[Tycho?]

We have a chemistry forum. Also, what is the point of this thread?

Recoil isn't a problem in rail guns. Problems are: -how much energy they use, and how to use it efficiently -wear and tear on the rails caused by friction, super high currents and stress can cause the rails to become unusable after only a single shot

This would probably violate a law of thermodynamics. Heat is a very difficult and inefficeint form of energy, you cant take some heat and convert it to electricity without a very large amount of loss. I doubt the system you envision is possible.

Whoops, failed to distinguish between the two.

It looks like you googled any papers dealing with relativity, cut an pasted sentances and paragraphs, and strung them together in a totally random way. You then edited it to make the english unreadable; "I heard as in the human beings history" In conclusion, your "paper" would make a good parody of what a real paper is supposed to be, and I hope dearly that this is just a joke.

c as a constant is a conclusion of SR? How can that be, since c as a constant to all observers is one of the postulates of SR. How would you write the theory without that as a postulate? E=mc^2 is a result of special relativity, he wrote a paper on it the same year as the SR paper. GR was 10 years after SR, basically adds gravity to SR.

This should probably go in the engineering forum.

Yes! That was exactly the example I gave when I was asking about it. I didn't see how two observers could agree in a situation like that, but I was assured that yes, a mass moving quickly enough would indeed collapse into a black hole. This is irritating, I keep on going back and forth here.

Post your freaking theory already so we can be done with this. If you want to go off topic, make new threads.

Yes, the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. Nobody has a good reason why. The mysterious force causing this is called "dark energy" or sometimes the cosmological constant, and old relic of Einstiens original General Relativity equations. He added this constant so that a static universe would be possible. Once it was observed the universe was not static, he scrapped it.

So an increase in relativistic mass doesn't cause an increase in gravitational attraction? ARG! I've been trying to find the answer to this for a long time, but I always get contradictory answers. Sometimes I hear it one way, sometimes the other. I could swear that some reputable person on these forums told me that the relativistic mass DOES cause an increase in gravity, and I thought I finally had my answer. Now I dont know what to think (again).

Why is it that people who dont know what they're talking about are always the ones to make fabulous breakthroughs that the best minds on the planet have somehow missed for decades (or in this case centuries). "it seems to explain pretty much everything that exists" "If I told you the story of how I realized black holes most possibly operate, you would smack yourself and even laugh." I have no doubt that I would laugh. Post your junk. If someone steals it (rather unlikely) the forum always keeps records of when things are posted, the post date of your paper would be preserved in the archives, along with who posted it, proving that you indeed were the first one to come up with this amazing idea of yours. Maybe I'm being too harsh here, but we get too many "Einstien was wrong" posts here for me to not ridicule you until you post some proof.

If by wheel you mean "stupid invention" then yes.

What in the world are you talking about?

The trouble with this, or any other bit of human technology, means that we lost our hair in quite a short time period.

Yes, the sun is signifigantly more massive than all the planets put together. The planets are attracted to the center of the sun. Because Jupiter happened to form further away. Look up on google or wikipedia some basics, like definitions of orbits, keplers laws... that should clear up these misconceptions you have anyway.

I love you. I even tried looking up radial acceleration, but I couldn't find a concise definition, thanks a bunch. If you're feeling generous you could help me with but a single other one. This one is so easy that I can't get it, and I dont know why. There is an object, who's velocity changes from 3m/s to 2m/s in 4 seconds, giving an average acceleration of -0.25m/s^2. I know the accleration is correct, becuse it was the answer to a question which I got right. The mass of this object is 162 grams. What is the average force over these four seconds? I get F= -0.0405 by multiplying average acceleration times mass. I dont see how this is wrong, so I've tried putting in other values, dividing by 4, making it positve, just doing junk with it. I really have no idea how this is wrong, it could just be I've been working on it for so long there is something obvious that I am unable to see.

That is the graph of the velocity of the rotating object. True or False: A) At time t_3, the magnitude of the tangential acceleration of a point on the rim of the disc is as large as it gets. B) According to convention, the disc rotates counter-clockwise during the interval from t_1 to t_2. C) At time t_3, the radial acceleration of a point on the rim of the disc is zero. D) At time t_2, the angular velocity of the disc is as large as it gets. E) At time t_3, the magnitude of the radial acceleration of a point on the rim of the disc is as large as it gets. F) The acceleration of a point on the rim of the disc points to the axis of the disc at time t_1. I just can't get this darned thing right. I have multiple guesses since its an online assingment, but I obviously am confused about something. I've tried looking up unfamiliar terms like "tangenital acceleration" and the like, but I still get something wrong. (If I get a single wrong, I get the entire question wrong, and so I dont know which or how many individual questions I got wrong) Help would be appreciated.

Visualizing a black hole using that two/three dimensional graph surface is done for convienience. Trying to imagine it in three dimensions, plus time, gives you 4 dimensions to visualize, which seems to be impossible for human brains. About the star collapsing evenenly: I doubt any start would collapse in a perfectly even way, how could it? Density will vary slightly throughout the star, plus you would get a bulge around the equator due to rotation (although this is extremely small). I dont know how or why a rotating black hole (they're called Kerr black holes) would form instead of a static one. Check wikipedia. These simulations do it in 4 dimensions. But how does one display on a screen something that is happening in 4 dimensions? Again, that grapic representation is just there so our puny little eyes and minds can get a grip on what is actually occuring. http://www.wikipedia.com will help you out a lot.

I never would have guessed. Before you invent anything you'll probably want to learn about the basic ideas behind electricity. Saying things like "electricity seeks electricity" shows us that you dont seem to even know what electricity is, let alone how to do anything with it.

Boiling water breaks no chemical bonds.