a electrolysis using a cathode ray.

(just dont pass it through glass if you dont like being irradiated)

supposing you get a convetional rocket and strap a few extra hundred tonnes of payload to it, you will have roughly the same ratios as the ion rocket. the math will still be the same.

you still dont understand the frames, the force is applied to the propellant, the propellant has the same velocity as the rocket untill the particle is fired.

the refrence frame simply brings the relevant objects into focus

suppose you have a system to accelerate a particle to a velocity relative to the object firing it. have it stationary and measure the momentum the firing mechanisim gains after firing the particle.

then accelerate the entire loaded system to a high velocity and fire it backwards, is the momentum increase the same? all momentum laws say yes.

conservation of energy has no problem either, it applied a force over a fixed distance using a fixed amount of energy.

what's to say that the stationary system was not in motion and the accelerated one was not? that's what im getting at with the refrence frames.

all physical laws hold no matter what velocity you're travelling at.

the problem with your explanation is that once a particle is fired, it cannot hinder the rockets acceleration. each successive particle is fired with a relative momentum, even if the ships mass does not decrease, it will still have momentum equal to the sum of the relative momentum of each particle.

if each particle has a fixed relative momentum just after firing, the engine will experience a fixed impulse per particle it fires. thus a constant acceleration.

rockets do not defy conservation of energy simply because a very small percentage of energy is converted into kinetic energy. most of it goes into the propellant and is wasted. of several megajoules of stored energy, the final kinetic energy of a rocket will barely scratch the surface.

i dont think you understand my refrence frames,

say the ship is stationary with a particle ready to fire, take a refrence frame.

the ship fires the particle and accelerates by a small amount. you still use the same refrence frame to determine the amount the ship has accelerated.

once the particle is out range to effect the ship's acceleration, you take a new refrence frame using the ship's center of mass along with the next particle to fire.

the final velocity can be obtained with the sum of the ejected particles' momentum.

ion rockets are no different to conventional ones. they still eject mass.

an ion rocket accelerates particles over a fixed distance to a fixed velocity relative to the engine. thus each particle has a set kinetic energy relative to the engine.

each particle will have a fixed mass and velocity relative to the engine and so, a fixed momentum relative to the engine just after it's ejected.

multiple particles in succession each with relative momentum will sum to give the ships final momentum.

an engine has a limited energy, but it is not applying force to a stationary mass. the mass it is applying force against has the same velocity as the engine.

energy = force X displacement

a car applies force to a stationary mass with increasing relative velocity, the displacement will increase per set time so the energy required to hold a constant force will increase

ANY rocket applies force against a mass with a constant relative velocity of 0

so the displacement is a constant, it does not increase with velocity.

it is the distance the rocket has to accelerate the propellant

when i said "a rockets power is measured in newton not watts", i was using the term in a trivial sense, a rocket will apply a constant force no matter what velocity it's travelling at using a constant amount of energy because the mass it is applying force against is stationary relative to the rocket.

australia:

politically, economically and seismically stable, beat weather, and plenty of sun

perth has been rated the best city worldwide alongside vancouver

the only problem is the eratic weather patterns exacerbated by climate change, we never seem to get a reliable forecast that's valid for more than a few hours.

when you put them back together, they will have the same force as the original,

but i think that the two halves will have just more than half the pulling power each. (i dont think a series configuration is that efficient)

i really think that the increase of power will be determined by power of the original, in a lower power magnet, there are more particles yet to be polarised so a series configuration will yeild more % increase than higher power magnets of the same shape and composition.

Rocket man you misunderstood my terms' date=' P represents power (FV or E/T), and you can be quite assured that power times time equals energy. You can also be quite assured that the basic laws of physics are the same on earth as they are in space, in other words my math applies to both the car and the ion rocket (conventional rockets are more complicated).

 

the problem with your logic is that the limiting factor here is the amount of power available to the rocket and not the force applied, also be sure you don't think of the rocket's reference frame as a valid one, as it is accelerating.[/quote']

 

i thought your p was momentum.

 

my refrence frames were on the rocket's centre of mass before and after it fires a particle, they dont move, they get replaced.

 

there is no difference between a conventional rocket and an ion rocket, an ion rocket uses electricity to accelerate a mass of propellant, while a conventional rocket uses gas pressure.

when a rocket exceeds it's exhuast velocity, the kinetic energy comes from the propellant being decellerated by the force from the engine.

at low velocities, a rocket is extremely inefficient, al most all of the energy goes into the propellant. at high velocities, energy is taken away from the propellant.

 

a rocket's power is measured in newtons not watts, F/M = A

a rocket's acceleration will be constant using a constant force as rockets do.

anti matter has been created, google the CERN antiproton decellerator, anti matter behaves EXACTLY like normal matter, they created several hundred anti protons, held them isolated an a magnetic bottle, and fired positrons at them to make anti hydrogen, they then left containmet and neutralised against the casing, anihilating one electron and one proton from the casing material per one anti hydrogen atom.

i think they also had diatomic molecules forming in the anti hydrogen.

their relationship to time is the same as ordinary matter.

you raise a valid point, kinetic energy does not follow a linear increase with respect to velocity, however this does not apply to rockets.

there are key differences between acceleration in rockets and cars ect.

in a car at a standstill, a small amount of kinetic energy will apply a large acceleration, the acceleration will drop off as the total energy increases.

in a rocket, you are applying a force against an ever replaced propellant,

the propellant is forced out the back and each particle will gain a set momentum.

the momentum laws will apply to the craft itself and the particle about to be fired. the particles already fired are essentially excluded from the equation since they cannot apply any force what so ever.

so say each particle gains 1 unit of momentum relative to the craft, the craft will gain 1 unit of momentum per particle it fires. if it fires one particle per second, the momentum and velocity will increase linearly.

if you really wanted to, you could take a look at the center of mass including all particles and the craft, the center of mass will only remain in fixed and constant motion if the rocket accellerates uniformly.

looking at your math, E=1/2 MV^2

PT does not equal kinetic energy

your math is suggesting that MVT = 1/2 MV^2

the magnetic feild of the earth was used for navigation before anyone ever thought of the concept of magnetics. they found minerals rich in magnetite, hung them from strings and got their bearings off that. this was done with the thinking of a flat earth, the rock simply stayed at the same angle relative to the ground.

no one could have thought of a magnetoshpere untill they thought of a round earth.

you could try googling "history, magnetic, navigation"

an ion engine can accelerate steadily up to almost any velocity, mass ejected out the back will provide constant acceleration, discounting inertial dialation at high velocities (large fractions of C).

an accelerometer on board will register a constant acceleration though, acceleration is a function of time and the inertial dialation is exactly proportional to time dialation. (very probably the same thing)

the only limitations on an ion engine are the power supply and fuel capacity.

exceeding exhaust speed is no problem, the force is applied against already moving particles, momentum laws still apply.

modern ion rockets use solar power, but you can use any power source, deep space satellites (old tech) use a lump of sub critical plutonium and a thermopile cell. they deliver about 1-4 watts.