mezarashi

In practice, experience suggests that magnets will and do degrade over time, but theoretically speaking, there is no reason why they have to. The fact that they do not they can limitlessly magnetize other objects does not (as far as I can see) violate any thermodynamics or energy conservation laws. The ability to attract objects is the conversion of a sort of "magnetic potential" into kinetic energy. It can only happen once, and never again in a perpetual cycle. Correct me if you can find something to prove otherwise

Interestingly, I believe yes. The magnet is and forever will be a magnet regardless of how many things you use it to magnetize. The permanent magnet itself was created by being exposed to a strong magnetic field at high temperatures while the magnetic materials electrons could align themselves to the external magnetic field. Then cooling down, the electrons orbits are "locked" (quantum physicists would probably prefer referring to the quantum numbers like the magnetic spin) in their positions that give rise to a net magnetic field within the vicinity of the newly created magnet. To a certain extent, most materials that are attracted to magnets will remain magnetized due to the hysterisis effect. As for the capacitor, I think the better example you are looking for is the permanently charged dielectric as used in many microphones. It has a permanent charge the same way a magnet has a permanent magnetic field.

Although I for some reason cannot see the images, judging from the exchanges in the posts, I would say yes you need to account for both conduction and radiation.

I would imagine that this pre-ejaculate was designed mainly for lubrication purposes, and that semen still remains the main fluid in which sperm is transferred to the "other spectrum". This link has some interesting info on how there can actually be sperm in pre-ejaculate: http://www.coolnurse.com/sex_faqs25.htm

Electrical and Computer Engineering, from the sounds of it is a pretty broad field of engineering. Even within just Electrical Engineering, you will find a plethora of senior year specializations. You will never be a master of anything, because the engineering knowledge acquired throughout the decades is simply unimaginable. What you learn. You will learn the necessary scientific fundamentals and their corresponding mathematics such that you can make sense of this engineering technology. Options include: Electrical & Electronic -Photonics -Microelectronics -Semiconductors -Telecommunications -Control and Automation -Electrical Power -Circuits & Analysis Computer Engineering -Embedded Systems -Computer Communications and Networks -Information Systems -Computer Vision and Graphics -High Performance Computing (Optimization/Compression) -Intelligent Systems That's just a brief list off the top of my head. With a proper degree and the proper passion, you can do just about anything related to the electrical power, electronics, or computer development industry (software and hardware). It is also advisable that in your senior year you choose the specializations that are most relevant to the industry you want to immediately join after graduation.

But then again, that's what "fuel" means to us; it is an energy reserve. Before we were able to harvest nuclear energy, it was and generally currently still is by far the only reliable and "safe" method in storing a large amount of energy (through molecular bonds). Our current technology would make it ridiculous to continually create this fuel during flight for the equipment used to do so would be such an unnecessary but additional weight to propel. So far our battery technology is relatively limited in storing electrical energy. How much energy is in 1 kg of battery vs 1 kg of benzene? (even considering the thermal losses associated with converting it into some sort of mechanical kinetic energy). I guess in the end, we have these options and they are nothing new in the context of existing engineering technology: 1. Use the fuel or energy reserve to directly drive the propulsion system. For example a rocket in which the fuel is combusted in such a way that the molecules exit the rocket at high speeds creating thrust. (chemical energy->molecular kinetic energy->thrust) 2. Use the fuel to directly create mechanical energy, like we do in a car. The fuel will explode locally within the pistons to create torque, which can then be coupled to the moving wheels or the propellers of an airplane. (chemical energy->molecular kinetic energy->mechanical torque->some sort of propulsion system) 3. This is an extension of #2 in fact. Using the fuel to create mechanical energy (either directly through a combustion engine or through thermal energy in water like in a power plant and its turbine) which is THEN used to create electrical power, which can then drive an electrical-mechanical system that will drive the system. This is the flying nuclear-power plant option which would in fact be atomic energy rather than chemical. (chemical energy->molecular kinetic energy(thermal)->mechanical torque->electromagnetic->electro-mechanically couple back to a mechanical propulsion system) Our energy needs seem so complicated and inefficient when you think about. Why can't the kind of energy we want just be lying around somwhere?

That's where Bluetooth technology steps in

Yes, and unfortunately for us, there is no ultimate-being to tell us what it is that we are lacking. All we know that there is something "incomplete" about our understanding of light. It's too difficult for us to see "the big picture", but we don't really know why (it might not be dimension related), but from our humanly observations, the so wave-particle duality is what we see.

I thought it referred to a vehicle, although I thought it would be more logical if the question would be asked as, how much energy does it consume per liter instead of per day, because that would have to depend on how much you drive it around, and what model (different fuel consumption rate). Thus I had to make sure. I guess if you needed to make an energy consuption estimation, the best way to do it would be through it's fuel consumption. Some rough figures I've found on the internet say that for each liter of benzene combusted, you will get 42 Mega Joules of energy. Compare that to the 8 MJ daily energy intake humans need and that looks like it makes sense. Well this isn't the real useful energy it consumes. I'd guess around 20-30 percent of that 42MJ is actually used to drive the car and batteries. The rest probably goes to waste as thermal energy or goes out with the exhaust. If it were an electric car with a far more efficient propulsion system, then I'm sure it'd use far less. Any other sources or methods?

Immortality is gooods. Who needs foolish mortal companians when there's the interweb. I could sit here, type and click for the next millenia... given I get constant computer upgrades and maintenance somehow. But then maybe again, you can get bored of it. My human curiosity would make me wonder... what's life after death, and then I know it's time to move on.

Alright. This is confusing. I believe I corrected what I wrote, and now I find that there are two posts. I corrected it in anycase.

Einstein did so, because without the use of the particle nature of light, the photoelectric effect could not be explained. I'm sure you know about it and the reasons why that is so. Remember, at that time, everyone believed strongly that light was truly and only a wave following the great success of Maxwell's electromagnetic wave equations. Einstein connected Max Planck's quantized nature of light and its particle nature. Severian's model is constructed with the knowledge that light can be like both. In anycase, I like Severian's model for visualizing the concept of light. It's probably the best understanding we have of light. It's just the nature of light is possibly beyond our human comprehension. It's like the famous example of showing a coin to someone who lives in a two-dimensional world. He can either see heads OR tails, but not both at the same time. It would totally confuse the poor fellow.

Sorry, but what's an RV? *blink*blink*

Let me make this clear by using another example. The chances of you passing your math exam is 2-1 or better stated as 2/3, meaning that if you were to take the math exam 3 times, you would pass 2 and fail 1, "theoretically". This theoretically means that on average. If you took one billion trillion trillion trillion exams, most likely you would have passed two thirds the time. The statistics would normalize to this probability. Now the question is, what is the probability of you passing twice and failing once in 3 tests. Logically, lay out the outcomes in taking three tests. Pass (P) and Fail (F). PPP PPF PFP FPP PFF FPF FFP FFF Out of the 8 possible outcomes, there are 3 in which the 2pass-1fail predicament occurs: (in parenthesis the probability that each would happen) PPF (2/3 x 2/3 x 1/3) PFP (2/3 x 1/3 x 2/3) PPF (1/3 x 2/3 x 2/3) Summing that up, you have a 4/9 chance, which is the answer I believe you were looking for. This (4/9) is the probability of the 2-1 pass-fail happening in three tests, but the probability of you passing on any particular test is still 2/3. Note that the total is lower than your probability on each particular test. Does this result makes sense. What if the probability that you pass a particular test is 50%. Maybe try it with only 2 trial tests. That's something to think about.

I think NeonBlack may be right about the insides not being a vacuum. There is no reason for it to be so. The main point to make however is that rusting only occurs with iron. I'm pretty sure that the cyclinders are made of a more non-reactive metal alloy. In addition, there is ample lubrication present within the engine interiors. But lastly to answer your original question, I don't see why rusting could not happen in a vacuum given that somehow the water molecules and iron can sufficiently interact.

Um... okay yeah, the more stuff from space we collect, the heavier we become. The weight an island can hold? I guess it's the weight before its base collapses, the same way that there is a theoretical maximum height for mountains before they collapse due to their own weight. And I guess if we did acquire that much mass, we could experience gravitational collapse?

My answer would be no. No matter how you chunk it together, a galaxy is still a galaxy. Your container would mean that all the particles in the galaxy are moving together in some sort of way I suppose? In any case, observed from any other frame, the galaxy, which has mass, cannot be observed to be travelling at the speed of light. Time dilation will occur relative to the two bodies observing each other. As you know, velocity is dependant on time, and such the speed of light travel is not observable.

Describe the volume of the little cone and large cone in terms of its dimensions (r, height). Add in the variable y which is the height in which you are going to cut it at. Then set the condition: Small cone volume = 1/27 Large cone volume And solve from there.

I'll say it one last time. Your neat manipulations work given that you assume that light is not constant and you are finding your own contradictions based on this. There is no reason for me to even go through your workings given that your initial assumptions are not "correct".

Ionic equations take a look at the ions and electrons interaction in a reaction, especially a reduction/oxidation reaction such as this one. Indeed, could you please give me the original equation or question? I'm not sure why that calcium is a +1 myself. In its usual ionic form, it should be +2.

Contradictions with YOUR theory of relativity? The theory assumes that light will be c to any observer in an inertial frame. YOUR theory does not. Light cannot take on all these velocities. You can say travel at 99% the speed of light from A to B and get there shortly after light traveling from A to B does. However on your journey it will appear to you that that light is traveling at the speed of light due to time dilation. Time slows down, and although you are travelling a great distance, velocity = distance/time you will find the same velocity, c. Again I restate my point that you are finding contradictions because you do not completely understand the workings of the original theory or atleast fail to accept its postulates, and if so why are saying anything about it? The theory is consistent given that the postulates hold. You should instead go about proving that the postulates are wrong.

Hmmm, okay let me make myself clear one more time: radians is an SI unit for angles This SI unit however is not a base SI unit for the reasons I have explained. Non-base SI units can be used in formulas perfectly fine. The base SI units is just the fundamental class that cannot be derived from anything. Everything other SI unit is considered derived from these bases. National Institute of Standards and Technology http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/

Analytic expression of a fourier transform... hmmmm. Why do you need one for the Gauss error function in the first place? I correct myself - continuity and integratability is sufficient for existence of a fourier transform.

I'm not denying that radians is an SI unit. It is an SI unit, but it is considered a derived unit as with frequency (per second) or area (square meter). You state that angles describe rotation. Rotation about? Let's use an example, you say a car wheel rotates pi radians. What does this mean? It means that a point on the wheels circumference has just moved a distance of pi*radius length. Surely here the concept of rotation is about a length dimension. It is a ratio. It has moved half of the circle's circumference. The appearance of 2pi in many formulas defines a ratio!! May be to your surprise. I can say that a wheel rotates at a rate of 2pi radians per second or 1 revolution per second. Instead I use 2pi to denote the ratio of the circumference distance traveled by the revolved radius. Segment of circle = (angle)*radius angle = segment length / radius = (distance)/(distance)