dang 17 pages deep.... let see them complain about placeholders now..

McGuffy wrote:


Perhaps pursuit of such truths as the origin of the universe is academic and of little commercial value, but if we don't ask and try to answer these questions, then what is the point to it all? I don't think nations should go bankrupt trying to answer questions that may be unanswerable, but I for one am fascinated by the seemingly endless expanse of our universe, how it could have began, what was there before? What is the ultimate fate of the universe? Where else does life exist? What does it look like?

And while wondering about all of this stuff, I will still likely buy wrinkle cream (or whatever) when I need it.


Also, many practical technologies come from seemingly academic pursuits. Long before the radio, some physicist was experimenting with electromagnetism. Long before aircraft, someone was doing the math behind aerodynamics.

There is no quantum theory of gravity. We don't know how or why gravity works. If we solve the riddle, then anti-gravity technologies will emerge just as sure as an understanding of electromagnetism gave us telecommunications (and computers).

Actaualy we don't know any more about gravity than we do magnetisim. The only diffrence is that mag. can be created useing current, and has bouth atraction and repulition.

sry about my spelling...

FenStar wrote:


Actaualy we don't know any more about gravity than we do magnetisim.

We know how to create magnetism. We can create and manipulate electromagnetic fields of varying power, and at specific frequencies. We have the quantum theory (photons, thank you Maxwell).

We cannot create nor manipulate gravity (that we know of). We have never found a graviton.

The creation of radio signals and lasers is the direct result of an understanding of electromagnetic radiation. Compared to what we know about gravity, we are damn near experts in magnetism.

McGuffy wrote:

We know how to create magnetism. We can create and manipulate electromagnetic fields of varying power, and at specific frequencies. We have the quantum theory (photons, thank you Maxwell).

We cannot create nor manipulate gravity (that we know of). We have never found a graviton.

The creation of radio signals and lasers is the direct result of an understanding of electromagnetic radiation. Compared to what we know about gravity, we are damn near experts in magnetism.

Acceloration creates the same effect as gravety. I guess, my assumption is that there are no "photons" or the like for gravety. I suppose we wouldn't know if grav. could create waves or whatever if we didn't know if they exzist. But we still don't and never will understand why neg and pos are atracted to each other, do we? (I could be wrong, it's happned before, I know)

FenStar wrote:

Acceloration creates the same effect as gravety. I guess, my assumption is that there are no "photons" or the like for gravety. I suppose we wouldn't know if grav. could create waves or whatever if we didn't know if they exzist.

The LISA project was a space-based laser interferometer that was going to look for gravity waves. Gravity is extremely weak, millions of times weaker than the electromagnetic force. For example, the static electricity of a comb can lift a piece of paper off the ground, so that little bit of electricity is enough to overcome the gravitational pull of the Earth. Therefore, measuring gravity waves on Earth is nearly impossible.

Our best proof of the big bang is the background radiation (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest3.html). Being able to measure gravity waves would give us the clearest picture of our universe ever, but it looks like we'll have to wait even longer.

Also, in order to mathematically analyze what happened at the big bang, or even in the center of a black hole, we need a quantum theory of gravity. Gravity deals with the very large, quantum physics deals with the very small. The big bang, and the center of black holes, incorporates properties of both. At these small scales and large energy-densities lie the next wave of answers about our existense.

What really amazes me about this stuff is guys like Maxwell and Einstein predicted the existence of things like photons and black holes and electrons on paper, using math, years if not decades before they were ever seen in nature. Nuclear energy (and sadly, the A-bomb) exist because Einstein proved, on paper, that energy and mass are interchangeable. How amazing is that?

A quantum theory of gravity, be it from string theory or traditional particle physics, will be the biggest scientific discovery in physics since the discovery of the atom.

McGuffy wrote:

The LISA project was a space-based laser interferometer that was going to look for gravity waves. Gravity is extremely weak, millions of times weaker than the electromagnetic force. For example, the static electricity of a comb can lift a piece of paper off the ground, so that little bit of electricity is enough to overcome the gravitational pull of the Earth. Therefore, measuring gravity waves on Earth is nearly impossible.

Our best proof of the big bang is the background radiation (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest3.html). Being able to measure gravity waves would give us the clearest picture of our universe ever, but it looks like we'll have to wait even longer.

Also, in order to mathematically analyze what happened at the big bang, or even in the center of a black hole, we need a quantum theory of gravity. Gravity deals with the very large, quantum physics deals with the very small. The big bang, and the center of black holes, incorporates properties of both. At these small scales and large energy-densities lie the next wave of answers about our existense.

A quantum theory of gravity, be it from string theory or traditional particle physics, will be the biggest scientific discovery in physics since the discovery of the atom.

I feel kinda bad amking you explain stuff, but I figure if you don't want to you can always ignore me, and as long as i don't forget the answer...

I must admit, grav waves sounds kinda silly, but so would em waves if I had never heard of them.

Unfortunately, my Engineering major required WAY too much of this stuff . . .

We can "manipulate" gravity in the sense that, if there is none to begin with, we can "create" it. I'm searching for the link now . . .

The thing is, gravity is one of the few things that we can't truly test. We can't just blast a ship into space and collide planets together for the simple reason of observing the effects.

The grand enigma is that gravity is one of the weakest forces known to man. With a strong enough magnet or a large enough jet-engine, anything can "overcome" gravity.

Oh, and back to the talk of alternate fuels, I love the idea of hydrogen-powered cars. Think of it: a ready source of rocket fuel, stored in "fueling" stations across the world! An H-bomb waiting to explode!

Jason Toon wrote:

Didn't even bother to pretend they would have the winners picked on time this week...

IlleDuce wrote:
Oh, and back to the talk of alternate fuels, I love the idea of hydrogen-powered cars. Think of it: a ready source of rocket fuel, stored in "fueling" stations across the world! An H-bomb waiting to explode!

Umm... I don't think there is that much power in a hydrogen-powered car, it shouldn't be any more than a tank full of gas should it? plus I thought an H-bom used a nukeler reacton?

but hay, what do I now i just spelled nuclear nukeler

Didn't even bother to pretend they would have the winners picked on time this week...

I hear you . . . I can only imagine why it's taking so long. (16 pages of submissions, most being rather decent)

FenStar wrote:

I feel kinda bad amking you explain stuff, but I figure if you don't want to you can always ignore me, and as long as i don't forget the answer...

I must admit, grav waves sounds kinda silly, but so would em waves if I had never heard of them.

I don't mind. I like this stuff. I'm sure others are tuning out en masse though.

Gravity has sparked a lot of scientific arguements. Newton believed gravity was instantaneous, i.e. if the sun spontaneously vanished somehow, we'd feel the effects instantly. Einstein argued, and basically proved, that it wouldn't be instant, that the change in gravity would propagate at the speed of light, making it in essence a "wave".

When they talk about the "wave-particle duality" of light, it's saying it acts like a wave, but is comprised of individual packets (quanta) of particles called photons. It is speculated, but unproven, that gravity exists as a similar form of energy.

To really bake your noodle, Maxwell showed that light is the result of ripples on a higher spatial dimension, and electricity an even higher one. In fact, some branches of string theory call for 10 or more spatial dimensions.

Have a headache yet?

McGuffy wrote:

I don't mind. I like this stuff. I'm sure others are tuning out en masse though.

Gravity has sparked a lot of scientific arguements. Newton believed gravity was instantaneous, i.e. if the sun spontaneously vanished somehow, we'd feel the effects instantly. Einstein argued, and basically proved, that it wouldn't be instant, that the change in gravity would propagate at the speed of light, making it in essence a "wave".

When they talk about the "wave-particle duality" of light, it's saying it acts like a wave, but is comprised of individual packets (quanta) of particles called photons. It is speculated, but unproven, that gravity exists as a similar form of energy.

To really bake your noodle, Maxwell showed that light is the result of ripples on a higher spatial dimension, and electricity an even higher one. In fact, some branches of string theory call for 10 or more spatial dimensions.

Have a headache yet?

Can you explain the whole traveling faster than the speed of light causes time to slow down thing? to me it seems to contridect relitivity... ( I prob won't get it though)

If the space ship time slowed down relitive to earth wouldn't earths time slow down relative to the space ship? I know earth has a greater mass and would be less affected bu the ship's launch but still...

Umm... I don't think there is that much power in a hydrogen-powered car, it shouldn't be any more than a tank full of gas should it?

I was referring to the storage of the fuel. There have been talks involving the storage of LIQUID HYDROGEN at refueling stations. Am I the only one that sees a problem here? Hydrogen in its purest state is extremely volatile and reacts explosively with any trace of oxygen. Not only does the storage need to be sealed away from air/water, but the car itself will see amazingly high air-tightness. What happens when a seal corrodes/dry rots, as they all inevitably do?

IlleDuce wrote:I hear you . . . I can only imagine why it's taking so long. (16 pages of submissions, most being rather decent)

...and having to prep 4500 Bags of Crustaceans is probably a little time consuming.

Or do they do that ahead of time?

so do we wanna start taking bets on when the results will be up? i'm guessing somewhere around 6pm eastern.

McGuffy wrote: We have the quantum theory (photons, thank you Maxwell).

Did Maxwell have much to do with photons? I thought he was famous for Maxwell's equations and proposing that light was a form of EM radiation, but I also thought he believed that EM radiation was waves in luminiferous ether.

IlleDuce wrote:

I was referring to the storage of the fuel. There have been talks involving the storage of LIQUID HYDROGEN at refueling stations. Am I the only one that sees a problem here? Hydrogen in its purest state is extremely volatile and reacts explosively with any trace of oxygen. Not only does the storage need to be sealed away from air/water, but the car itself will see amazingly high air-tightness. What happens when a seal corrodes/dry rots, as they all inevitably do?

O, I guess that makes more sense. on the up side when H combines wit O u got water so maby it will put it'self out,
Just Kidding

FenStar wrote:

Didn't even bother to pretend they would have the winners picked on time this week...

What is "on time?" Is there a winning results time posted in the contest announcement?

FenStar wrote:

O, I guess that makes more sense. on the up side when H combines wit O u got water so maby it will put it'self out,
JK

By the way I think its so neet how the "elements" (fire water air and elctricity) are all used in that cycle.

To really bake your noodle, Maxwell showed that light is the result of ripples on a higher spatial dimension, and electricity an even higher one. In fact, some branches of string theory call for 10 or more spatial dimensions.

Well, there are so many dissenting opinions concerning string theory that it's rather hard to believe any one of them. Plus (I haven't kept up-to-date as of lately, so I may be wrong), there still isn't a way to finitely test any of these postulations. So, the grand theory to explain gravity contains more holes in it than the theory of gravity itself.

qwertyuiop001 wrote:

What is "on time?" Is there a winning results time posted in the contest announcement?

I thought they used to say it would be up monday at 12:00...

FenStar wrote:

Can you explain the whole traveling faster than the speed of light causes time to slow down thing? to me it seems to contridect relitivity... ( I prob won't get it though)

If the space ship time slowed down relitive to earth wouldn't earths time slow down relative to the space ship? I know earth has a greater mass and would be less affected bu the ship's launch but still...

That is a tricky one.

You know if you are traveling at 50 mph and a car passes you doing 60 mph, that car's speed, relative to you, is 10mph.

Well, no matter how fast you're moving, light always appears to travel at the same speed. So technically, if you were traveling at half the speed of light, a light beam traveling next to you should appear to be traveling at half it's normal speed, but it won't.

The reason is, traveling at half the speed of light, time is also affecting you at half the rate, so the light wave would still appear to be traveling at normal speed.

If you were traveling at half the speed of light, and left earth for 1 year, when you got back, 2 years would have passed.

What's amazing is that we have proven this experimentally. Cesium-atom clocks (accurate to billionths of a second) put on satellites (specifically, GPS) have to be recalibrated on a regular basis because they beat at different rates than they do on Earth because of the speed differential.

You can't travel faster than light. If it were possible to travel faster, light would travel faster. However, at the speed of light, if you could achieve it, time would basically stop for you. 1 second for you would be millions of years on Earth.

Books have been written about this, so my 2-paragraph layman's explanation really fails to do it justice, but that's the jist. Where logic would have us expect to see a relativistic change in the speed of light, the change actually occurs in the passage of time, making light's speed appear constant regardless of the speed of the observer.

yeah, usually it's been noon central on monday for the posting. however, if you go back in the contests forum homepage, you can see entries have gone up and up for the contests lately, so it's probably taking a while cause of that and the B@C's getting packed up..

yay for two conversations at once.

FenStar wrote:

By the way I think its so neet how the "elements" (fire water air and elctricity) are all used in that cycle.

The four elements of the ancients were earth, air, water, and fire.

A hydrogen car could use fuel-cell tech... no fire.

If hydrogen cars are too dangerous, you could use methanol fuel cell technology. Using methanol could require less infrastructure change at gas stations, since (like gasoline) methanol isn't cryogenic.

McGuffy wrote:

That is a tricky one.

You know if you are traveling at 50 mph and a car passes you doing 60 mph, that car's speed, relative to you, is 10mph.

Well, no matter how fast you're moving, light always appears to travel at the same speed. So technically, if you were traveling at half the speed of light, a light beam traveling next to you should appear to be traveling at half it's normal speed, but it won't.

The reason is, traveling at half the speed of light, time is also affecting you at half the rate, so the light wave would still appear to be traveling at normal speed.

If you were traveling at half the speed of light, and left earth for 1 year, when you got back, 2 years would have passed.

What's amazing is that we have proven this experimentally. Cesium-atom clocks (accurate to billionths of a second) put on satellites (specifically, GPS) have to be recalibrated on a regular basis because they beat at different rates than they do on Earth because of the speed differential.

You can't travel faster than light. If it were possible to travel faster, light would travel faster. However, at the speed of light, if you could achieve it, time would basically stop for you. 1 second for you would be millions of years on Earth.

Books have been written about this, so my 2-paragraph layman's explanation really fails to do it justice, but that's the jist. Where logic would have us expect to see a relativistic change in the speed of light, the change actually occurs in the passage of time, making light's speed appear constant regardless of the speed of the observer.

If that's true then light would travel instantly from point a to pint b, and would not be able to get sucked into a black hole because it spends 0 time near it, right?

qwertyuiop001 wrote:The four elements of the ancients were earth, air, water, and fire.

and heart. we are captain planet.

wizard7926 wrote:yeah, usually it's been noon central on monday for the posting. however, if you go back in the contests forum homepage, you can see entries have gone up and up for the contests lately, so it's probably taking a while cause of that and the B@C's getting packed up..

yay for two conversations at once.

actualy, I think we are up to three now.

FenStar wrote:

actualy, I think we are up to three now.

you're right: fuel cells, light speed, and contest times.

let's start some more.. who's gonna win the NHL/NBA Finals?

McGuffy wrote:
If you were traveling at half the speed of light, and left earth for 1 year, when you got back, 2 years would have passed.

I don't think time dilation is linear like that.

FenStar wrote:

If that's true then light would travel instantly from point a to pint b, and would not be able to get sucked into a black hole because it spends 0 time near it, right?

I know this is prob wrong, but just to show u how i'm thinking...
for that matter it would never get stoped by even a solid object, because there is no such thing, just forces interacting with each other, only one point per force (exact center, where force would be inifinte) would be able to stop it, and it would be an infinetly small prob that light would pass throught that one point

Like I said, just showing what I'm thinking, so you can explain it to me.

FenStar wrote:

If that's true then light would travel instantly from point a to pint b, and would not be able to get sucked into a black hole because it spends 0 time near it, right?

There have recently been some experiments done showing that light can be slowed down in certain media; certain gasses, I think. Rather dramatic slowing too.

qwertyuiop001 wrote:

I don't think time dilation is linear like that.

it isn't linner, but he is corect, I belive but now I can't think

[img=http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/8419/brainfull3pd.gif]

FenStar wrote:

If that's true then light would travel instantly from point a to pint b, and would not be able to get sucked into a black hole because it spends 0 time near it, right?

That's a great observation and a logical assumption. And some physicists have even postulated that there is only 1 photon in the universe, and that it exists everywhere at once.

This is where the particle side of the wave-particle duality comes in. Photons are actual objects that have mass, so they can be affected by gravity. Gravity is an actual bending in the fabric of space-time, so even though light "bends" as it travels around a star, and becomes trapped in perpetual orbit around a black hole, it is still moving, in effect, in a straight line, and at full speed. It doesn't (from what I've read) get sucked into the core and stopped there, it gets trapped in orbit, because the escape velocity of the black hole is equal to the speed of light. As for the true nature and explanation, though, that's exactly why we need that quantum theory of gravity!

If that's true then light would travel instantly from point a to pint b, and would not be able to get sucked into a black hole because it spends 0 time near it, right?

Yet, if I remember right, aren't black holes purported as being able to absorb light (hence the name: black hole)? And aren't black holes just giant gravitational wells?

McGuffy wrote:

That's a great observation and a logical assumption. And some physicists have even postulated that there is only 1 photon in the universe, and that it exists everywhere at once.

This is where the particle side of the wave-particle duality comes in. Photons are actual objects that have mass, so they can be affected by gravity. Gravity is an actual bending in the fabric of space-time, so even though light "bends" as it travels around a star, and becomes trapped in perpetual orbit around a black hole, it is still moving, in effect, in a straight line, and at full speed. It doesn't (from what I've read) get sucked into the core and stopped there, it gets trapped in orbit, because the escape velocity of the black hole is equal to the speed of light. As for the true nature and explanation, though, that's exactly why we need that quantum theory of gravity!

Well, I love math and when 0 x a number other than infinity doesn't equal 0 I freek out. Call me old fasioned, but that's the way I am.

FenStar wrote:

Umm... I don't think there is that much power in a hydrogen-powered car, it shouldn't be any more than a tank full of gas should it? plus I thought an H-bom used a nukeler reacton?

but hay, what do I now i just spelled nuclear nukeler

ever watch mythbusters?

for those who havent...

they did a show on alternate fuels... one of them was a 12volt battery converter for water , it didnt even produce enough gas to turn the motor over.. there for if there was ever a hydro electric car... there woudl have to be a big ass fusion reactor PLUS all the batteries to store the energy... add all that weight up and its jsut not economical..

ohh and not to mention they tested this on a V8... small block.. and of course liek traditional mythbusters... they hooked up a Hydrogen tank to the carborator...

it worked.. but dangerous back fires.. and possibly dangerous for the motor...

.............................

but then again... this was made...


granted its a cooper... but hey..


PLUS...

the price of water woudl go WAY up...

3.29 for a gallon of albertsons grade
3.59 for 1/2 gallon of evian
4.20 for Fiji Hi-Octaine volcano filterd water...

these are jsut examples... lol

FenStar wrote:

Well, I love math and when 0 x a number other than infinity doesn't equal 0 I freek out. Call me old fasioned, but that's the way I am.

wait, whn you increase your acc to the speed of light your mass is infinite right?

IlleDuce wrote:

Yet, if I remember right, aren't black holes purported as being able to absorb light (hence the name: black hole)? And aren't black holes just giant gravitational wells?

Black holes are their own, completely separate area of spacetime. Nothing outside the horizon can ever communicate with anything inside the horizon. Even then, some energy "evaporates" out through quantum tunneling (Hawking proved this).

At the core of a blackhole, energy and matter may very well be in an exotic form unlike anything we have ever seen. Black holes are very similar to the instant before the big bang in that both require quantum gravity to explain.

Since we don't have that yet, the properties of black holes remain one of the biggest questions in all of physics and cosmology. Anything you read is pure speculation.

DeFlanko wrote:

ever watch mythbusters?

for those who havent...

they did a show on alternate fuels... one of them was a 12volt battery converter for water , it didnt even produce enough gas to turn the motor over.. there for if there was ever a hydro electric car... there woudl have to be a big ass fusion reactor PLUS all the batteries to store the energy... add all that weight up and its jsut not economical..


PLUS...

the price of water woudl go WAY up...

3.29 for a gallon of albertsons grade
3.59 for 1/2 gallon of evian
4.20 for Fiji Hi-Octaine volcano filterd water...

these are jsut examples... lol

You don't store the electricty, you store the H and O, from what i understand. Also you need a (is it catalyist?) so it will conduct electricty.