Hello, I'm new to frihost but for the sake of getting a host/my own personal interests I'm going to post info about Science. You may or may not already know the info that I will be posting. You may also ask questions. I will try to answer, and when possible I will seek insite from my brother. I may also ask my own questions from time to time. Also, correct me if I'm wrong. I love science and I would like the most accurate information possible.
First, I think Einstein's rubber mat theory on gravity is the most accurate gravitational theory out there. Imagine a big rubber mat (preferably semi-thin) that is suspended only along the edges (It is not resting on anything). This mat represents the gravitational field of the universe. Now imagine a large lead ball that sits on the mat. It creates a "dip" (for lack of a better term) in the mat. Now imagine a smaller lighter ball placed inside of the dip. It rolls toward the larger ball. Basically, the larger the mass of the object the less a smaller object will effect other objects whithin the larger objects gravitational field.
I think also that a black hole (which I believe do exist) represents an infinately deep "dip" in the universal gravitational field. I do not know how that would happen though. But it partially explains the massive gravitational force produced by a black hole. (Just in case you did not already know this, black holes produce enough gravitational force to pull in light)
Just to limit the size of the post I'm going stop here.
This will be a smaller post.
Like I said in my last post. Black holes can even pull in light. This inherently means that light has mass.
I got to thinking a couple weeks ago, that maybe energy and matter are not completely unrelated. Not that they both have mass, but that different forms of energy are mixed with different types/amounts of matter. In other words different forms of energy are more or less just different "purities" of energy. If you have heard of tachion energy (primarily found in futuristic games) you may know that it theoretically travels faster than light, possibly musch faster. I think maybe the real world equivalent of tachion would be the purest form of energy. Or having no matter or an infinately small amount of matter along with it.
Tell me your ideas.
I would like to know more about quasars. All I know is that they are similar to stars but that they emit radio waves (I think, I haven't read about them in a few years, so I am not 100% sure that it is radio waves)
Sorry I just felt like saying this. I hate it that I am a year behind the rest of my Grade in science classes. I'm a Junior in highschool and I'm in Academic Chemistry instead of AP Chemistry. I'm not a year behind because I flunked, I'm a year behind because I was at a different highschool my freshman year. I took a generic Science class called Scientific Principles Accelerated instead of Academic Biology. So I took Academic Biology my Sophomore year instead of Ac. Chem.
Sorry again, I was just venting some very mild anger.
This post serves a dual purpose. It will be my fifth post and will actually offer something.
Does anybody else hate trying to memorize bond angles for molecules?
Other than that I really like chemistry.
Do I really need to know much about bond angles until college?
I guess it comes from being a year older than all but one of the people in my Chem. class helps, but after the end of our first term I had 103% in the class. After that though we got to memorizing Chemical Formulae and bond angles so it went down to a 90-something%. I guess it is not that bad, though. Science in general comes easy most of the time to me.
I just think I am a slow memorizer, though. I also seen that in marching band. Most of the rest of the band had their music memorized at least a week earlier than me. I also don't have our school fight song memorized. Only the freshman seem to not have it memorized.
Wait a second! Why am I talking about band and music?
Just in case your into that type of stuff, too, I think I will also make a forum about that. eventually..............................
This is the type of stuff I will have on my website, just in case you are interested. I will tell you, though, my website will at least start out just as resource for my friends and I. I will try to add stuff more pertinent to the public as I go along.
In reply to your first post, yes black holes do exist, there are literally billions. They are generally to be found at the centres of galaxies (yes, even our dear old Milky Way), but also littered around the universe. I don't, however, believe that they produce 'an infinately deep "dip" in the universal gravitational field', as this would break pretty much every law of physics. But hey, you never know, they may be that powerful. You do seem to know your stuff though. Is it all learnt in school, or is some of it self-taught?
Incidentally, what are your views on dark matter/anti matter/whatever term they're using for it this week?
And post a link to your site when it's up, am very interested!
Well to start off, most of the stuff I learned out of school. My main source is my brother. He seems to be pretty reliable. I want to see if he will join frihost also.
Second, as I know it, dark matter and antimatter are actually 2 different things. Antimatter is a little bit more easily explained. Basically the charges are reversed from that of normal matter. The "electrons" have a positive charge and the "protons" have a negative charge. This causes matter and antimatter to be attracted to each other. This means the "atoms" would actually collide. In normal matter the atoms never actually touch each other. This collision is what causes the violent (and I do stress the violent part) reaction when antimatter and matter are introduced to each other. Actually, antimatter is not some sort of negative matter, it is matter, just made up of other subatomic particles.
Dark matter, on the other hand, is much more difficult to explain. All I really know about it is that it has some strange properties. One example is that it seems to block (maybe absorb, Im not quite sure which) light. Its been awhile since Ive read/heard anything about dark matter so Im not going to say anything else about it for now. I'll ask my brother about it. If a learn/remember anything more about dark matter I'll be sure to post it.
Third, Im not sure you really want to visit my site yet because I havent done anything to it, yet. I just got it today, so yeah. But here's the link anyway http//www.bumponalogworld.frih.net (sorry I dont have HTML turned on right now). You will probably want to check it in about a week. Hopefully by then it will be somewhat up and running.
I haven't been able to find a forum dealing specifically with buoyancy yet, so I thought maybe someone here could either help me, or refer me to the "correct" place. I have a question about how there can be a buoyancy problem that results in a negativity density. I do not have access to the problem at the moment, but I was hoping that someone may have run into the problem before and could still remember how it was possible. Basically, there is a diving submarine, which means it has a negative acceleration of about -2 meters per second squared. And when the teacher and I derived our final equation from the basic buoyancy equations, we kept coming up with a negative density for the diving sub. because of "g" being negative as well. Does anyone have any clue what I am talking about? Thanks to anyone who might...!
| Bump_on_a_Log08 wrote: |
This will be a smaller post.
Like I said in my last post. Black holes can even pull in light. This inherently means that light has mass. |
Not exactly. We measure mass in 2 ways - rest mass and relativistic mass. Rest mass is invariant (it is always the same). Relativistic mass is variable. It varies with speed according to Relativity.
Light has 0 rest mass.
| Quote: |
| I got to thinking a couple weeks ago, that maybe energy and matter are not completely unrelated. Not that they both have mass, but that different forms of energy are mixed with different types/amounts of matter. In other words different forms of energy are more or less just different "purities" of energy. If you have heard of tachion energy (primarily found in futuristic games) you may know that it theoretically travels faster than light, possibly musch faster. I think maybe the real world equivalent of tachion would be the purest form of energy. Or having no matter or an infinately small amount of matter along with it. |
You are thinking along the right lines. Mass IS energy and energy IS mass, in a very real sense. Remember Einstein's famous equation - e=m*c*c
Energy = mass time the speed of light squared
The tachyon is still a theoretical particle at this stage - there have been non detected up to now. If they do exist then in order to travel superluminary (faster than light) they need to have a negative rest mass.
Energy is energy. To talk about purity of energy is not really meaningful in that context. | quantumisyourfriend wrote: |
I haven't been able to find a forum dealing specifically with buoyancy yet, so I thought maybe someone here could either help me, or refer me to the "correct" place. I have a question about how there can be a buoyancy problem that results in a negativity density. I do not have access to the problem at the moment, but I was hoping that someone may have run into the problem before and could still remember how it was possible. Basically, there is a diving submarine, which means it has a negative acceleration of about -2 meters per second squared. And when the teacher and I derived our final equation from the basic buoyancy equations, we kept coming up with a negative density for the diving sub. because of "g" being negative as well. Does anyone have any clue what I am talking about? Thanks to anyone who might...!
|
Let's start with the formula for buoyancy :
F(b) = -pVg where F(b) is the buoyancy force, p is the density of the medium, V is the submerged volume and g is standard gravity (9.81 N/Kg).
Note the -ve sign in the formula.
For a diving sub in water (rounding p to 1000 kg/m^3 for water) with a submerged volume of x and a buoyancy force of 2 m/s^2 then we get
F(b) = -2 = -1000*x*9.81
x (submerged volume) = 4405 cubic metres
Does that help??
PS - that assumes that the sub is not powered, of course, and is diving because of the buoyancy only. If we want to consider a more 'real' scenario then you will need better math than I can provide to deal with it since it involves some pretty hairy sums (fluid dynamics - turbulent flows...math to make your hair curl).
Last edited by Bikerman on Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:28 pm; edited 1 time in totalAs far as I'm aware the idea of tachyons has more-or-less been dropped. I believe they were postulated to solve a puzzling problem, but that problem doesn't exist in most thriving modern theories (I can't remember what the problem was, but I believe multi-dimensional string theory has debunked it).
| DoctorBeaver wrote: |
| As far as I'm aware the idea of tachyons has more-or-less been dropped. I believe they were postulated to solve a puzzling problem, but that problem doesn't exist in most thriving modern theories (I can't remember what the problem was, but I believe multi-dimensional string theory has debunked it). |
String theory hasn't debunked anything - it can't yet, since it is still in the hypothetical realms. Even then, many versions of string theory actually give rise to tachyons. String theory basically posits that all the particles/waves we know of (protons, electrons, photons etc) are actually vibrating 'strings' which are either open or closed. Tachyons correspond to a particular 'vibration' which indicates instability. If the vibration corresponding to a tachyon occurs in an open string it indicates that the 'brane' to which it is 'attached' is unstable. If it occurs in a closed string it indicates that spacetime itself is unstable.
The major argument against tachyons has always been that they would violate causality, since they exceed c. In fact that is a bit simplistic since they fit into the Lorenz equations OK but only if you accept that they exist in an 'absolute' frame of reference which goes against the fundamental principle of SR. Therefore if they are demonstrated to exist that would mean that Special Relativity was in trouble.
You are correct, though, in thinking that many physicists don't 'believe' that they exist. I think the consensus view would be that they are an artefact of field theory.
Hopefully someone who knows something about it can comment further and cast more light...I'm at the limits of my knowledge and risk a headlong dash into ignorance if I go any further 
http://physics.gmu.edu/~e-physics/bob/tachyons.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Tachyon.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20000816220711/www.public.iastate.edu/~physics/sci.physics/faq/tachyons.htmlWhen tachyons collide?
I still haven't worked out all the gravitomagnetism going on in this image of the Red Square nebula (an apod) or Vincent Icke's analysis of the Red Rectangle nebula...
Great images to work with though. 
ed.
P.S. I'm sure Bikerman (or probably most others hereabouts?) could draw the light-cone at a tachyon collision... Hint: Looks a bit like the image above. 
It's a great image. I'll have a crack at the light cone a bit later...I'm still working on a promised essay on Aesthetics at the moment....(I'd rather be drawing light-cones | Bikerman wrote: |
| It's a great image. I'll have a crack at the light cone a bit later...I'm still working on a promised essay on Aesthetics at the moment....(I'd rather be drawing light-cones |
Then a visit to Vincent Icke's site is in order, i feel...
He's studying the Red Rectangle nebula: a binary system, apparently, and its 'wineglasses' are truly spectacular too.
Anyhoo, Icke's site ends with:
Keywords: Astrophysics - Cosmology - Hydrodynamics - Visual Art
I'll google: "Vincent Icke", "Red Rectangle nebula"
after shaunthesheep: Whoopee!! ed.
Vincent Icke
http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~icke/html/VincentRRpopular.html
Schematic mechanics of Red Rectangle::
The rotated, twisted and crossed-X along the diagonals is interesting...
What would it be like to surf those tubes?
And, where's the other 'bow shock' in the data?
Evidence of supersymmetry is what, again, please?
Anyhoo, and, D'Oh!, i've only just realised that the diagram shows but a slice through a torus! ed.
Torus: It looks a bit like a squashed ring-donut (but with a tiny ring, ma'am.) and the 'jam' of "unidentified molecules" in the middle is extremely hot metal dust!
Last edited by newolder on Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:44 pm; edited 1 time in totalGet thee behind me Satan, thou art sent to tempt me away from the path of righteousness with thy cunning wiles....
(I'll never be able to concentrate on Kant and the Universal concept of Beauty now I've seen that....I'm just going to have to take a small break....just for a minute...whilst I go for a peek! Satan ?
Is that another promotion? (Any more and i'll have to re-sign, again. )
With reality initials IEC, i suppose SatanIEC012 could be my next profile? 
Nah! Nor prophet, nor whatever. Just a guy; old in a newer place. ed. 
| newolder wrote: |
Satan ?
Is that another promotion? (Any more and i'll have to re-sign, again. )
With reality initials IEC, i suppose SatanIEC012 could be my next profile?
Nah! Nor prophet, nor whatever. Just a guy; old in a newer place. ed. |
LOL...if we are going to start twisting words then I'm 'embarkin' right now! (well I thought my anagram was good:-)
I've just had a look at that site...mindblowing pictures. Definite candidates for inclusion in my slide show | Bikerman wrote: |
(well I thought my anagram was good:-)
I've just had a look at that site...mindblowing pictures. Definite candidates for inclusion in my slide show |
Me too.
Happy you liked the link too. There's a lot more to be gleaned in the study of these and other HST library images yet.
I've got me lab-coat...
P.S. What have i done to make the Forum pages wider than my screen width? | newolder wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | (well I thought my anagram was good:-)
I've just had a look at that site...mindblowing pictures. Definite candidates for inclusion in my slide show |
Me too.
Happy you liked the link too. There's a lot more to be gleaned in the study of these and other HST library images yet.
I've got me lab-coat...
P.S. What have i done to make the Forum pages wider than my screen width? |
Erm...normally happens if something too wide is posted as an image but it looks OK to my screen...Have you changed the screen resolution locally?
PS - I've got me lab coat.....cogitate movable....love beat to magic....got above climate..lolwow most of you know quite a bit more about this subject than I do. Sorry I have not posted in forever but for some reason I'm not getting any emails about new posts on all my topics for some reason.
