Klaynos

And the point I am trying to convey is that this is no way absolute. There are many situations that claiming what you get out of a tap is water is going to either cause unpredictable results or cause danger. This is amplified with more unknown sources. They very idea that we're having this discussion should show you that it's not absolute. I also don't think that what is "common sense" to a group of ape descendents on a small blue green planet orbiting an unregarded yellow sun has any bearing on the fundemental working of the universe. And in other news the sun isn't round. https://www.space.com/17143-weird-sun-shape-revealed.html

And you missunderstand me. None of your examples are water. They are mixes with a primary component being H2O. At what point does a pond go from water to muddy water to mud? This is not absolute, far from it. You're spouting nonsense.

Water is not just H2O though. Water from your tap has a significantly different composition than if you get a glass from your local river or the ocean. Which one of those is water? All of them? None of them? Just H2O? That doesn't look absolute to me. Yet another completely wrong example from randopin.

! Moderator Note Putting your fingers in your ears and claiming you're correct is not how we do things here. Stop it.

I agree with this. A more comprehensive set of example works, more common in the "arts" would probably be referred to as a portfolio in Br. Eng.

Gravity. Which isn't really anything to do with the topic of this thread.

Not really in how interactions are defined in physics.

Your equation, and understanding are incomplete. E2=p2c2 + m2c4 Where p is momentum and m is the rest mass. Rest mass doesn't change with speed. Photos have 0 rest mass.

Can you provide some clarification as to what you mean by high school. Where I am it meant education from 12-16 years old. Fundemental the lower levels of education are critical for the further and higher levels.

I'd suggest starting with an arduino robot kit. You can then move on to adding in some pattern recognition using a raspberry pi to do the processing and send commands to the rover. This isn't something you're likely to achieve overnight.

You'll probably need to learn at least one microcontroller platform too. Even if the RasPi is your main controller. Any answer to this question will very much depend on what you mean by robot? Are we talking a 3 wheel rover for use inside a house, part of a manufacturing line or something that walks to the shops and does your shopping for you?

Relatively close to me is at Bristol, https://www.at-bristol.org.uk I've never been but its predecessor 20 years or so ago was pretty good and I've heard good things.

Then see Mordred's answer.

Just double checking. Do you mean universe or galaxy?

I'm not really sure what you're looking for from this thread. If you want to know people's thoughts on future navigation or time keeping networks I'd suggest starting a new thread on that. You might also find it interesting to read about the omega and alpha navigation networks of yesteryear.

1. This has to do with how the dust cloud that formed the solar system and planets collapsed. During that collapse you tend to end up with a star with a spinning sphere (then disk) around it. That disk then forms the planets. They already have significant speed relative to the star but gravity turns that speed from just going straight into space but into orbits 2.velocity is relative. In the rest frame of the centre of mass (com) of the milky way it is stationary. In the rest frame of the com of Andromeda we are speeding towards it. 3. Depends what you mean. The molecules and atoms that make up most of the air and materials around you are electrically neutral. Some of their constituents are charged but as a whole it's neutral we don't notice. 4. Not really. Gravity is the obvious one but you expend more energy moving your rock up high than you get back. 5. No. You get out less than you put in. 6. Yes but it requires a lot of energy. The simplest way is to use a particle accelerator and whack two nucleuses together. 7. Strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force are responsible for everything inside a nucleus and nucleons. See question 6. 8. It is not trivial to get nucleuses close enough together to fuse. That takes loads of energy. You need to do that efficiently enough that the energy you get out and can capture is more. 9. Vibrate is not the right word for atoms. If you have atoms in high energy states then you can use the energy they give off in some way when they go to a lower energy state. This is how lasers work. You need to put energy in to get the atoms into that high energy state. That takes more energy than you get out. 10. To a certain extent with things like magnetic fields. There are devices called pokel cells that use this physics. It doesn't really change the atom in they way you're hopeing.

If you are just going to launch something to take out the satellites that's not a terribly interesting discussion. LEO isn't part of this discussion about GPS.

This may come as a surprise but the universe is not a pen.

Yes. There is some potential for heavier elements which are more stable but we're still talking about half lives of minutes. You might find this interesting (sorry about mobile link): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability

GPS satellites are at orbits of about 20000 km that would be one hell is an emp to affect them. If you are using emps to destroy electronics as your GPS interference method then destroy the receivers. But then you can achieve the same effect with a hammer.

The eyja volcano eruption in 2010 had no measurable effect on GPS in the UK. The royal navy still trains officers in non GPS navigation. I suspect that distant from the blast there would be no impact. For most uses the ionosphere doesn't change the signal measurably so a complete removal or significant enhancement would not change it much. From vlf propagation experiments when nuclear tests were happening we know that whilst the ionosphere b is modified it's not too the point where GPS would be effected.

You've not answered Swansont's question with anything relevant to the question. It really could be a chat bot.

The ball annology is just foolish as it requires the preexisting knowledge that balls are man made. A better analogy wild be finding something that you've never come across before and have no idea what or how it is but even that is flakey. We don't know that the universe has to be made so the ball is just a rubbish idea. I can't understate how poor that argument is. I was expecting something bad but that's even worse.

I see, a 7 year old is very different from a lay adult. I don't think trying to explain it to a 7 year old is futile but I don't think this is a good way. Keep it simple. Stick to the 3 main sciences... Physics, chemistry and biology. Explain that there is loads of cross overs. Physics is the fundementals of how stuff in the universe works out includes things like planets, stars, electricity, what makes up atoms. Chemistry is how those fundemental building blocks interact and mix together to give you all the different materials. You can do some mixing of vinegar and baking soda here to show show the chemicals react to create other ones. Biology is how chemistry and physics come together to create living things and biology is trying to understand how that happens. Pictures and actually​ do some experiments.

So simple as to be wrong and misleading to the lay person.