[Tycho?]

I lost you at that last paragraph of yours, care to go into more detail on that?

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/15898729.htm http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/11/republican-fake-phone-call-scandal.html I normally dont talk politics on this board, but I felt obliged to. The GOP have a wonderful new tactic this year, making automated calls that claim to from a Democrat. They repeat these calls over and over and over again, in the hope that the voter in question will get so pissed off at these "democrat" calls that they wont vote democrat. Awesome. These are just two links I came across, but news of this seems to be spreading, I'm sure you could find more info on it easily on various political blogs or a google search. This sort of crook tactic just makes me sick.

So yeah, that site does not make any sense at all. What? "disturbes the current of the gravitational field? What does this even mean? How can a gravitational field have a current? "Gravitational field matter"? "local gfm of the universe"? The definition of antigravitation? Thats not a definiton, not with these terms. a = 16π3 m r4 / ( c h T4 ) Where did that equation come from, how do we know it works? Why isn't the acceleration of the boat "related" to the total mass? How does being in an "uncertain spacetime" (another thing that is not defined) mean the boat will go fast, slow, forward, backward, and sometimes stop? Forward backward. Fast slow. Stop. What other things can a boat do? You dont seem to be able to predict the movement at all.

So, just because you are using the term "antigravitation engine" I'm just going to call you a crackpot first for good measure, once I read the site I'll probably go into more detail.

20 this month.

Sweeeeet.

Why would they? I usually have better things to do than solve high school physics problems.

Yes, as far as anyone can tell, antimatter is not present in observable quantities in our universe. Which is puzzling.

Right I dont know why you think "is" means multiply, it just means is. But regardless, you are wrong. 0 degrees is a temperature, so twice as hot cannot be the same temperature, even if the math seems to indicate it. 0 degrees celcius = 273 Kelvin. So the correct answer is 273 degrees celcius Faster. The one with ice will heat up more slowly... because there is ice in, obviously. A is correct. Yes, higher altitude means lower pressure, means less energy required to make the water boil, so lower temperature. A is right. Yup Correct. The other questions were things usually taught in a chemistry class, but this is very much a physics question, and not one a layperson would likely know. A would be the best answer, B would be correct, but not really the answer, C doesn't have anything to do with the question.

You must be confused about something for your first point. Transuranic elements dont occur in nature (in quantities large enough to detect) because of their short half-lives. I assume that some plutonium is created in supernovae, which is where all elements heavier than iron are created. But the plutonium would decay quite quickly, and so by the time earth formed and humans started walking around looking for radioactive elements, any plutonium formed originally had been gone for a very, very long time. About the proton shock im not so sure. It would feel like an electric shock, indeed there is a type of lightning that works via the movement of positive charges. I dont know about the practical part of this however.

Ohhhh that'd be so fun.

Distance up equals distance down. One distance equation will just be your kinematics equation d=.5aT^2, the other will be speed of sound (Vs) times the time it takes for the sound to get up the well (Ts). These two equations equal eachother, you will be able to solve for one of the T's in terms of another. You know that T+Ts=1.89. You now have two equations and two variables, solve how you like. Not bad for a person who's high, although it did take me a few minutes to figure that out

No, you are confused about what I am asking. Einstien didn't win the prize for special relativity largely because it was so controversial. Fine. But its generally agreed today that he *should* have won one, that what he did was worth the prize. Same for brownian motion. I am asking why he did not deserve one for general relativity. This question has nothing to do with how the prizes are actually given out, I dont care what the Nobel Prize comittee thinks on the issue. Physicsits think special relativity was worth the prize; why dont physicists think the same for general relativity?

Ahhh, I'm inclined to think most of those disputes arose only due to Einstiens fame, since the people he supposedly plagarized didn't press the issue at all. But that aside. Special relativity is where most of the controvesy lies, yet it is generally agreed that the paper was worth a nobel prize. So any controversies aside, why is general relativity so much less important?

Mmmmhmm, so new physical principal that nobody has noticed? Yet you find it hard to get papers published? Color me skeptical.

Check wikipedia. If you are thinking of Einstiens field equations, they are available on wikipedia.

I think they put atomic clocks at the top and bottom of a water tower, and measured the difference.

I think conservation of energy plays a role here. Generating air frition means you are very un-aerodynamic, and things that are very un-aerodynamic have a way of falling more than they do flying.

Ok, big important point: Gravity does not require matter, it requires energy. Remember E=mc^2. So saying there was no gravity because there was no matter is incorrect. So long as there is energy, then there is gravity.

It is generally agreed that Einstien should have won 3 nobel prizes instead of just the one that he did win. These would be for his paper published in 1905, on the photoelectric effect (that he did win one for), for special relativity and for brownian motion. This makes sense, considering how important these were. But what about General Relativity? I mean, even moreso than Special Relativity, this seems to fundamentally change the way we look at the universe. He did nothing less than replace newtons law of universal gravitation; one of the most important laws in physics. I would think that this, even moreso than his other would would earn a nobel prize. Yet it never seems to come up. Why is this?

Bringing acceleration into moves us from special relativity to general relativity; where the math gets a lot harder. This specific example may or may not be difficult, but I have yet to see a simple equation like this for general relativity.

Look up general relativity, I'm pretty sure there have been experiments to show time dilation results from a gravitational field.

I wasn't being sarcastic, I was genuinely suprised. I know a fair amount about space travel (so I thought) but I had no idea about this.

Wow, I had no idea the Russians landed rovers on mars, especially that long ago.

I dont know who would propose something so stupid, but you shouldn't listen to anything else they say. I looked up how far away Berhnards star is (about 6 light years, further than alpha centauri). A quick calculation shows that Berhnards star would have an accelertation due to gravity from the sun of something on the order of 10^-12 m/s^2. Which is to say, the effect is effectively zero.