brainfart94

Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About brainfart94

  • Rank
    Quark
  • Birthday 01/15/1994

Profile Information

  • Location
    on Earth!
  • Favorite Area of Science
    astonomy
  1. Why not? I'm sure it doesn't stay the same. That way it wouldn't work, right? Just some common sense
  2. Try checking out the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity Just to outline the main concepts of relativity: -Gravitational pull is due to the curving of spacetime by an object rather than a force, shown in this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Spacetime_curvature.png -"The general principle of relativity states that the laws of physics must be the same for all observers (accelerated or not)." -"the curvature of spacetime and its energy-momentum content are related." -due to the fact that spacetime can be curved by the presense of matter, and that spacetime is non-linear, non-euclidean geometry must be used.
  3. height: 10km width: n/a burn rate: n/a assuming its on a stick, and average liftable "sticks" are about 3 ft long, then height: 10 km width: 3 ft the composition is wood, the pressure is really low due to the altitude, and the temperature is very low due to the cold conditions 10 km up there. So what the heck's the burn rate? I'll leave it up to u less lazy ppl.
  4. thats not much:D height: 10km width: n/a burn rate: n/a composition n/a pressure: n/a temperature: n/a we're getting close...
  5. Here's a simple two word definition: angular momentum. It's simply the force appied to an object that would cause it to move in an angular path. There's nothing there that needs to be "fluffed" up and complicated.
  6. http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20071115/sc_space/incrediblecometbiggerthanthesun And it gets yet even bigger! The diameter of the comet's coma (269,900mi)grows larger than the sun's diameter(264,900mi), making it the largest thing in the solar system.
  7. Well if you assume that they have the same acceleration rate, then they would always have the same velocity. This means that since m2 is in the center of m1, then as the two masses are falling together, m2 will stay in the center of m1 until m1 meets the earth, at which time m2 will continue to fall, going from the center to the bottom of m1. So, m1 would stop and meet the earth a certain amount of time before m2 would. This means that for m2 to meet the earth at the same time as m1 does, then m2 must accelerate more than m1 so that it doesn't stay in the center of the shell, which is contraversial to what you say as the masses having equal attractions.
  8. Here's my 20-30 minute work on this thingamabop. It was more of a puzzle solution rather than using actual science... universe - no life doesn't mean no change life - w/o change = death universe - w/o change = no change death - life w/o time universe -w/o time = w/o life universe = change so, -universe is change and has to have time to have life -universe doesn't have to have life (no life doesn't mean no change, but since the 'universe = change', no life doesn't mean no universe, so u don't need life for a universe) -'no life = death = life w/o time' -universe w/o time has no life, and no life means death -death doesn't have change, unlike life -since life needs change & time, universe is change and has time, so 'universe = life' -but u don't need life for a universe, so for the universe not to have life, and to still be a universe(which is change), dead universe is w/o time, which links back to 'death = life w/o time' -but since death doesn't have change, a dead universe means a universe w/o change & time, thus death is not a possible form of universe because it has no change -so a universe would be w/ life, and life has change & time like a universe, however life doesn't mean change, so life doesn't excactly have change???? so, universe = change life = time death = life w/o change & time, so death is w/o universe & life universe w/o time = w/o life = death, so universe with no life means death...makes sense -universe now doesn't need life and/or death -but,,, no life means death, vice versa -so if universe has time, it has life, -if not, it has death -so does it or does it not have time? -well, universe, = change, which often = life, = time, so universe has time -since universe can also have death, it means if a person is going thru time, he is alive, but when he dies, he loses his perception of time, and thus change -when Bob (let's just call him that) is alive, he has time and is a part of change, aka universe -when Bob kicks the bucket, he cannot see time and change, and is gone from the universe -Bob is now not in a universe of time, thus being dead X_x so, universe is change, which is often life, which requires time, which death is without so a timeless universe is one of no change, life, and time, aka Hell. Got it? :D I'm sure its wrong, but I had fun working out complete nonsense.
  9. brainfart94

    forces

    What rigadin is trying to ask is what causes the force, rather than what it does, and since every force is a result of another force in some way, you could follow a whole chain of different forces that would eventually lead you back to the first force in the universe: the Big Bang. But then that raises your question even further; how the heck did that force occur?