Colic

Matter distorts the fabric of space, and so does light, so what's the actual difference between matter and energy? In both instances, you would need the fabric of space-time to be distorted or a coupling mechanism with higg's particles, which conflicts the notion that light doesn't have mass because of it's lack of coupling with higg's particles. How can both light and a wood block distort space, yet only the wood block has mass, especially considering that they can theoretically be converted into each other?

I think the problem is that the energy you put into it is a little more than what you get out of it. You need to expend energy raising a weight to a certain height and then you or a machine needs to expend energy swirling the string. It's not efficient, the process requires more energy to be spent than can be used.

No, it's not a homework problem, it's a random thing I was working on when playing around with algorithms to convert between music and systems of math. I have these terms, [MATH](1/1)x+(1/3)x^3+(1/15)x^5+(1/105)x^7+(1/945)x^9[/MATH]... And I'm trying to come up with a formula to describe the coefficients in terms of a summation as part of a larger formula that I've already broken down. I've spent more than two hours testing different formulas and none of them work, but I know the concise pattern. If you want the nth coefficient, you'd do 1 divided by the derivative of the nth term times the coefficient (n-1)th term times the coefficient of the (n-2)nd term times the coefficient of the (n-3)rd term and so on. In a sense, it's like a factorial based off of derivatives, but I can't figure out a formula for it in terms of Sum(n=1) n->infinity. if n starts at 0, it's x^(2n-1), I got that down, I just can't figure out the coefficients, it's some kind of alternative factorial.

Global warming or cooling? It's definitely warming. The reason why it appears to sometimes be cooling is because over shorter spans of time, it does. However, the overall the long-term average temperature is easily increasing. In any 10 year graph of Earth's temperature you can see some cooling, but over the last 50-100 years the average value in any 10 year period is increasing. Some places will get colder due to shifting air and water currents, but the average thermal energy in the atmosphere is going up. It's especially noticeable because people's island homes are disappearing from the rising sea levels caused by glacial melting and they get angry at developed nations for not doing something.

Can't hydrogen form metallic bonds in a degenerate state? It's even predicted to be super conductor when compressed to a metallic state.

Alright thanks

By at once I mean any duration of time that is too small for a person to distinguish separate events between, a time smaller than human reaction time. What you're saying to get 230 volts kind of sounds like lining up 20 AAs in a series, I don't need to do that, there's 60-70 bolt batteries that can fit in your hand. But some batteries are particularly small like those small lithium disk batteries, it wouldn't be too much of problem to line a bunch of them up but I'd still only be able to get like 30-60 volts. Basically I want a high voltage and high stored energy in a small area that I can use up really fast initially in the form of electrical energy.

Is there some way to force common batteries to use up all of their stored energy at once?

Alright well that makes sense I suppose. I would guess tuaons would be even better...?

It means time is measured in meters, same as any other dimension.

That's not what I mean. Resistance means the ability to resist the flow of an electrical current right? So if tungsten is highly resistant, how does electricity flow through it at all enough to light up a light bulb at all?

Ok so the amperes from electricity is due to collisions with the lattice. But if something has a high resistance, like say glass, how would I get a steady current to even flow through solid glass in the first place considering glass has a really high resistance?

So to break down the "muon" or "proton" question, you're saying muon catalyzation is better because most of the proton's repulsive field is counteracted by the electron. In concept this makes sense, the muon is heavier and is closer to the proton and so lowers the net positive charge over the space within the atom. However, what about the added repulsion you'd have from a muon repelling another muon? Without changing the proton's radius, how is this any better?

Why does this topic* tell me it has zero views when obviously at least 2 other people viewed it? * http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/80781-theoretical-way-to-hold-tgether-unstable-atoms/ (thread link added by mod)

I don't really see how this answers what I was saying. Let's try it a different way. I have a muonic atom, and a bare proton. Which is easier to fuse?