ydoaPs

Motion is meaningless without a reference frame. You must define motion relative to something else. This is a BIG part of Special Relativity. "Without defining a reference, it's like asking, 'What the difference between a duck?'"--Swansont Heat is not the same as disorder. What makes you think they are the same as information and/or uncertainty? As I said above, energy is not the same as mass, but they are related. Which has more mass: one kilogram at rest with respect to you or one kilogram moving at 4x105m/s with respect to you? Obvious, eh?

Translation: "No one seems to be able to agree on motion relative to inertia." I thought Newton settled that with good old F=ma. Translation: "I'm smarter than you" Translation: "Without defining a reference, it's like asking, 'What the difference between a duck?'" This seems somewhat straightforward, but I'm not sure if we can make that assumption. Translation: "I'm so incredibly smart, I can can take my assumption and then(with NO work) draw the conclusion that all matter is expanding at the speed of light" So, It isn't all that clear. In fact, I'm 99.999997% sure that it's a non-sequiter. Translation: "I figured out how Warp Drive works. I must be the smartest person alive!" Translation: "If all matter is expanding uniformly, then (quite luckily for me) it would be completely untestable as space would expand too." If matter was expanding, and the spacial expansion compensated to leave no trace of the motion, what about the gravitational field? The mass is getting spread out, so shouldn't gravity get weaker? [math]F=G\frac{Mm}{r^2}[/math] Translation: "The movement of the matter is what causes gravity." Translation: "And this predicts length contraction." Again, it isn't that clear. Perhaps you should show some work. Also, I'm pretty sure length contraction is explained completely differently by one of the best tested theories in the history of science. Translation: "The greater the mass, the greater the gravitational force." Translation: "Here's my pseudoscience webpage!" Translation: "Motion would be meaningless in a universe consisting of a single particle, so I must be right!"

Actually, it does. The version he quoted assumes a reference frame in which the massless particle is at rest. Massless particles travel at c. Mass and energy aren't exactly the same thing. As I said above, E=mc2 is assuming a reference frame in which the particle at rest. E2=m2c4+p2c2 is the equation where the particle in question is not at rest relative to you. And guess what! Photons have momentum!

There is uncertainty. There is a probability that a neutron will be absorbed(microscopic cross section for absorption[ [called "nuclear cross section" here]) and there is a probability that the neutron will cause fission(microscopic cross section for fission). These depend upon the fuel and the temperature. And the neutron flux is affected by the Maxwell-Boltzman speed distribution of the neutrons. These things are part of the calculations for finding the power output of the reactor.

Some of us don't have that option. I only used caffiene pills in "A" School, though and not even regularly then.

It(fourth edition) arrived in the mail today along with Introduction to Electrodynamics Third Edition by David J Griffiths. Do you happen to have the derivation?

This needs to be proven before it can be stated as fact. Non-sequiter.

Like I told you before, use our Homework Help forum. That's what it's for. There's no need to derail the threads of others.

There is a homework forum on the site. Make a thread there describing the assignment and you will get help. We will not do your homework for your, but we will guide you toward the answer and give help.

No. As you said below, there are meteors striking and spacecraft leaving. No, they just re-arrange the mass that is already there, so there is no difference in the "weight" of the Earth(if that even means anything).

Here's one!

In a Carnot engine, the heat source is the same temperature as the system and the heat sink is at the same temperature as the system. That means you can't have heat transfer into or out of the system. So, the engine doesn't work.

Arabic[written] is prettier.

Prove it. prove it The entropy of a system can be lowered.

It's been a few days....has Farsight given up?

I was under the impression that a black hole is a singularity.

I'm in the middle of a multivariable calculus book, but I haven't gotten to vector fields yet. Thats why I said I had a basic idea of what the curl and divergence operators mean.

So, basically, what I was trying to do above? btw, I have no idea how to undo the curl operator to get the vector field itself. Is there a way? Earlier, you said [math]\nabla\cdot\mathbf{E} = \frac{\partial{E_x}}{\partial{x}} + \frac{\partial{E_y}}{\partial{y}} + \frac{\partial{E_z}}{\partial{z}}[/math]. If we are only looking at time, then can't we get pretend the other dimensions don't exist? I assumed that was a legitimate operation and then substituted into the first equation.

So, if I restrict the equations to describing how the fields change with respect to time, I can say the following? [math]{\nabla}{\cdot}{E}=\frac{\partial{E}}{\partial{t}}[/math] Then using that, I can say: [math]\frac{\partial{E}}{\partial{t}}=\frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0}[/math] Then using [math]{\nabla}{\times}{B}={\mu_0}{J}+{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}{\frac{\partial{E}}{\partial{t}}}[/math] I can say [math]\nabla\times{B}={\mu_0}{J}+{\mu_0}{\rho}[/math]. Now, I have [math]\nabla\times{B}={\mu_0}(J+\rho)[/math]. How would I go from this equation for the curl of B to the equation for B? This isn't really related to the thread, but I wanted to play around a little. What do you mean by solve them simultaneously?

fixed

I mean, don't you have to have an equation for one to find the other? How would we take, say, [math]{\nabla}{\times}{E}=-\frac{\partial{B}}{\partial{t}}[/math] and find a value for B at a point?

So, there's no set equations for J, rho, E, and B?

Silly me! I thought Relativity was highly tested. Like Gravity Probe B, for example. How do you know? You haven't provided any maths proving so.

Go on youtube and look up atheism or Christianity, and you will get untold numbers of videos. That may say something about the public's view on religion.

I knew they were vector fields, but I don't know how these fields are defined. For example, the bottom two are partial differential equations. How would I go about solving one of these partial differential equations?