Physics - December 2007

Could it be that everything is just the warping of spacetime.

I mean, instead of having strings, and creating a frame work around it to explain everything and joining gravity with the other 3 forces, could it be that he smallest thing, be it a quark or what ever, is just a small warp of space time.

Electrons and protons etc are just a collection of warped spaces.

Their forces are a result of how much their space is warped.

Any comments, or am i just barking mad.

2007-12-22 00:37:09 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-12-21 23:03:49 · 12 answers · asked by ronald willjef 2

My book says that it will be 0 as net force on body is 0. But I reason that it will be mg b'cos the reaction offered by liquid is mg.
Which ans is correct?
I would be grateful if you clear my conceptual doubt.
Thank you

2007-12-21 22:24:38 · 12 answers · asked by celestine preetham 2

2007-12-21 21:15:02 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-12-21 19:46:03 · 6 answers · asked by DAVO 3

2007-12-21 19:35:41 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

i think this is impossible

2007-12-21 18:58:46 · 7 answers · asked by marghoob inam naghmi 1

To have a big bang, you have to have material (matter) to go boom. All the matter that was available at the time had to come from somewhere? Also, when and where did time start, before or at the time of the big bang? My thinking is, time is realitive to matter. The first atom represents the beginning of time. If you could, keep it simple. I understood the bang therory well enough to ask the question, that is about it. Thanks

2007-12-21 17:35:34 · 4 answers · asked by TeQuest 4

2007-12-21 16:42:08 · 15 answers · asked by Deborah R 1

quantum physics states that reality prior to obsvervation exist only as a non-local timeless probability of states(Copenhagen interpretation, bells theorem, schrodingers wave equation, and the apsect experiments)
Today all of this reveals the importance of consciousness and how it relates to "physical reality" Which exists as only a probable non-local timeless state prior to observation, further to say that "physical reality" can or does exist prior to human observation necessitates a primary or original consciousness to make the observation/state collapse. Deeper still, the consciousness must be said to have a non-quantum/physical quality or you will reach infinite descent which is not possible in a quanta/physical reality as quanta are finite therefore at the end of the chain of physical obsevation there must exist a nonquantum quality to the nature of concsiousness for the obseveration of physical reality. So it is logical to either dismiss all assumptions about empirical knowledge and the ablitity to know our nuniverse or we must accept the non-quantum and primary consciousness aspects that are required of physical reality both prior to and existent after the evolution of other forms of consciousenss and also that physical reality is dependent upon and to some extent determined by the primary/original and our own individal/self consciousness.
Therefore we should move into an area in which science takes the same objective aproach to conciousness as was done with physical reality if humans are ever to develop a thereoy of everthing?
Please critique this logic

2007-12-21 15:57:47 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

Please no dumb comments

Would you survive or die

2007-12-21 15:38:20 · 19 answers · asked by man o man 1

What is it

2007-12-21 15:33:24 · 5 answers · asked by Anthony James E 1

If someone asked me why the planet this 'feat' was performed on doesn't follow the same 'rule' I wouldn't know what to say. We're left with the impression the masses in general are irrelavant. In other words if mass is irrelavant, why is there not the same displacement of the earth or moon (where ever this trick is done) in the direction of the feather and hammer?

2007-12-21 15:12:29 · 12 answers · asked by toolmaker 1

2007-12-21 15:11:55 · 12 answers · asked by Ya no estoy en Y!R por Facebook! 6

2007-12-21 12:56:53 · 5 answers · asked by chacha 2

2007-12-21 11:29:13 · 2 answers · asked by jessejames2nice 1

A neutron, proton and electron are all in similar but separate orbits around an uncharged black hole. Assume no interaction with any other matter and the neutron does not decay, which would fall first into the black hole and why?

2007-12-21 09:45:59 · 10 answers · asked by Frst Grade Rocks! Ω 7

2007-12-21 08:27:40 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-12-21 08:23:03 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

I know it has been taken seriously with string theory and other dimensions have been shown plausible through math. I was wondering where I can find specific writings on these things. a proof is even better. the only proof I have found so far has been on the famous "Poincaré Conjecture."

2007-12-21 07:51:05 · 5 answers · asked by sunscour 4

Personally, my rate has decreased exponentially since the 60% point. Going from 60-85% took longer than the first 60% and I've only read 2 pages today!!!

How do you get that initial momentum back??? I've got 8 more books to go!!!

2007-12-21 07:39:36 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

How would you describe the concept of a " Dimension"

2007-12-21 07:20:14 · 5 answers · asked by ANyone but you 2

2007-12-21 06:52:55 · 9 answers · asked by Me 1

2007-12-21 06:33:26 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-12-21 06:22:28 · 7 answers · asked by civil_av8r 7

2007-12-21 06:11:05 · 7 answers · asked by wackyvorlon 3

2007-12-21 06:04:33 · 7 answers · asked by ilfu 1

I have a liquid-in-glass thermometer that will record the min/max temp that it experiences (a six's thermometer). But it only goes to -40F. I need a similar glass thermometer to use to record the minimum temp in a place that could go to -80F. I've found a few alcohol thermometers that will read that low, but none of them will store the minimum temperature (by way of the small index that floats in the column).

I read that canadian weather observers have ones that will record a minimum down to -94F, but I've yet been unable to find any such instrument.

2007-12-21 05:58:09 · 4 answers · asked by treant985 2

I'm 90,000 miles from a virtual planet at some distant point in space. From v=0, I begin accelerating to that point along a straight line. Passing through this point, I record my time and speed.

I do this again, but from 110,000 miles. I record my time and speed after traveling (accelerating) exactly 100,000 miles (10,000 miles short of this point).

While it is obvious t1 is 'less than' t2, I need to Prove V1(first trip)=v2 (second trip). 'average acceleration' will not work.

Yes, I tried astronomy/space

2007-12-21 05:52:45 · 2 answers · asked by toolmaker 1

2007-12-21 05:49:40 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous