Spyman

The internal resistance in the battery increases due to a depletion of the chemical energy, which in turn reduces the final output voltage between the terminals. ¤ Before the load gets connected there is a buildup of a small charge that then rapidly gets depleted if the battery fails to sustain the voltage with the load. ¤ If the output current through the load brings the terminal voltage below the ratings, then a higher outflow than what the battery is able to support empties it. ¤ When the chemical reactions inside the battery no longer can keep up the rated voltage, then the chemical energy in the battery is getting exhausted. I am not a native English speaker but the word "drained" seems correct to me.

Either there are some unknown restraints that prevents an antimatter Universe to exist within the domain of our physical laws or a yet unknown huge part of our Universe may already contain large quantities of antimatter with the possibility of aliens that would consider us to be of the "anti"-cind. The baryon asymmetry problem in physics refers to the apparent fact that there is an imbalance in baryonic matter and antibaryonic matter in the universe. Neither the standard model of particle physics, nor the theory of general relativity provide an obvious explanation for why this should be so; and it is a natural assumption that the universe be neutral with all conserved charges. The Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter; as such, there should have been total cancellation of both. In other words, protons should have cancelled with antiprotons, electrons with antielectrons (positrons), neutrons with antineutrons, and so on for all elementary particles. This would have resulted in a sea of photons in the universe with no matter. Since this is apparently not the case, after the Big Bang, some physical laws must have acted differently for matter and antimatter. There are competing theories to explain the matter-antimatter imbalance that resulted in baryogenesis, but there is as yet no one consensus theory to explain the phenomenon. ... Another possibility is that antimatter dominated regions exist within the universe, but outside our observable universe. Inflationary cosmology models suggest that the there may be more to the universe than can be seen from the Earth, if only for the simple reason that the universe isn't old enough for light from the most distant parts of the universe to have reached us yet. If so, radiation from the boundary of matter and antimatter dominated regions may simply still "be on its way" to Earth, and so cannot be observed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry

We only have direct knowledge of the observable universe, but according to the Cosmological Principle the entire Universe should not be radically different and as such it is predicted to look the same on large scales with equal structures and uphold the same laws of physics. In modern physical cosmology, the cosmological principle is the working assumption that observers on Earth do not occupy a restrictive, unusual or privileged location within the universe as a whole, judged as observers of the physical phenomena produced by uniform and universal laws of physics. As astronomer William Keel explains: "The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the Universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the Universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the Universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists." The cosmological principle contains three implicit qualifications and two testable consequences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_Principle

There are many different cinds of batteries with slightly different cell voltages in ranges from 1.2 to 3.6 Volts. But more importantly several cells inside the battery can be connected in series to bring up the voltage. Three 1.5 Volts batteries connected in series will together yield a voltage of 4.5 Volt and if they are connected in parallel they will instead be able to supply the tripple current of electrons. If you take apart a standard 4.5 Volt battery you can see that it contains three 1.5 Volt cells in series. (Be careful, batteries contains acids, which you don't want in your eyes.) [EDIT] I found this, showing six 1.5 Volts cells in series in a 9 Volt battery: http://www.instructables.com/id/Making-a-45-volt-battery-pack-from-a-9V-battery/

"The live contact carries current from the source to the load. The neutral returns current to the source. Many receptacles and plugs also include a third contact for a connection to earth ground, intended to protect against insulation failure of the connected device." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_outlet

Water systems can be very good analogies for electrical circuits, were voltage is represented by pressure or altitude and current of electrons by the flow of water. Let's try with a simple comparison of series and parallel branches, suppose you are standing on a roof pouring water down into a funnel. From the funnel there are three pipes velved in series straight down and it is clear how the altitude changes from the funnel, through the first pipe, second pipe, third pipe and finally the ground. When the three pipes are velved parallel they are all velved together to the outlet of the funnel or to a large pipe going horizontally across the roof and as such would not change the altitude of the water until it flows down into the pipes. All three pipes must reach all the way down to the ground or otherwise the circuit would be broken and not work. As we can notice the top altitude for all three pipes is the same as for the funnel and the bottom altitude is also at ground level for all three pipes, therefore the altitude difference over the length from top to ground for all three pipes are equal to each other and to the altitude of the funnel. The battery is chemically charging the poles with voltage and even if is drained to such low level that the chemical energy is no longer able to support the ordinary load, it might still be able to output a small flow of electrons with rated voltage, and a voltmeter only need a small amount of electrons for a reading, while the ordinary load normally needs a huge flow. The chemicals are lifting water droplets to the roof, in the analogy, and the ordinary load needs a large flow through the main pipe's outlet on a huge water wheel to make its axis turn around. While the voltmeter only needs a tiny flow of water to make its small low friction water wheel turn. In both cases the water flows from the same altitude (voltage) but the small current that is enough for the voltmeter doesn't suffice to even budge the larger water wheel. I think it might need to be noted while the battery can be in its rated range it does still decrease when it gets drained. There is a flat slope of the output voltage from a battery, slowly dropping as the battery gets uncharged until a breaking point is reached and the slope sharply turns steep down, when the battery gets exhausted.

The Big Bang was not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

According to relativity both mass and energy hold equal value in terms of gravity, as such energy expels gravitational attraction as if it would if converted to matter. "General relativity or the general theory of relativity is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915. It is the current description of gravitation in modern physics. It generalises special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the four-momentum (mass-energy and linear momentum) of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_theory_of_relativity

A wire is nothing more than a long row of low level resistors in series and as such the location of the measurement determines how much of the voltage that are already used up. Resistors in parallel eats up the voltage too, the difference is when they are in series they individually eat on different levels of the voltage, but when they are in parallel they all eat from the top. How the resistors are connected and where they are placed in the circuit directly determines how much energy, of the avaible amount, there will be flowing through each of them. Voltage is like a pressure forcing chains of electrons to move and resistors can be viewed as choke points restricting the amount of chains passing through them simultaneously. If the voltage is raised more chains can be forced to go through the choke point and if the voltage is lowered less chains will make it through. When the resistors are placed in series all chains of electrons going through one of the resistors must also go through the rest of them, but since the resistors are placed in a row they get different levels of the voltage. When the resistors are placed in parallel there will be different chains of electrons going through individual branches, but since all chains are going through the connection points together they will all share that voltage.

"Say I had an 12v DC power supply @1 AMP and 12v AC power supply @1 AMP, would there be any difference, like if put on a light bulb, would one shine brighter, you get the idea." A lightbulb connected to the DC supply would shine with a constant brightness while connected to the AC supply it would pulse 120 times every second for 60Hz. Each pulse would start from no light and then raise with the slope of a sine wave to a brightness of ~1.4 times higher than for the DC supply, before it would drop down to no light again. On average the lightbulb would shine with the same brightness in both cases and our eyes are to slow to notice any difference between them.

Since all the parallel brances are connected to the same two points which the voltage is measured between, their voltages are all measured at the same location and that location can't have several voltages simultaneously. If the measurements are made at different locations then the voltage should differ, but if the wires connecting the branches to the parallel points have sufficient low resistance then the differences will be to small to pick up with an ordinary voltmeter. A dead battery doesn't have to show any voltage at all across its terminals, it could very well be totally dead. However most used up batteries are only almost empty and as such there is likely enough energy left to get a reading from a voltmeter, but when it's connected to a load its voltage will drop because it gets drained.

I think he is arguing that if the net sum of energy in the Universe is zero then it's creation wouldn't violate the conservation law. "The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time). A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed: it can only be transformed from one state to another. The only thing that can happen to energy in a closed system is that it can change form: for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_conservation_law

Well, as a manner of fact I did understand your point, but I was simply wrong. Let's see if I can get it right this time: [math]v = -0.87c[/math] When the spacecraft is moving towards the observer. [math]z_{Doppler} = \left( 1+\frac{v}{c} \right )-1 = -0.87[/math] [math]z_{Dilation} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}-1 = 1[/math] [math]z_{Relativistic Doppler} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}*\left( 1+\frac{v}{c} \right )-1 = -0.74[/math] And now a check if the result is correct: [math]Redshift = \sqrt{\frac{1+\frac{v}{c}}{1-\frac{v}{c}}}-1 = -0.74[/math] (Redshift formulaes from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift) It appears as the two different factors from Doppler effect and Time Dilation are not equal, instead the Doppler effect from speed seems more dominant, so that they together always result in a net blueshift if the objects are moving towards each other.

Seem correct to me, this is what Wikipedia says: Planck epoch "In physical cosmology, the Planck epoch (or Planck era), named after Max Planck, is the earliest period of time in the history of the universe, from zero to approximately 10−43 seconds (Planck time), during which, it is believed, quantum effects of gravity were significant. One could also say that it is the earliest moment in time, as the Planck time is perhaps the shortest possible interval of time, and the Planck epoch lasted only this brief instant. ... If quantum effects are ignored, the universe starts from a singularity with an infinite density. This conclusion could change when quantum gravity is taken into account. String theory and Loop quantum gravity are leading candidates for a theory of unification, which have yielded meaningful insights already, but work in Noncommutative geometry and other fields also holds promise for our understanding of the very beginning." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_epoch

You didn't seem to understand my point, let's put it this way: Can you explain how the photons in a lightray manages to get "time dilated" by bouncing of the spacecraft ? AFAIK there is no time dilation for the EM radiation itself, since the photons already travel at the speed of light they don't experience time at all, thus their time can't be slowed down any more so they shouldn't be affected by the speed of the craft.

No, I don't think so, the speed of light is constant for all observers and therefore the EM radiation is in itself independent of the speed of the emitter. Any "standby" observers will only observe Relativistic Doppler Red/Blue-shift from the spacecraft.

I also happened to stumble over this old article from 21 July 2005: The supernova that just won't fade away Using ESA’s XMM-Newton space observatory, a team of astronomers has discovered that this supernova, called SN 1979C, shows no sign of fading. The scientists can document a unique history of the star, both before and after the explosion, by studying rings of light left over from the blast, similar to counting rings in a tree trunk. ... Supernovae can outshine an entire galaxy and are often easily seen in neighbouring galaxies with simple amateur telescopes. Supernovae are typically half as bright after about ten days and fade steadily after that, regardless of the wavelength. SN 1979C has in fact faded in optical light by a factor of 250 becoming barely visible with a good amateur telescope. In X-rays, however, this supernova is still the brightest object in its host galaxy, M100, in the constellation ‘Coma Berenices’. http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEME2C0DU8E_index_0.html IMHO, it's not far fetched that a newly formed Black Hole is feeding on material that was ejected by the star itself before it went supernova and are now falling back down upon it.

I think astronomers will concentrate their observations to try to determine whether SN_1979C has formed a small Black Hole or a rapidly spinning Pulsar. For people that want to read about the discovery, here are two links: First compelling evidence for a black hole after recent supernova Making use of archival data from the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, astronomers Daniel Patnaude, Avi Loeb and Christine Jones had a closer look at SN 1979C, a supernova in the galaxy M100. Earlier studies by Kasen and Bildsten (2010) and by Woosley (2010) suggested that SN 1979C, a "type IIL supernova", may have been powered by the birth of a magnetar – a neutron star with an extremely strong magnetic field. Observing a remarkably constant X-ray luminosity from supernova SN 1979 however, the authors propose that the late time glow of the supernova is more consistent with a stellar mass black hole accreting material from either a fallback disk or from a binary companion. They conclude that SN 1979C is likely to harbor a black hole with a mass five times that of the Sun. Furthermore, the black hole may be accreting matter from its surroundings or from a companion star. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-11/e-fce111710.php Evidence Found for Youngest Black Hole Ever Seen A cosmic explosion seen 31 years ago may have been the birth cry of the youngest black hole ever observed, which could help researchers understand how black holes are born and evolve. Studying a baby black hole should also help astronomers understand what determines the fate of stars, as well as how common black holes are in our galaxy and throughout the universe, researchers said. [Photo of the baby black hole's location.] "What's really exciting about it is we know the exact birth date of a black hole for the first time," Kim Weaver, of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, told reporters today (Nov. 15). "It's a wonderful opportunity for astronomers to look at these young systems." http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/youngest-nearby-black-hole-discovered-101115.html

As you and between3and26characterslon are saying the picture seems to try to show different aspects of the Big Bang and it is therefor not in proper scale, NASA appears to try to focus on the timeline with the CMBR and the rate of expansion instead of the actual increase in size. According to standard cosmology the distance of the matter that emitted the CMBR was ~4o million lightyears distant from our location, when the photons took off in our direction and is thought to be some ~45 billion lightyears distant now when they arrive in our observatories. (Cosmos Calculator Omega=0.27 Lambda=0.73 Hubble=71 Redshift=1100) That would correspond to an increase in radius of ~1100 times from the left side to the right side in the picture, which would make both the CMBR and the rate of expansion to tiny to view.

What I tried to say was that if the Universe gets compressed to high enough density then it can also be mathematically treated as a Black Hole. Here is one simple answer of how spacetime works in a Black Hole: The Question (Submitted August 08, 1997) What is the volume of a black hole? The Answer Our intuitive sense of volume breaks down in the strong gravitational region in a black hole. So while the "size" of a black hole is given by the radius of its event horizon, it's volume is not determined by the usual 4/3*pi*r3. Instead, relativity makes it more complicated than that. As you pass the event horizon, the spatial direction 'inwards' becomes 'towards the future'-- you WILL reach the center, it's as inevitable as next Monday. The direction outsiders think of as their future becomes a spatial dimension once you are inside. The volume of a black hole, therefore, is its surface area times the length of time the hole exists (using the speed of light to convert from seconds to meters). Since a black hole last practically forever, the black hole's volume is almost infinite. (This is also a way of explaining the fact that you can pour stuff into a black hole forever and never fill it up. Another reason why black holes never fill up is that the radius of the event horizon increases as the mass of the black hole increases.) David Palmer and Jim Lochner for Ask an Astrophysicist http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970808.html And here is a much more complicated answer with math: The Volume Inside a Black Hole

If we model the expansion of the Universe backwards over time with General Relativity, then we end up with an infinite density at the ignition time of the Big Bang. But this Singularity is commonly thought to signal the breakdown of General Relativity in this application.

I don't understand why we follow "a step-by-step procedure in order to avoid misinterpretation" that takes us on a two pages long discussion ending with a question you simply could have asked back in your post #7. I don't think it would be that easy to observe and measure the change in density of galaxies as the Universe has evolved. Look at this famous picture from the Hubble Space Telescope: "Astronomers observe considerable structure in the universe, from stars to galaxies to clusters and superclusters of galaxies. The famous "Deep Field Image" taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, shown below, provides a stunning view of such structure." http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_struct.html "Representing a narrow "keyhole" view stretching to the visible horizon of the universe, the HDF image covers a speck of the sky only about the width of a dime located 75 feet away. Though the field is a very small sample of the heavens, it is considered representative of the typical distribution of galaxies in space because the universe, statistically, looks largely the same in all directions. Gazing into this small field, Hubble uncovered a bewildering assortment of at least 1,500 galaxies at various stages of evolution. ... Essentially a narrow, deep "core sample" of sky, the HDF is analogous to a geologic core sample of the Earth's crust. Just as a terrestrial core sample is a history of events which took place as Earth's surface evolved, the HDF image contains information about the universe at many different stages in time. Unlike a geologic sample though, it is not clear what galaxies are nearby and therefore old, and what fraction are very distant and therefore existed when the universe was newborn. "It's like looking down a long tube and seeing all the galaxies along that line of sight. They're all stacked up against one another in this picture and the challenge now is to disentangle them," said Mark Dickinson of the HDF team. http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1996/01/text/ Are you able to discern which galaxies are more distanced and if they seem more crowded? There are also some arguments against observing galaxies getting more and more close when we look at greater distances even in spite of the Universe on average being more dense back then: ¤ We are on the verge of our technological abilities and currently not able to see everything at every possible distance, so as we look farther away we will see less galaxies because they will be to faint for our equipment to observe. ¤ In the early times there were no galaxies in the Universe, over time gravity created galaxies by pulling matter together, thus we will see less galaxies farther away because they have not yet formed or grown big and bright enough. ¤ While gravity was accumulating matter into galaxies it also forged them into a very large scale structure like a cosmic web, gravity caused galaxies to get larger and more numerous in denser parts of the universe, whereas expansion caused empty voids between the filaments to also grow greater. This process causes us to see less galaxies gathered together farther away because they would have had less time to pile up. Here is a simulation of how gravity and Dark Matter could have shaped our neighbourhood: "The present day dark matter distribution in a slice cut through a simulation of a flat universe with cosmological constant, using the overall pattern of structure in our local neighbourhood as a simulation constraint. The distribution reveals fine, filamentary structures. The slice has a side length of 520 million light years, and a thickness of 100 million light years. It contains the so-called "supergalactic plane". The major nearby clusters, like Coma, Virgo, Perseus cluster, are labelled." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_filament But we do have a method to measure how the density in our observable part of the Universe is changing, we can measure the Redshift of the light from those distant galaxies we are able to observe. The redshift are similar to the Doppler effect, causing changes in frequency depending on how fast the emitter is moving relative us. "An animation illustrating how the Doppler effect causes a car engine or siren to sound higher in pitch when it is approaching than when it is receding. The pink circles are sound waves. When the car is moving to the left, each successive wave is emitted from a position further to the left than the previous wave. So for an observer in front (left) of the car, each wave takes slightly less time to reach him than the previous wave. The waves "bunch together", so the time between arrival of successive wavefronts is reduced, giving them a higher frequency. For an observer in back (right) of the car, each wave takes a slightly longer time to reach him than the previous wave. The waves "stretch apart", so the time between the arrival of successive wavefronts is increased slightly, giving them a lower frequency." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect When Universe is expanding it causes Cosmological Redshift corresponding to the rate of increase in the distance of other galaxies from our viewpoint. Our observations and measurements of redshifts from distant objects tells us that the distance between every distant object in all directions around us are increasing today, thus the logical conclusion is that everything must have been closer together in the past. Our best observations and model shows us this picture: "A representation of the evolution of the universe over 13.7 billion years. The far left depicts the earliest moment we can now probe, when a period of "inflation" produced a burst of exponential growth in the universe. (Size is depicted by the vertical extent of the grid in this graphic.) For the next several billion years, the expansion of the universe gradually slowed down as the matter in the universe pulled on itself via gravity. More recently, the expansion has begun to speed up again as the repulsive effects of dark energy have come to dominate the expansion of the universe. The afterglow light seen by WMAP was emitted about 380,000 years after inflation and has traversed the universe largely unimpeded since then. The conditions of earlier times are imprinted on this light; it also forms a backlight for later developments of the universe." http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_ig/060915/

Please define: "relative position as seen", since while say you agree with me you still seem to continue talking about distances through time. An Alien in the Distant Galaxy at that past time, using identical equipment and cosmological model as us, would calculate the galaxies relative proper distance to be the same as what we do today for that past time. If the galaxies would have syncronized clocks continuously transmitting time and date, then their individual differences due to locations would be equal for us and the alien on the Distant Galaxy in the past.

If the Universe is an enormous computer simulation, how do you think we could notice or verify that reality? Are You Living In a Computer Simulation?

No, I am sorry but I don't understand your wording, nobody said that galaxies X, Y and Z where "10 times closer" in the way you seem to impose. You can not measure the distance between them like that or argue like you do, they are observed in different time periods. The galaxies back at the time Z, like z1, z2 and z3 were "10 times closer" together than what the same galaxies z1, z2 and z3 are located today at the time NOW, since they have been separated by expansion during the time since back then. If we want to compare distances between galaxies X, Y and Z, that are located in different time periods, then we need to first decide in which time period we want to compare their distance, after that we can calculate their proper position in that time period and then finally we can check the differences. From the diagram I can say that galaxy Z and Y are roughly 1.5 times farther apart in time period Y than what they were in time period Z or that galaxy Z and X are roughly 2 times farther apart in time period X than what they were in time period Z.