mmalluck

Did you see my earlier post? You could test some of what you're saying. There's one problem with your revised argument. Light travels at the same speed at all frames of reference. It's one of the paradoxes of light itself. No matter what speed you are traveling, light will always travel at 2.998*10^6 meters per second in any reference frame. For clarities sake here's and example: A man in a spaceship is traveling near the speed of light. Inside the cabin of his ship, he turns on his flashlight in the direction of travel and shinies it on the wall. Using a device he measures the speed at which the beam of light leaves the flashlight and strikes the wall. Amazingly enough it still strikes the wall with a speed of 2.998*10^6 meters per second. Now a outside stationary observer is watching this event. He watches the guy in the spaceship go swooshing by at near the speed of light and measures the amount of time for the beam of light from the flashlight to hit the wall. One would expect that the light would take longer to reach the wall now because the wall is moving away from the light source at near the speed of light. But the outside observer finds that the light still travels 2.998*10^6 m/s, and takes the same amount of time to reach that wall as it did for the man traveling in the ship. To the outside observer, the ship's walls have appeared to have moved closer together with respect to the direction of travel. This is has been predicted and tested by special relativity and good 'ol Einstein. If you want another explanation/example I suggest you look at these pages: Special relativity paradox Special relativity and light cones Time dialation

lol! That's a great pic. I may find use for it later.

Now that some of this garbly-gook has been cleared up, I'll bite. I'll admit my model is flawed because it doesn't stem from a natural observation, but in order for your bubble model to work, it won't be natural either. Lets say you wanted to model our solar system with some bubbles in a tank of water. You make some device that can accurately blow bubbles to the sizes need for the plantes, moons, astroids and what not. You release all the bubbles at the same time and they move to cling to the side of the tank.... Now that isn't right. We need to do something to make the bubbles move around. Ah Ha! We swirl the water in the tank around so the bubbles move in circular orbits. Wait a second, the planets move in elipical orbits... We'll have to add special jets of water to make these bubbles move in elipicals. Surely this now models our solar system, lets do a little test to see. Lets add an artifical astroid to both models. We'll take a chunk of rock and place it within our solar system with 0 velocity relative to the sun. Over time the chunk of rock begins to move and eventually plumets directly into the sun. Now we do the same thing in our bubble tank. We blow a bubble with 0 velocity with respect to the large bubble in the center of the tank. As soon as we release the bubble, it begins to swirl around like the other bubbles due to the currents of the tank.... Now this isn't right.... We'd have to add yet another set of forces (currents in the tank) that act to keep a body at rest from orbiting, but rather make plumet directly into the center bubble of the tank. We go on and on adding more curents to our tank to make it exactly model our solar system, but at that point all of the "natural" tendancies of the bubbles have been negated. We're using artifical means to make this model work. It's not much different than paper-mache plantes and steel tracks. I'd like to introduce you to the idea of Occam's Razor. It's the idea that the simplest explanation is usually the most correct. Either the solar system is govened by a single force (gravity) that simply explains motion of our solar system or theres all kinds of mysterious currents that push the planets about but pushes objects at rest directly into the sun.

I smell a whole lot of troll-bait here. I'm not going to touch your post with a 10-foot pole.

Hopefully Microsoft isn't running the show, or we'd have some damn floating paper-clip running around trying to help people and the sunrise/sunset would blue-screen every so often. Reality may suck, but I'm pretty sure it's real. Would a supior race (the ones running the simulation) really take the time to simulate your entire existance, just so they can pull you out later to point and laugh at you? Some supior race....

Lets not forget all the radium clock dials made during the 40's and 50's that glowed with a nice green color. That's probably where hollywood gets it from.

I've always heard the the 'flat' or inline arrangment will give you more power. That's why you never see a v4. It would have too little power to be useful. You've got the space in under the hood, you might as well go with a flat setup. Example: The GMC Canyon truck is a flat-5 cylinder (yes five cylinders, I have no clue how they balance that thing) 3.5 liter engine that gets 27mpg highway and is rated 220hp. The Toyota Tacoma is a v6 4.0 liter engine that gets 21mpg highway and is rated 245hp. The Canyon gets 44hp per cylinder, where as the Tacoma only gets 40.8hp per cylinder. It should be noted that the cylinders in the Canyon are slightly larger, so maybe this isn't the best example over all, but it is worth another look.

Yeah, .51 MeV is alittle out of the range of most people's high voltage equipment, but x-rays can be made with voltages as low as 30kv or so. I know they make quartz glass glow green, I don't know about water. Edit: But isn't an X-ray just a energetic photon? In that case, it's stuck going at .75c just like a light photon, thus no pretty blue glow.

Do what the U.S. government does. Bury the highly radioactive stuff and fasion the rest into depleted Uranium slugs, that you can scatter all over the Middle East in the name of freedom.

And just because a body resonates, does not mean it's hollow....

okay, now I have a question for you, it probably trivial, but it's been years since I've been in a physics class. What would the energy of said electron be in eV as it speeds through the water at .866c? Just wondering if I could crank out my high voltage stuff and make my own Cherenkov effect.

I could be mistaken, but didn't first suggest that.... This suggest that gravity is due to the vacuum, air pressure, etc. but this isn't the case. It's the other way around. Gravity is responsible for air pressure. Gravity is responsible for the earth's iron core. Gravity is the reason planets and stars orbit each other. I can explain myself further if you wish. My question now is how would you go about changing gravity to allow for hollow planets, but not break other fundementally accepted concepts of how gravity works? I don't think it can be done, but you're more than welcome to try.

What does that have to do with anything? Swansont poked a hole in your argument, so you change topics?

Surface tension is what makes bubbles possible. Surface tension is what makes water stick to itself, it's why water beads up on a newly waxed car, and why water rises up capillary tubes. What you're suggesting is that gravity is nothing more than a form of surface tension. While your observation may suggest this, these observations do not scale up to the size of planets. Lets look at one of the equations given to us by the webpage I just listed . Pi is the pressure inside the bubble. Po is the pressure outside the bubble. r is the radius T is the surface tension of the material. The Earth has a radius of 6378.1 kilometers Now outside the bubble (intersteller space) there is almost no pressure. For our argument we'll say that the pressure outside the earth is very very small or 1e-9 Atms. The pressure inside our bubble must be larger than what is outside (negative absolute pressure doesn't exist). You want it to be a small amount, but this simply isn't the case. All the material on the earth presses down and exerts a force. The deeper you go into the earth, the more material over you pressing down on you. As you approch the deepest parts of the earth, you have the greatest pressure on you. For this illistration we'll say the entire skin of the "earth bubble" is only 1Km thick and composed of water (in all reality the material is much more dense, is more than a kiliometer thick, and not a bubble, thus leading to greater pressures). A column of water 1Km high will exert a pressure around 100 atms. This must be the pressure inside the bubble. If we plug all of these numbers into the previous equation and solve for tension... we find that the tension force is equal to T=1.61565262 × 10^13 N/m or a fricken huge force! No known material has a surface tension this high. Nothing even comes close. In comparison mercury, which is known for it's high surface tension only has a T=.465 N/m Some other force (gravity ) is holding this ball of rock together.

If you think about, distrabution is a big part of many problems. With raising gas prices, we should expect to see the price of everything increasing.

I know some people have has luck with N2 lasers. It's basicly a calabrated sparkgap. You don't need any glass tubing, it uses regular N2 from the air, and it lazes in UV spectrum.

No amount of genetic engineering will ever see that the hungry get feed. There's enough land on this planet to see that every man, woman, and child gets more than enough to eat right now. The problem lies with distrabution. As a nation (the USA) spends most of our ariable land raising food for cattle. While cattle itself can be a source of food, this process is rather inefficent. If that land was instead invested in some direct food production, there would lots of excess food for export. There's just more money in rasing cattle than exporting food to the hungry. Again, it's a question of economics.

You still have a problem with the building's structure. The lightning rod / pool would have to have a many fold lower resistance to ground than the substructor of your building. Otherwise the lightning will arc through your building instead. This simply won't happen. All large skyscrapers employ large steel piers driven far into the ground for support. With these there's no way to insulate the building from the ground. Think about, the lightning travles across miles of open air, even if you could insulate the building in some manner, the lightning would just jump across your insulation. Even if you could insulate the building from ground, your building would become something of a hazard. If for any reason your lightning rod / pool ground connection becomes severed, a direct lightning strike to the building will turn the building in a burning firecracker from hell.

if the system was rotating, couldn't rotational interia keep the system from collapsing in on itself?

Yeah, I know mercury and gold don't actually bond, it's just a fun fact I thought I'd throw into the mix. Most people don't know that.

Hawking's center of mass would be pretty low right? I mean he never leaves his wheel-chair and in a seated position, his center of mass would be lower than that of a standing individual. Har'dee har har..... That's the first thing I thought of when I read the topic.

Mercery will dissolve gold as well. Miners used this to leech gold out of rocks. Then they'd boil off the mercery.