insane_alien

some energy is photons. not all of it. same way some dogs are terriers but you wouldn't say all dogs are terriers.

is that ALL the information you have on the conveyor? because if it is the answer shoud definitely be 6W.

yeah thats the one. but in theory any inert substance could be used

first, work out how much energy it takes to accelerate 3kg to 2 m/s. that is the energy you must expend every second to keep it moving. E=0.5m*v^2 is the equation you should use. i'll assume you've seen it before and know what the symbols mean.

ignore

lets see, a resource poor nation fighting an all out war in which it is lHiroshima is located in the Honshu Arc. This is a volcanic zone with five volcanoes that they were monitoring 24/7 with seismological equipment.Hiroshima is located in the Honshu Arc. This is a volcanic zone with five volcanoes that they were monitoring 24/7 with seismological equipment.osing, badly. now, this usually means all non-military value research projects get put on indefinite suspension and the resources used to further the war effort. if material shortages didn't affect the monitoring the people getting shoved into the military and related weapons manufacturing would.

which essentially means you have not come up with a formula that systematically finds primes and could be used in finding a limit or even if there is one. actually, for this, every second number it produces is even. it also does not include ALL prime numbers. but please, post the other formulas i will make a spreadsheet to compare them and post it here.

and standard convention says it's group VIIA. i have only ever seen 1 paper deviate from that convention.

the wonderful world of gaseous inerts comes into play here. you smother the furnace in nitrogen or if thats not good enough, xenon.

the updraft would be more than enough to compensate, it's the force of the burning fuel you're firing into the air that is likely to cause problems.

nah. just don't rub floppy disks against it and everything will be peachy.

add that as a 6th point to why that post was wrong.

i think you'd have more trouble with stress isues from weight than anything else lcd screens don't have a wire mesh to block electron beams like in CRT's so you won't get the cool purple haze effect type thing ...amujig.

yes but they can start off at the surface and still escape. things generally don't leave from the middle anyway. thats like popping out of existance from the middle of a room instead of walking to the door and going through it.

1/ i was reffering to the 'matter can't exist without motion' thing 2/ full equation is E^2=(mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 3/ massive objects can't reach the speed of light 4/ they do not suddenly convert to energy when approaching the speed of light 5/ acceleration does not equal velocity over time. it is the differential of velocity with respect to time. a = dv/t is probably what you were thinking of where dv is the change in velocity.

and where did you get this idea from? thet would require a preffered frame in which to measure the movement and mean everything that accelerates to zero velocity will disappear. why don't we see things eroding if they accelerate through zero velocity?

in a closed system. the earth can generally be regarded as closed but to be accurate, it's not. there a few thousand tonnes of impacting material every month. not true, hydrogen, helium and many other light gaseous molecules have enough velocity from thermal motion to escape. not to mention ejecta from more major asteroid impacts. as for the origional question, the mass leaving the earth/moon can be neglected, it is the stuff your landing that you need to worry about. though, as long as the direction of impact is random the impulse imparted should average out to zero or some very small number. most likely the angular momentum of the impactor will be in the same direction as earths. this means it won't change the orbital velocity at all. either way, the sun will expand to engulf the earth long before that would have an effect even in the worst case scenario.

why is a ford focus called a car? light is a subset of the larger group defined by electromagnetic radiation. just like a ford focus is a subset of the larger group defined by 'car'

well, all light is electromagnetic waves. everything from radio waves to gamma rays. its all electromagnetism just of various frequencies.

well you don't have anything as you removed everything. you need to have something to get the energy of it.

yeah, thats what i would have said if you degarbled it, put in the right order and clipped out the completely unnecessary bits. and chucked in a bucket of grammar

please don't mix units like that, it causes a whole lot of problems at calculation time. lets stick to the SI we all know and love. so we have a 10km high, 1m wide fire. like thats going to happen. that has a horrbile H/D ratio and believe it or not, the equations i have don't apply to H/D of 10000 it goes up to 10. so for this to be reasonable accurate it's going to need to be a kilometer wide at the least.

but the equivalent of a blender is used in industry. its a lot bigger, hotter and slower than your normal household blender but the principle it the same. all you need is an even mix of the materials

and for the second point, light does not move faster through water, it moves slower through water. it is fastest in a complete vacuum. but bear in mind this is only an average speed. between absorbtions and emittions from atoms in the medium it still travels at full speed.

it'll depend on what the manufacturer can get for the cheapest at the time. but americium is definitely the most common.