emcelhannon

When viewing something in motion, we observe its speed through space in relation to our own position, (distance x time). We will observe the speeds within that something as slower than our own. This difference adds a new quantity to be measured, (the difference in the rate of change between things in relative motion). So we end up with speeds of speed, and the faster one is, the slower goes the other. The speed of light is not a unit. It is an absolute quantity that is divided into units. Each unit, however, can be regarded as a fraction of space or time. When it is regarded as a fraction of time, what better word should be used to define it than "speed?"

Dimensions in this case are mathamatical abstractions. You need four numbers or pieces of information to attend a meeting or exist at all. Say you have a meeting on the third floor on the corner of 5th street and 47th avenue. An element of special relativity is that you also need a 4th number, which is time. He says that space and time are connected in the way that the 1st,2nd and 3rd are to each other and coined the word "spacetime." The relationship between time and the others is a special number, which is "c."

I believe that is a quote from Einstein. The speed of light is the speed of time.

Time is the 4th dimension. Think of 187K miles per hr is the angle in which it extends. Is that a decent analogy? I think I like it.

Yes, but it doesn't matter if the marbles are perfectly rigid, because space/time is not. I'm fairly certain Einstein presented a hypothetical example involving a pully on the moon. Imagine a pully on the moon with a ideal static line, (impossible, but imagine completely unelastic) threaded through it. If you had one end in each hand, and pulled with the left, the right wouldn't respond for 2.7sec, (800,000 mile round trip at light speed). It's not that the marbles are only slightly more rigid sponges that absorb the shock, it's that the speed of light IS the speed of time.

Alright, Assuming I'm not a pubescent girl looking for an esteem soothing romance, what would you guys recomend? I'll be needing a new read soon, and I might try your suggestions. Thanks

Relax Pangloss, were just having a friendly dual of wits here. I think its fun refuting every regurgitated thought of my friend bascule. I don't want to change his mind. I just want to make him look stupid for it. Sit back and enjoy. No offense, bascule. I don't give a rip about the book. I'm just having fun. That said, But would it have ever diverted you away from something you haven't enjoyed? As in, have you ever tested their opinions? Either way, I would never admit to believing I agree with anybody's every opinion. Opinions are not science, and when they're presented in the form of an insult, it's a better habit to offer your own. Repetition of hearsay is a greater culprit towards the spread of disinformation than open mindedness. Is "standing on the shoulders of giants" a reference to open mindedness or skepticism? ? If you accept the validity of both the standard model and Einstein's theories of relativity, I would say that you don't fully understand what you're saying. That might take some lengthy consideration, but it's worth figuring it out. At least you have your original thought. I would be interested in seeing what you consider quality literature.

Then why offer someone else's opinion. Why claim to know something you haven't tested, especially something subjective. This is a science forum after all. Open mindedness is generally considered a plus in this venue. It's not that you don't like the book, but that you would rate any critic's, (or meta-source of) opinion so highly that you would offer insult to something you haven't experienced. I saw the movie. It was alright, but I admit that it took a concious effort to forget the target audience. Have an original thought, and get back to me.

I'm not sure I understand this post. I saw the movie and like it. The story is a good one. It's reputation for being so familiar to teenage girls is due to a brilliant twist of the writer. She creates a situation where a young "man" is insanely attracted to a girl, (He tells her she's his own private heroine.) but he forbids himself from engaging in affection. He says he's afraid he won't be able to control himself. Think about it. You may remember the bane of every teenage boy who has fancied a young lass. They want to be chased, but not caught. This is exactly the story they've been looking for. The author is a genius. For a grown man, the twist I mentioned, doesn't need to deminish it. It's a good story. It may, however, be good sport to insult the masculinity of any man who admits it.

Thanks a lot. That explains a lot. I think I'll try squeezing the bottle with a clamp. That will expel the air, reduce the surface tension, and maintain atmosphereic pressure. My next question for Mr Skeptic is why do small bubbles have greater surface tension? I don't see why less surface area would have anything to do with it. Is the Co2 actually in liquid form or microscopic bubbles? What exactly is the nature of the trapped Co2? Thanks

I seem to remember an explaination on why menthos cause such a reaction. Apperiantly it's not a chemical reaction in the normal sense. It's just that the menthos is so porous, it has a lot of surface area, a whole lot of surface area. That's a part I don't understand. Apparently there's more than just pressure keeping the Co2trapped in the drink. Otherwise, it would all release when opened. Like seeding a molten metal to trigger it's crystal formation, something else aids in the release of the Co2. A bottle that hasn't been shaken may not releas any Co2 at all. I'm just sayin, It's more than a atmosphereic pressure thing. I'm hoping for an expert to tell me what.

On displaying and storing gallium. What kind of clear container does this stuff NOT stick to?

I'll try it, but I still can't wrap my mind around how it works. Does the carbon di turn to carbon tri or take on argon, or what? The whole reason it stays locked up in liquid when it's way over its subliming temp is crazy, and I want to know why. thanks By the way, how long can a bottle of wine last when using one of those pumps?

This is the tip I was waiting to see come up. It's never sounded right, because you are reducing the pressure in the bottle, and it's nagged at me. I must confess that I still don't understand why ALL the Co2 doesn't errupt the instant the bottle is opened. Questions: Does reducing the air/lowering the pressure preserve carbonation, or Does increasing the air and pressure preserve carbonation? What keeps it from going flat instantly?

Hydrogen is lame, dude. When you think "KING" you imagine a great uniter like Phillip 2nd. You envision glory like Alexander, and versatility like Marcus Arrelius. Not some common, single minded peasant at the bottom of the pecking order. Bismuth brings together the stable and unstable elements. It's irridescence is radiant, and it's powers of levitation and healing powers, (pepto bismol, ha) are borderline supernatural. Hydrogen is 75% of the universe by weight. I know scarcity isn't a primary consideration for royalty, but calling Hydrogen king is like calling sand precious. We should also note here that every isotope has a huge amount of atomic energy. Carbon has a fair claim to the throne, but again it's a commoner, even it's tetrahedral allatrope. Tungsten ain't bad either, with it's light bulbs and golf clubs, but I'm not feeling it. Gold is too obvious, and Mercury is a messenger. Osmium, now theirs an element, I'd like to get ahold of. Just once, I want to fondle a fist sized lump of that heavy weight. But alas, it's simply too aloof. A king shouldn't be an ordinary serf, but he's still got to be in touch with the people. (but if anyone out there has a $100,000 chunk of osmium to share, my loyalties are flexible) No offense, Jian. Just having some fun

Can you connect me? I'd like to throw my vote in for Bismuth. It's halflife is 15 billion years, (older than the universe) but we can say we drank radioactive liquid to settle our stomachs. I've used it to create stable diamagnetic levitation. I've cast chess sets out of it. It expands when it cools like water, capturing every detail. I've cooled it slowly, and etched it in muratic acid to reveal the crystaline structure. And of course, I've made amazing irridescent crystals by dumping the molten bismuth just before the top freezes over. The irridescence is not a pigment formed by oxidation. Instead, it's an example of the quantum effects of wave interferrence. The wicked trick of a single photon in two different places at the same time. The thin layer of oxidized bismuth reflects the photon off the bottom and the top of the layer, and allowing it to interfere with itself. The stuff is freakin magic. What else can it do?

Does the surface area against the air in the bottle affect things?

I can't seem to get much of a spark, (nothing visible, but felt like a toy shock pen). My primary's seem to be 1 and 2, my secondary is 8. My cap is unmarked, but it is out of a camera. What I'd really like to do is get the same arc I got when it was still in the monitor, but components burned up. I thought I'd see if I could make the same thing with the lone flyback. Is the quoted method designed to get a sizable arc. Will the transformer respond to 120 ac? We want high volts, low amps. You might enjoy knowing I lit myself up in front of my class. I had almost a 2'' arc. I held my tounge, but holy cow! That was fun. If you're not learning with your students, your teaching is lacking. Don't judge me. Ernie Mac

[quote name=' Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedi have lots of iodine' date=' sulfur, zinc, aluminum (acid etched showing crystal structure) a little bit of Be some Nb powder, about 20 grams of indium wire, Mo evaporation boats, 5x5"x.010 Mo sheet, Mo rod, Ti rod, tungsten rod, Ni electrolytic pieces, spool of .005" Tantalum wire, Ti sponge and crystals, bismuth, cadmium, some chromium, tin, a little diamond powder, lead, small amount of arsenic, antimony lots of SI, and a little cobalt. so if you need any of these and have something to trade let me know and tritium about 3 years old so has plenty of glow left.[/quote'] I don't have anything you need, but I do make some cool display boards. Would you be interested in trading? I have yet to acquire Be, Nb, In, Ti, Tu, Ta, Cr, Ar and Co.

How about this. The unattractive piece from the edge was contaminated by loose ferrous material from the pot, while the pretty crystal formed more to the center of the ingot, away from contaminants. or This give new meaning to Charles Dirrac's comment that it's "more important for the equation to be beautiful than for it to fit experiment."

My guess The magnet is pulling on the skewer. The second crystal is prettier because it's more ornate, and probably larger, so your magnet doesn't need to get close enough to the skewer to attract it. What do you think?

I wasn't aware it was possible. I've made a few chess sets with bismuth, and every piece has revealed it's crystaline structure, when soaked in hcl.. Those that I cool slowly have larger crystals. Those I allow to cool quickly showed small, grain-like structure. I've never witnessed or heard of bismuth being paramagnetic. I'd like to know how you pulled that off.

Is it?

estrogen?

So, how did Marie do it?