[Tycho?]

I lost you at that last paragraph of yours, care to go into more detail on that?

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/15898729.htm

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/11/republican-fake-phone-call-scandal.html

I normally dont talk politics on this board, but I felt obliged to. The GOP have a wonderful new tactic this year, making automated calls that claim to from a Democrat. They repeat these calls over and over and over again, in the hope that the voter in question will get so pissed off at these "democrat" calls that they wont vote democrat. Awesome. These are just two links I came across, but news of this seems to be spreading, I'm sure you could find more info on it easily on various political blogs or a google search. This sort of crook tactic just makes me sick.

So yeah, that site does not make any sense at all.

The power device behind the motor of the rotation device serves as the disturbance device, which disturbs the current of the gravitational field...

What? "disturbes the current of the gravitational field? What does this even mean? How can a gravitational field have a current?

Gravitational field matter can be called "gfm" for short. The definition of the antigravitational field is the moving gfm. The current of the gfm of a body causes waves in the local gfm of the universe. Under certain conditions, such currents and waves can drag spacetime and drag the inertial frame, and can cause microscopic and macroscopic quantum phenomena. The definition of antigravitation is the effect of inertial frame dragging of the moving gfm.

"Gravitational field matter"? "local gfm of the universe"? The definition of antigravitation? Thats not a definiton, not with these terms.

a = 16π3 m r4 / ( c h T4 )

Where did that equation come from, how do we know it works?

the acceleration of the boat is not related to the total mass of the boat as far as classical physics is concerned, and this shows the antigravitational effect

Why isn't the acceleration of the boat "related" to the total mass?

Because of the macroscopic quantum effect, when being controlled by the gfm current, the boat is in uncertain spacetime, and hence it moves now fast, now slow, now forward, now backward, and sometimes it stops for a while.

How does being in an "uncertain spacetime" (another thing that is not defined) mean the boat will go fast, slow, forward, backward, and sometimes stop? Forward backward. Fast slow. Stop. What other things can a boat do? You dont seem to be able to predict the movement at all.

So, just because you are using the term "antigravitation engine" I'm just going to call you a crackpot first for good measure, once I read the site I'll probably go into more detail.

20 this month.

It is because the monolith has entered the Jovian atmosphere, and has begun to reproduce.

Sweeeeet.

I don't understand why many people won't participate in this.

Why would they? I usually have better things to do than solve high school physics problems.

If there are no interfaces then where is all the antimatter? Does the matter "zone" go on forever without any sign of antimatter?

Yes, as far as anyone can tell, antimatter is not present in observable quantities in our universe. Which is puzzling.

I need help with hw .. heres the question please correct me if i am rong

 

Ice is put in a cooler in order to cool the contents. To speed up the cooling process, the ice can be

A. Wrapped in newspaper

B. Kept out of contact with the food

C. crushed.

D. Drained of Ie water periodicly.

ANSWER: C. crushed. <-- pretty sure Crushed will have a larger surface area, therefore a larger area that can be cooled at once

Right

A volume of air has a temperature of 0degrees Celsius. An equal volume of air that is twice as hot has a temperature of

A. 100degree Celsius

B. 0degree Celsius

C. 2degree Celsius * i think its this one not sure*

D. 273degree Celsius

ANSWER: B. 0degree Celsius, I thought of this as a math problem because of the key word "is" which means multiply .. so 0 times 2=0

I dont know why you think "is" means multiply, it just means is. But regardless, you are wrong. 0 degrees is a temperature, so twice as hot cannot be the same temperature, even if the math seems to indicate it. 0 degrees celcius = 273 Kelvin. So the correct answer is 273 degrees celcius

Compared to a glass of ice water with ice in it, a glass of plain ice-cold water without ice on a warm day will warm up

A. Faster * i think its this 1 not 100% sure*

B. Slower

C. In the same amount of time.

ANSWER: C I think its in the same amount of time because even though both are not the same, they still warm up in the same rate.

Faster. The one with ice will heat up more slowly... because there is ice in, obviously. A is correct.

In the mountains, water boils at

A. a lower temperature than at sea level

B. Higher temperature than at sea level

C. Same temperature as at sea level

ANSWER: A Since the mountain is really high it takes a lower temperature? thats just a guess i am not sure.

Yes, higher altitude means lower pressure, means less energy required to make the water boil, so lower temperature. A is right.

When a volume if air is compresed, its temperature

A. Increase * im like 90% sure*

B. Decrease

C. Neither

 

 

When a volume of air is compresed, its temperature

A. Increase

B. Decrease

C. Neither

ANSWER: A When volume increase temperature decrease but when volume is compressed temperature is increease? i think thats how it works

Yup

If an object radiates more energy than it absorbs, it's

A. temperature decreases

B. Thermal energy decreases

C. Both of these

ANSWER: C I think when anything radiates more energy than it absorbs, it has something to do with both temperature decrease and thermal energy decrease

Correct.

The reason the sun's radiate energy is of shorter wave lenths than the Earth's is because the sun

A. Has a higher temperature than Earth

B. Has much more thermal energy

C. is an energy source while the Earth is primily an energy reciever

ANSWER: i am clueless rite here please help

The other questions were things usually taught in a chemistry class, but this is very much a physics question, and not one a layperson would likely know. A would be the best answer, B would be correct, but not really the answer, C doesn't have anything to do with the question.

You must be confused about something for your first point. Transuranic elements dont occur in nature (in quantities large enough to detect) because of their short half-lives. I assume that some plutonium is created in supernovae, which is where all elements heavier than iron are created. But the plutonium would decay quite quickly, and so by the time earth formed and humans started walking around looking for radioactive elements, any plutonium formed originally had been gone for a very, very long time.

About the proton shock im not so sure. It would feel like an electric shock, indeed there is a type of lightning that works via the movement of positive charges. I dont know about the practical part of this however.

Ohhhh that'd be so fun.

Distance up equals distance down. One distance equation will just be your kinematics equation d=.5aT^2, the other will be speed of sound (Vs) times the time it takes for the sound to get up the well (Ts). These two equations equal eachother, you will be able to solve for one of the T's in terms of another. You know that T+Ts=1.89. You now have two equations and two variables, solve how you like.

Not bad for a person who's high, although it did take me a few minutes to figure that out

Well, actually I know nothing about procedures and politics around selecting candidates for Nobel Prize. (And barely have a simple understanding of how Relativity is supposed to work.)

 

But from my experiences I know that such controversies can make a big difference.

 

Hopefully someone else can explain, maybe Martin ?

No, you are confused about what I am asking.

Einstien didn't win the prize for special relativity largely because it was so controversial. Fine. But its generally agreed today that he *should* have won one, that what he did was worth the prize. Same for brownian motion. I am asking why he did not deserve one for general relativity. This question has nothing to do with how the prizes are actually given out, I dont care what the Nobel Prize comittee thinks on the issue. Physicsits think special relativity was worth the prize; why dont physicists think the same for general relativity?

Ahhh, I'm inclined to think most of those disputes arose only due to Einstiens fame, since the people he supposedly plagarized didn't press the issue at all.

But that aside. Special relativity is where most of the controvesy lies, yet it is generally agreed that the paper was worth a nobel prize. So any controversies aside, why is general relativity so much less important?

Mmmmhmm, so new physical principal that nobody has noticed? Yet you find it hard to get papers published?

The important discovery is that there is a constant wave-elongation that is proportional to the waves' propagated distance.

This new discovery implies that the long searched natural law and mechanical principle behind the radiation entropy now is found.

This simple entropy law is the same for electrodynamics (light) and hydrodynamics (water-waves) and aerodynamics (sound).

Color me skeptical.

Check wikipedia. If you are thinking of Einstiens field equations, they are available on wikipedia.

I think they put atomic clocks at the top and bottom of a water tower, and measured the difference.

I think conservation of energy plays a role here. Generating air frition means you are very un-aerodynamic, and things that are very un-aerodynamic have a way of falling more than they do flying.

Ok, big important point:

Gravity does not require matter, it requires energy. Remember E=mc^2. So saying there was no gravity because there was no matter is incorrect. So long as there is energy, then there is gravity.

It is generally agreed that Einstien should have won 3 nobel prizes instead of just the one that he did win. These would be for his paper published in 1905, on the photoelectric effect (that he did win one for), for special relativity and for brownian motion. This makes sense, considering how important these were.

But what about General Relativity? I mean, even moreso than Special Relativity, this seems to fundamentally change the way we look at the universe. He did nothing less than replace newtons law of universal gravitation; one of the most important laws in physics. I would think that this, even moreso than his other would would earn a nobel prize. Yet it never seems to come up. Why is this?

I guess that's what I need to focus on is reference frame. The point Greene is trying to make is that Slim will see Jim's clock running slow, while Jim will see Slim's clock running slow.

 

So, it sounds like you have to carefully think out all of the forces involved to establish if you have force-free motion. At that point, both observers have an equal claim on being stationary and the other's clock is running slow. Otherwise, one is accelerating which establishes who is in motion.

 

So, how does acceleration really change anything, in terms of clocks running slow or fast? What if Slim were to slowly accelerate throughout his run from point A to point B, from 120 mph to 200 mph? Wouldn't they both still see each other's clocks running slower?

Bringing acceleration into moves us from special relativity to general relativity; where the math gets a lot harder. This specific example may or may not be difficult, but I have yet to see a simple equation like this for general relativity.

Ok, now that part I understand. Einstein's general relativity was validated by that event.

 

What I'm talking about though is the time part. How do we know spacetime warps and not just space? I mean, is it just the math, or is there a way to validate that through experiment?

Look up general relativity, I'm pretty sure there have been experiments to show time dilation results from a gravitational field.

You know, if you have an argument you could go on and explain it...

(instead of making sarcastic posts)

I wasn't being sarcastic, I was genuinely suprised. I know a fair amount about space travel (so I thought) but I had no idea about this.

Wow, I had no idea the Russians landed rovers on mars, especially that long ago.

some people have also proposed Banards Star as our binary star.

I dont know who would propose something so stupid, but you shouldn't listen to anything else they say. I looked up how far away Berhnards star is (about 6 light years, further than alpha centauri). A quick calculation shows that Berhnards star would have an accelertation due to gravity from the sun of something on the order of 10^-12 m/s^2. Which is to say, the effect is effectively zero.