CPL.Luke

when your muscles do work they release a bit of heat into the surrounding enviroment so the glass would warm up minutely (enough to be considered neglagible) lets take an example of me carrying a marble up to the top of a cliff. why would potential energy only be built up while I am carrying the ball up the cliff. if I were to stand there it should continue to build up if what your saying is true because I am still under the influence of gravity. Its still pulling down on me with the same force. so why would potential energy just stop building up when I reached the top of the cliff. or what would happen if an asteroid jsut streaked in from interstellar space as it enters the earths gravitational field it has never been lifted from. I think it would be accelerated towards the earth. however if potential energy was real and a prerequisit for an object to fall, then the asteroid would continue without being affected by the earths gravitational field. an object 150 miles above the surface of the ground has less potential energy than an object 100 miles above the ground. know how I came up with that, gravity at 100 miles above the surface of the ground comes under a slightly greater gravitational force than an object located 150 miles above the ground.

yeah youre right I just looked it over again I assumed something I shouldn't have

thats the same as saying E=mc^2 +pc

I don't think its drawn right, where did you get the problem? angle cde should be 45 because, a line that bisects bcd should be equal to y however more importantly it would make it 45 45 90 and angle cde is not 54 because it does not intersect with point b

its just that you stated e/c when I asked you what p meant so I figured that you could plug that in for p wich just looking at the way I set it up if a photon had a mass of zero you still have E=(E/c)^2c^2 giving us the same problem that I stated before E= to a value greater than E for instance if e were 2 2=(2/186000)^2(186000)^2 2=(1.075268817e-10)(186000^2) 2=4 if I screwed up somewhere please correct me

out of curiosity what season was the second one taken in and at what time approximate?

the feet and meters thing was about the mars lander a while bck that slammed into the ground

I know, but my understanding of the phenomena is that when the current is provided in between the two electrodes the deuterium as it is sepperated gathers at one of the electrodes and becomes more dense after a certain point the density becomes high enough that the deuterium starts to fuse producing energy. so if its a phenomena brought on by density then very very cold deuterium should also exhibit the process

yeah so I was trying to say tht that was the source of what he was thinking he saw with gravitational light refraction the beam was just wider than what he believed it to be

swansont that makes that equation no longer work As energy for a photon would look like this E=mc^2+(E/c)^2 x c^2 thus energy would be greater than the photons energy, which is a contradiction correct me if I am misunderstanding what you said before

I think I see what your saying now however, the energy does not flow into the water. as it is raised. because, this would imply that if the water just appeared magiclly in its elevated state it could not fall because it was never "charged" with work energy in order to fall. I understand that with conservation of energy energy can't dissapear, but it always goes somewhere. It is converted from chemical to kinetic (heat in this case) which then flows into the surrounding enviroment can you explain some of the equations that you posted, I'm curious if those are for calculating the potential energy or for calculating the strength of the field

sorry, I guess I was reffering to swansont on that one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon an article on a superluminal particle that may have a real mass my understanding of relativity is that if a particle were to reach light speed it would take an infinite amount of energy. however (newton) if a particle took infinite energy to accelerate to a certain speed it would also take infinite energy to decelerate it. thus all things moving slower than the speed of light will stay slower than the speed of light, a particle moving at the speed of light will stay moving at the speed of light (einstein said this). if a particle had no mass how would it be effected by gravity, I know that GR states that space is warped by mass so, I do know a good amount of the concepts just not the math. If someone could enlighten me to this It would be very much appreciated. Swansont can you say what p stands for in that equation?

out of curiosity how do they make antiproton's in particle accelerators? I know how they make positrons and electron's but how do they make antiprotons or for that matter how do they prevent subsequent annihalation of positron's?

one question however is that if cold fusion occurs at room temperature because of hydrogen molecules becoming closer on one side of the experiment. then how come nasa doensn't see this when they super cool hydrogen for use as fuels

my mistake I meant to say 511kev however the /c^2 is superfluous in the measurement because whenever You say the energy, someone could just figure out the mass of it. especially when someone says the mass of something in ev you can just assume the /c^2

so out of curriosity if you had hydrogen gas mixed with water and then exposed it to an extreme positive charge you have the potential to create a very powerful acid?

if the dam wasn't being subjected to gravity the electromagnetic forces in the water would try and force it to become as seperated as possible. everything on the earth would try and force itself apart. except for molecules and certain compounds that bind themselves together through the electromagnetic force gravity acts to force the water down towards the ground causing pressure (cummulative because each water molecule has weight and forces itself down against the electromagnetic force of the molecules below it). In this way the water at the bottom of the lake behind the dam is under much higher pressure than the water at the surface. However the electromagnetic force prevents the water from compressing down to a singularity. out of curiosity on the math you showed me is that for calculating the potential energy of a system or for calculating the gravity of a system

the products of a nuclear reaction would have less mass because you can only weigh the rest mass of the products. you can not weigh something that won't congele and hold still on a balance. it would be like trying to weigh an electron (its impossible to do directly) I said that it had mass not weight

I was wrong about the gravitational constant as noted in my original post "9.9?/fps" I wasn't entirely sure about it in the case of a dam your saying that the energy that gravity is exerting on the water must go somewhere. however taht seems to be ignoring the fact that its being balanced by the electromagnetic force that the dam exerts on the water it seems perfectly logical to me that this is just a nice balance of force. the water molecules can only come so close to the dam before they are repulsed by the electromagnetic force that the atoms contained in the dam exert on the water. why do we need potential energy?

so they have no rest mass its irrelevant a photon can never be at rest there for it doesn't matter they have mass because they are always moving at c and thus they will exert a gravitational force and will be effected by a gravitational force. if this were not true light would bend while moving through a gravitational field

you misunderstood my post I meant the diameter of the beam would increase its impossible to directly view the distance between photon however if you see blue light and then you see red light you can then know the beam of red light had a longer wave length than the beam of blue light back to the topic light has a tendency to spread out (in terms of diameter) for instance a laser with a beam diameter of 1 cm when it first fires. will produce a spot slightly larger on whatever it hits

somebody can stay in space for the time required for the mars trip a russian cosmonaut stayed in space for more than 1000 days aboard mir

but if the speed of light was much higher than it is now that means there were fewer particles at the big bang. if it was several orders of magnittude higher then there would be several orders of magnitude fewer particles in the universe as 1 gram of matter would be equal far more energy than it is now thus less mass and everything because there should be the same amount of energy in the universe today as there was way back at the big bang my understanding of the theory is that light was at an extreme vleocity ie. c^100 ish kind of speed. so if we take that value with 1 gram of matter +1 gram of antimatter we get some very high frequency light. Which would make me wonder where this super high frequency light is today

you would get lots of points on the moon (depending at what rate the photons are emmited. I think it would work much better if you used a laser that emitted one photon at a time (if this were possible) then assuming you moved the laser fast enough and looked at the moon you would see little points. but they would be scattered across the moon and not in a single line. this is because the photons impact point is decided by a probability wave (two slit experiment) however I am not very familiar with the physics of this