Why the fuck aren't we drilling pipes to the earths core to use as an energy source?
>>181501Nonsense.Sure, Big Oil have no interest in this technology, but they can do nothing to stop it.It is actually being done; not to the core obviously, but geothermal power plants exist.They will remain few, of course, as long as other energy sources are cheaper.
Pipes melt.Uragay./thread
Pipes melt.
Uragay.
/thread
It works well in some places where it's hot near the surface i.e, as already mentioned, iceland. But getting to 'the core' isn't easy or advisable.Also, the last I heard about people experimenting with it they accidentally a whole earthquake.
It works well in some places where it's hot near the surface i.e, as already mentioned, iceland. But getting to 'the core' isn't easy or advisable.
Also, the last I heard about people experimenting with it they accidentally a whole earthquake.
Law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in the universe remains constant. It is never destroyed or created. I go to the edge of the universe and throw batteries off of it. Fuck you science!pic very unrelated.
>>182729wronggoogle "finite unbounded universe" theoryit explains what is at the edge of the universe, and what would happen if you tried to cross it
>>182729
wrong
google "finite unbounded universe" theory
it explains what is at the edge of the universe, and what would happen if you tried to cross it
Oscillatory universe faggots.
By throwing the batteries past the edge, you are extending the edge of the universe... the above of course refers to the impossible situation that you described for us OP
By throwing the batteries past the edge, you are extending the edge of the universe...
the above of course refers to the impossible situation that you described for us OP
ITT: nuclear fusion dicussionhow are we going to build a functioning nuclear fusion reactor that produces more energy than it consumeshow long will it take(i have an idea, and i want to see if anyone else has the same idea)
ITT: nuclear fusion dicussion
how are we going to build a functioning nuclear fusion reactor that produces more energy than it consumes
how long will it take
(i have an idea, and i want to see if anyone else has the same idea)
>produces more energy than it consumesl2conservationofenergy
>produces more energy than it consumes
l2conservationofenergy
>>184315god damn, is it act like a retard day today?its not perpetual motion faggot, its turning nuclear energy into thermal energy, the energy consumed is the energy used to heat and contain the fuel, the energy produced is the energy from the hydrogen ions fusing togetherbasically, a fusion reactor which can produe more energy(by fusing hydrogen ions) than it loses(by containing and heating the fuel)please, FUCK OFF BACK TO FOURCHAN YOU GOD DAMN NIGGER
>>184315
god damn, is it act like a retard day today?
its not perpetual motion faggot, its turning nuclear energy into thermal energy, the energy consumed is the energy used to heat and contain the fuel, the energy produced is the energy from the hydrogen ions fusing together
basically, a fusion reactor which can produe more energy(by fusing hydrogen ions) than it loses(by containing and heating the fuel)
please, FUCK OFF BACK TO FOURCHAN YOU GOD DAMN NIGGER
I saw a presentation on the bubbles of energy that form on the out side rim of a channel of materials hot enough to be fusionable(sp?). What it suggested is that there is a reactor that when completed and the proper adjustments are made to the magnetic containment fields to keep the "bubbles" from growing too large fusion will become at least physically feasible if not commercially due to the cost of the materials and the construction of the reactors
yo sup physics am not trolljust was playing with some magnets and watching sum shaolin kung fu.im sure the swastika has something to do with a form of alternate energy, something that provides it's own gravitational field.
yo sup physics am not troll
just was playing with some magnets and watching sum shaolin kung fu.
im sure the swastika has something to do with a form of alternate energy, something that provides it's own gravitational field.
>>175610i was wondering if anyone realized that he had monopoles, which we have not been able to create
>>179211 op herewhy cant we create monopoles?
Because every magnet has a north and a south pole.
discuss.
>>182815>because the facts are blurryIf they are, then your facts are certainly not my facts.>some will argue that light is bent by gravity due to time dilation and refractionTime dilation is sufficient to explain that, refraction is not needed.>while some will say that it is because light has massWhich, when explained with General Relativity, is irrelevant.>it is impossible to know who is wrong and who is right tl;dr. lick ling to view the boring shit.
>>182815
>because the facts are blurry
If they are, then your facts are certainly not my facts.
>some will argue that light is bent by gravity due to time dilation and refraction
Time dilation is sufficient to explain that, refraction is not needed.
>while some will say that it is because light has mass
Which, when explained with General Relativity, is irrelevant.
>it is impossible to know who is wrong and who is right
>>183199>If you were traveling at the speed of light at night, and you turned on your lights, would you see anything?In theory, yes, but it really depends on what you crash into.
>>183199
>If you were traveling at the speed of light at night, and you turned on your lights, would you see anything?
In theory, yes, but it really depends on what you crash into.
Light is energy.E=MC^2Light is mass.
Light is energy.
E=MC^2
Light is mass.
is it possible to calculate acceleration using only distance and time?
Given a distance d and time interval t, then d/t is the average velocity at which the distance was travelled in that time. Assuming that the velocity v was 0 initially, and the accelleration a was constant over time, we get a=d/t².Proof:d=v·t;v=a·t;d=a·t·t;
Given a distance d and time interval t, then d/t is the average velocity at which the distance was travelled in that time. Assuming that the velocity v was 0 initially, and the accelleration a was constant over time, we get a=d/t².
Proof:d=v·t;v=a·t;d=a·t·t;
>>168681 Double-derivatives foo.
It really depends on what you are modeling, as some things are easier than others...If all you have is a couple of distance values and their accompanying time values we can only extract the average accelerations between sets of points. For this we need at least three points, so that (in the case of three points) we can find the average velocity between the first two and the last two, and then use the two velocity values to find an average acceleration. So what you end up with is the average of an average, which is as good as you can ever really get in physical reality (see Heisenberg uncertainty principle).If you have an equation modeling the movement of an object with respect to time, taking the derivative of that equation twice would give you the equation modeling the objects acceleration with respect to time.
It really depends on what you are modeling, as some things are easier than others...
If all you have is a couple of distance values and their accompanying time values we can only extract the average accelerations between sets of points. For this we need at least three points, so that (in the case of three points) we can find the average velocity between the first two and the last two, and then use the two velocity values to find an average acceleration. So what you end up with is the average of an average, which is as good as you can ever really get in physical reality (see Heisenberg uncertainty principle).
If you have an equation modeling the movement of an object with respect to time, taking the derivative of that equation twice would give you the equation modeling the objects acceleration with respect to time.
My physics prof gave us this question somebody emailed him to see what we thought. I thought this guy's explanation was right, but our professor says he's not.Thoughts, anyone?
dont know if want.where'd you get this? sounds like some shit i would think.
dont know if want.
where'd you get this? sounds like some shit i would think.
Think of it like this:Normal air has a composition of approximately 76% nitrogen/20% ogygen.Hydrogen the second lightest Chemical Element is observably lighter than normal air(we have all seen a Helium baloon).3.Sound is pressure. Once the pressure wave has been emitted it is unable to get any more energy than what it started with, it is working against the particles in the air gradually getting weaker until it is negligible.The heavier the particles of air through which the pressure wave travels the more it is resisted and the more energy is depleted over any given distance than a lighter air counterpart.Imagine we have two sealed identical rooms. In Room A we have the conditions described in Point 1. In Room 2 we have entirely filled it with helium. In these rooms we have identical speakers each connected to the same source, through which we play a sound.The sound played in Room1 behaves as expected. The pressure wave travels through the air bouncing off the walls until its energy is depleted. The sound played in Room2 by comparison travels through the air, but is only resisted by comparitably lighter Helium particles and so is met with less resistance and is hindered less leading to a faster speed through the air in the room. tl;dr. lick ling to view the boring shit.
Think of it like this:
3.Sound is pressure. Once the pressure wave has been emitted it is unable to get any more energy than what it started with, it is working against the particles in the air gradually getting weaker until it is negligible.The heavier the particles of air through which the pressure wave travels the more it is resisted and the more energy is depleted over any given distance than a lighter air counterpart.
Imagine we have two sealed identical rooms. In Room A we have the conditions described in Point 1. In Room 2 we have entirely filled it with helium. In these rooms we have identical speakers each connected to the same source, through which we play a sound.
The sound played in Room1 behaves as expected. The pressure wave travels through the air bouncing off the walls until its energy is depleted. The sound played in Room2 by comparison travels through the air, but is only resisted by comparitably lighter Helium particles and so is met with less resistance and is hindered less leading to a faster speed through the air in the room.
prove me wrong
>>168739 what kind of atom, are we talking about carbon 14 here or what
Well I can't PROVE you wrong, but I must say the very notion of infinite expansion is ridiculous. When has anything been able to expand or project outward indefinitely? That doesn't make any sense.At the moment of the big bang, the universe got as big as it's ever going to get. It's either going to shrink, or eventualy just die as the energy begins to stagnate and become docile because we are an enclosed space and time.Newton's Law. It's both my hopes and my fears.
Well I can't PROVE you wrong, but I must say the very notion of infinite expansion is ridiculous. When has anything been able to expand or project outward indefinitely? That doesn't make any sense.
At the moment of the big bang, the universe got as big as it's ever going to get. It's either going to shrink, or eventualy just die as the energy begins to stagnate and become docile because we are an enclosed space and time.
Newton's Law. It's both my hopes and my fears.
a=v/dt. It's both my hopes and my fears.p=mv. It's both my hopes and my fears.F=ma. It's both my hopes and my fears.F(A→B)=-F(B→A). It's both my hopes and my fears.
halp A crate is pulled by a force (parallel to theincline) up a rough incline. The crate has aninitial speed shown in the figure below. Thecrate is pulled a distance of 6.11 m on theincline by a 150 N force.The acceleration of gravity is 9.8 m/s^2.PIC ATTACHEDa) What is the change in kinetic energy ofthe crate?Answer in units of J. tl;dr. lick ling to view the boring shit.
halp
A crate is pulled by a force (parallel to theincline) up a rough incline. The crate has aninitial speed shown in the figure below. Thecrate is pulled a distance of 6.11 m on theincline by a 150 N force.The acceleration of gravity is 9.8 m/s^2.
PIC ATTACHED
a) What is the change in kinetic energy ofthe crate?Answer in units of J.
>>168640is your professor Dr. Criss?
>>168640
is your professor Dr. Criss?
>>168682holy fuckin shit, yesI actually got it about an hr before it was do. I'm good now.
>>168682
holy fuckin shit, yes
I actually got it about an hr before it was do. I'm good now.
PHYSICS CAN SUCK MY GIANT DICK.
It is big and warped, like the space-time-continuum.
Natural science is able to generate low pressure around my extraordinary dimensioned primary reproductive organ.
Oh by the Gods, I laughed so hard at the previous 2 replies.
