CPL.Luke

what makes the atom more stable with a neutron than without one?

I as thinking more along the lines of a particle like an electron could be considered a black hole as it supposedly is a point particle (unless this has recently changed). it was more of a thought into whether that is true or not.

I think a point particle could go by without tearing apart the planet because its mass is so small.

what role does the neutron play in the atom? is it bound to the protons by the strong force?

well from what Ive read about black holes is that in them the space time curvature is infinite, because the black hole itself is in fact a singularity so it has infinite density so wouldn't one of the implications of this be that all point particles are in fact black holes?

it is impossible to have a perfect vaccuum. even in particle accelerators that cost billions they are incapable of creating perfect vaccuums. in leo orbit the vaccuum is much weaker than the vaccuum on the moon. and likewise in interstellar space it is the strongest. however stars are constantly propelling atoms of hydrogen and helium out into space at very high speed in the solar wind. onto that add neutrinos which also have a mass and are flying throughout space. in conclusion space does have an atmosphere even without quantum fluctuation's

steel will glow when you pass electricity through it

I undrstand that general relativity can't predict at that scale but I don't see how your equation solves it perhaps you could elaborate further also what units would you measure distance in?

I personally don't like that as that would mean to me there wouldn't be much mass in the universe at present. I think that the main problem would be at the start of the big bang you would have a problem where the universe has only expanded a few cubic plank lengths (is that a correct notation?) so that the mass would be so vast that I personally think that the universe would have collapsed immediatly because of general relativity. i know virtually nothing of the math here so I could be impossibly off, but if your trying to prove that relationship that you discribe, you must then try to work out a problem like the early moments of the big bang.

my question was more why does the outside observer notice you contracting in a lorentz contraction I understand that you can't measure it happening to yourself (inertial observer) but why do you contract according to the outside observer

I didn't say that the asteroid fragment would be released because of its potential energy, I said that it would be released because of some event that occured to release it (an explosion for example, lets pretend someone put a bomb on the surface just so that this event could occur) now what I'm saying is that if you launch an object vertical to the ground, it takes A. energy to accelerate an object to the release speed. B. the energy to deccelerate an object (caused by gravity in this case). conservation of energy dictates that energy cannot be created or destroyed, so when the object is deccelerated because of gravity the work energy that was required to accelerate the object to a certain speed is then depleted as the object's velocity goes to zero. ounce the object is at zero and starts to accelerate back towards the ground ou have to question where the work energy goes (potential energy) then as the object starts accelerating back towards the ground the potential energy is released as work energy and you end up with kinetic energy. in this manner conservation of energy is not violated. however I would say that the objects kinetic energy is just transferred to wherever the field is originating from (in this case the earth). thus conservation of energy is not violated because the energy from the objects launch is conserved in the planet and the remaining kinetic energy of the launched object "Energy has to be added, because PE increases with r." if energy was added that would be a violation of conservation of energy "Objects do not require potential energy to fall, the fall because they have potential energy, and that exists because there is a force acting on them. An object far from earth has more potential energy, not less, than an object on the surface. The rock would not have been blown off because of the potential energy it possessed. Energy has to be added, because PE increases with r." if your trying to say that an object has potential energy because of the force acting on it as in "the fall because they have potential energy, and that exists because there is a force acting on them" then an object far from earth has less of a force acting on it. thus "and that exists because there is a force acting on them" and "An object far from earth has more potential energy, not less, than an object on the surface" are inherent contradictions and lastly Quote: Originally Posted by CPL.Luke however now were talking about the act of lifting an object up a ladder where does the energy required to fight gravity come from? "Immaterial. It only matters that energy is required."-swansont end quote that is a violation of conservation of energy, as energy always comes from somewhere, then energy then has to go somewhere.

well considering the number of people who question at some point or experiment (no statistics just what I've heard) then maybe it is just that we don't think of it on a high enough level mentally that is? because if you think about it have you ever been tickled by an inanimate object that was not used by anouther person? (feathers don;t count)

you know youd think with all the probes they send up to mars they could pay for a substantial amount of a manned mars mission.

right now I think were talking more about the relationship between work energy and potential energy (the kind not involved with fields). if an object is placed on a ladder potential energy ensures that the work energy required to lift the object is conserverd. so our question really comes down to where does the work energy go. I personnally can figure out where it comes from however where it goes is something I need to think about, I personnally will never believe that work energy is conserverd in an unmeasurable quantity in an object. (if you could come up with a way of directly measuring potential energy then I will buy it). I believe in gravitational and electromagnetic potentials, but to me that is a different issue such as in the thought experiment with an object on a ladder, it will be exposed to less of a gravitaional potential because of the fact that there is less of a distance (you may need a really tall ladder to do an actual experiment involving this. however now were talking about the act of lifting an object up a ladder where does the energy required to fight gravity come from? as an example of what Im talking about. if a chunk of rock is blown off of an asteroid, (gravity here is very weak) now this chunk was by chance sent cerreaning towards the earth. this small chunk which only took a small amount of work energy (stored as potential energy) to release is now falling towards the earth where it would require more potential energy than the object posseses in order to fall. thus violating conservation of energy as more work energy needs to be added to the system. in that thought experiment we discovered that the 1:1 relationship between work and potential energy is not accurate. this means that this model only works for objects that are trying to leave and then returning to the same object (what goes up must come down). now, this proves that the idea of potential energy is a falsehood. so where does the work energy go?

heres a question could a person be tickled by anouther person of the same sex (assuming that that person was completely towards one sexual orientation, in this case straight). I would believe that it is related to relationships. such as couples usually exhibit a sort of playfulness with eachother (referring to relationships other than the one your thinking of here) so it could be some sort of courtship thing.

I have also heard it described as the most accurate area in which you can define the position of an electron. in other words the wavelength of very very high energy light. that was a horrible way of explainning it but anyway it explains the stephen hawking statement about the energies to probe deeper would only be found in a blackhole. for the theory about the world only having two dimensions well taht doesn't seem to work cause the way it was described sounds more like a giant computer running the universe rather than reality, also how would you factor in field potentials? into a universe where distance doesn't exist

recently I've begun wondering why you get shorter as you speed up in special relativity is it because time is slowing down? anybody know the technical explanation of this? I was also wondering what if there was a particle with mass (rest mass) but it lways traveled at c. would gravity just never advance infront of the particle? if this is the case then gravity would look more like the wake of a boat correct? except with a wall (of gravity) infinitly close to the particle.

well you would need a plainticket to nevada (mojavve desert in particular) you would need to talk to nasa and the faa (so that your launch vehicle doesn't hit a plane) (nasa needs to register it so that some country wouldn't think were trying to nuke them and you start a nuclear war) (just the little things ) as for materials there are type I? (not totally sure just know its a big rocket engine) rocket engines which can lift a rocket 10000 feet each (roughly). so you string several of them together make a multistage booster, design a launch vehicle, gyro, some way of ensuring it goes on one course so nasa will let you launch it, and that you don't shoot down a sattelite which costs millions of dollars. as for the cost of this, alot probably at least over 1000$ and probably alot more.

then lets pretend it is a very tall ladder that goes several hundred miles (or several thousand if need be) up into space, just for the sake of argument but what about the question of quantum e-m as it seems to be of great pertenance to the topic if to particles repelling or being attracted to eachother is the result of the exchange of 2 photons then where is the work energy in that problem because I would hypothesise that if there is no work energy in that problem then work energy doesn't exist. thus it would not require work energy in any experiment. with no work energy there cannot be any potential energy. as the potential energy in question is essentially stored work energy. (not field potentials) also what about the bending of light in GR because light is massless it does not have any work energy (correct?) yet it still bends. if there is no potential energy present yet it still bends in the presence of gravity then how can potential energy exist

the real problem with space exploration now is that there is no pride in it the fact is NASA needs some good pr a trip to mars is just that (not just a nice slow trip type of thing but a major effort like for the apollo missions). the space shuttles and space stations were nice and all but the fact is they don't exite people. I voted no because of this. people don't want to see pictures of the mars they want to stand on it. its like fireing cameras out of a cannon to the top of mount everest. when you put them up peole would just notice them and walk on by. when you see a man standing 20000ft? in the air that is cool. as for making space colonization feazible the key is to limit the number of space launches. Has anybody ever read some of ben bova's books about the colonization of space by space industrialists looking for profit? very good reads and they describe how to colonize space very nicely a slight modification of the ideas in the books would be to build a big space station in high earth orbit. this way you don't have to burn as much fuel to keep it aloft. then you harvest the NEA's get the materials from those (capturing them in a lunar orbit might help) to build a number of reentry craft to carry refined materials back to earth. engines on these re-entry craft are superfluous as they just have to land with cargo (re using them would cost to much money). assuming you could get the original station in orbit the operation has the possibility to become profitable. the main problem with the top scenario is the cost of building a launch facility and fuel etc. to lift the station into orbit, ounce it is in orbit and has aquired the proper ratio of asteroids and comets to harvest it could become self-sufficitent the advantage to the above station is that one asteroid can fuel the world wide steel industry for a year. thus the costs of making several strip mines and making a space station all balance out (I would hope)

space is not a perfect vaccuum it is impossible to create a perfect vaccuum as particles have a tendency to spread out. thus you end up with a gas at very low pressure. theoretically in a google (sp) years space will average like 1 hydrogen atom per cubic lightyear (expanding universe) but still will not be a perfect vaccuum. as to photons they are not considered matter and thus are not counted for when talking about density.

being a softmore at highschool in the US (for european students the system is very different softmore is 2nd year highschool tenth grade I'm 15 years old 16 by the end of the year) and borderline failing half my classes (homework-lacking) because I understand the material (a's on tests) I can sympathise with indignities high school situation however I don't blame my school, first I would say that I learned everything taught in history (for a while I was a pretty big history buff) however if you pay attention to what the history courses try to teach you, its not the material but how to form oppinions about it. their not trying to teach you that all "the north won the civil war because of the strong economy, because that is the consensus of most historians" its "form an oppinion about why the north won the war" (whilst still some teachers are more into grading and such and if you give an oppinion they don't like, or they don't understand the thinking behind your examples etc. most try to make you think about the material) anyway the relavence is that most students and some teachers for that matter don't understand what they themselves are trying to teach. the point of a teacher is to not only give you a grade and teach you the curriculum. its to give students who are interested in the subject matter more reasons to have interest. if any of you are teachers you should know that if a student asks a question that goes way beyond the curriculum and could take the full amount of time for that given day then give the answer and go on a rant about it. or allow a discussion to involve that envolves the entire class to continue and don't think about what needs to get done. for students who don't think they should bother memerising facts about a subject that they are interested in, then you should realise that some memorising is required in life. Hawking wouldn't be nearly as well accepted as he is today if he looked into a textbook for equations everytime he was asked a question or needed to do something because he didn't feel the need to memorise things. so there's my rant enjoy

just to say that I see how photons could have no mass if e^2=(mc^2)+(pc)^2 and a photon has momentum. and then by that it had mass than it would have no momentum because otherwise you would have e=2e essentially

"Calculating gravitational PE is as straightforward as calculating electrostatic PE. And just as easy to demostrate experimentally. It is position dependent, so you need to know positions. To limit yourself to a situation where you don't know position, and conclude that PE doesn't exist as a result, is absurd." -swansont however in that case an object placed on an elevation above the ground has less potential energy then an object that is placed on the ground, as the gravity on the ground is greater than the gravity the object above the ground experiences as the distance is greater. thus less of a potential. "The potential energy of the body is not measurable in your example because you have excluded the information necessary to compute that: its position. Let me adapt your opening statement. if you had the ability to know anything about an object (except its temperature). its position, the amount of gravity its being subjected to its velocity, anything. and, you just didn't know exactly how hot it is. you could make any prediction you wanted about what the object would do in certain circumstances" -ophiolite however I allowed you to know the strength of any field it experiences. which according to swansont should be enough to get to know the potential (from fields) that it has. but moreover the example was trying to state that its the same object with the same measurable properties as before. you are enforcing an extrapolated anthrocentric concept onto it. I think anyone would agree with me that potential energy is in no way a measurable concept other than when talking about fields. which I now agree with from swansont's explanation (thank you for it). but you could not measure the potential energy that is derived from lifting an object up to the top of the ladder. it is an enforced concept which doesn't necassarily have to exist from this discussion I was able to realise (among other things) that potential energy is an attempt to make sure the idea of work energy. now though just ask the question of the quantum mechanical idea of how the electromagnetic force works. it works through the exchange of photons between two electrons. now this is supposed to (by my limited understanding) reconcile with conservation of energy because they both sent and recieved a photon. but yet their is a repulsionary force observed between the two. so where does the work energy come from? maybe work energy doesn't neccasarily have to exist? now if I am totally wrong with this last example than please say so, because it is entirely possible in my opinion that I think I know more about the quantum mechanical concept of electromagnetism than I really do.

well how about this if you had the ability to know anything about an object (except its position). the temperature the amount of gravity its being subjected to its velocity, anything. and, you just didn't know exactly where it is. you could make any prediction you wanted about what the object would do in certain circumstances now if you then learned that the object was suspended 3 meters in the air, on the top of a latter. you would only then be able to define its potential energy. this to me would mean that potential energy does not exist as it is an unmeasurable quantity in the world. an electrical potential is completely different however. as you could measure it and prove it experimentally. the electrical field potential is found from, one electrode having a charge of a coulomb electrons, and the other side lacking a coulomb electrons. the two sides are attracted by the e-m field to eachother (which could be measured in volts (as volts can be considered a measure of kinetic energy (correct me if I'm wrong on this one))). My point is that potential energy as described in the above posts by others. can not exist as it is not a measurably quantity. to sight copenhagenism, if it cannot be seen it cannot exist