Sensei

Author lacks basic knowledge of high energy physics. If you have access to him, give him this article about particle creation. Especially bottom of it, describing antiproton production. http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/particle_creation.html If energy-mass equivalence would be (significantly) different, we wouldn't be able to create antimatter in accelerators.

Science? Really? Quote from your pdf: "3.7. Union-Dipole and Mass–Energy Equivalence Etotal=1/4mc2" Author of this document is just showing his lack of knowledge. He has no idea how to calculate Decay Energy, or energy released by fusion. If he would know science, he would not be proclamating that E=ymc2 is wrong. I doubt author ever saw electrons, positrons, muons or other particles in cloud chamber. Doubt he ever saw radioactive decay on his own eyes. You need to have good understanding of how universe works doing experiments, to create good theoretic work.

We're not unique in farming. Ants are cutting leafs, bringing them to nest, and rearing mushrooms, or aphids, for millions years longer than we. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphid#Ant_mutualism

If you would place Mt Everest in cosmic space (or find equivalent mass asteroid) where influence of other objects and planets would be negligible, you would see that it's attracting our spacecrafts. It already happened. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/15/us/spacecraft-is-orbiting-asteroid-a-first-for-a-man-made-satellite.html

There is ~2.68*10^22 molecules of gas in 1 L @ T=273 K and p=101325 Pa So there is ~2.68*10^19 molecules in 1 cm^3 at sea level. For diatomic gases, quantity of atoms must by multiplied by 2. 5.36*10^19 atoms per cm^3 1 cm^3 of water has 3.3456*10^22 molecules.

You can see and hear on your own ears how it changes with latitude in rocket with attached video camera:

Collision with train I would split to two stages: acceleration of body, and then deceleration during hitting ground. If ground is solid, not liquid, the most of damage to body will come from this stage. I don't think so OP talked about such extreme (and not uniform) way to accelerate body as is collision. Rather more natural one as f.e. acceleration of free fall body, or launching rocket with astronauts. If I understood OP intention correctly, he is asking what uniform acceleration of human body will cause death (if any). I would rephrase OP question: "if astronaut in suit would jump out of spaceship 100+ km above Moon, or other planet without atmosphere, would he be still alive prior hitting Moon/planet surface? Or he would die just because of acceleration of planet during jump..?"

The best way to use less power, is to not waste it. Currently one factory is specialized mostly in one thing. Joining two or more factories in one would allow better utilization of energy. Each m^2 of factory building should be covered by solar panels taking energy from the Sun. It's almost single time investment, and then producing energy from 6 to 17, day by day. Even if it's just 15% from 1050 W/m^2 it's 0.15 kWh per m^2. Wall of building 65 m x 15 m * 0.15 kWh = 146 kWh.

Force = mass * acceleration acceleration = ( new velocity - old velocity ) / time it took (so when new velocity is equal to old velocity, acceleration is 0) (remember that v is not scalar, but vector) and p = m * v so F = ( new momentum - old momentum ) / time it took (so when new momentum is equal to old momentum, force is 0) If new momentum is very different from old momentum and/or time is very short, force is very strong. The most exposed to damage part of our body is brain - when body is rapidly decelerating, brain has still the same velocity, and "flies" inside of skull smashing on bone.

If you're superior, try beating chimp in memory test like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsXP8qeFF6A

Created by annihilation of positrons. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-thunderstorms.html

Dangerous is rapid slowing down.

Gamma photons are created by annihilation and radioactive decay of nucleus. Or maybe do you mean x-rays?

People don't want to waste time and energy describing a thing extensively. So searching for shortcuts. See how it works in SMS and Internet. You don't have to write whole "In Mine Humble Opinion" everytime just IMHO and everybody knows what you have in mind.

I am getting nearly 2.7 years. ~4.1855 J per 1 g H2O from 20 C -> 100 C = ~335 J * 250 grams of H2O in cup = ~84 kJ = 84 million seconds with 0.001 W = 969 days. Correct?

I am not sure whether you saw this video, from today 4 march: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tFJKPHonm0 If I understood correctly they said "bitches are shooting" (at 0:40) and then continued walking to Russian's soldiers. "America is with us" (at 1:15). Officer tried to calm down his soldiers.

jafari001, do you know how e (1.602*10^-19 C) is calculated/measured? In oil drop experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment There is attached very high voltage to top and bottom plates (so electrons gather on top plate). Then oil drop with well known molecular formula and mass is ionized by x-rays passing through it, and becoming positively charged. Positively charged drop attracts with negative charges of electrons on top plate and oil drop is hovering in air. I=Q/t 1 A = 1 C/1s 1 C / 1.602*10^-19 C = 6.25*10^18 If 1 A of current flows through wire, you have 1/1.602e-19 = 6.25*10^18 electrons per second. If you will start making variable Q, then what will happen to I? You second equation q = (e/me) * T * (dm/dt) is simplifying to q=e for electrons. But what with ions such as OH-, Cl- and so on?

That's YOURS, very speculative document.. q = root(4 * pi * epsilon0 * alpha * G) * T * dm/dt q = (e/me) * T * (dm/dt) so, root(4 * pi * epsilon0 * alpha * G) should be equal to (e/me), is that correct? so why I am receiving root(4 * pi * epsilon0 * alpha * G) = 7.36*10^-12, and (e/me) = 175850713501.647 ?? I just noticed "In this equation, alpha is a dimensionless parameter and is currently unknown;" So in other words you are using alpha constant for completely different thing. And it's not commonly known alpha constant used by mainstream physics.. ? ps. You can calculate "your alpha" using e/me.. But if you do so, you will see that you need as many "yours alpha constants" as there is particles, as every charged particle (except its antiparticle) has different mass..

In other words, you have no bloody idea what are you talking about. You should start from that, to save our time..

Incorrect. 237 kJ/mol of energy is needed per mole of water. It's 6.022141*10^23 molecules of water, that has mass 18 grams. For single molecule of water there is needed ~4*10^19 J or ~2.45 eV of energy. 2.45 eV is kinetic energy of single electron in 2.45 V potential difference. In practice electrolysis can be performed using half that voltage ~1.23 V. He didn't divide 241800 J by quantity of molecules. 237000 J / 6.022141e+23 = ~4e-19 J 4e-19 J / 1.602e-19 J = 2.45 Electronvolt energy. It's discussed with more details on Electrolysis of water wikipedia page in thermodynamics section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water

Quite the same can be said about integers - too big integer will cause overflow and completely wrong result. In machine code it can be detected by checking overflow flag in CPU status register. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overflow_flag But in high level languages, not possible to detect a posteriori.

What if absorbed photon has completely different frequency than emitted.. ? What if emission happens millions or billion years after absorption? Plants absorbed energy from photons in Paleozoic, photosynthesis happened in them, and now after millions of years we are burning remains of them in furnaces.. And long time ago stored energy is used to heating and producing light right now. I am reminding you - energy is conserved. Of course not! Gravity is not material thing. Gravity of planet is result caused by billions of billions of particles. I said - particle absorbs energy, and result of it is acceleration of particle. The more energy it absorbed, the faster it's moving. f.e. if I have 25 cm^3 of hydrogen in test tube (~90 seconds of work of electrolysis with ~2.5 A in mine case) I am placing match or blowtorch below it, and see that hydrogen is expanding, its volume is increasing the more energy it absorbed. Molecules have higher velocity, so volume of gas is bigger and bigger. After turning fire off, gas is slowing cooling down and returning to initial volume. If I will touch and hold test tube by dry ice (that has -79 C), I will receive opposite result. Volume of gas will shrink. Cooled particles will have smaller velocity. According it ideal gas law, each molecule of gas is absorbing 1.38*10^-23 Joules of energy per 1 Kelvin temperature.

Photon carries energy and momentum. When photon is absorbed by particle or molecule, it's energy and momentum is transfered to it, accelerating it. And photon disappears from the system. "Free" photons appears when material has too much energy, and wants to give it, but there is not enough surrounding it regular atoms or molecules. If you will take wire (especially alloy with higher resistance), pass current through it, it will become hot (it's accelerating air molecules surrounding it). But if you will place wire in vacuum, and pass current through it, it will start emitting light. In vacuum there is no air molecules which can take energy from hot wire, but it must lose that additional energy somehow (otherwise it would grow up to infinity). And creation of photon is the only way to lose too high energy. That's how light bulb works. No. I was only talking about quoting method. Question: IS IT GRAVITY THE MAIN SOURCE OF MOVEMENT? MAY BE THE ONLY? Answer: No. It's absorbed energy that's accelerating particles, molecules and objects.

Kramer, your way to quote posts is making it very hard to read and follow.. Can't you simply use quote tool in toolbox above text area? It's on the left of twitter icon.. There is also important button on the left-top - switching on/off formatting of text during editing. I am using it all the time to copy'n'paste quote tags and adding quote ends..

Fusion process is giving much more energy than fission. See table of fusion processes f.e. here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-T_fusion#Criteria_and_candidates_for_terrestrial_reactions Fission is serious source of energy in Earth's core. But it's completely not comparable to amount of energy produced by stars. For instance decay energy of Tritium to Helium-3 is just 18.6 keV, 5.7 keV in kinetic energy of emitted electron, and the rest in neutrino (lost permanently if neutrino will escape star). But Tritium fusion with Deuterium gives 17.6 MeV decay energy. That's nearly 1000 times more energy. If taking into account just 5.7 keV and 17.6 MeV (neutrino treating as lost) then it's 3000 more energy.