Baby Astronaut

It is an excellent avenue of thought, regardless. iNow's suggestion about a mirrored projection, it could lose "resolution" so that even if you magnified it, the increase of details would possibly be counteracted by fuzziness. However YT2095, it's a novel idea and I wouldn't give up on it just yet. There's bound to be some application for it, maybe in a somewhat unexpected form. Meaning, perhaps not by reflection off everyday mirrors, but instead with a similar approach using related items or avenues of thought. It's how I find things often enough. You got the idea, and it has intrigue, each for a reason. Who knows? Go with your gut.

Neat applications such as? Just curious.

I'm past the introductions stage, but only technically since no one really knows me, and so this will serve as a wannabe-intro and bit of a friendly request. If the following sounds unfriendly or negative, that's not my intent. I do appreciate the help people give on the forums. So without further ado... Please answer my questions as you would if a six year old asked. I often spend years researching things I don't know. So if I'm asking a question, it's because I just can't grasp it further, and not by lack of effort. For instance, it took me over ten years to learn how to do newspaper style columns on a word processor, due mainly to unsatisfactory answers. That's unproductive -- and seemingly like many of the answers I get in this forum. I'm using the knowledge gained to help improve the world. However, I often must put important tasks and research on hold, when seeking answers of things which others have a more intuitive grasp of, yet end up feeling as if I've gotten nowhere. Isn't this forum designed to expand knowledge? I wouldn't mind if it took only a day or even a week of research. But when it takes me years when you obviously know the answer, what's the sense of that? If you would like to know how I'm using the information to help better the world, I'll gladly share that with anyone. Simply PM me.

I second Mokele's and Snail's definitions of "scientist". Hope you don't mind, but I've taken the liberty to rephrase your statement. "it seems that backing statements up that are contrary to proven science, come hand-in-hand with what i said." I'd wager that anyone here who makes such claims would be asked to supply proof, no matter how popular or respected. If you can provide even one name of someone you think is given preferential treatment, I can likely find you post where they made a claim that seemed extraordinary, and where at least one member asked for verification. I've seen it with at least three members of influence here. But mostly, they recognize in advance if their statements would seem extraordinary in light of proven science, and provide links and/or quote sources. Personally, I wouldn't take offense. It's not scientific to "just take my word for it". Science requires lots of references to other works. That's simply how it is.

Hmm, just in time for the serious Explorer flaw... Coincidence?

You might want to switch to another browser or something until this is resolved, if you're using Internet Explorer.

Not quite. CaptainPanic had it right. Your statement is a bit inaccurate. The main reasons for our involvement was self-defense and retaliation. Fighting solely for peace and democracy became a centerpiece of later wars. If business must profit to survive, and if businesses are intertwined with our military, it's probably safe to assume where 1 + 1 is going. Remember, the groups have plenty money which finds talented minds to craft statements of highly convincing logic.

It'd not only be interesting if yes, but it'd also turn the science establishment on its head. Therefore, I really hope you're right. I wouldn't know either way

Nah, some of life is about doing stuff for others, some of life is getting stuff done for you, and some of life is doing stuff by yourself. The second link even spells out the equations for you. How bad for humanity.

My level of math. + - X / 2x + 5x = 7x. My level of science. E=mc2 (never actually calculated it) The rest is things in basic English, with a few terms here and there. Is it possible for me to get an answer like, "To move a kilogram up to 99% light's speed, it would take (number with digits only) joules of energy. And two kilograms would take double the number of joules"? Or is that beyond the abilities of science?

I probably overcomplicated the question. Here it is again without ice or vapor considerations. If it takes 1 calorie to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree Celcius, will it take 50 calories to its temperature from 30 degress Celcius to 80 degrees Celcius?

If it takes 1 calorie to raise the temperature of water by 1 degree Celcius, will it take 100 calories to bring the same amount of ice to a boil?

Here is a good example of matching energy levels between completely different things. Quoted from Wikipedia.

How many joules of energy is needed to go 99% the speed of light?

"The spectrum of energy density fluctuations is scale-invariant (the same amplitude on all scales)." Its context is below and at this link.

This got me thinking, a rod about a light-hour long would have a lot of mass. What if a rod were long enough to have higher mass than a black hole? Would its length prevent it from becoming one (due to the weak gravity between its ends)? As for Transdecimal's question, I can't answer it but nevertheless -- awesome question!

Wouldn't know.

http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2008/phot-46-08.html Images and video of nearly 30 stars whose orbit around the Milky Way black hole was tracked for the past 16 years.

Don't subatomic things pop into existence out in space, in pairs then annihilating each other? They would probably fit under "energy".

That's OK, I didn't ask for the energy of the blast. Just the sound. My questions is not what formulas each have. Rather, I'm asking to compare different thing that would be have same energy. For example, take the list below. That's what format I'm after. wind strength of Hurricane Andrew 40 people jumping at once A 50 foot wave crashing down Although my example comparisons are highly inaccurate, that's the format I seek. No equations or jargon. Thank you for attempt, however your response doesn't fit the question asked.

By that definition, wouldn't heat be "everything"? a knock on the door a voice in the wind cold air blown from an AC unit and hitting one's skin Those all seem like a flow of energy from one system to another. Or would it be a constant flow of energy?

Desiring to know how various types of energy compare to one another, I am creating a sort of game/exercise for any takers. You start with one type of energy source and its level of energy, then draw comparisons to other energy sources and list the individual amounts needed in order for their energy levels to match. I've started it with the Krakatoa eruption of 1883 that was heard in several nations. What is your prediction of the amount of energy in that sound? After figuring that out, predict what amounts the others would need to match that sound's energy. Sound: Krakatoa volcano in 1883 (loudest recorded sound in history) Fire: what size forest fire would match that energy level? TnT: how much would match that energy level? Speed: what velocity (mph) would match that energy level? etc. You can make your own list too.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/sugar-molecule.html?npu=1&mbid=yhp They've detected a sugar molecule 26,000 light years away. Cool news for extraterrestrial-life, but how on Earth did they view it? (pun accidental)

I take it pm is parts per million and nm is nanometers? If so, how many pm would equal 1 nm?

I'm simply not understanding what you're saying. In particular, the quoted parts below. (remember, when using references to other things, I don't have the background you do) What comparison? ? When can I use it, and when shouldn't I? Please be clear. (no offense )