hawksmere

No matter where you are or what speed you travel at light will always recedes away at 299,783,458 metres per second. SPL is a constant of nature irrespective of the motion or the observer.

As already stated. The force of the impact is determined by the speed and mass of the two colliding objects. If you are both travelling at say 60 m.p.h and the car in front of you breaks slightly at say 59 m.p.h then the speed of the impact is of the velocity of 1 m.p.h as both are tarvelling at the same speed, both relative to the road. One also has to consider varible vectors as the cars may not be travelling in exactly the same line. Picture the cars being toy cars, both in a box and crash one into the other at around 1 m/p/h. Now take this box and sit in a car tarvelling 60 m/p/h. Mass is obviously different but the speed of impacty is still 1 m/p/h relative to the car you are sitting on. If you, the observer in s sees an object moving along x axis at velocity (w), then you are the 'system (s).Transiting at velocity v in the specific direction x with respect to S (you), You will then see the object moving with the velocity w' where We can therefore do a little math and change the equation.... Now that if that object was to move at SPL (speed of light) in the S system (e.g. w = c), it will too be shifting; S' system. Further more, if w & v were small in respect to SPL, we recover the Galilean transformation of velocities: . To simplify ir fuether, (call the system k) travelling north with velocity v with respect to the road (system k). you inside the car throw a ball east with a velocity u in respect road (not your direction should the road bend). Classical physics state, the observer, standing still on the side of the road will measure V (of the ball) of the asv + U. Special relativity however proves this as incorrect. Instead, the person standing on the kerb will measure the velocity of the ball as . If u and v are small in comparison to c, then the v + U is valid

First should you not ask if time existed before the big bang? Was there an Arrow of time? No mass, no energy, no time?

Hal's last advice is what you should be using all the time. A very logical approach and covers everything you need in order to acheive results and eliminate time wasting.

Thin line between giving sound scientific advise/feedback and just being rude and curt. Give an answer not arrogance. npbreakthrough, got some interesting and straightforward issues within the theory and just some prat that thinks we learn from, well in this case, nothing but a vanity affair! I work in Engineering and think we actually have a brushless engines where the magnets don't actually move on the outside of a stator but the coils rotate in the middle. They use drag however as P.W.M squere 3 pilses, just like a Squirell Cage set-up. Not forgetting the very fact that energy is dissipated as the force is reduced. All magnets have a maximum energy product (Mega Gauss oersteds). Although they still hold a lot of force inthier own right when dying out not enough to influence another body, even another magnet. even the most powerful and expensive ( NdFeB) magnets max out at less than 50 MGOe. Further more all losses in energy are actually incurred by these 33%-66% concept magnet devices alone, the energy consumed in the overall manufacturing process is 20-25 times the actual output. This is a good, but old read that may help http://www.ldolphin.org/zpe.html

Have been glued to various forums covering recent going ons especially the final mission of the endeavour which had price tag of approx $1.7bn (to manufacture) but lasted 30 years. I can confidently rest peacefully knowing we got so much out of it and still getting some great returns. However, NASA considering sending a 900kg Science Laboratory to Mars at the cost of $2.5 Billion! All to detect carbon-based molecules that could signal life. ‘Curiosity’ will land next August and although I’m all for exploration should we not be spending the wealth into something a little more further afield (aspace). It’s obviously possible but have we not drained that planet and now just scraping the barrel? Is it worth all that money and effort? Just wanted to get your thoughts...

Thanks

sounds like someone may actually be trying to hack this account!

Correct - sorry my bad. Will give more info next time

Mate, why would you respond to something to point out that it doesn't make sense to you? Never mind. Was an extract from another discussion about the controlled leaks of information from CERN. Been dealt with in another post - made a lot of sense to others and answered.

Leaks at the LHC were to raise awareness? James Gillies denies but CERN have certainly got people talking. 3000 members in 100 Institutes and given the nature of candidness in particle physics, is it a shock or was it planned? Also, considering that so many have worked together to find supersymmetric particle/s or of course the Higgs Boson, should Carlo Rubbia and Simon van deer Meer get all the credit, NOBEL PRIZE for one example? Any thoughts or even answers?

Yes, about 5k most mornings before work and a long 'un on a Sunday with a rest on Saturday. Great way to start the day

reading light.....next

In direct answer to the question, the Universe will expire. Yes (subject multiverses), ours will. The exact date is unknown as the asymmetry of time tells us the amount of usable energy will become negligible. The anthropic principle however states that 'our' (observers) are to be considered throughout the duration and completely relevant to the existence. Douglas Adams "the universe may appear to fit them perfectly, while in fact, they simply fit the universe perfectly". Black hole singularity is nothing but a theory but supported heavily, especially when the Hubble is following this 'arrow of time' and monitoring the expansion. The big freeze, chill of the big Crunch will, in my opinion, be long after humans left - Naturally as the Sun will die, extinguishing life [here] entirely. In the Gurbani it is simply stated. 'All that is born, in time, will have a death, in time'. The universe had its birth so must have its death. May be worth considering the relationship of this universe and others - should they exist of course