Ragib

Sorry Matt Grime, typo, Never, not Near. Never ending number. insane_alien- Good idea lol. I obviously worded that wrong.. I just ment E=hf , it comes in multiples of h.

The Tree - "So? Whoever said the real number system is physical?" I was merely talking bout JustStuits comments about getting a photon at "0.9 recurring" of c, which is in a physical system, no pure mathematics. And, velocity is quantised because space is quantised. I believe it is C/the Plank Time. Matt Grime- Read closer, i never actually said 0.999 recurring is irrational, i merely stated its impossible to have an irrantional quantity in a physical system. And what does it have to do with anything? It was just an extra sentence to give some extra information...and don't u try to say free-energy isnt quantised. You find me a photon thats got less energy than h. "what does that even mean and what does it have to do with mathematics?", once again, i wasnt talkin about mathematics, i was talking about physics. I wonder how old you are and how much fun you get out of harrassing 14 year olds. I bet when you were my age you didnt know half of what i do.

It is impossible to have an impossible to have 0.9999 recurring [math]c[/math], as it is impossible to have any irrational quantity in a physical system. This is due to the fact that everything is quantised, that is, in comes in chunks and is not continuous. If you think about it, its impossible to have a near ending number in reality. Velocity is quantised, as is space, time, and everything else.

is it 20...?

umm..sorry, i guess i am ignorant, im better at physics than maths...but well, for a 14 year old, i thought i wasn't that bad..i guess i should have researched more before i posted..and about the typing about the powers, in wikipedia it came out properly and i just copied and pasted, i thought it would be the same..

may i but in.. Cap'n Refsmmat said - There's one very simple way: if photons had mass, they could not reach the speed of light, according to relativity. poker said - But how to define the speed of light experimentally? And how to make sure that this method will lead to high precision result? Well, its a photon, the speed it goes at is the speed of light. A photon is light...basically, if you belive in Relativity (which you probably should for the next 20 years at least, before string theory finds something), by definition a photon will always travel at the same speed, nothing can slow it down, therefore it has no rest mass.

Think of it this way. You think of a particle in your mind, a small sphere or a speck of dust. But how your ment to think of a particle, is a little packet of energy, coming out of eiensteins mind, E=mc2 + Kinetic Energy. So if you think of it, you can set mass to 0, but still have energy there. By E=mc2, you know your conventional idea of a particle, being a small speck of dust, it actually is just a clump of energy.

OO not only that, but the successive powers of φ obey the Fibonacci recurrence: φ−2 = − φ + 2, φ−1 = φ − 1, φ0 = 1, φ1 = φ, φ2 = φ + 1, φ3 = 2φ + 1, φ4 = 3φ + 2, φ5 = 5φ + 3, φn = F(n)φ + F(n − 1),

O, thank you all so much I really should have thought of that method Athesist showed..also bascule, thats is also quite clever. Matt Grime, please excuse my ignorance, why is 1/1 =1 so amazing..

Australian, not Austrian.

Norman Alber, I think it lasted approximately 14 nanoseconds. Here is the whole story below, quote from http://www.physlink.com/News/060312SandiaZ.cfm : Sandia’s Z machine has produced plasmas that exceed temperatures of 2 billion degrees Kelvin — hotter than the interiors of stars. The unexpectedly hot output, if its cause were understood and harnessed, could eventually mean that smaller, less costly nuclear fusion plants would produce the same amount of energy as larger plants. The phenomena also may explain how astrophysical entities like solar flares maintain their extreme temperatures. The very high radiation output also creates new experimental environments to help validate computer codes responsible for maintaining a reliable nuclear weapons stockpile safely and securely — the principal mission of the Z facility. 'At first, we were disbelieving,' says Sandia project lead Chris Deeney. 'We repeated the experiment many times to make sure we had a true result and not an ‘Ooops’!' The results, recorded by spectrometers and confirmed by computer models created by John Apruzese and colleagues at Naval Research Laboratory, have held up over 14 months of additional tests. A description of the achievement, as well as a possible explanation by Sandia consultant Malcolm Haines, well-known for his work in Z pinches at the Imperial College in London, appeared in the Feb. 24 Physical Review Letters. Sandia is a National Nuclear Security Administration laboratory. What happened and why? Z’s energies in these experiments raised several questions. First, the radiated x-ray output was as much as four times the expected kinetic energy input. Ordinarily, in non-nuclear reactions, output energies are less — not greater — than the total input energies. More energy had to be getting in to balance the books, but from where could it come? Second, and more unusually, high ion temperatures were sustained after the plasma had stagnated — that is, after its ions had presumably lost motion and therefore energy and therefore heat — as though yet again some unknown agent was providing an additional energy source to the ions. Sandia’s Z machine normally works like this: 20 million amps of electricity pass through a small core of vertical tungsten wires finer than human hairs. The core is about the size of a spool of thread. The wires dissolve instantly into a cloud of charged particles called a plasma. The plasma, caught in the grip of the very strong magnetic field accompanying the electrical current, is compressed to the thickness of a pencil lead. This happens very rapidly, at a velocity that would fly a plane from New York to San Francisco in several seconds. At that point, the ions and electrons have nowhere further to go. Like a speeding car hitting a brick wall, they stop suddenly, releasing energy in the form of X-rays that reach temperatures of several million degrees — the temperature of solar flares. The new achievement — temperatures of billions of degrees — was obtained in part by substituting steel wires in cylindrical arrays 55 mm to 80 mm in diameter for the more typical tungsten wire arrays, approximately only 20 mm in diameter. The higher velocities achieved over these longer distances were part of the reason for the higher temperatures. (The use of steel allowed for detailed spectroscopic measurements of these temperatures impossible to obtain with tungsten.) Haines theorized that the rapid conversion of magnetic energy to a very high ion plasma temperature was achieved by unexpected instabilities at the point of ordinary stagnation: that is, the point at which ions and electrons should have been unable to travel further. The plasma should have collapsed, its internal energy radiated away. But for approximately 10 nanoseconds, some unknown energy was still pushing back against the magnetic field. Haines’ explanation theorizes that Z’s magnetic energies create microturbulences that increase the kinetic energies of ions caught in the field’s grip. Already hot, the extra jolt of kinetic energy then produces increased heat, as ions and their accompanying electrons release energy through friction-like viscous mixing even after they should have been exhausted. High temperatures previously had been assumed to be produced entirely by the kinetic flight and intersection of ions and electrons, unaided by accompanying microturbulent fields. Z is housed in a flat-roofed building about the size and shape of an aging high-school gymnasium. This work has already prompted other studies at Sandia and at the University of Nevada at Reno.

O, Sorry, Thank You Atheist, From now I will explicitly state what types of mass i am talking about, i am sorry for the confusion. Just trying to help

Firstly, Not everything in the universe is made of atoms. In Neutron Stars, they are made up of only neutrons, not atoms. 2ndly, the reason you can put your finger into a liquid and not a solid is becuase a solid has rigid structure, it has its own shape, but a liquid moulds to the shape of its container. A liquid cannot maintain its own shape because the atoms are at a higher temperature, so moving faster, too fast to maintain a rigid shape.

they created that temperature by sending an extremely high voltage current into an extremely high resistance wire. It resisted the current, and when a wire resists a current it is mostly converted into heat energy.

This increase in mass is physical. There is no more addition of particles to the mass, but each particle gets more mass. The accumulating energy is what gives the particles this extra mass. Say you had one block of super energy food, sure it gave you energy to run etc, but it weighed you down carrying it.

I'm afraid alot of this is incorrect information, and that ur prof. has good reason to laugh, though it may be cruel. You see, ur assumption which you base your theory on, that light is being debated to be either a particle or wave, is incorrect. That debate ended over 100 years ago, with the development of Quantum mechanics. Lights is not one or the other, it is both, except we can only see either its particle properties or wave properties at a time, depending on which we choose. But it is both. This isnt just light, its for everything. An electron has displayed the wave property of diffraction. Since its already a wave and particle at once, if it were to cross c, it wouldnt suddenly swap identities, because it was already both. Not to mention, you are double wrong on your statement, mass is the only constant in the universe. Firstly, mass is NOT a constant, mass converted into energy everyday in nuclear reactors. 2ndly, There are contants, such as energy, linear momentum, angular momentum (spin), electric charge, color charge. For all of those, the value in the universe does not change, it is the same throughout the universe. Secondly, This is called proof by contradicition, my next few lines. Hopefully it will make it clear to you. With all of your beliefs, eg speed of light passable, you do not believe in Eiensteins theory of Special relativity. So, then according to you, you could accelerate light by say, getting a torch and running. Its simple, going at 10 miles an hour, add another 10 miles an hour, you get 20. This example, you have C, then add your runnning speed. You exceed C. But, it had been measured and proven light keeps going at the same speed. Special Relativity Predicts this, but your theory does not work with special relativity. Quod erat demonstrandum (Thus it is proved.)

O My God. The Golden Ratio. Its quite an interesting subject. Its defined as: [1+(Sqaure root of 5) ]/2. In words, 1 plus root 5, all over 2. In symbols, the value is represented by the greek letter, phi. Lets cut to the chase, I just recently attained a calculator that computes to 5011 digits. The value of the golden ratio is 1.618033988749894848204586834366 to 30 decimal places. Anyway, I noticed that the recipricol, or phi^(-1), is phi - 1. Yes, 0.618033988749894848204586834366. And its not a coincidence to 30 decimal places, wen computed to 5011 decimal places, same result, phi^(-1) =phi - 1. Can anyone explain why or how..or what ever.