Klaynos

The predicted results match the experimental results (takeing errors into consideration) is how I would and always have interperated it...

The way I understand it, the best option is to have all of XP and ALL program installations on one hard disk + at least a gig for windows to mess about with, it doesn't like being cramped. My computer came with a 20 gig partician for the windows install (I know it's not the same thing just drawing parallels in terms of space required) and I've got a few games installed but not that many, and I am running out of space on it ....

I have it turned off' date=' always open them in acrobate reader... Sometimes the servers disconnect from each other, when this happens if none of the network staff are around then it might take a while for them to reconnect.

I've had several IQ tests (by psycologists) over the years, and I don't put much by what results they give you, there are lots of different types and they all give different scores to each different person. Although when the same test is used it shouldn't change through out your life. As I understand it IQ is supposed to = something like mental age/actual age *100 Mine has consistantly come out over 150 but like I said I don't belive in them, you can trick them etc... And I have common sence but I know alot of "clever" people who don't...

Same here, I'm firstly lazy and secondly don't think people care what I have to say

The latest from IRC.... <Lance|ham> ah yes <Lance|ham> ham <Lance|ham> good stuff <+Klaynos> * Lance|ham tosses a slice to Klaynos <+Klaynos> mmmm ham <+Klaynos> thanks No science there... no thinking there either but that's because I had an imput...

Now then... Taking the situation of a rocket, we have the rocket effectively throwing out fule at a certain rate. dm/dt in time dt (total time = t + dt) for the original starting momentum: P1 = mv (m total mass of rocket + starting fule, v = starting velocity) so vfuel=v+(-vex) Where vex is the exhaust velocity relative to the ship. the ejected mass (-dm) so the momentum of the ejected mass is: (-dm)vfuel=(-dm)(v-vex) in the time interval dt, the rocket and unburned fule is now increaded to dv+v. And it's mass has decreased to m+dm (where dm is negative). So the rockets momentum is: (m+dm)(v+dv) Thus the total momentum is P2 of the rocket + ejected fule is: P2 = (m+dm)(v+dv) + (-dm)(v-vex) So using conservation of motion P1 = P2 mv = (m+dm)(v+dv) + (-dm)(v-vex) simplifying this: mdv=-dmvex-dmdv dm and dv are both infitesimally small so dmdv can be neglectied. We now devide by dt to produce 2 rate of change componants (rate of change of velocity, and rate of change of mass) m(dv/dt) = -vex(dm/dt) dv/dt = acceleration. F=ma. F = -vex(dm/dt) Therefore the thrust is preportional both to the relative speed of the ejected fuel and also to the rate at which it is discharged. If you wish to find such things as differences in velocities or mass between two points v and v0 say you can integrate this, I'm too lazy to prove this so take my word for it the integral is: v-v0 = -vexln(m/m0) = vexln(m0/m) using limits v, v0, and m, m0...

Posting in two parts first the basics for rocket motion in any situation... ok well due to conservation of momentum: momentum before = momentum after So we have a trolly on frictionless rails, you are sat in the trolly, total mass M, total velocity 0. Air resistance is negligable, change in magnetic fields gravitational fields etc etc... are negligable... P = M0 = 0 You then throw a small marble off of the back of the trolly with mass m, and velocity v, the new velocity of the trolly is u. (note velocities are vectors). So back to orignal equation: P = 0 = mv + (M-m)u Re arange to: (M-m)u = mv u= -mv/(M-u) If you take that you through the marble off of the back then that is a negative velocity, giving you a positive velocity on the trolly. Throw one of the back one of the front and you are stationary if they are at the same velocity...#

I'm there but don't want you to shut up about it

the rocket equation as in rocket motion, the one bassed on conservation of momentum? Which I don't know but have to derive every time I use it?

When the +/- sign is used on both sides of an equation (eg in double angle trig identities) it is taken that if + is chosen on one side + is chosen on the other side, BUT it is possible (also in double angle trig identities there is an exaple of this) is to have a -/+ sign on one side and +/- on the other in which case you pick + on one side and - on the other. So in the case of a squar rout it is always written as +/- so one is picked and used on both sides...

Ok guys last night, I had an idea, which I had a little chat to Matheson and Dave about. A weekly IRC discussion with a set topic, for people to debate science issues. But there would have to be some way to control the flow of people saying things to make it be organised My idea is basically that we get as many people online at a set time once a week and the channel is "moderated" this means that only channel operators, half operators and people with "voice" set can talk. The idea being that you either send your comment to a bot and your comment is moderated and sent to the channel (Dave's idea using his Q&A bot) or that you send a request to the bot to say something, it then picks someone from random out of all the people that have requested to say something, removes your name from the list and voices you so you can speak. After an amount of time say 10 seconds of you not saying anything it could then de-voice you and voice someone else. Could have it so when you want to say something you have 3 options for, aginsts, neutral, it picks 1 from each group in turn... Just wondering what people thought of this idea? Cheers Klay

Light travels at c in all frames. As far as I know it has no true rest frame, but you can consider a rest frame for a system, but c will always be the speed of light in that frame. "The speed of light c is a universal constant, the same in any inertial frame" one of the postulates of special relativity.

Have you any idea of what you plan to use a the shutters or is that what you'd like ideas about? Just out of interest, what's the experiment?

This is really hard to explain, I shall try my best. A frame is a view posision, so take a car, if you are stood by the side of the road it is moving at 30m/s in your reference frame. So it appears to be moving at that speed compared to you. If you are sat in the car it is moving at 0m/s so that is the cars rest frame, the observer is at rest with it. if you are in a car heading in the oter direction and the first car has appears to you to be moveing at 60m/s, then in the original frame the new car has a celocity of -30m/s in the direction of motion of the first car. I hope this has helped...

it is my understanding that to create a blackhole that would act as some form of "super weapon" would need considerable more mass to be collided at considerably higher energies than we have any hope of creating on earth, for the foreseable future. And as for waiting for another universe to do them in, we'd have to have some way of accessing it and surely the bh could could act through the passage anway, although this line of though is ridiculouse I'm not really sure why I'm actually thinking about it...

being bored I worked out that a gallon of LRP in the UK cost: 3.36 British Pound = 6.38064 US Dollar (references: http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/fuel/ http://www.onlineconversion.com/) I know that the majority of this is in tax

I read something a couple of months ago that was something like if we are wrong about the nutrino decay time by a small amount then dark energy isn't required by current theories, and that there is some evidence now that we are wrong about said time.

that graph is x proportional to -y, I've never heard it described as inversly or indirectly related though, as Dave said inverse is normally y=k/x where k is some variable... I would be inclined to belive the physics guy, but I'm biased...

well, my view on this is, space is expanding, we know this to be proabably true, therefore it has to be expanding from some finite size to a new finite size, so must be finite, anything which is finite in size is finite in shape (although this might be moving)... This is only really a personal view though.

just throw away the parts you've taken out, depending on their mass you might be able to make it in 10 mins

a line is a projection of a 3dimentional (not nessacarally carteissean, and in the "real" world caretessian coordinates don't really work) plane onto a 2 dimentional system, so they do exist.

No they don't. Neutrons are heavier than protons so CAN decay through beta decay. Protons therefore are lighter and cannot decay they have to gain mass to change into netrons... Else you'd have: netron decay into proton - less mass proton decay into neutron - less mass, how can this be? How can something lose mass to become something that lost mast to become it'self?