CPL.Luke

photons do have mass e/c^2=m anything that has energy has mass

heres what probably happens light acts like a wave. so when you shine a beam of light just parellel to the wall it will become wider with time and hit the wall. its not gravity just quantum/classicle mechanics

my understanding of entropy is kinda limited however, I always thought that entropy could be considered as entropy anybody have anouther take on it?

for overclocking information go to ocforums.com good forum for that kind of thing http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=263753 overclocking guide you could also use a hammer and vice grip to take the cpu or ram chip out and look at the insides (very fun if you have a microscope) the hard drive also contains two or more High power NIB magnets which are fun to play with. you just have to be careful how you open the hard drive as they break easily

easy way set up an electric motor that rotates at a set speed hook up a mallot to that. rotate it so that the hammer is always perfectly vertical to the ground (use a quick square) then turn the motor on the hammer will always hit the ball at the same velocity. for this you can find you answer mathmatically and impress the teacher by then demonstrating that you got it right. by knowing the velocity at which the hammer strikes the hammer and what the mass of the hammer it you should be able to find out the momemtum with which it strikes the ball. using this you can know how much momemtum the ball will depart with. then divide the momentum by 2*the mass of the ball. this will give you the velocity of the ball and then by seeing how far it goes you can find the decceleration due to friction. Major prop points from the teacher for finding the friction you could accelerate the ball by means of a ramp as it will be accelerated by gravity at a constant speed or an easier experiment would be to verify newton's theory of gravity and do a ball and ramp test. Then learn all of the math and impress the teacher.

kinetic energy is energy of movement (momentum) a marble at 60mph has more kinetic energy than a marble at 0mph static energy is energy without movement for instance a marble at 0mph still has static energy because if you annihalated it with antimatter it would still get energy

think of a hydrostatic dam or a pendulem as our hypothetical scenario. the water is elevated its being acelerated at 9.9ft/s so it will fall down so if you place a hole in a dam (hydrostatic damn) the water will fall through the hole and through a turbine generating electricity. the lack of potential energy has nothing to due with it falling or not as you said yourself "well of course it will. potential energy is not antigravity" therefore is there any need to have potential energy

yeah but with trig soh cah toa Sign is only equal to one angle given a certain ratio between two sides so it would be easy to find two angles in that diagram (if I knew the math) edit if we only had a congruency in the equation

find one equation that needs to be balanced by the adding of potential energy because if you say the potential energy of you walking up the hill gives you the energy to fall down then that is a falsehood, I will give you two reasons why if you have potential energy from coming up the hill then you standing on top of the hill you should still be gaining potential energy. because you are still being accelerated by gravity downwards and anouther force is acting to keep you vertical. thus when you fall you should use far more force then it took you to go up the hill because you are still experiencing the force of gravity and you are still being propeled upward in a new hypothetical situation if the marble magicly came into existance on the top of the middle of thin air. if the energy to fall is taken from the energy to rise then the marble shouldn't fall. but I am willing to bet you $100 that it will in fact fall If you really want a real world situation like the above one. Take a photon streaking through interstellar space then it comes under the effect of the gravitional field of a black hole. The photon will be drawn closer to the black hole. did the photon exert energy fighting the field before falling in? no, it didn't therefore ounce more if potential energy is real then the photon should not be effected by the gravitational force of a black hole.

kinetic energy does exist there is no reason why kinetic energy shouldn't exist it requires a certain amount of energy to accelerate an object to a certain speed why should potential energy exist? give me one situation where potential energy should exist I am unfamiliar with any math that may be involved with potential energy although the concept of potential energy could be trying to get at the idea that all work energy requires energy ie it comes from somewhere. such as it takes a certain amount of energy to accelerate an object to a higher velocity. although, potential energy as in a ball on top of a latter has more potential energy than a ball on the floor does not exist if you can prove me wrong about potential energy then I will be quiet and accept ignorance

its trig I am not familiar with anything other than right angle triagnle trig but if someone is it is a trig problem

and remember in the 1930's after the stock market collapse it took a large number of puclic works project to get the economy back on its feet

hey you know what oxygen and hydrogen when burned produce water which makes the world happy. I sort of skipped to posting after the third page and decided to skip the flame war however space tourism will allow for the technoligy and knowhow to advance to where other corporations will start mining the nea's guess what that means we will bring in resources no more strip mining which releases toxic fumes, no more high mineral prices. prices will drop to about the cost of shipping. which means the earth will be a good place to live because everything will be cheaper compared to the amount of money people are making

you are reffering to potential energy which does not exist a chemical reaction moved energy in electrons around to create heat and to move things around in your muscle cells then your cells in your muscles worked in coordination and moved you up the hill to the cliff edge. as you stand over the cliff gravity is pulling down on you the entire time. however the gravitational force is ballanced by the electromagnetic force which is some 200x stronger, at that close of a distance when you jump off, there is no longer the electromagnetic holding you up you fall at a fixed rate of 9.9? ft/sec (gravity does change over time but it takes longer for the force to lesson (as in miles instead of inches) your welcome kingkong

well technically I don't think Newtonian gravitation does however in "einsteinian?" gravity both objects exert a gravitational pull on each other equivalent to there mass by the way the mass(energy) warps spacetime if you are asking if that means it doesn't follow conservation of energy I believe it doesn't really have to its kind of like marbles rolling down a hill the way einsteinian gravity works I know in current laws of electromagnetism two particles with a charge will exchange a photon with eachother which will cause them to either become closer or go further away. according to physisists this doesn't violate conservation of energy because they both lose and gain a photon thus they don't lose energy 1 recieved minus 1 sent= 0 each reaction is equal independant of distance its just that the probbility of the two particles exchanging a photon becomes less by the square of the distance (i believe correct me if I'm wrong) so a system of particles like two blocks positivly charged will exert a repulsive force on each other that grows less by the square of the distance because fewer particles are exchanging photons at that distance. each reaction is equal a proton and electron exert an equal force of attraction on each other despite the difference in size. so the photon's exchanged are equal in energy to the force of attraction (or something like that) I belive quantum gravity is an attempt to find a particle (graviton) that does the same thing that the photon does in electromagnetism

that equation seems redundant when v=2 and m=1 for instance (1)(2)(2)^2/2 so carried out you get (1)(2)*4 / 2 8/2 E=4 take E=mv^2 same numbers (1)(2)^2 (1)(4) E=4 replace v with the speed of light E=mc^2 you basicly came up with a more complex version of newton's formula for momentum Momentum=1/2MV^2 except without the 1/2 for the rest of the thread remember algebra you can find energy by E=mc^2 that means you can find mass by M=E/c^2 so when a particle is accelerated its energy increases and thus its mass increases say you added 1 joul of energy (in this case via velocity velocity) to 1 joul of mass you then have double the mass. you could confirm this by finding 1 joule of antimatter and having the two blocks of mass collide and annihalate. you would get three joules of energy contained in photons I believe that you can only find the energy of a single particle at a certain velocity. as in a more complex object such as a block of metal you have to factor in temperature which you would just add on to the equation for the mass such as E=MC^2+joules of heat just a guess however the problem with calculating the energy of say a car moving at 60mph is that you would need to figure out the equivalent energy of a particle moving at 60mph (to find the heat) then multiply the mass of the car by that energy to get energy from speed and then +energy from temperature so I don't have enough information to right that equation (I'm still just learning this stuff) however with a particle like say an electron in a particle accelerator everything is done in electron volts 1 ev= some decimal of joules 1ev= the energy gained by an electron falling through an electrostatic field of 1 volt mass of electron is equal to 511 ev so if you accelerate it by 10kev your total energy is 10511 ev so our equation for net energy is E=mc^2+joules of heat

"I don't see the point in talking about mars we don't have the technoligy to get there anyway"-Nasa head (whoever he is) allright here is my problem with NASA they don't think about doing anything. courses of action 1)fire all top nasa people (their stupid) 2)get new competent directors, who are motivated to a certain task 3)scrap most if not all, none mars related projects (nasa is over-extended and you would get the mars funding by just scrapping all of these projects ie. casini cost 1.3 billion dollars) 4)have a competition in the aerospace corporations to design a new kind of propulsion system that could take us to mars in less time (they would be fine with this cause they get rights on advertising-stock price boom if they get the contract) 5)have different companies manufacture the components and have NASA supervise the assembly-inspect parts to make sure no corners were cut (biggest boost to the economy ever carried out by the government) 6)go to mars this project would not drain the economy, The aerospace industry is in trouble now instead of giving them money (they will line their pockets instead of keeping workers), this way they build new plants hire new workers workers make money they go out and buy more stuff from companies=economic boom The president and his opponent are both saying that the solution lyes in education and skilled labor forces, this is the way to get that (a skilled workforce, and recognition for having one) and do what they did when they built up the navy at the turn of the century. Everything built at home. this will make it so when the corporations hire new labor forces and build new plants they build them here most importantly 7) after mars start mining nea's (this must be done by corporations under NASA supervision) this will make it so that all of those facilities built will have work for the future. America is the most equiped for this undertaking with the know how and facilities just like after they built the shipyards at the turn of the century for a government project, the shipyards got other work building transport vessels

I'd go with suppress on days I drink alot of caffeine I don't seem to eat as much (of course that could be because I get my caffeine from soda, lots of sugar) oh yes to the 9th grader being a softmore and working in stage craft at the school. I see many freshman start talking back to their superiors (project heads) about what they should do. Trust me you will feal the need to prove others wrong, but if you feal the need to state "you've just been proved wrong by a ninth grader" stop and think about it for a while before you post it. The odds are whatever you just said was pretty stupid

I believe that everything needs to be questioned by every student. as schrodinger stated long ago, quantum mechanics is not an accurate representation of the real world. if something, (no matter how many times is explained to you) doesn't make sense then think about it. believe it but still think about it, eventually you might be lying awake at night and come up with a different brilliant answer that changes physics

well the original idea of 1/2mv^2 was probably found by making objects fall with different speeds and weights, from this you find the relationship from there when einstein came to the conclusion that E=mc^2 he new that the energy (momentum essentially) has to be equal to mv^2 except that the speed of light is v so you replace v with c Momentum with e because you are measuring the total amount of energy in an object not just the momentum you have e=mc^2 the whole squareing thing comes mostly off of peole along time finding relationships between thigs such as velocity being heavily weighted over mass and a number of other fields that I just can't think of now

yeah the air closest to the ground is hottest not coldest. this is possible as the upper atmosphere is alot colder than the lower atmosphere.

x=20m/(20m/h) x=20m*(h/20m) x=20mh/20m ("20m"s cancel out) x=1h ** originally posted by calypygous that equation doeln't make sense your deviding a unit of distance by a unit of velocity m/mh is not a real equation thus there is no meter equivelant in time. unless you are trying to define the distance between to objects at different times (which is still questionable) in which case you need to create a new standard measurment this measurement would be good for defining the veloctiy of objects moving ftl. but my original statement about your post is unchanged