biggs

haha thanks guys i guess if it's bacteria, i'll just nuke it with some bleach yea my dog is trained now, but back from when he made a bunch of accidents on this little corner, whenever it rains and makes the patch moise, it starts fumigating smells again ... : /

hmm i thought it was mostly urea? how would i get rid of that?

i own a dog... i would rather like to know how one could go about neutralising urine (and whatever else is in the urine) so that at least the resultant no longer looks or smells like it. by neutralise, i probably dont mean the typical chemistry terminology ... i really just want to get rid of the smell .. are there any house hold products that can achieve this task? thanks a lot

what do you guys think of the idea of discreet units of time? could that be possible (as opposed to a continuous continuum of time)? because if there was, i guess there would be a limit to how sufficiently small t is.

so velocity has a limit, the speed of light; and since accerleration is just the differentiation of velocity, does this mean there is a limit to how fast an object can accelerate? ~ and for ms^-3 and ms^-4? and were there a limit, would that mean there is a limit to the integration to distance? a limit to the size of the universe?

if we are a product of evolutionary pressures, does this mean that if eating habbits continue, in the distant future, we will eat the same fatty foods in an excess manner, but not get fat? so that the amount is no longer an excess manner, and we'd all have to eat like that just to manage

id say if you were conciously aware of the object, it could go as fast as an object could go and you'd still be able to see it the only problem is perhaps you are physically unable to keep up with the object's speed (eg it zooms past you, you cant turn your head fast enough) but the human eye itself, i would think could detect it, for example, if it were to spin in a small circle but at very very high speeds, it would be visible also, even if something is traveling very fast, if it is at a distance, it is no longer traveling as fast in your perception also, if the object is a massive massive object, it'd be pretty hard to miss it no matter how fast it was (eg a train, you stare directly ahead, but you keep seeing the train zooming past, and if its infinitely long, no matter how fast it travels, you'll keep seeing it

hmm, after a bit of thinking, i realised that if you were to move a celestial body over a bit, you'd have to eject a fair bit of matter out the other way, which would probably negate the displacement of gravity. if this is the case, then instead of moving, lets use the matter turns into energy idea, so i have a giant machine that turns planets into energy, then back into planets ... you could get a bit of binary digits through

hi i have a question about antennas (and an unrelated question about gravity) Question 1 does the length of an antenna have to take into account the amplitude? (ive no idea what the amplitude of a standard broadcast radio wave is) if the antenna was smaller than the amplitude, it would not be able to pick up the entire wave, so information would not be recieved, is this right? so if an emp from say a nuke went off, would all electronic devices within range break, or only those with a conductor in the circuit long enough to recieve the full magnitude of the amplitude of the emp? Question 2 anyway, second unrelated question. err after i read http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14262 , i thought of an idea but it's dependant if gravity has a speed or not... so does it? the posts dont really seem to answer anything and some contradict each other. by speed, i mean the effect gravity has on nearby mass, so for example if our sun, for no apparent reason exploded into a ultra mega super nova and all of the mass was turned into energy, it would take around 8 minutes for us on earth to realise we're about to be burnt to oblivion, but before the rather intense light reaches us, will earth continue to orbit around the virtual sun? or would we wander off in a tangent since the sun is no more...... ? the idea that the earth would continue to orbit nothing doesnt seem very logical to me but that fact that gravity is instantaneous doesnt seem very logical to me either ..... because if it was, then wouldnt we be able to communicate faster than the speed of light through gravity? for example, lets say there are two celestial masses and they are 10 light minutes away. Each, relative to each other, are not moving. if i was to move one over a bit, the gravity change would be noticed on the other, before the light from the first reached the second to tell that the planet had moved. instant communication??

im just wondering, does anybody know the google placing before everyone started the .... Intelligent Design Intelligent Design Intelligent Design Intelligent Design Intelligent Design Intelligent Design Intelligent Design bombing? just wondering how much power this forum has to move placings on google .... . Intelligent Design Intelligent Design Intelligent Design Intelligent Design Intelligent Design Intelligent Design Intelligent Design

hi does iq of a population generally fit in a bell curve? whats the standard deviation of iq? and also, whats your iq? i know that internet iq tests arnt that good, but the best one ive found is the international high IQ society free IQ tests, (i used 'ultimate iq test, but if your rather smart, try the exceptional one) my iq is 139 wooo

if they were frozen at absolute zero, on the way, wont they turn into bose einstein condensation or something and be shrunk to the size of an atom or smaller? i thought the reason frozen people couldnt be revieved was not because their bodies had deteriorated by now, but their cells, blood vessels and stuff were ruptured when the water in their bodies expanded as they froze

thanks for the replies thats what i meant when i wrote my first reply after i posted the question so what if these objects were so dense that it had absolutely no elastic potential, like the atoms are crammed together with no space between them kinda like a billard ball line where the billard balls are made of neutron stars? err i just had a thought, if i poked a neutron star, and since they're all crammed and cant bounce off each other, would that turn it into a black hole? also, are you saying that, say if the speed of sound in steel was 6000ms^-1, if i have a 6km long rod, and i pushed it forward, the push would not be felt on the other side of the rod untill after one second it has been pushed?

hmm after i posted that, i realised that it could be possible that the energy will move from each individual particles within the balls, bumping onto the next and that to the next at a fast speed. if so, what if the situation was so that a couple of particles were stuck in a line or at least a group, (eg a heavy atom) so if one particle hit one side with enough force, one particle from the other side will pop out ..... err i supose that's splitting the atom, and i realise that what i mentioned wont happen, but will the transfer of energy be instantaneous?

hi i have a rather simple question if i have a bunch of balls lined up so they're touching each other, and i throw a ball on one end of the chain, the ball on the other side of the chain will pop out take a look at this guy's avatar, err, he has nothing to do with me, im just using his avatar cos i dont know what those desk gizmos are called http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/member.php?u=5728 now is the energy transfered from one ball to the one on the far end instantaneous? if so, i thought nothing could travel faster than the speed of light doesnt that mean that if i had a rather long rod, i could poke a message to someone that was quite far away, eg say 1 light second away, then my information would reach the other person 1 second faster than the speed of light so.... somebody tell me why im wrong?

hi thanks for all the answers guys, i did a lot more reading and i think i understand now i just have some questions about the equations though in the link swansont gave me, ( relativistic velocity addition ) it has 2 equations eg. u = (v+u`)/(1+((vu`)c^2)) and the other one could someone explain what the letters represent (eg what is u`)? the site gives vague explanations (eg u` = velocity of projectile seen by b), but is there a more universal explanation so i could apply it to any other situation? what is the velocity of the projectile seen by b (in the diagram in link)? thanks a lot

hey i heard about this somewhere, if you take away all the energy from a particle (ie 0 kelvin) the electrons will fall to the center of the nucli and the particle will turn into energy(or some other thing will happen), cold fusion is this true? or could it be true (since it's probably never been done before)?

ah thanks janus, that makes a lot of sense now what about my first question?

does that mean light is always constant relative to an absolute space or constant relative to a third stationary observer?? i thought there was no absolute space, that everything was relative. doesnt that mean we can figure out where the centre of the expanding universe is?

hi i have 2 questions 1) if an object is traveling at more than half the speed of light, and i am traveling in the opposite direction on the same 1d plane at more than half the speed of light, then relative to me, wouldnt the object be traveling faster than the speed of light? i thought nothing could travel faster than light. 2) whats the speed of light like? is it relative to the source? like if i am running and i shine a light, will that light be speed of light + running speed, (when measured from the still ground i am running on)? ps. is this thread in the right section? my first thread, sorry if they're stupid questions, im 16

c is ( c)onstant, usually the speed of light not the universal speed limit. and c is always 1c and does not change (speed of light in a vacuum). if in the future we discover that the number c was slightly different to what we have, then c itself would change, so that c would have to become 1c again. nobody really knows if c is the universal speed limit, it's just that theres nothing faster than it so it's presumed it is. long ago, people thought that sound was the speed limit.

what if you have an air tight container with no gas inside, and has 100% reflective surface inside (so no light can get absorbed by the gases), + a device that emits light, like a battery and lightbulb, the battery surface is 100% reflective also, as are all parts (wires lightbulb holder). the lightbulb has no glass bulb, only a fillament that also has a 100% reflective surface. would that hold the light inside after the battery ran out? (if the fillament doesnt burn out or create any soot)