CPL.Luke

we've done the experiment in lab "milk" bottles and in ibc root beer bottles, the results were essentially the same in terms of placement of the plasma. Me and my partner are kindof on the tack that the plasma is being created by either inductive coupling or capacitive coupling, or a combination of the two, and that the neck of the bottle is such that because of the plasmas tendency to hold together (not entirely sure if this is true) the plasma essentially cannot "fit" through the neck. right now were going to work on adjusting the neck of the bottles to be smaller and hopefully were going to find the relationship between the width of the neck and the ability of the plasma to "fit" through the neck. as for position in the microwave, I've conducted the experiment with the bottle on the edge of the turntable in the microwave and thats made the plasma stop working in some parts of the microwave oven. as for replicating the experiment, I'm a bit hesitant to give out all the parameters as as far as I know Me and my partner are the first people to do these sorts of experiments, and we are kindof hoping for this to be somewhat scientificly useful (and get us into college). oh yes, I do know how krankish that sounds. does anybody have any information on plasma's tendency to congeal? in my literature research I haven't found any real information on this, although in my observations of it it does seam to hold together (to a limited extent) also what is a wag?

hmm whenever I click on insert photo it asks me for a url

so.... I've been working on this science project for a while, it involves sticking bits of metal inside of a glass bottle, then placing the bottle inside a microwave. the end result of this is that a ball of plasma forms inside of the bottle and hovers around the neck of the bottle. after doing a fair amount of work on this project I'm kinda at a standstill as to why the plasma doesn't leave the bottle through the open neck. I would attach some pictures however I don't have any server to host them on.

how do you explain the instantaneous jump in the electron level then? (if the light is emitted over a period of time)

pardon me I suppose I should have used pulses instead of jumps, but anyway back to the discussion. when the electron jumps it emits one quick burst of light known as a photon, this photon then has its own frequency, the frequency of the photon is proportional to its energy such that E/h=f if this is really what you've been trying to say than I appologize as I misunderstood you. If it is as though ie. the electron emits light on its way down atleast semi-continuously, then you are not correct.

hmm if I didn't know better I'd say you ere trying to mach me, I'd hate to think this were true considering that you haven't shown anything new to support your theory, and you would have only resorted to this tactic after I asked you a question. and for a historical background you should be aware that when Einstein presented General Relativity he was able to make a number of new predictions, that was later confirmed through experimentation (but he did provide a precise mathmatical prediction for these new experiments, i.e. he didn't say "I think this will happen, because I think my theory implies it") the same goes for newton and everyone else.

I was reffereing to the light emitted on the way down, the light has to come in fixed jumps, otherwise it doesn't fit the data. if light doesn't make fixed jumps on the way down than the amplitude of the emitted light will stay the same but the frequency will increase (this doesn't happen)

that wouldn't fit the data however, because in your model the amplitude of light emited from electrons closer to the nuclei would be the same as the amplitude emited from the valence electrons.

einstein actually fought against wave-particle duality, it was introduced by ernst schrodinger, to cover entirely different phenomena

interesting paper, it seems you're very close to deriving wave particle duality, you might like to know that the photon is a probability wave. some criticisms of the paper however, it seems that you tried to hypothesize that the electron would slowly lose its energy over time, and then later advocated the quantum perspective that light was quantized in some unit.

what special relativity means is that no matterr what speed you move at, maxwells equations still apply normally. In order to understand the relevance of the statement "the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames" you have to consider what the current beliefs (and I do mean beliefs here) were in physics at that time, physicists believed that the speed of light was relative to the velocity of the observer and thus sought out a means of understanding the consequences of a varying speed of light to maxwell's equations. Einstein hypothesized that the speed of light was constant and sought out the implications of this on mechanics. the consequence of the constant speed of light is that maxwell's equations are the same for all referance frames.

could you please enlighten me then?

also I didn't see where in your equation kkris you could solve for a varying G

if you turned up with the same equation than you can't explain any new phenomena they really are the same thing, one is a negative vector pointing outward and one is a possitive vector pointing inward. EDit: are you reffering to the gravitational constant as in big G or little g? also there is no radiating energy of the gravitational field (unless its general relativity), work is only done when the field acts on an object for a distance. Also the photon is not part of GR, but instead belongs to quantum field theory and it explains alot. furthermore what evidence is there against general relativity?

I did look at your original attachment, and I think the reason why you got your answer was that by postulating that there is some net inward flow of "energy" which creates a force pointing toward the center on anything outside of the center is essentially the same thing as saying that a vector field eminates from any sphere outward (which is what newton did). the solution will come out the same either way, neither one is really simpler or more accurate as they are both abstract ideas, that say the same thing. also are you familiar with General Relativity? it postulates that the gravitational field is really the curvature of space time. Since the theory of general relativity covers more scenarios and produces more accurate predictions it can be considered to be a more accurate depiction of the universe

well one thing that might be messing you up in the problem is that the oxygen came out of the atmosphere. so you might want to start by taking out the mass of the oxygen in the products.

hmm, unfortunatly I don't have access to a frequency analyzer, do you know of a way to decrease the frequency of the wave in the circuit before it goes to the oscilloscope?

I need a way of observing* (correction to my previous post) cheers to eating the marsmallows while watching the oscilloscope

a way of observing the wave on an oscilloscope, as I'm building my own cavity, or more presicesly tuning a cavity precisely to the frequency of the magnetron. after I've tuned the cavity properly I also need to watch for any anomalies in the waveform, so marshmellows won't work. So far i've been thinking an antennae and possibly a transformer to up the voltage to the oscilloscope resolution levels.

anybody know of a good way to observe a microwave at ~2.5 ghz? I ask because I have to make a cavity that resonates at this frequency, but I have know way of knowing when I'm right on the money. and furthermore when I'm using the cavity I need to see any fluctuations that occur in the wave. I have access to an oscilloscope if that helps any. I'd be very thankful for any help

I was reffering to the einstein field equations, sorry for not puralizing, I thought it could be assumed those were the ones I was talking about because this discussion is on GR. I was reffering to the article "general Relativity" on wikipedia, since this discussion was on general relativity I thought I could assume that others would recognize what article I was refffering to. however here is the article I was referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_theory_of_relativity it does seem that the article has split into a number of seperate branches as well, so here is a more mathmatical article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_of_general_relativity the original article "general relativity" contains a number of stubs on different sections of general relativity and links to larger articles on each of these stubs.

Gravity in GR is described by a riemann manifold, beyond this I don't know enough mathh to talk much more, however the only part of the equation that mentions any property related to the inertia of the object mentioned energy, so I would venture to guess that a faster object would exert more gravity. The article on wikipedia has a good description of the mathmatics if anyone here is qualified to understand them.

star wars was a project in the 80's to create an anti-missle defense system, which has subsequently been cancelled. however a complicated system of sensors existing both in space and on the ground is still maintained and operated by NORAD in order to detect any posible missle launch

then in the end you just do fx+fy+fz correct? without an ij or k making it a scalar function.

alright then I suppose my question lies more in what happens to the i's the j's and the k's when you integrate, for instance when you take the integral of f to get the scalar function G