Physics - July 2006

2006-07-09 23:16:19 · 29 answers · asked by reaper0159 4

2006-07-09 23:08:21 · 3 answers · asked by SA 1

in the case of being shadowed from the sun and not shadowed?

2006-07-09 23:06:45 · 8 answers · asked by Brendan M 1

2006-07-09 23:00:31 · 3 answers · asked by Pajmalbert 1

glassy metals produced by multielement alloying and not via rapid solidification route

2006-07-09 22:57:53 · 4 answers · asked by zoozagauzu 1

2006-07-09 22:56:24 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-07-09 22:56:10 · 2 answers · asked by segun s 1

if i have it on within five feet of my bed i get nightmares wen i goto bed, why?

2006-07-09 22:55:22 · 17 answers · asked by Boyracer83 1

The closest I can get is that a fission reaction takes place and the X-rays are then focussed on the next component ie deuterium/tritrium in an eliptical sphere. However I thought X-rays couldn't be 'bent'. Any H-bomb makers out there?

2006-07-09 22:52:59 · 8 answers · asked by JONATHAN E 1

2006-07-09 22:16:47 · 21 answers · asked by Chaz 1

2006-07-09 22:08:06 · 5 answers · asked by Collins L 1

we all know that two bodies will exert gravitational force on them.but what makes them to exert such a force

2006-07-09 21:49:02 · 4 answers · asked by dexter 2

Answer the question and justify your answer...

2006-07-09 21:42:55 · 17 answers · asked by frewatg 1

Seriously, I hear stories of people travelling through time, but don't know if they're real or not. Does anyone know if it might really exist?

Don't waste my answer space with explaining how time travel is impossible. I already know about it, ok? I just want to know if anyone has done it successfully, or if you know anyone, or if you know of anyone that has.

2006-07-09 21:37:47 · 9 answers · asked by Brianman3 3

I read somewhere in a book that "sub-atomic particles apppear to move backwards in time". I dont know anything about sub-atomic particles and I dont understand how this is possible. Can anyone explain in plain english what this means? It sounds facinating to me.

2006-07-09 21:05:14 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-07-09 20:26:49 · 4 answers · asked by dan47_ran 1

Here's the question - actually 2 essential questions.

If e=mc², then what portion of that total energy can be attributed to the former gravity of the mass particle prior to the conversion and where does that gravity go afterwards?

On the other hand, when massless energy particles interact to form matter from pure energy, what portion of that energy becomes the gravitational energy of the resulting mass particles and where does that gravity originate?

The equation e=mc² seems to imply that all the resulting energy is purely electromagnetic, but electromagnetic energy and gravity seem to have entirely different properties and have so far eluded any effort to unify them.

Somewhere during this interconversion process gravity disappears into nowhere or appears from nowhere as the result of an entirely electromagnetic process that in no way addresses where gravity goes or originates.

Where's Stephen Hawking when I need him ?

2006-07-09 19:53:46 · 13 answers · asked by Jay T 3

2006-07-09 19:29:47 · 5 answers · asked by Empty Skies 2

2006-07-09 18:51:31 · 14 answers · asked by kp.eric 2

When air resistance does not affect the motion of a projectile, its horizontal and vertical components of velocity remain constant.

2006-07-09 18:50:34 · 20 answers · asked by kp.eric 2

I've read this priciple in a couple of books and they say sth like this,
"The Constants of our universe are what we observe them to be because, otherwise we would not be there to experience it."
Why should we be here in the first place? Why is it necessary for us to be here? This principle, to me, somehow indicates the presence of a creator.. who selected the present universe for life to exist.

2006-07-09 18:33:02 · 8 answers · asked by Sivakumar B 1

During the Matrix Reloaded, a physicist noted that a human being skydiving or flying at that speed will not only break almost all of your limbs but rip off any protruding excremities including the male's genitals. Now as odd as this is, I need some verification as the websites are fuzzy on explanations. And in my opinion, it seems well than enough to but I need more opinions. thanks

2006-07-09 17:50:21 · 9 answers · asked by jeanue Voltar 1

Here is a link and information from the website

http://projects.star.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/projects/MEDIA/xv/oc.html

What is Optical Camouflage?
Optical camouflage is a kind of active camouflage.
This idea is very simple. If you project background image onto the masked object, you can observe the masked object just as if it were virtually transparent.
This shows the principle of the optical camouflage using X'tal Vision. You can select camouflaged object to cover with retroreflector. Moreover, to project a stereoscopic image, the observer looks at the masking object more transparent.
Optical camouflage can be applied for a real scene. In the case of a real scene, a photograph of the scene is taken from the operatorfs viewpoint, and this photograph is projected to exactly the same place as the original. Actually, applying HMP-based optical camouflage to a real scene requires image-based rendering techniques.

The drawback is that when you move to another angle, it fails.

2006-07-09 17:38:59 · 6 answers · asked by jeanue Voltar 1

My questions are simple ones

My radiometer spins clockwise with black side on the right vertical veins and I would like to know does any person here know for a fact that if the veins on Crookes radiometer were reversed with black side on the left vertical veins, then would it rotate counter clockwise?

Also has there been any tests conducted with the crooks radiometer to determine if it could function if with respect to a slight reconstruction it was placed between two low friction spindles which were inverted at 90 degrees of its current functional state thus the shaft would be mounted horizontal and the veins would rotate against gravitational forces?

2006-07-09 17:03:54 · 2 answers · asked by Thoughtfull 4

algebraically speaking..?

2006-07-09 17:01:05 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-07-09 16:43:13 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-07-09 16:35:09 · 21 answers · asked by goring 6

I've been told that when you heat a metal ring, the ring expands - but instead of the center hole getting smaller (like I would have thought because of the metal expanding in all directions), the hole actually gets larger with the rest of the ring.

What causes that to happen? I would have thought that since the metal of the ring would expand in all directions, the hole would shrink.

2006-07-09 16:33:34 · 4 answers · asked by gallostravels 1

Time Travel

2006-07-09 16:33:15 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

Planetary motion

2006-07-09 16:27:41 · 8 answers · asked by goring 6