Physics - July 2006

I'm asking if anyone has ever really proven what I think are several untested assumptions about Gravity waves.

I think Gravity waves exists, and will someday be measured.
All current experiements, however, have failed.

I question if they travel at the speed of electromagnetic waves (maybe just a little faster), if they attenuate like electromagnetic waves (I think they don't), and if they are subject to Time Dilatation (I think not).

It would solve very many problems if they don't follow these standards for Mass-Energy waves.

2006-07-08 16:37:54 · 7 answers · asked by virtualscientist01 2

Also, what will be its framework?
I put this question in physics to acquire more intelligent answers... forgive me.

2006-07-08 16:32:21 · 8 answers · asked by eric henderson 2

let there be a bus travelling at a sped of 60km per hour with all windows open then how can a mosquito is able to travel with the buswithout being in contact with the bus

2006-07-08 15:41:31 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

Wouldn't there relative speed be greater than that of light speed?

2006-07-08 15:32:29 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-07-08 15:26:10 · 5 answers · asked by [TL] 2

Suppose I fire off a radio signal, in all directions, into space. Conventionally we would imagine it as a continuous wavefront propagating through space. But when does it "break-up" into individual photons?

Suppose again that I was trying to contact a specific alien planet far away. If my radio signal breaks into individual photons then the angular coverage provided by the individual photons might not cover the planet I am attempting to contact! In which case the Aliens never hear my message of peace &or friendship & or demands for Oil drilling rights!

2006-07-08 15:03:20 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

Most of you seem to be saying 'because they do!'-but would anyone be happy with the answer 'because it is!' to the question 'why is the sky blue?'
Thks Larry M for seeing the real question beyond the obvious.
To expand it further-
Since it is true that objects stay the same size regardless of their distance, is it fair to say that 'objects only look smaller - the greater the distance-due to the way the human brain organizes information, in order to allow the viewer to make sense of the world around them?'-Indeed if there existed a species which used sound as a primary method of observation-that their brains might not sort information in this way-and who might 'see' objects at great distance at 'full' size-generating a confusing mass of image and perspective, making their visual senses less usefull than hearing or touch? and while I understand the concept that less light reaches the observer-the greater the distance-why doesn't it result in a dimmer image rather than a smaller one?

2006-07-08 14:21:53 · 15 answers · asked by THINKER 2

A student could either pull or push, at an angle of 30o from the horizontal, a 50-kg crate on a horizontal surface, where the coefficient of kinetic friction between the crate and surface is 0.20. The crate is to be moved a horizontal distance of 15 m.
(a) Compared with pushing, pulling requires the student to do (1) less, (2) the same, or (3) more work. I think that pushing or pulling does not make a difference so the answer would be the same. Maybe their is a difference though and I thought I would see what other people thought.

2006-07-08 13:16:48 · 11 answers · asked by jamey.moore@sbcglobal.net 1

I think magnetism is just "focused" gravity which results from the unique molecular structure of magnets.

2006-07-08 13:14:56 · 16 answers · asked by Gravity Boy 1

2006-07-08 13:03:11 · 13 answers · asked by THINKER 2

In terms of comparing the cophenhagen interpretation of free will with newtonian physics, the world is either deterministic or indeterministic. Can these words still apply to the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics? Because if the world is determined, free will doesnt make sense, and if the world is not determined and things are uncaused free will doesnt make sense. Its not that it exists or doesnt exist but the concept doesnt make sense. So can it make sense in the many worlds interpretation?

2006-07-08 12:42:07 · 7 answers · asked by daseinpbc 2

Mr. Steven Hawking, Please answer this.

2006-07-08 12:34:57 · 1 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-07-08 12:30:17 · 10 answers · asked by lumpy 3

2006-07-08 12:14:58 · 9 answers · asked by ringo 69 1

2006-07-08 11:52:32 · 6 answers · asked by time to fly 1

2006-07-08 11:39:46 · 10 answers · asked by Sir RJ 1

I Read In A Book That The Average Density of The Universe that Scientists Have Calculated Matches Well With What They Think the Density of Black Holes Should Be. Is There Any Truth to This?

2006-07-08 11:29:14 · 6 answers · asked by yauwforab 2

2006-07-08 11:15:51 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-07-08 11:07:25 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

From where do elements heavier than oxygen originate?

Why do we say that materials in our world are mostly "empty space?"

2006-07-08 10:59:58 · 8 answers · asked by mrfr0ggiedudex 1

2006-07-08 10:53:07 · 5 answers · asked by da vinci 1

The device is in the deepest part of the Pacific Ocean, which is approx. 35,000ft and how tall is the resulting tidalwave?

2006-07-08 10:50:59 · 4 answers · asked by Steel Rain 7

Everyone knows energy cannot be created or destroyed. So when lightning hits, as it does with insane frequency, where the heck does the charge go?

2006-07-08 10:17:40 · 11 answers · asked by us&themPINKFLOYD 2

Time as we know it is measured on how fast the earth spins on its axis. So time is actually based on a measurement of speed across a distance. If the earth spun faster or slower, time would be measured differently.

2006-07-08 08:42:23 · 15 answers · asked by ntlgnce 4

2006-07-08 08:38:39 · 23 answers · asked by Jon S. 1

2006-07-08 08:25:44 · 14 answers · asked by Ronny 1

Would it not be possible to dilute nuclear waste until its radiation level is close to the background level? It could then be dumped anywhere.

2006-07-08 08:08:27 · 9 answers · asked by Joseph G 1

Light emitted at an event horizon of a black hole by something falling in will be emittted with an infinite redshift. So zero energy photons are predicted.

2006-07-08 07:45:19 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-07-08 07:40:21 · 9 answers · asked by virgo_09_81 1

i understand Fission and how it works.Just wondering how they get the first Neutrons to start splitting other uranium atoms starting the chain reaction...By heating up the Uranium pellets in the rods?

2006-07-08 07:10:51 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous