thedarkshade

um...yeah i just wanna know if there are any kind of metal alloys that can naturally resist the earth's gravitational pull?

Absolutely not! NOTHING can naturally or artificially resist gravitational pull!

What's all this?

 

A photon is an action. Literally. Talking about a photon at rest is talking about a motionless action. It doesn't make sense.

How smart is that???!!!

Then how come that action happens in no time? because photons are beyond the time barrier!

It may sound kinda weird, but I personally think that the quest for finding extra-terrestrial intelligence is just a waste of time! Even if out there is any sign of that, they're smart enough not to be observed!

the way I was told when I asked many years ago is that a flame is simply Gases so hot that they Glow.

Yeah I was told too that fire is a "reddened" gas!

I agree with YT2095! There's no smoke in the oxidation of glucose either. You guys might think that what I'm saying (oxidation of glucose) is stupid and has nothing to do with fire, but they're actually the same thing (just some slight differences)! The differences from pure fire and glucose oxidation is that, in fire that occurs in nature the energy is released explosively and that causes the increase in temperature (more exact heat), but in glucose oxidation the energy is released step by step and in the presence of water. And there is nothing wrong by saying that glucose oxidation is actually a process of burning glucose!

I understand that you aren't building it for mad purposes. I'm just saying that it isn't really necessary. Hot sodium vapor will react with molten potassium chloride to form potassium vapor and sodium chloride. Sodium can be produced from borax by heating it with carbon to 1000 C.

 

Na2B4O7 + 7C --> 2Na + 4B + 7CO

 

This probably isn't a very practical method to make it though

I had a different idea! Like making the "bomb" circular with water and leave a hole to put potassium inside. That put that circular in a bigger circle filled with hydrogen! Then when the small one blasts (because of its potassium reacting with water) it will light the hydrogen released in the reaction with water and then also light the other hydrogen in the big circle, creating so a lot of flame and havoc, but no danger. Right?

This only happens because the denser fluid surrounding the object is being pulled down by gravity more than the object.

Causing the other object a phenomenon called 'anti-gravity' (as far as I know:confused: )

How come antigravity doesn't exist? what about Archimedis force? It pushes everything up (against the gravity attraction) as long as the body weigh ([math]Q = mg[/math]) doesn't exceed Archimedi's force. How can it not exist?

Heavier objects don't fall faster

I think you're crazy. There are many easier ways to make little bombs without potassium. I agree with YT, your professors will be impressed if you bring in a homemade sample of potassium even if it isn't part of a bomb.

Thnx for the compliments Melvin!!! And I'm intentionally building that, of course not for mad purposes. And it's little, but it can do BIG things, it really can, and all I need is just potassium, so could someone just tell how do I get some. And please exclude the method of KCl and KOH hydrolysis because I'm banned to enter school's laboratory for my previous experiments!

I'd really appreciate some help! Please? YT2095??

if you`re into Warnings/Bans or Legal trouble, you May have a point, wanna find out!?

yeah, sure I'd love too, as long as no one gets hurt! I'd really love too!

tell ya what, f**k all that bomb sh*t !!!

 

and just take in the Potassium metal, if you can do that, they will be Plenty Surprised!

But being blown apart is more exciting isn't it!!!

Its not the Safest material to use. It can be used safely but if your unexperienced you can easily hurt yourself. By the sounds of it your new to the world of Chemistry. My advise is NOT to try and get any Potassium. Sure it might be fun sounding but in reality it can lead to some bad things.

 

I think you shoud find something a little safer for now. Then maybe later move onto such stuff.

 

I'm not an experienced chemistest by any means, so I'm not looking to by Potassium. Sure it would be cool but I value my health too much.

 

-Randy

thnx about this, but I plan to do something with it! I have prepared all the necessary other stuffs and all I need is potassium! It's a sort of a bomb (a little one) just to surprise my professors. thnx anyway

Anything that rotates goes clockwise and anti clockwise depending on how you look at it.

Absolutely! It all depends how you look at it! If you look a clock from behind then you'll see it moves counter-clockwise!, but you can't have an absolute frame of reference to decide about either one!

Ok, I think I understand your problem now. The inequality is not

[math]\ln(\frac{x-1}{x+2}) > 0[/math]

but

[math]\ln (x-1) - \ln (x+2) > 0 [/math].

It is the same thing!

Ok, I think I understand your problem now. The inequality is not

[math]\ln(\frac{x-1}{x+2}) > 0[/math]

but

[math]\ln (x-1) - \ln (x+2) > 0 [/math].

The rearranged inequality has a larger definition range than the original inequality. We hopefully agree that the original inequality is not defined for x<1. As a related example: f(x)=x/x is not the same function as g(x)=1.

In a more simple way I think me must put [math] -\ln (x+2)[/math] on the other side so it turns positive and then it goes like this:

[math]\ln x-1 > \ln x+2[/math] and then we drop the logs and as the base is bigger than 1 the inequality sign doesn't change so we get three inequations

[math]x-1 > x+2[/math]

[math]x-1 > 0[/math]

[math]x+2 > 0[/math] the last two equations are because log of negative numbers does not exist!

And then all we got to do is find the values, place them on the number line and the interval that matches with the sign of the inequality is (or are) the solution!

In other words, the photon does have a size, since you start to feel it pushing back against you if you go to close. This happens at about half a fermi, or roughly [math]0.5 \times 10^{-15}[/math]m.

I agree with you! And that push back is because of the distance from the photon. It will not push back any more you are maintaining a distance of [math]3 \times 10^{-10}[/math]m (at least they told us this at school:doh: ), because this distance is said to be neutral. And if the distance is larger then the force should normally be attraction!

What I meant Atheist about drawing number line I meant to draw OX line and put the number we found in there and them take positive side as solutions as the sign was >.

When one strikes the metal plates, they vibrate. These vibrations transfer energy to the air, causing vibrations in the air. These vibrations in the air are what the brain perceives as sound.

Exactly! Waves (or sound) after all are vibrations of molecules in elastic medium! And a wave spread can otherwise be understood as the energy transfer from one molecule to another! One thing that must be understood about wave is the wave source and the interesting thing is that the wave source does not necessarily vibrate, it only rotates!

There are also other important term related with the physics of waves like wavelength, amplitude, frequency, period, wave phase, wave speed etc. If you want any further explanation cscX related to these, just let me know!

I watched some videos lately which were really helpful and according to them the equation I posted earlier has to be solved this way:

logx-1 - logx+2 > 0

logx-1 > logx+2 (drop the logs) and we get

x-1 > x+2 and x-1>0 and also x+2>0

for x-1>0 get clearly get x>1

for x+2>0 we get x>-2

but for x - 1 > x + 2 (x on both sides so they're canceled)

we get -1>2 ; which is impossible so this falls ( at least I think so!)

next what we got to do is draw the number line and but x>1 and x>-2 there, and as the sign is greater (>) then we take positive values.

I think it must be done this way.

what do you guys think?

Maybe this was just an example you made up, but [math]\frac{x-1}{x+2}[/math] cannot be larger than 1.

I didn't make up this example and take another look at it and you'll see that IT IS bigger than 1 (at least according to my book!)

Thanks for all that guys, but could me get to something more practical.

I'll take a very very simple example and you just tell how ti goes:

logx-1 -logx+2>0

then we get logx-1/x+2>0

and according to the rules we learned x-1/x+2>0

and that were it come what I said that you can't multiply with a variable (in this case (x-2).

So what should I do here? Equalize the left side with a zero????

Or it could be this way

logx-1 -logx+2>0

logx-1>logx+2

and then we'd get x-1>0

x+2>0

x-1>x+2

Please Help me!!!

Pretend they're equations until the end, iirc.

How possible is that! You can't multiply with a variable like you do with equations!

Hi everyone!

Lately at school we've been dealing with logarithmic inequations and they seem pretty tricky. So I was wondering if anyone could add a link or just post some useful hints that would help solving these inequations.

I'd appreciate any kind of help!

The coefficient refers to the maximum frictional force that will be present. The force can change, but the coefficient does not.

Well that's different from what we learned at school. Let's refer to this equation that I learned at school and that is for friction force:

F=Nµ (N=Q=mg) /:N

µ=F/N

So by this second equation we can clearly see that with the increase in friction force, we also increase the friction coefficient!

once the applied force exceeds the limiting static friction, the object starts to move, kinetic friction appears.

 

in this case, is it valid that kinetic friction < limiting static friction(or static friction)

It's kinda creepy what you're saying! Friction after all is a fore that acts against the movement! This is why objects won't move infinitely when a force acts on them only once! And if you take a more logical approach to this, you'll see that what you're saying actually makes no sense! Think about Newton's third law. The action force is equal to reaction force. So with the increase in the force that makes the object move, the fiction force must increase too so the coefficient increases!

I think it's rotation too. Because if you throw the ball rotating horizontally in a 180(scale) angle, then it's destination will change from it's primitive direction. But on the other hand you make that rotations possible by throwing it!

Let me make this simplier!

At school we did a very simple experiment! We used different materials and placed them at different angles! The higher the angle, the bigger the friction coefficient, and all the materials started falling down! And all the results were generally the same! With the increase on the friction coefficient each material started to move! That's why kinetic friction coefficient is bigger than static one!

Of course different materials had different numerical values but they all started moving with high friction coefficient! You can try that experiment too if you want, I'll give you the formula, just let me know!