Royston

Not that I can answer your question, but I'm pretty much the same, except the sleeping patterns. I get roughly 4 to 6 hours a night...I have trouble switching off (i.e going over assignment questions in my head et.c.) But my diet can be healthy one week, to binging on fatty foods another week, and there's just no change in my weight. My exercise is rather minimal as well, just running up stairs a few times a day at work, and walking for about half a mile each day. My weight hasn't changed for over 15 years, and it doesn't matter what I do, it just won't shift. I generally have a small lunch, and a large meal about 5 hours before I go to sleep. I know breakfast is important, but I usually just have an apple or a banana, or nothing at all. Whether that has the requirements for ketosis, I've no idea. The simple solution for you, is get a urine test. I personally couldn't care less...I like being thin.

The article ran counter to what I'd been learning on the subject, and I was meaning to start a thread on the topic, but as ajb put it, I was 'distracted by the nonsense.'

That's correct, it has been verified that Kepler's laws don't have mass included in the equations, it has also been verified that the inclusion of mass has provided more precise approximations of orbital motion. I'm a first year (part time) physics student, and even I can pick holes in your argument.

There's nothing arbitrary about the inclusion of mass, it's an extension of and refinement of Kepler's third law, for example... If you take a body (the moon) of mass [math]m[/math], with a uniform angular speed [math]\omega[/math] and obviously the radius of the orbit [math]r[/math] it will be subject to a force [math]F = mr\omega^2[/math]. So the force from the gravitational pull of the Earth (E= Earth) is... [math]mr\omega^2 = \frac {Gm_E m}{r^2}[/math] So if the moon has an orbital period of [math]T = \frac{2\pi}{\omega}[/math] then... [math]\omega = \frac {2\pi}{T}[/math] Now substituting [math]\omega[/math] into the first equation with [math]\frac {2\pi}{T}[/math], and a bit of algebra... [math]T^2 = \frac{4\pi^2}{Gm_E}r^3[/math] Now compare that with Kepler's third law, so that [math]K[/math] is... [math]K = \frac{4\pi^2}{Gm_E}[/math] Now [math]K[/math] can be determined from observations, and provides the mass of the Earth, plus this can apply to other systems e.g a planet around the Sun. Kepler's laws are successful, because of universal gravitation...i.e an inverse square law. Newton bolstered and refined the equations, and they certainly hold up to observation and experiment. I really don't understand why you're arguing the point. Plus we're not going to advertise our names and addresses on a public forum, for obvious reasons.

I was reading an article on quantum entanglement on the physicsworld site, and to my horror Zephir is running a mock in the comments section....touting his aether idea. This is not the only article he's been posting under. Of all places, a website run by the iop, is being subject to crackpottery. If anyone is a member, this is a heads up to contact the editor...this guy must be STOPPED !!!!

I agree with your first comment. It seems this idea has already been put into practice in Holland, and at face value, seems to be doing ok. The output needs a boost from a heat pump, which certainly isn't surprising, but from the article below... http://www.livescience.com/environment/080101-ap-pavement.html What is surprising is the geographical location.

Just found this, I'm amazed it hasn't been considered before...I'm a bit busy ATM, but can anybody see any problems with this idea ? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080812135702.htm

Well I've just read that protium makes up 99.9855 % of hydrogen in the universe, and if this includes protium ions, then there could be quite a discrepancy, as you say. Interesting, might be worth looking into. Especially as wiki, hyperphysics et.c quote the 74% abundance of hydrogen in the universe, but I can't find anything that states if this includes protium ions...unless somebody already knows.

Not sure, they're just rough percentages that I remember reading in Hyperphysics, and covered in an early course IIRC. Possibly a silly question, but are protium ions actually classed as atoms ? I know they're classed as cations, but they're essentially just baryons.

Originality and keenness are fine, but you're assuming that 12 is significant, and then cherry picking data to support your position. That is, in essence, numerology. It's not science, and posting famous quotes doesn't support your position either.

Pretty much, the potential difference across an area 1cm^3 is only limited by the conductor, so in principle, as much voltage as you want (ideal situation of course).

Sorry to be pedantic, but hydrogen makes up roughly 75% of the atoms in the universe, followed by helium, then a few percent for heavier elements. Your sentence could be easily misinterpreted that the universe is made of 99% hydrogen...considering that the universe only comprises of roughly 5% matter, that figure is slightly off I know that isn't what you meant, just making sure Pradeep doesn't misread.

There's some discussion on the same question here... http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29550 Just to expand on Klaynos's first post, photons are bosons (integer spin), and are therefore not constrained by the Pauli exclusion principle i.e they can occupy the same quantum states, as opposed to fermions (e.g electrons) which have spin +1/2, -1/2. I think the confusion arises, because photons are considered discrete units, but this is really only discrete units of energy, and shouldn't be confused with a discrete unit of size e.g length or volume.

This was in the latest news on the OU website (well over a week ago) but the Open University (who I'm studying through) have recently released OUView on youtube. Thought some of you would enjoy/benefit from these videos... http://www.youtube.com/ou

It's studies such as that, that make me wonder why I chose physics as a subject. I doubt the angular momentum of a nipple tassel, is useful information...or is it ? http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSL1013303620080410 Sorry for going off topic, and descending into smut. (Sisyphus started it)

Thanks for finding this Arch2008, I was at work earlier and didn't have time to look for related articles. Good point, if there are any attempts to do this, as well as any other developments, I'll be sure to keep my eye out and post anything I find under this thread.

I was assuming that acceleration could be extracted from the ISW data, or maybe I read it somewhere...not sure, but I'll have a browze and see if I can find more on this. I'm sure you're more knowledgable in this subject than me...so I may pick your brains on this topic (especially as I'm looking to do an MSc in this field)

Just found this... http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/35368;jsessionid=48833536D0AA1CF3FDDE27AE83B7112D from the Physicsworld article... Not sure if this means the death of measuring expansion via the Type Ia Supernovae technique, but this is certainly good news.

So really men should wear high heel shoes, for those *special occasions. *When your lady friend is fertile. EDIT: I seem to remember the same is said about a man's face i.e at certain points of the menstrual cycle, women prefer a masculine face and at other points they prefer a more feminine looking face. I'll try and find a link. yoink...http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/376321.stm

The magnetic field generated by the LHC has rendered all clocks useless. Besides, who wants to know when we'll all implode and get sucked into an alternate universe...ignorance is bliss. Tired doomsday jokes aside, just found this article... http://www.universetoday.com/2008/08/07/get-ready-for-september-10th-cern-announces-lhc-switch-on/ Here's me thinking a cyclotron sounded Star Treky.

Well at least I get to celebrate my birthday before the Earth's inevitable demise. It is inevitable, I have a GCSE in biology, I know about these things. Out of interest, will you be there for the LHC start-up Severian ?

You've already been told though, that your initial premises are flawed, yet you've chosen to ignore this advice, and continue to raise the same argument. Nobody can back your idea up with 'technical help' because the reasoning, and assumptions that have lead to your idea, are logically fallicous.

This isn't correct, Klaynos has no friends. You don't need philosophy to understand the mechanism, or 'how' it works...that's the role of physics. A testable mathematical model that predicts the results...that would explain the 'how.' The why questions only go so far, e.g why does a single electron seem to occupy both slits in a two slit diffraction experiment (you could set up a number of interpretations), then you would go about creating a model that would explain 'how' that is possible. The successfull model would whittle down the initial interpretations of the experiment. Philosophy sets the initial questions, that's all. It does perfectly well at explaining phenomena for certain situations. The physical meaning can fall out of the equations, e.g appropriate frames of reference when doing velocity transformations, as well as time dilation and length contraction, all have physical meaning, and they're predicted by the equations.

Well with my degree i.e BSc Hons (Physics) I need 360 points, if you search for the degree you wish to complete, it will give you a list of courses and their respective points. Short courses which are restricted to Level 1 are worth 10 points, and are really introductory material for future courses. Then you have 30 point courses, which span from Level 1 to 3. It's possible to take two 30 point courses in one year, depending on your commitments outside of study, or the subject. For instance my math wasn't up to scratch so I did a 10 point and a 30 point course one year, but I could of done 60 points on retrospect...ho hum. Then you have 60 point courses, which unless you're retired or have lots of time are recommended for a years study. Again it depends if you're already familiar with the subject et.c So far I'm approaching 160 points (a mix of level 1 and level 2 courses), and I've been studying for nearly 3 years. All these points are counting towards my final degree, providing I'm successfull, obviously.