Physics - September 2006

Would would happen to your weight if the earth were somehow expanded to a larger radius (but with no change in mass)? What about if the earth shrunk?

2006-09-06 16:15:30 · 4 answers · asked by MegN 1

2006-09-06 16:07:59 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

Or is it really just chi type energy?

2006-09-06 16:03:34 · 4 answers · asked by Vertigo Pulse 2

why are we not able to visualize 11 dimensional space described in string theory? please give me answers in entirely layman's terms, because i am not Mensa, i am Densa!!! LOL

2006-09-06 15:49:20 · 5 answers · asked by Louiegirl_Chicago 5

According to general theory of relativity gravity is always attractive and there is no negative gravitational effect. If gravity is always attractive why the universe is expanding? All the matter is supposed to attract each other and come to one point.

2006-09-06 14:37:00 · 9 answers · asked by libranjiss 1

A ball is thrown upward with initial speed w.
a)what is the max height?
b)time to max height?

2006-09-06 14:25:27 · 8 answers · asked by John W 1

i just cant understand it. i would appreciate it if you would give me a simple explaination on how they work

2006-09-06 14:18:22 · 11 answers · asked by teddybears 3

http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=BZX0Y08

2006-09-06 14:16:24 · 2 answers · asked by M.F.R. 2

2006-09-06 13:55:33 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-09-06 13:49:59 · 5 answers · asked by george h 2

...values weight causes as in pull push spin dynamics that result weight variations,i'm not just inquiring about variations between planets but general causal energies

2006-09-06 13:42:32 · 5 answers · asked by Book of Changes 3

...values weight causes as in pull push dynamics

2006-09-06 13:28:56 · 4 answers · asked by Book of Changes 3

Let's say you have a very high-energy photon whose wavelength is slightly LONGER than the Planck length (~1.6 * 10^-35 m). An object moves toward the photon, so that from the object's POV the photon gets blueshifted so that its wavelength is now LESS THAN the Planck length.

What will happen when the photon meets the object? Will the photon interact with it, briefly forming a quantum black hole with the atom or particle it strikes? Or, since the photon's wavelength is now in the "meaningless to measure" range from the object's frame of reference, would the photon not interact with the object at all, passing thru it like a neutrino? Or something else?

2006-09-06 13:09:25 · 6 answers · asked by R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution 7

storm comes up and blows the ship 470 km due South. How far is the ship from its home port? Answer in units of km.

2006-09-06 12:56:20 · 1 answers · asked by drdagher89 2

A box full of books rests on a wooden floor. The normal force the floor exerts on the box is 250 N (newtons). (a) You push horizontally on the box with a force of 120 N, but it refuses to budge. What can you say about the coefficient of static friction between the box and the floor? (b) If you must push horizontally on the box with a force of at least 150 N to start it sliding, what is the coefficient of static friction? (c) Once the box is sliding, you only have to push with a force of 120 N to keep it sliding. What is the coefficient of kinetic friction?

2006-09-06 12:45:08 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

They seem to have pretty similar characteristics, I am asking what makes them different from each other besides the fact that superfluid is seen in helium isotopes while BEC is gotten from rubidium.

Thanks for any answers in advance.

2006-09-06 12:34:20 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

It's interesting. I've always done really well in science. I pulled A's in it all through school and college. I however don't believe macroevolutionary theory. I've also come to disbelieve in the constancy of speed of light thorughout history even within a vacuum. This flies in the face of accepted theory. The constancy of the speed of light is the basis for several scientific theories. One thing at a time... Thermodynamics tends to fly in the face of so many other theories. Now, I'm not prone to believe that relativity absolutely breaks down with a nonconstancy of speed of light. Galileo fathers the relativity concepts. I would say that the known universe (all matter and energy discounting space outside these boundaries) parts is affected by all other matter and energy within the universe. I'll state it better. The placement of matter and energy throughout the cosmos does have a boundary though that boundary is constantly increasing into space. Despite that ever increase, we'll concentrate on those boundaries where matter and energy extend to.
It would seem that matter and energy are affected constantly by other matter and energy. There seems to be a field or fields of energy throughout the inward boundaries of the universe. As the matter and energy constantly moves outward past the said boundaries, it would seem that various laws are constanly affected by the expanse whether it be the various fields, the speed of expanse, and even the possiblity of the nonconstancy of speed of light due to this ever-advance and changing affects of fields throughout the ever expanding universe.
Now I admit that I take Genesis literally. I don't believe in the Gap Theory or other theories that are spliced together to reconcile Christianity/Judaism with "accepted" science. Some would call that a handycap, in that I believe the scriptures to a tee. I would call it a strength but it does kinda lend to the idea that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Or that logic is in the mind of the observer. I dunno.
I again say that relativity isn't necessarily attacked by the possiblity of nonconstancy. I would say that laws remain constant relative to each other as the expanse ever increases. This would or could possiblity keep the speed of light basis for other laws and theories in tact. I would hazard to say that as the decrease of lightspeed affects all other theories but not in so much a noticeable way.
Another factor... As the expanse of space increases, matter and energy tends to draw all other bodies and at times repels all other bodies. What if a slingshot effect is occurring? The universe (energy and matter) are expanding uot constantly due to being "slung." But then as matter and energy are slung out, they're still being pulled upon if even ever so slightly noticeable. It would seem that there is a posibility that the universe will snap back in the time to come. I wonder if the lightspeed would even increase back to its former state as the matter and energy pull back to the core of our universe. This would seem to evevn affect gravitational forces through all of our universe (locations of matter and energy and all the in between).
Now we know, gravity can affect how we perceive time. Even speed can affect how time passes for all things within the thing moving... One change in the governing laws affects the laws abroad maing it unnoticeable. Hmmm.
As for thermodynamics, the layout I have here would seem to indicate that the universe is a closed system due to the factors I've stated. That said... The First Law of Thermodynamics states the following that the total amount of energy in our universe, or in any isolated part of it, remains constant. Furthermore, energy can be transformed from one form into another, but it cannot be created and cannot be destroyed. As a consequence, the current amount of energy in the universe has been in existence for a long time. Natural processes cannot create energy, thus this energy could have been produced only by a force outside our universe. According to evolutionists, complex organisms evolved from simpler ones. Simple organisms were formed from matter and energy. They state that matter and energy appeared from nothing. This contradicts the First Law. On the contrary, Creation is supernatural and stands above the laws of nature. God can create matter, energy, and laws that govern them.
According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the energy available for useful work decreases in an isolated system, although the total amount of energy remains constant. This is because energy can transform only into lower forms of energy through natural processes. For example, electric current passing through a light bulb ends up transforming into heat, which is the lowest "quality" energy consisting of chaotic molecular movement. This Second Law introduces the concept of entropy, a measure of disorder. Entropy constantly increases in any isolated system. In other words, the system becomes disorganized and energy becomes less usable. Based on this law, the amount of information conveyed by a system continually decreases and its quality deteriorates. Basically, the law states that natural processes disorganize the state of objects and systems. Over time, everything decays and becomes disorganized. The universe irreversibly heads toward maximum disorganization. Just think about what happens with our house if we "comfortably" leave it by itself for a while, we don't clean up, arrange and mend all the time. Natural processes constantly destroy and disorganize it. Our house needs our useful and expedient work to maintain the order. Even atomic particles search the lowest energy levels, they "like comfort". The amount of information and the complexity of our universe perpetually decreases instead of increasing. According to evolutionary theory, life on earth progresses from simple to complex and never vice versa. Everything becomes more and more organized and entropy constantly decreases. Thus, macroevolution contradicts both laws of thermodynamics.
According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, everything degrades and breaks down. We can see this in the universe. The sun slowly but surely cools off, stars die, matter dissolves into radiation, etc. Our universe progresses toward its death, namely toward maximum entropy. This process is irreversible. If there was no Creator, this tragic end would certainly occur.
The Two Laws of Thermodynamics point not only to a death in the future, but also to the Creation in the past:
According to the First Law, the cosmos could not have created itself, thus an external force must have existed to create it.
According to the Second Law, if our universe was infinitely old, it would be dead and destroyed already. But this is not the case, so it must also have had a beginning. Sometime in the past the universe had been created and the cosmic processes were started.
Every star, the perfectly designed nature and all the accurate laws of nature bear testimony to the existence of a Creator who created them all.
We think that the amount of information is continually increasing on earth. Day after day, new inventions appear, just think about the development of the computer. How does this contradict the laws of thermodynamics? There is no contradiction, for these inventions were not the random result of natural processes, but human intelligence. Humans create the programs running on computers to make them do useful work. Natural processes don't produce anything with a goal in mind. Having a goal means thinking in advance.

The idea of the breakdown of all things within the universe doesn't fly in the face of the nonconstancy hypothesis. Even the slingshot effect as the the universe returns to the core doesn't contradict this idea because as it returned to the core, collapse and degradation are the ultimate result, even with the increase of speed of light and relative affect on other laws as the phenomena occurred.

Your thoughts if any?

2006-09-06 12:21:26 · 6 answers · asked by DexterLoxley 3

ively, 15.5 and 6.4 and they act at 48 deg. to each other. Use the law of cosines to calculate the magnitude of the sultant vector A + B.

2006-09-06 12:21:06 · 3 answers · asked by drdagher89 2

ok.. i took a test and did this:
8.55 x 10^10 ng X 1g / 10^-9 ng = 8.5 x 10^19

she marked it wrong and put that it was suppose to be 10^positive 9 ????? but why????? isn't the scientific notation for n 10^-9?????

n nano

if you don't get wut im saying let me kno and i give you another problem where she did that....


yeah , i have a re-take tomorrow and i need help

2006-09-06 12:20:37 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

at the same location. (Starting at same point)...how far would this person walk due east? Answer in units of KM.

2006-09-06 12:15:46 · 2 answers · asked by drdagher89 2

The question is..

An electron involved in energy conversion in photosynthesis travels about 100 micro meters in 3.0 milliseconds. what is the average speed of the electron in m/s. (metres per second).

and then convert the answer to km/h.

I got 0.33m/s and 1.2km/h.

Is this right? can someone varify for me?

I used to formula v=d/t

v=speed
d=distance
t=time

2006-09-06 12:12:19 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

Hint: Low Level Computer programming and might need instruction set mastery.

2006-09-06 12:10:26 · 4 answers · asked by simply the best. 2

What is the Grand unify theory?? is it the same as the theory of everything??? did einstein came up with those theory?? Are there a current research about theory of everything or the grand unify theory?

2006-09-06 12:02:54 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

This problem involves a helicpoter ascending vertically at 5.5m/s . When it is as the height of 105 meters, a package is dropped to the ground. how can you solve this problems. does the fact that the helicopter was moving upward at 5.5 m/s is significant to knowing how long it will take the package to hit the ground.

2006-09-06 12:01:50 · 2 answers · asked by foundation 3

[1] A book is 220 mm in width. What is this width in centimeters? In Meters?

[2] A crate has a mass of 8.60 kg (kilograms). What is this mass in grams? In milligrams?

Thank you for you help, sorry i forgot how to do these such a long time ago...

2006-09-06 11:40:11 · 5 answers · asked by Rick 3

wuts :

2540mm = ? um

25.39 x10^16 mg = ? kg

i don't kno how to plug that in my ti-30xa calculator ???

2006-09-06 11:34:55 · 2 answers · asked by Sheyna 1

I had this question about calulating how long it will a vertical leap with a specified height is going to take and what is the initial velocity. Only the final height and gravity (-9.8) is given. But I can't solve it because there are two variables missing -- the time and initial velocity. Is it possible to solve this problem and how.

2006-09-06 11:30:38 · 4 answers · asked by foundation 3

If a mile is 5280 ft. long and a yard contains 3 ft. , how many yards are there in a mile?

2006-09-06 11:27:01 · 8 answers · asked by Rick 3

2006-09-06 11:25:35 · 13 answers · asked by Chandra 2

0.0000095g = ? cg

i kno how to solve it but i don't kno how exactly to use my calculator

2006-09-06 10:59:42 · 6 answers · asked by Twilight Is Love 1