igosaur

The thought just occurred to me that someone would weigh more on either of the poles than they would on the equator!

I wonder what the difference would be?

If you did jump out of a spaceship in the vacuum of space with no hope of rescue.

Consider how lucky you have been that life has been so good to you up until this point. If life hasn't been that good to you, which, considering your current situation seems more likely, consider how fortunate you are that it won't be bothering you for much longer.

Do electrons 'actually' orbit the nucleus or is it, as someone has suggested, simply a probability density function?

But isn't space a vacuum ?

It would seem to me that with no resistance, that the shock wave from the CREATION of all things would keep on going forever with nothing to impede the motion, and that it would be a perfect sphere going outward in all directions at once.

But in at least four physical dimensions. With the 3D Universe that we inhabit being the surface of this 'sphere'.

In this case from our 3D perspective there can be no end to space in exactly the same way that there can be no centre to the universe.

To use a 2D in a 3D world analogy, the surface of the Earth has no centre nor can you find the end. This is the way the Universe works except in at least 4 dimensions. There may well be a location for the big bang but it certainly isn't located anywhere in our Universe and as far as finding the edge of the Universe, well, it's everywhere, it's just that you would have to travel in a direction which isn't up/down, left/right or back/forth to get there.

You've been watching Men in Black again haven't you?

Space doesn't end in the same way that the surface of the Earth doesn't end. On the other hand, you could leave our Universe if you could find a way to travel at right angles to all three dimensions, so perhaps the end of space is in fact closer than the distance between a proton and it's electrons.

I expect that the Earth would be quite happy to have a collision with this asteroid in the same way that a sheep is quite happy to take a dip in a bath of chemicals to get rid of all those nasty parasites...

If I had a piece of string that was about 2mm thick but infinitely long it would have infinite mass.

But, if you had two pieces of string like this would yours have twice the mass of mine?

If so, how? Because my string still has infinite mass.

And another thing. How is it possible to see light from the very very early Universe when surely the light that we are observing should have reached our current location in space long before the mass that makes us up did?

I stand corrected..

How about when the Sun has finally blown itself to bits and ends up as a white dwarf. How will that effect bodies like Pluto?

As the Sun is loosing something like 400 million tonnes a second in mass it must therefore be getting smaller. As it gets smaller its gravitational influence on the planets must therefore be lessening.

Is it therefore reasonable to say that as the Sun gets smaller the planets are very slowly drifting further and further away?

I used to work in a nursrey (the greenhouse kind) and would spend all day in the blistering sunlight and come out just a pasty and white as when I went in.

If the Earth is rotating faster than the Moon orbits giving rise to tidal forces which are speeding up the moons orbit and thus increasing it's distance from the Earth, will there come a point where the rotation of the Earth and the orbit of the Moon will match and then stay that way indefinitely or will it never quite catch up?

It it could be that gravity is confined to 'clumps' of different universes rather than the infinite number that is predicted.

Basically, we have our own electromagnetic forces, nuclear forces etc but we have to share gravity with a few friends

Fascinating

Or it could be that the event, rather than entering your memory after you consciously experience it is bypassing this and jumping directly to your memory before your consciousness giving you a memory of the event as well as the experience itself.

I'm not too proud to ask for a clue. Preferably a nice big one

The blind man is wearing a black hat and the other two red.

I'm assuming that because both sighted men say "I can tell what colours you are wearing" rather then colour (singular) that they are both looking at different coloured hats.

And if both the sighted men see different coloured hats then it must be the blind man who is wearing black.

Of course it could be the other way around with the blind man wearing red and the others both wearing black and given that the room is full of black hats I'd say this option had a much higher probability.

Now that's impossible!

Well prove that entity exists!

 

(I know what you mean, I'm on your side:))

For an entity to be both omnipotent and omniscient at the same time.

Impossible??

Coming up with something that is impossible.

Time is an illusion caused by the passage of history.

Is it possible that the Universe is no larger now than it was the instant it came into existance so instead of space expanding it is in fact matter that is shrinking?

So an outside observer, presumably a 4D fellow, would see no real difference.

Quick question that has been bugging me for a while.

I was looking into the recent discovery of a new 'Earth like' world, Gliese 581 c, which has a mass 5 times that of the Earth.

However, its gravity would only be twice that of our planet.

Question: Why is the gravity not 5 times as much if the mass is?

I would have thought that the car would slow down as it is having to convert the raindrops into a horizontal momentum.

You could imagine that as a raindrop falls down into the car, the car will then have to drag that drop forwards. This will cause friction and therefore it must slow down.

Surely, the downward energy of the raindrop would be converted to heat, sound etc. as it would if the car were stationary and so the energy needed to make the raindrop go forwards would have to come from the rail car, thus, slowing it down.

An open railroad car is rolling horizontally, without friction, in a heavy rainstorm, where all the raindrops are falling vertically.

 

1. What will happen to the horizontal speed of the car as it fills with rain? What will happen to its momentum?

 

2. When the raindrops hit the car, they lose their vertical momentum. How is momentum conservation working here?

 

** My answers

1. The horizontal cart will only increase in mass and its velocity will remain constant (assuming the rain does not slow down the car). Therefore its momentum increases.

2. My guess is that since the raindrops' momentum is zero after the collision, momentum of the entire system is conserved because the car increases momentum.

 

Are these answers correct or am I missing something?

I think that if there is a successor to Einstein then it must be Ed Witten.