Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

Everything posted by Klaynos

  1. I belive the taken form of death is radioactive isotope, as radiation is random the time is unknown, so placing the cat in the box and closing the box the cat could be dead from the radiation and is dead in some universes (if you belive in multiple universes that is) whereas in other universes the cat is still alive as the radiation is yet to kill it due to it's randomness. We do not know whether the cat is dead or alive untill we open the box. QM is absurded it has been commented on many times that if you think you understand QM then you are just fooling yourself.
  2. We're all moving into the future by very small amount every very small amount of time... One of the biggest problems I see with time travel is you have to add/remove mass-energy from one of the time periods and at that time period the universe which we all know can't be done, except I realise over very very small periods of time...
  3. E=hf=mc^2 <--- the mass in that is NOT REST MASS E=mc^2 is not the full equation, it is actually the relativistic mass, so you can work out the amount of mass theoretically associated with the energy of a photon using that I belive. So a rough bit or rearangement... E=hf=hc/w=mc^2 <-- note w = wavelength m=h/(wc) (E=(mc^2)/squart(1-(v^2/c^2)) <-- total energy of a particle using the rest mass, the more correct form of the equation) Everything I've said here might be completely wrong. E^2 = p^2c^2 for a photon, but p = mv so E=mvc, m=E/(c^2)=hf/(c^2)=hc/(c^2w)=h/(cw) OK well I've just got the same equation twice in a row doing it slightly differnt ways, it's at this point I give up and go to the pub saying something like "I might be right but who really knows..."
  4. Klaynos

    Why C?

    I happened to come accross this equation today. It goes something like, I can't remember it exactly. permittivity of a vacuum=permeability of a vacuum^-1 * c^-2 The permittivity of a vacuum relates to electronic perittivity, and permeability of a vacuum relates to magnetic. These values are differnt for different substances which makes c change. This is try due to the fact that photons are bootstrapping electromagnetic waves... or something like that. It is possible to experimentally prove this using the michelson-morley experiment which proves that light doesn't travel through an ether, and does this my measuring the speed of light in multiple directions, which always results to the same showing that it isn't effected by the earths motion through the ether.
  5. I know quite a few physicists, spending all my days in a school of physics at a university, and I can happily say none of them belive star trek/watch it on a regular basis, that I know of and I'm sure it would have come up in conversation at some point... Well it has but only sniggering at some of the ideas... Although there where "scientists" that where consulted about the original star trek series...
  6. it is creating matter as the amount of mass afterwards is greater than the mass of the sum of it's parts...
  7. if you put a box on a table the force the box is exerting on the table will be it's weight due to gravity, and the force the table exerting on the box is exactly equal to this but upwards instead of downwards. In the same way the table is pushing down on the floor, and the floor is pushing up against the table with exactly the same force.
  8. If this was impossible then there would be no heavier elements than iron as this has the highest binding energy/nucleon. It is belived it happens in supernova's
  9. Boyant force = the weight of the volume of water displaced by the marble Gravitational force = 9.81*mass of marbel Net force = Gravitaional - boyant
  10. I think but am not entirely sure that this phenomena is caused by our eyesight not being fast enough to follow the motion, although I'm not very sure about this at all...
  11. "Some people may disagree with what I have to say but 3billion was spent on this mission, we have a good picture of Titan in space, a few abstract landscape and surface pictures of rocks but are it really worth it?" Before this mission we DID NOT have a good picture of Titan in space due to a dust cloud in it's atmosphere, we had some indications as to some constituantes of the atmosphere. But $3.3 billion was an awfull lot of money to spend on one space probe, but what has the war in iraq cost? "A lot more pictures and data is going to be announced eventually but come on 3billion is a bit much for what it's worth, at least on Mars they had the land rovers but of course this mission was sent 7 years ago and the technology has advanced even further in every way. With that amount of money you could have built a few hundred hospitals across the poorest parts of the world." Land rovers would not have been able to give us the pictures in the air like the probe did, we did not know what the surface was going to be like so "landrovers" might have landed on liquid methane. Space technology doesn't really advance that fast as it has to be reliable more than anything else, the solar panels would not have been able to work sufficiently economically enough to produce enough power to sustain rovers. Alot of money is spent on aid for places possibly not enough. "Ok they might find some kind of primitive bacteria, what about the life on earth scientists and politicians? are they not worth saving? It just seems that our greed and self-praise for some dust results and 'what ifs' is greater than the caring hand in saving dying people." I recomend you think about global warming and never use any electrical device or anything else remotly modern again, as this is arguably the greatest threat to man on earth, other than them just killing each other. "To be honest I’m a creationist and I know about evolution theories and geographical, carbon dating and big bang theories but that is really not enough, you need more faith in that than in God, at least that has an explanation with a beginning and an end as in the Bible. In some ways if science does find some so called evidence of life other than earth then it might unite all religions together and bring peace of some kind, well maybe, it could spark off wars too. Evolutionists did not succeed as seen from the religions today. From a Christian point of view, bringing a one world order and globalisation means signs of birth pains before Christ returns. (Do some research to get the full picture.)? I would not mind a one-world order with the intention of peace, we all want that. But it will not turn out that way with our big brother technology." No comment. "On to space again would the Europa moon have been more exiting to visit with its icy ocean surface?" One reason why Titan was picked as we had indications that it's atmosphere is very similar to early earth, but in your mind early earth doesn't exist as it's only a few thousand years old. "And why do they not send more space probes at once to the same moons and planets, like have four probes or land rovers, one on each pole and opposite east and west equators? That should bring more data and understanding for a place like Titan. If they get to Europe they should have a drilling craft like in James Cameron's latest documentary/movie 'Aliens of the deep' for example where a machine cuts into the ice and into the moon's ocean, if they are sure they exist, they could be wrong as science usually corrects it self all the time or draws a blank." Because that costs alot, their are limited landing spots on other planets that we can have a high probability of firstly actually hitting and secondly knowing about. Havn't seen it, but sounds resonable, just the problem of solar panels not working down a several km hole in ice. Science is all about hypothocists, and theories, we evolvolve and change our theories as our understanding changes that is one of the big advantages of science over religian we admit we where wrong and move on with our new understanding, do not look for some results from understanding in something, find the results then look for understanding in it, you are far more likely to be correct. "Trust me they will not find a grain of life else where, it will not happen and if it does then I will question its authenticity like the Mars meteorite on earth which on earth could have contaminated it and still question is it from Mars?" The probability of us finding it is very limited due to the size of the universe, it takes years for light to travel between us and the nearest star, we won't travel that in our lifetimes. "There is a lot of propaganda in science in funding exploration and for government help in funding so keep your ears open people get the full picture." Depends who you listen to, talk to, and where you're from. "A lot of science denies God's existence, historians and archaeologists and geologists have a lot of evidence but you will never hear of it in the news, all you will hear is there might be life on Mars and now Titan. Its very exiting and I’m not watering down this mission's success and glory its nice to hear it goes down well to distract from politics. We should have a vote on where 3billion should go, Titan or poor dying people that wonder if they might find if their life is going to end because the world can not get together a structure to help these people in Africa. Sorry people I love space too but a lot of space is building up in people's stomachs too. Hope I've not made any enemies out of this I like to hear about Titan too." Science aims to find out facts, if in doing that it proves some hypothosys (in this case god) to be incorrect then that be it, but if it does not then fine, I do not see why science and modern religian cannot live side by side. Yes all the media is interested in is flashy exciting science, give them a fusion reactor that could cure all the worlds energy problems and stop us being obsessed by oil and therefore let us get on with helping people without the fact we invade places for oil, and they wont listen. Give them flashy lights and every media company in the world will be clambering on top of you. I would not dislike you because of this post everyone is allowed their view point and I quite like hearing other peoples...
  12. Klaynos


    It's not but it's the best I could do and still be fundementally lazy bhp is not a commonly used physical description of a power source, and it is therefore quite hard to find a technical resource which will refer to it with a definition :s
  13. Klaynos


    "Brake horse power, the net effective power of a prime mover, as a steam engine, water wheel, etc., in horse powers, as shown by a friction brake" See: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=brake%20horse%20power Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhp#bhp (Note: indication of reality, but worth reading) Seems to be a measure of power which is actually measure instead of calculated and therefore takes resistance inside the engine into account... Therefore the break is refering to the internal resistance of the engin, it seems.
  14. It is VERY VERY difficult to convert all of an atoms mass energy to other forms of energy, the best we can do is fusion reactions which is a few tens of MeV, which is obiviousey 10000000 times stronger than a chemical reaction but still not earth destruction power. Anyone can work out the total energy of a stationary atom using: E=m0c^2 For a moving particle you have to take relativistic effects into account E=(gamma) m0 c^2 Where gamma is 1/(1-(v/c)^2) Mass (m0) in kilograms, c = 3*10^8ms^-1, and v in ms^-1 Work it out with an electron moving at 0.9c ms^-1...
  15. Klaynos


    I read alot but only post very infrequently, I tend to only post when I actually have something constructive to say and actually think through what I've written before actually hitting post. That way I end up writeing alot of posts and then deleteing them, hence I'm NOT addicted
  16. I'm afraid I don't know any normal magnet formulae for repulcive forces, never even come accross any, if noone get's back to you I'll try and have a look about and quiz my friends tomorrow afternoon, sorry I can't investigate now got an exam in the morning
  17. As 5614 said about the violentness of stoping suddenly I thought I'd just quantify that a bit. Impulse = new momentul - original momentum = Force * change in time (Force=rate of change of momentum) This can also be written as Impulse = intergral between t1 and t2 of the sum of F dt Although that is superfluse for your understanging of it. So going back to Impulse = new momentul - original momentum = Force * change in time, the momentul change is constant due to the conservation of momentum, so if the time is decreased to maintain this conservation law the force has to get considerably bigger. This is why cars have crumple zones.
  18. Klaynos


    Has anyone ever used graphcalc, or any other open source graphical calculator for windows or linux, if so what did you think of it? Cheers
  19. my opinion is pretty much "if you predict enought stuff to happen over enough time, and you're quite vague about it, you have to be right sometimes"
  20. of course their is always the option we are completely wrong and that everything which has been said before is completely incorrect then the uncertainty priciple can be ignorened, but as stated above as far as we know, uncertainty in momentum * uncertainty in position = planks const / (4 pi) Is the BEST we can ever achieve...
  21. My understanding of this is that it is meant to say positron, and I would read it as such, else there is not conservation of mass-energy.
  22. Hello, I'm Klaynos or Ed, I'm a physics student from the UK, you'll probably see me on IRC...
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.