npts2020

Maybe I am misunderstanding the concept of refraction as relates to quantum theory but in the dictionary (wikipedia and websters) it is defined as the bending of a wave through a medium by changing the speed of the wave while traversing the medium. Are those definitions wrong? Refraction if related to speed would only need to change speed of light an infitessimal amount to cause visible effect. If it is because the photons are absorbed then re-emitted how do we know that?

Because an outright ban would be impossible at this point. So opponents of smoking chip away until few enough smoke that making it illegal won't be politically disasterous.

IMHO the U.S. federal government is the biggest cash cow in the history of the planet and this is just another attempt by those that control that cash to see just how much milk they can get out of that cow before it runs dry. The biggest problem is there is no second party to represent the majority interest, both republicans and democrats are strong business proponents, so if you are not a businessman......... The real question is whether individuals in congress can be made to feel enough pressure to keep the treasury from losing every dollar it puts up.

I thought recent experiments had slowed the speed of light down as slow as around 35 mph? Does that mean "c" changes? Does that mean the light that was slowed is/was no longer photons (changed somehow) until exiting to be detected? It just seems less likely to me that every photon in the universe travels at exactly the same speed than to believe that mechanisms like gravity or virtual particles might have some effect on that speed.

I fail to see upon what you base the "belief" that the nuclear scenario you suggest is possible under any circumstance. I can also believe that a golden dragon will appear if I think about it hard enough but that does not make it a possibility worth considering for others. Now if I suggest a plausible mechanism for my dragon to appear (and can explain why it has never happened in the past) it then begins to become science. If you wish to say that one of the most studied areas of science is wrong, you have to have a better explanation than the current one or at least show very good proof that the thousnds of other people who devoted their life to this study, somehow were mistaken. IMO the real problem with your thinking is that you are a linear being (i.e. live your life in a unidirectional manner with respect to time.....born and die) and cannot concieve of a universe that may not be.

Why is the "big bang" untestable? One does not need to recreate the earth to test the forces that act in its development. In fact I thought that was what the Large Hadron Collider was all about. The test for the "big bang" is to look to see if the universe is behaving today in the manner the theory predicts it should.

IMHO if you are not already out of the American stock market it is already too late if the money invested short term. Mostly what you ask is dependent on the time frame of the investment. Eventually the American market will come back, its just a matter of how long it will take and how big of a hit you can take in the meantime. Careful investment will still yield returns over the long term but I look for pretty rocky going for at least a few months after how this is going to get sorted out is decided. Keep your eyes on the proposed "bailout" if it makes sense to you things are probably ok but if it is so complicated as to be incomprehensible, watch out, the "cure" might be worse than the disease. The initial proposal seemed like a sure way for taxpayers to be out of a ton of money with no accountability, doing nothing would be better for most of us. Dont know if this helps you any, but thought i would try. My own opinion is that the economy will come back if steps are taken revive it with sustainable manufacturing and business practices but it may take a couple of years.

I feel like im coming out of the closet in this group, admitting to being a vegetarian, but yes, for almost 30 years now. For many of those years I ate a strict vegan diet but as of the last decade or so I have "lapsed" to eating fish and seafood once or twice a month and dairy several times a week (this also increases exponentially the number of places you can go to "eat out"). I have been too sick to work for a total of three days since about 1980 (vs more than that almost every year growing up). In my youth (17-24) I tried most available drugs and drank heavily until about 22. Since that time, smoking has been almost my sole vice in that vein, I puff a cigar or two a month and like to unwind with a puff of herbals. I have done no antibiotics in at least 30 years and resist taking even aspirin and ibuprofin, Odin be praised, I have no conditions requiring continuous medication. I love pizza, sandwiches, pilafs, and stirfries, not necessarily in that order but definitely pizza first. I try to drink around 3 liters of liquids every day, usually half water, half juice. My main food vices are too many sweets and fried foods. I try to get at least one round of disc golf in every day (which is about 45min-1hr of a good walk, ruined, according to some). The one thing that most people I meet in person remember about me is my dog, Voodoo, a world class soccer player, unfortunately I dont have a video of her on line yet. Am I the only vegetarian here?

At last the positive proof of bigfoot;)

I understand how changing the isotope of an element may shorten the half-life but how many elements is that true of? If you have a massive amount of a relatively pure element it might work but refining will be no small task, eg. how hard it is to refine reactor fuels. Seems to me like the details are intentionally few to make it easier to get funding. Almost anyone who can claim to neutralize radioative waste will get money for research right now if they can make their idea for it seem even plausible. This idea might sound good but I will believe it when I see it. Seems just as likely to me that you could neutralize the waste by bombarding it with protons, electrons, or some kind of quark.

I have been interested in the mechanism of radioactive elements' decaying for a long time now and have never seen a good explanation for the cause. My question about bombarding something like that with neutrons, is why are the neutrons in a reactor insufficient to do the same thing (most things coming out of any reactor are more radioactive not less)? Sounds like somebodies high-tech scam to get money from the gov to me.

What I seem to be unable to visualize is a) are particles being emitted equally in infinite directions or b) are particles only emitted in the direction of another emittor of the same particles, or c) is the question irrelevant (kinda like what is outside of the universe?). Scenario "a" seems untenable on the surface but it seems to me that we would find instances when forces did not act predictably the same in all directions, unless "b" were true. If "b" is true, why?

Aside from the problems of scale, cost, and safety, which may or may not be overcome in time, it seems like the real question is how much thickness of insulation would be required to maintain a supercooled fluid. Steam at 1000F will have a foot or more of insulation around the pipes, requiring at least 2 feet of space just for the insulation. However, the temperature differential between superconductor operation and ambient earth temperature is less than ambient and the above steam temp. Still it seems like the insulation alone will require more space than current lines (aside from the towers). I just am wondering how much more or if I am totally wrong about it?

That is unfortunate, because much is lost in translation, to the point of anybody responding trying to imagine what the real question you are asking is.

If the technology was perfected right now, the cost would likely still be prohibitive. What I am interested in is building an automated national transit system, with part of the construction being a new power grid (see my blog npts2020.blogspot.com). The real question is how would you plan for retrofitting superconducting grid? I have little concept of how big or heavy the transmission lines (pipes) would have to be even after reading about it.

Yuri, it seems obvious to me that English is not your native tongue. I am usually pretty good at interpreting but cannot understand what you are talking about. If you could find someone to help you put your ideas and questions in coherant English or even mathematics, I think you will get better responses. Dont feel badly, though, your command of English is better than my command of any language other than English.

Thanks for the clarification, it really has been a long time since giving any serious thought to this. Do these exchanges in any way change mass or charge of the particles they come from while the exchange is taking place? Also, how does such a force act in every direction at the same time?

Just a simple question, if the earth is expanding why are we not (at the surface) getting closer to the sun, moon, planets, etc.?

I read (Scientific American maybe?) something about this but the authors were looking more at changing the course of the storm than quashing it. One thing that is sure, the consequences of "nuking" a hurricane are likely to be at least as bad as the hurricane. It just seems more responsible to build things to withstand hurricanes in the first place.

Any engineer worth their salt knows that a large percentage of generated electricity is lost during transmission. This fact along with the discovery of superconducting materials has inspired people to begin work on a superconducting power grid. While I am aware that this is not technologically feasible at the moment, superconductivity research is progressing rapidly and a new grid seems to me something worth planning to upgrade toward soon. My question is what kind of space considerations must be given for such a grid? Would it be possible to safely run it on current utility rights-of-way with no extra buffer zone? Is anyone in this forum involved in superconductor research of any kind?

Knowing the shape of the visible universe should help our understanding of the mechanisms involved in cosmic expansion, plus it may give clues about what lies beyond

Thanks for the link. What I wonder most about the Michelson-Morley experiments, is why anyone would think that the ether would have any measurable effect on photons to begin with? I mean, it has been since their time that we have even been able to measure the effects of gravity on them. Imho ether is neither provable nor disprovable with our current state of knowledge, it is inferred from the lack of other explanation of exactly what "space" is. I am aware of the "virtual particles" that are supposed to appear and disappear in so-called empty space, my question is where do they come from (or go to)? Are we violating physical laws temporarily by creating something from nothing? Is the creation/destruction action perfect (no other particles or forces involved before or after) if so how do we even know of their existence? I accept that my view could be completely wrong about this but these questions, plus the fact that a large percentage of the universe has never been directly observed, are the basis of my belief in ether.

Thanks for the clarification. I dont claim to have the greatest knowledge of cosmology but the whole idea of a "vaccuum" really bothers me. I have read about virtual particles in a vaccuum but where do they come from? Are they something being created from nothing? I am aware that human knowledge (especially this human) on this subject is rudimentary at best but why is it that most physicists have discarded the idea of some kind of ether, Einstein himself did a lot of work on it I have heard?

Just wondering what that upper limit is and any idea why at that point?

One thing missing from the poll is a no way for any reason answer. With current technology it is definitely possible to build such an airplane. Whether you could carry enough shielding to not give massive doses of radiation to anything on board or nearby and make reinforcements in case of crash strong enough to not spread the contents over a large area seem to be the main technological hurdles. Both at present would probably require more weight than any plane can carry. Even if the weight problem is worked out how much more than the reactor and associated subsystems could any plane carry and could you ever convince the public to allow someone to build it?