triskaidekaphile

Thank you all for your replies. I now have some more material to mull over, and I guess I need to stop reading oversimplified explanations and instead focus on the mathematical specifics.

An interesting conspiracy theory. I would like to first discuss the validity of your argument, if the education effects people in the way you claim then are these global elite all from countries of differing education systems? since western style education makes people incapable of the skills required to recognize the manipulation of themselves and therefore couldnt easily become part of this elite, therefore only the products of the superior education in nations that dont use western "lacking in ethics and morality" education would be able to be part of this organization, right? It is easier to tear down then build up. do you have any ideas as to how we can improve the system that won't offend minorities (or majorities) and won't indoctrinate kids into a religious beleif? I think that regardless of who teaches you, your thinking method is going to be affected, if kids were homeschooled then they might be taught well or they might be taught to be superstitious, paranoid of any form of government, this are extreme examples I acknowledge, but the point is that a form of " brainwashing" is always present. Also, perhaps the reason for the repetition of subjects is to more thoroughly cement the concepts, probably not a problem where they have school nearly year round. I too agree that there are problems with the current system, but what we need is constructive proposals to solve them in addition to evidence of present flaws. And before you think I'm one of those "drones" simply reacting because I'm, quote "• Defiant of anything that opposes the politically correct system." unquote. I'll let you know that I was homeschooled by parents who were of a similar mindset as you for about ten years, then I taught myself for a while, then I chose to go to high school for three years and did just fine.

In regards to the above post, You might be able to buy used books online, at thrift stores, garage sales, and of course, book sales. At least that's where I got most of mine. I wish you good fortune in your endeavors.

So is it the relative kinetic energy that contributes to gravity?

So it can only appear to become a black hole?

From what I understand so far, objects cannot accelerate to the speed of light since it would require an infinite amount of energy and would increase the objects mass relative to a "motionless" observer. The object would become more massive as it tries to accelerate. If this is so then would the accelerating object become so massive that it would become a black hole, while in reference to itself nothing changes? Another way to look at it is: if there was an extremely dense white dwarf star that is on the verge of black hole density and/or mass, and you started moving relative to it, to a considerable speed, but much less then before, then would we see the white dwarf transition to being a black hole due to relative motion? I apologize if this is another case of an incomplete grasp of relativity, I'm young and am still learning. Thanks in advance for any replies.

It took me 1.5 hours to solve, but I get two possible answers, I checked them against the clues several times

I am no expert, but some concepts I've thought of include: hydrogen fuel, this is a tried and proven method of propulsion, lot of energy but must be cautious of storage, mixing, and ignition, weight might be tricky to work with. Ion propulsion as far as I know is best when used in space, not enough power for launch, since it relies on electricity ( as far as I know) that will present challenges that I'm not too familiar with at this time. Since solid fuel propulsion doesnt sound to practical for this, i'll skip to nuclear propulsion, this would be considered one of the more intresting concepts in that it is a long lasting fuel with considerable thrust, as far as I know though, this is more likely to be a propulsion for when in space, the basic design is a nuclear reactor in the center of the engine with hydrogen gas that flows from the front and flows over the reactor chamber and becomes heated and is shot out the back, I suppose you might combine oxygen to give additional thrust if leaving behind a radioactive vapor trail, a drawback to this (besides the obvious challenges) is that it is a process that is slow to change speed. One more idea, if you could passively lift the rocket to a higher altitude then you should use less fuel, for instance, lifting the rocket with a hydrogen ballon or a platform lifted by balloons. More about these can be found online of course and I wish you luck, and I appologize for any mistake I made in this assessment of possibilities.

from what i understand, based on the definition of a perpetual motion machine as being ' a machine or device that powers itself and/or can produce extra power' or creates energy, based on this definition, i would say that it's impossible, however, i think you can make something that looks like a perpetual motion machine, maybe you can make something like it using magnets, but i maintain that the energy is coming from somewhere or some source, i daren't say that those magnetic motors don't work, but frauds are common.

i've recently read half of brian greene's elegant universe the second half is presently out of my level of understanding. a very good book (halfbook?) for learning relativity concepts, although his spinning circus ride analogy sounds faulty.

sorry that its taken a while for me to respond. for now i guess i'll have to learn a lot more to understand how speed is shared between space and time. but i can continue with the thought experiment. in an area devoid of significant gravitational disturbances, lets say that we are in a spaceship that to us is motionless,. then a space ship passes in front of us traveling at half light speed, at the exact moment they pass in front of us they flash a short burst of light directly forward and a short flash directly behind themselves, now, the light moving forward would be moving at a speed that i dont know exactly, i would have thought half lightspeed compared to us but now i'm not sure, anyhow, it stands to reason (for me at least) that the light moving backward would have to be moving at the same speed relative to the moving ship as the front flash of light, and if it was half light speed then the speed of the light would be canceled by the speed of the source ship and therefore look like a motionless peice of light. i'm sure i'm missing something but i don't know what. and thank you for your time. and thanks to I ME for the video link

in his book ''The Elegant Universe'' Greene said that all objects are moving at light speed (i.e. relative to a frame of reference the sum of an object's speed through space and time equals the speed of light). is this an oversimplification? because if it's right then i dont understand how an object can be moving .866 c and still move at half lightspeed through time. what is the trejectory like then? does this mean that light can be sped up by gravitation or just appears to speed up? if a spaceship in an inertial frame were to shoot out a beam/pulse of light in front and backward and was moving at a steady speed, would the two beams be moving at the same speed away from the ship?

for better coverage in this thought experiment i first need to ask some questions relative to planet earth, would a spaceship moving at 50% the speed of light have it's time moving half as fast compared to us? if not then what speed would it take for time to be halved? does radiation, such as a photon, move in a wave like the books show it? or if you were theoretically able to see it, and were looking from the side, would it bounce up and down like the books show or would it sometimes seem like a flat line as it bounces at you and away at times? if we were to shoot a light beam in front of our planet and another straight behind us relative to our motion around the sun, and were to measure the speed of the light, would it be the same speed? when these answers are varified then i'll proceed with the actual experiment. i'd appreciate any contributions.

thank you for the answers that you have given, i found a book that talks a bit about the spin of electrons and such so I'll read that to learn more on the subject. however i still have two questions, does the earth's mantle have a large amount of unpaired electrons or is it pretty well balanced? and what is going on when a magnetic field interacts with a superconductor? I've heard that it creates an opposite field that opposes the magnet, does the magnetic field pass through the superconductor or stay on the surface area?

is it seven midland add cordele boston minus folkston branch flowery plus pearson dearing dasher zero double springs warm

first: thank you for answering. second: how do you use those quote boxes? so is the concept of magnetism like gravity in newton's time? something that can be measured and predictions can be made on but the actual process or mechanics of transference is unknown? do protons create magnetic forces that rotate in the opposite direction of an electron's since its the opposite charge? when you say unpaired electrons do you mean there's more electrons then protons in most ferromagnetic materials? if the answer to the previous question is yes then does that apply to materials in the earth's mantle and deeper areas? because if it does, and since the earth is on orb that rotates, then won't the slower electrons create a magnetic field and therefore account for part of the earth's

this is my current understanding: magnetism is created by the motion of electrons, as the electrons are moving (from one point to another, not vibration) they create these magnetic fields that rotate clockwise if you are looking at the departing electron's 'back', and this motion in a wire creates an electromagnet, and around an atom's nucleus the electrons orbit in the same direction and work together to make the magnetic field in a 'permanent' magnet when most of the magnetized atoms are aligned in the same direction. these are my questions: what is the magnetic field made out of? i' heard something about 'virtual photons' and if they are what transmits the fields then what cuases the photons to conduct this force? can an electron make a magnetic field if it moves slower relative to us? since the electrons speed determines if it makes a field or not then does this mean that a high speed (or low speed if the answer to my previous question is yes) atom will create a magnetic feild similar to a single electron's? in permanent magnets at room temperature, do the electrons tend to settle into a magnetic orbit on their own or does it takes a significant force to put them into the orbits? can the orbits be undone easily at room temp? and what is going on with the field when it tries to interact with a superconducter? i would really appreciate some answers, i have some invention ideas depending on some of the answers

hi y'all i am new to this science forum but it sure seems interesting so far. i'm intrigued by most all physics, some philosophy, innovative engineering (inventing), and twiddling my thumbs. i need help in understanding certain physics concepts since i have a hard time finding someone who can explain things, i also have a few ideas i'd like to talk about sometime. while i don't have a perfect understanding about alot of physics i would like to help other people learn as well.

lately i have been frustrated from trying to find out what a magnetic field is made of, why does a moving electron create a magnetic field that rotates in a particular direction? considering that you have worked with magnetism concepts i hope you can provide a logical concise explanation. i sure would appreciate it.

i think trying to cool it might also be problem since its in an insulating vacuum

when you look up mass in wikipedia it says that it shouldn't be confused with matter since energy is also found to have mass, but wikipedia must have something wrong becuase if you look up E=MC^2 in wikipedia it says that the M represents mass, but why would Einstein make a formula for converting energy into energy? so i figure it's actually supposed to represent matter. having said that, i am confused by what Swansont said when he said that it's possible to have energy with no mass at all even if it's the equivalent to the amount of energy in a given sample of matter that does have mass. it's been my understanding that you would always have that mass. for instance, even when you speed up an object and are putting in kinetic energy it gains mass. and Keelanz, i beleive there is something left behind when all the energy is taken out, provided it isn't something that naturally sticks to energy. i wish you good luck in your endeavors.