Jump to content

Samm

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Samm

  1. I think quality shouldn't be sacrificed for speed. As far as I can tell, some of the people here on this forum seem incredibly knowledgeable within their fields (I'm definitely not one of these people). But they've got lives to lead, and don't really have a great deal of time for answering everyone's questions. Maybe it's a good idea to read good physics books. I know that when I get out of high school (this is the final year, the pressure is on!), the first things on my reading list will be penned by Richard Feynman.
  2. Looks like we're making progress. To be fair, you looked as if you were attempting to discredit General Relativity, by stating: As if that somehow meant something, other than General Relativity isn't 100% perfect. If temperature is the average kinetic energy of particles randomly bouncing off each other, in different directions, then no. Photons are the messenger particles for the electromagnetic force. Entropy and photons have little to do with one another. Entropy is just a measure of how much non "useful" energy there is in a system ie. how much energy ca
  3. I think it's where the electrons or other charged particles travel faster through a medium than the speed of light in that medium. And then this produces radiation through some mechanism that I don't understand. Edit: On further research it has to be a dielectric medium. But I don't really know what that means either.
  4. Kinetic energy and quantum mechanics IS physics. What you're saying doesn't make any sense. It's not physics. I mean from what I can see, you're trying to establish that objects stop in time because measurements are events that don't occur continuously. As you're very keen to point out, measurements are distinct from the object. The measurement is just an image that we can see of what's going on, so... what does that have to do with any objects actually stopping in space, let alone time? And if a law of thermodynamics was disproved, it would be the largest science news was disproved, it w
  5. I wouldn't agree entirely on that. If it is man-made and we are in fact causing global warming or climate change, we can actually take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce hence future warming.
  6. Although somewhat speculative, Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot was excellent. Wonders of the Universe, by Brian Cox is probably my favourite book out of all the books I've read.
  7. That would be true if the car was on a frictionless road, driving in a perfect vacuum.
  8. Apologies for the missing equation. For some reason I can't edit the post, so here it is:
  9. About the transformer, I meant a power source which, while DC, could have its voltage changed. Sorry for the confusion. And yes, the pentiometer seems to fit exactly with what I remember about the circuit design.
  10. Lawrence Krauss once proposed something like that. He basically shows that the universe has no total energy (gravitational potential energy is negative) because it's geometry is flat. Now the interesting part is that with no total energy, the universe could have come from a quantum fluctuation; virtual particles popping in and out of existence.
  11. Now I remember distinctly that one of my science teachers described to me a circuit that one could use to measure the potential difference of a galvanic cell; it's E0 value, ie. it's electric potential where there is no current. It involved a transformer, a micro-ammeter, the galvanic cell and a rheostat. I want to know how it works and possibly get more info on the subject. Cheers.
  12. There's a formula for the force of gravity upon two objects: , Where: F = the force between the masses. G = the gravitational constant m1 = the first mass m2 = the second mass r = the distance between either mass. It's called Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. If we're talking about an object falling towards earth, we can make the mass of earth m1 and the mass of the falling object m2. Now it just so happens that the acceleration of an object is equal to the force on it divided by its mass (a = F/m). So that means we can divide Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation by m2
  13. First of all, I'd like to point out that there is no such thing as an "energy particle". There are messenger particles of different forces which can transmit energy (eg. the photon), but inside them we don't find "energons". Energy is an abstract concept; the ability to do work. These particles merely possess that ability. You also seem to have a very strange understanding of Einstein's E=mc2 formula. It simply shows that matter and energy are equivalent that energy has mass and that matter has energy, and that you can change matter into energy and vice versa. If you're interested have a r
  14. It appears as if 2010 was the warmest year on record, equal with 2005, according to NASA and NOAA. It's interesting to note that the latter half of the year was actually influenced by a strong La Nina event, which is usually associated with cooler conditions. NOAA source NASA source
  15. First of all, it is not exactly the same. The most recent one lasted longer and warmed more than the previous periods of warming. And what are the odds of a non-linear chaotic system producing similar outputs if the most of the inputs remain much the same. I don't see it is as too improbable. Well, I can cite a paper that supports these statements. I can't prove it, I can provide evidence in it's favour. Here is a graph depicting the temperature rise due to the various different influences on climate. From Lean, J. L., and D. H. Rind (2008). Additionally, the "current lack of wa
  16. The graph, it's a strawman. That doesn't show the actual level of CO2 in the atmosphere, it shows the level of CO2 Emissions. Additionally, there is actually a delay between the time the CO2 is emitted and the entirety of its effects are felt. There appears to be nothing wrong with hypothesis 1. The fact is that although the warming periods are similar, the causes of them can differ. ENSO oscillations and other climatic variations still influence the current warming we are seeing. The fact is that the warming period in the past was probably caused by such effects, while today's warming is
  17. That's the reasoning I used. But then, I'm some silly high school student.
  18. I like to think of it this way: xn=x(n+1)/x Although the above equation is pretty obvious, it helps to illustrate the idea. Let x be 4 and n be 0. 40=4(0+1)/4=1 You could think of it another way. When multiplying or dividing by indices, you add or subtract the indices. So: 41/41=1 Which could be rewritten as: 40=1 I hope it makes more sense now.
  19. Yeah, I'd like to see it in literature as well. It's more permanent, and adds a sense of reliability to the source. Speaking of which, that the constant 0.5 degree/100 years with a superimposed 60 year harmonic cycle, what does it show? Right. I suppose that speaks about the general niceness of climate scientists then. Yeah, that sounds quite severe. I agree what you're saying in that abrupt climate change can occur, but that is usually caused by very extreme circumstances. Such circumstances don't seem to be occurring at the moment, the only thing extreme appears is the level of
  20. Thank you. I find it rather funny that the people in the comments sections often devolve into flaming on those climate blogs. Hmm. I probably should do a little more reading into that. Yeah. That's pretty deplorable. I don't think anyone really deserves that sort of treatment for, almost anything. I mean, what's the writer of the email trying to do? Curry's not even a skeptic herself.. However, Spencer does seem a little weird. I can understand getting aggravated by his current predicament, but he seems a lot more accusational than that. GCRs? I'm not exactly su
  21. I can say, I didn't know the hydrogen reacted continually, during some of the more energetic alkali-water reactions. Yeah, the hydrogen definitely combusts quickly during the pop test, I would almost describe it as a small explosion.
  22. I'm pretty sure that's what makes the "pop" test work. You light a flame near the supposed hydrogen source and see if you can hear a "pop". It only works with relatively large quantities of hydrogen. It's a simple experiment and was actually performed by one of my science teachers. It also should be noted that a number of the alkali metals react in a very nasty way to water. Some of the more inert ones produce bubbles. Which are probably hydrogen and if there's enough bubbles, it might be worthwhile doing the pop test. On a slightly different note, I remember the same science teacher
  23. Thanks actually. I'm glad I'm actually getting recognition from some of the more senior members of this forum, even if they disagree with me. Well, if it is true that the YD period is caused by a decrease of heat moving towards the Northern Hemisphere, and the radiative, greenhouse and other forcings stay roughly the same, one would expect a higher concentration of heat in the Southern Hemisphere. Yes, that point is made. The hypothetical causes were actually quite interesting. Thanks for posting it up there. Okay. Roy Spencer... He's said this, it seems a little
  24. So you're accepting that the time-dialation predicted by Einstein's relativity as fact? See, the twin paradox doesn't have anything to do with how old the twins look, it's do with how old they are. The twins could be interchanged with clocks anything else and the result would still be the same. And why would a fast moving animal be affected by failing organs and a weaker immune system? If you want to understand relativity, I would highly recommend this book: Relativity Visualised. I'm not a scientist or anything, but Epstein really manages to explain the theory almost entirely without
  25. I'm don't think that is entirely correct. I hadn't really realised this at first, but the Younger Dryas appears to be confined to the Northern Hemisphere. This article: What Caused the Younger Dryas Event, by Anders E. Carlson, published in Geology says the following: So while the Younger Dryas may have been greater in magnitude than the current warming we are seeing now it was actually more limited in terms of extent. Furthermore, there appears to be a prevailing theory among climate scientists. The same article goes on to say: I was referring to the cause of the Youn
×
×
  • 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.