booker

There's not a Doppler shift. Spacetime is like morphing and mixing things up in very precise ways that I can explain.

That's a pretty strong argument, Edtharan Let me test your logic, if I may. A) Light emmited in one inertial frame is measured in another inertia frame. When the frequency changes it is by definition called a Doppler shift. B) Light from distant galaxies is red shifted. C) Therefore the red shift is due to a Doppler shift. Dogs have fleas. Therefore my lousy pet gorrilla is a dog. Really?

How do you explain that some galaxies are moving away at faster than the speed of light?

What? You probably think it's doppler shift. Based on what theory?

Light from galaxies looks redder than it should. We can all agree on that. The spectral line shifts proves that. But there isn't any Doppler shift. It's just an illusion because you can't say how fast something is moving two blocks away. Galaxies just look like they are moving away. Instead of things looking at a further distance, they look like a greater *velocity*. The shape of space is just not what you expect. It's like looking at something moving across your field of vision. If it's really moving at a slight angle away from you, it looks like it's slower. I can prove it too.

Thanks for the many links. I'll see where they might lead.

Could you be more specific? I'm a little bit familiar with Kaluza-Klein, having arrived at it somewhat circuitously, regauging electromagnetism. Some of this is outlined in my first year report for my PhD. Section 2 The Geometric Setting of Classical Field Theory is what you should pay attention to. I get a message "This file is damaged and could not be repaired," trying to open your thesis.

General relativity is premised on the Einstein Equivalence Principle wedding Newton's equivalence of inertial and gravitatinal mass with special relativity. One result is that particles not subject to an external force follow geodesics, where the geodesic is fully determied by the initial conditions; the tangent vectors of displacement and velocity. So rather, instead, one can begin with geodesics as the 'fundemental premise', where inertial and gravitation mass become two names for the same gravitational charge. Generalizing on geodesics, I'm would be temped to say "World lines are completely determined by the initial conditions; the tangent vectors of displacement and velocity." (It would be getting a little ahead of the game to talk about particle fields rather than classical particles.) In other words, as in general relativity where gravity is not a force, neither should the strong nor the electroweak force be forces, but described by curvatures on some R^N psuedo Riemann manifold. Does this notion pertain to any legitimate study in physics?

This is actually a quesiton I asked as a freshman. Two like-charged beams will still repell, but repell less with an increased velocity of the charges. The charges in each beam repell. In the lab frame, the magnetic field generated by one beam acts to attract the other beam. I believe that at v --> c the electric and magnetic forces are equal and opposite. There isn't any other critical velocity, so hueristically at least, it makes sense. Secondly, in the lab frame the relativistic masses of the charged particles increase as well, slowing divergence of the beams.

right

For a minute I thought I'd been warped into a Star Trek convention. Relative, or corvariant and invariant.

Everything is relative?

Correctly speaking, the energy acquired increases geometrically with velocity.

Re Z-pinch. This is about plasma; electrically neutral, or nearly neutral stuff. It's made of ions plus their stripped electrons. So like two electrically neutral wires in parallel, sending a current through the plasma causes it to pinch. Besides that, if one inertial observer sees two charges drawing together, so will another. Swansont, I'm afraid you've misremembered. No additional terms are required, that's what manifestly covariant is all about! If you're thinking of the term added to the current density, that's the charge density scaled by the speed of light. It's not an additional term. Charge density and current density are combined into a single unit, conveniently reducing the number of Maxwell's equations by one.

Sorry, I got my facts embarassingly scrambled. I couldn't delete fast enough http://www.kjmagnetics.com/faq.asp#stack "The powdered mixture [Nd and Fe, and B] is pressed under great pressure into molds. The material is then sintered (heated under a vacuum), cooled, and then ground or sliced into the desired shape. Coatings are then applied if required. Finally, the blank magnets are magnetized by exposing them to a very powerful magnetic field in excess of 30 KOe. OK, so I haven't completely lost my mind. http://www.stanfordmagnets.com/magnet.html "Both Nd-Fe-B and Sm-Co magnets can be made either in sintered or polymer-bonded magnets. The polymer (such as epoxy)-bonded magnets can be produced with close tolerances off tool, with little or no finishing required. " Reading a little further, notice that N45 is sintered NIB. The injection molded (therefore thermoplastic I suppose) magnets supplied by this company are far weaker.

Url]

Holy thys of steel, Batman! Energy-wise, jumping 6 G's a couple feet in the air would be like squatting halfway down in 1 G with 5.5 times your weight in dumbells strapped to you, and jumping a couple feet in the air. Once you've worked out in 6 G's to jump 2 feet, now you want to impart the same energy to your jump when you're at 1 G. It would feel like pushing on air. You have to push a lot faster against less resistance to get the same energy into it.

I liked your conveyor so much I made a variant (kind of) with a wooden chain. http://FantasticContraption.com/?designId=351510

A Handling contraption http://FantasticContraption.com/?designId=334807 Around the Bend http://FantasticContraption.com/?designId=315264 Around the Bend slow. http://FantasticContraption.com/?designId=348285

I found a solution to #17 Handling, but the ID number still shows the ID number of the game I got the the URL with. What's with that?

If you're going to pit-pick, you should at least get it right. The potential in Schodingers equation is voltage, not gravitational potential.

You might be thinking of overall forces exerted on a vehicle, but some of the most damaging are oscillatory, impulse, or just random. Impulse forces inherent in the explosive bolts used during separation of stages is a factor in designing components for launch payloads. The random forces inducing vibration from the lift stages are another source. These forces can also play havoc with guidance and control instumentation. Maybe the JPL web site talks about this stuff.

Good grief. It's not a matter of life and death, and you don't have to go back to cavemen senarios to understand it. And now a lesson about the birds and the bees. Women are simply maximizing their potential--or trying to--whether conciously or not. Potential for what, need you ask? Main goal: to attract a mate with maximal traits: wealth, position, potential, and desirably breedable (a hottie with money, and prestige). There are alternate subsidiary goals that become more apparent during divorces 'n stuff.

These two equations, should read [math] A_{max} = (1/2)(3+0.0625)(4+0.0625)sin((\pi/4)+0.02)[/math] [math] A_{min} = (1/2)(3-0.0625)(4-0.0625)sin((\pi/4)-0.02)[/math]

OK, but you're missing the point. Replace the potential in Schodinger's equation with the function as a centrally acting force. but so what. Alll this discussion is on one level. On a meta-level, what classical laws and definitions have no equivalent in quantum mechanics? Conversely, what quantum mechanical laws and definitions have no equivalent in classical mechanics. We are talking about the two mechanics, right?