This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - swadewade8
Pages: [1]
1
« on: 18/01/2012 06:01:49 »
I have read recently read an article that the sub-atomic particle neutrino has been clocked at traveling 186415.0858983536 Miles per second (300,006 k.p.s.) which is faster than the speed of light which travels at roughly 186,282 miles per second. This is faster than the speed of light but, not by much. If this is true and does get proved, I am quite sure new mathematical equations will evolve to incorporate the new data. This could possibly lead to being a step closer to understanding more of what dark matter is and how it equates to everything else. From what I know of dark mater (or the lack thereof) couldn't this be similar relationship between Isaac Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's theory of curved space time? From what I understand about the two is there is a lag in gravity the farther away an object is from our sun the less pull it will have of course to hold the planet in space. What keeps the planets in orbit is the curved space time in which a 'groove' is created by this propagation and is held into space by gravity. I read the articles and pieced them together that made sense to me. Are there computations to tie these two together? If there is, I would like to know what they are. I haven't got that far into math or physics aspect of it as of yet, but I am pretty good at formulating a spatial orientation and understanding the concepts. Any help would be gratefully appreciated!!
2
« on: 18/01/2012 05:44:38 »
I have read recently read an article that the sub-atomic particle neutrino has been clocked at traveling 186415.0858983536 Miles per second (300,006 k.p.s.) which is faster than the speed of light which travels at roughly 186,282 miles per second. This is faster than the speed of light but, not by much. If this is true and does get proved, I am quite sure new mathematical equations will evolve to incorporate the new data. This could possibly lead to being a step closer to understanding more of what dark matter is and how it equates to everything else. From what I know of dark mater (or the lack thereof) couldn't this be similar relationship between Isaac Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's theory of curved space time? From what I understand about the two is there is a lag in gravity the farther away an object is from our sun the less pull it will have of course to hold the planet in space. What keeps the planets in orbit is the curved space time in which a 'groove' is created by this propagation and is held into space by gravity. I read the articles and pieced them together that made sense to me. Are there computations to tie these two together? If there is, I would like to know what they are. I haven't got that far into math or physics aspect of it as of yet, but I am pretty good at formulating a spatial orientation and understanding the concepts. Any help would be gratefully appreciated!!
3
« on: 26/11/2011 06:50:19 »
Yes, the moon does have a molten core because of gravity. It is not centered in the middle as some might think. It is a bit off centered due to the gravitational forces the earth exerts on it as the moon only shows one side of itself to earth at all times. The molten core of the moon is closer to earth as it faces. :) Have a great day guys and gals!!
4
« on: 22/11/2011 06:06:52 »
You seem to be aware that during formation of the terrestrial planets volatiles were relatively depleted, so although water is a commonplace compound in the universe it was deficient in the formation of the Earth. (You noted: The universe is comprised of Hydrogen and oxygen and, so many other elements that comprise earth and all of our other planets throughout our universe. It all depends on how far they are away from a sun.) This depletion seems to rule out the notion that the oceanic water was produced largely by degassing of the Earth's interior..
I appreciate your comment(s) in its entirety. I would like to further elaborate on why I made some of the comments I did. The entire universe contains essentially all of the same elements or molecular structure(s) throughout. These can vary by either gravitational force or even perhaps vary because of the distance from a (the) sun. For instance, the terrestrial planets are different from the Jovian Planets in that they vary in degree because of distance and gravity. One will find that generally the 'larger' planet(s) will be farther away from the sun because the distance generally will not allow the planet to warm up or burn off certain elements (depending how far away the planet is away from the sun of course) the mass tends to in time grow due to gravitational forces creating more mass overall (without the threat of 'burning off' as other planets do that are closer to the sun. Earth is in an amazing position that allows life mainly because of size of the sun in comparison to the distance to our planet. They are in 'Harmony'. As far as water goes, yes, you are right about the icy comets beyond our solar system that do make they way towards us, but at the same time I believe our water supply overall has to do with the Earth's complementary position to the sun and the Earth's orbit around the sun in which is a unique combination that allows life to exist as it would anywhere else in our universe given the same circumstances. :) Thank you for your input!
5
« on: 18/11/2011 04:25:38 »
It seems like a hot topic in a way I guess. :) Anyway, I thought I would help out to some degree if I can. Sperm will not swim the other way as some may think. What does take place though is if a male thinks his mate is cheating on him with his sperm within the female after intercourse the sperm will take a life of its own and act upon the the 'foreign' sperm and repel the 'new sperm' from getting into the egg area in order to impregnate. In a way, the sperm is programmed from the original donor who may be thinking his girl is cheating on him. Simply put i guess.
6
« on: 18/11/2011 03:49:04 »
I do appreciate the 'new' scientific information concerning how potentially the earth has received its vast resource of oceans and fresh water for that matter in which covers 3/4's of the earth. I find it humorous in a way mainly because of the size of the comet or asteroid involved in bringing our water supply to us. The question still remains, where did that comet or asteroid gain the water from in order to ingratiate our good earth? Here is a fact: The universe is comprised of Hydrogen and oxygen and, so many other elements that comprise earth and all of our other planets throughout our universe. It all depends on how far they are away from a sun. Good luck with your idea though. It might have some possibilities if the asteroid somehow compacted all of the water it had and somehow opened up like a compacted zip file or something. Sorry. I could not resist. Am I wrong? Maybe I didn't get what you were saying. Could be. I am always open for argument. I love to equate based on what I read and see.. Help me out if I am missing something. Thanks..
7
« on: 12/11/2011 07:18:42 »
Greetings.
Are there any theories regarding the minimum gravitational force required to keep astronauts healthy during a long space voyage such as a trip to Mars? Would it take a full 1 "g" or could we get away with less perhaps in a rotating crew module in a spacecraft? I have lifted weights on and off for the last 30+ years. One thing I know about is gravity. :) With that being said, I would have to conclude in a non-gravity environment resistance workouts (no gravity required) Machines supply the resistance. Only way to maintain bone and muscle density the way I got it figured. Most likely will be a full workout each day considering a non g environment more so than days while in a g. environment. Only drawback is the oxygen usage during workouts as this will definitely increase during the workouts.
8
« on: 12/11/2011 06:59:29 »
I have a stain on my vinyl floor Cheryl, I know there is a solvent called Muriatic acid that does a serious cleaning between the cracks of ceramic times. It actually smokes when cleaning when you pour it on the surface. As far as vinyl goes, My guess if you apply it you would want to clean it off quickly and definitely have good ventilation. Job done I am sure! :) If not appropriate, I tried to help anyway right? :) It does work though. Have a great day!! Wade
9
« on: 12/11/2011 05:01:56 »
At what speed does windchill give way to frictional heating? From what I have noticed things start to change as you enter mach 2. the temperature rises due to the 'friction' as to where it does make a difference raising the temp rather than cool because it is more of a 'force' and becomes a friction rather than the cooling effect everyone sees on a normal day basis. An example would be when you rub your hand on a carpet. You can feel the heat right? Same thing occurs when you are flying at mach 2 considering the speed you are traveling at. Hope this helps if you haven't already found out.
10
« on: 12/11/2011 04:49:00 »
I quoted "1968" That is not accurate. The year was 1969. My apologies to all.
11
« on: 12/11/2011 04:47:50 »
When did the internet start? The modern internet evolved from an early U.S. Government-funded internet working project called the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) Arpanet began as a four node network including UCLA, Stanford Research Institute, the University of California as Santa Barbara, and the University of Utah in Salt lake. The first real communication took place in 1968 between the computer at Stanford and UCLA. The system actually crashed after the third letter was typed but, that did in fact start the revolution. The two men responsible for the internet are Vincent Cerf and Robert Kahn. they are considered to be the fathers of the internet In the 1970's they were responsible for the creation of communication protocols(standards) that are in use today.. Glad to be of help!! :) They did it not me. Just glad I could help in letting everyone know if they already didn't who helped advance our world overall in a dramatic way..
12
« on: 12/11/2011 04:26:39 »
A reflected photon imparts pressure to the reflecting surface.
This would imply that work has been done.
The photon has not been absorbed but it has been degraded by the loss of energy in some form.
In what way is the photon degraded by the loss of energy?
From what I have noticed throughout life is that whenever a force is exerted and deflected it does lose energy in some way. Just as when light is deflected when bent through space as it is gravitationally bent as well considering how far stars are away from us. A case in point would be the stars that we see at night and 'appear' to be in a fixed position in the sky. Considering how far they are away, they may be a bit off from where they appear. The closer the star of course the less it may be off, such as Alpha centauri the closest one to us if I recollect right. The image is accurate of course, it just may not be exactly where we see it in space. As far as my point goes, concerning loss of energy, have you ever known anything in life that that has a 'theoretical' constant velocity that didn't lose some type of momentum or energy when acted upon by some external force that is fixed? One has to apply this formula when taking this aspect into consideration and make the assumption that this is equated in some way.
13
« on: 12/11/2011 03:48:43 »
Are there any senses other than touch?
There is a 6th. sense also that has recently been quantified as being within your inner ear having to do with elevation. As an example, if you are in an airplane above or below a certain altitude your inner ear tell you so right? I haven't seen much data on the subject but, I do believe it is now considered a sixth sense. Feel sorry for those movie goers out there! :) Maybe a seventh sense movie is in order! :)
14
« on: 12/11/2011 03:39:46 »
Is gravity between matter and antimatter attractive or repulsive? I think the answer is within the words themselves overall.
15
« on: 10/11/2011 06:05:55 »
From what I noticed about gravity is it is only relative to the atomic weight of the molecule/mass exerted upon another molecule/mass concerning size of an object it may be interacting with. As far as the speed of light goes, I have not heard of anything traveling at that velocity aside from the initial 'big bang' or when a sub-atomic particle breaks free of having an atom split.Both are not due to gravity but to an extreme energy release due to an external force. I might be wrong but, take into consideration when you drop a rubber ball on the ground. Does it travel at the speed of light? I won't answer that one for character purposes. O.K. then, I know there isn't a whole lot of information out there about sub-atomic particles only because of their short lived life spans and how elusive they are, but, did anyone know that they recently clocked a sub-atomic particle surpassing the speed of light? I know Einstein stated nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. To me if you can imagine it being possible it is. I might be on a tangent right now concerning what is being discussed. If this is possible, my suggestion to those in the astrophysicist field is to get on the math train in order to be able to explain how this is possible. You just might find yourself in a book somewhere. I am not a scientist as I have stated before, but I do know how to manage unknowns in general and see gaps that need closure as this will definitely need for all concerned. Gravity also does seem to escape us all to a certain degree. There are equations out there now on how to quantify on how it does interact with all surrounding. This will sound wild (as it does to me) but how about we reverse the equations and come up with quantifiable math as a theory and develop models on how this could be achieved? I have a feeling if one starts a new direction concerning gravity it may change into a certainty that can be modified and basically revolutionize our surroundings overall. Just thought I would add some input today as I love science.. Thank you for listening!! :) Have a great day all!
16
« on: 06/11/2011 01:17:38 »
I do appreciate the input Clifford. I can see your concerns as I have felt this way also. Yes I am quite sure one day our planet will be fully populated one day. Maybe, maybe not. I guess it may depend on scientific advances we make as a people in order to advance. The more people, the more potential a possibility will arise in order to advance that could exponentially change our every day lives more so than ever if that individual had not contracted that deadly virus or disease and died younger than expected. Imagination plays a role here too of course. From what I noticed the older I get the more thought and imagination I receive through learning and everyday life in which enables me to tie things together through experience and allows me wisdom in which to elaborate. If it was me on the list of the ill fated I know I would not be happy s I can only imagine you would feel the same way. What about those that are in their prime and still have so much to potentially give? I mean no disrespect to you Clifford. I hope you don't see it as though I do. I do understand the implications of having the norms of "attrition" one could call it but who decides? There are incredible people out there who don't get the opportunity to change their lives or ours for that matter.
17
« on: 04/11/2011 23:51:44 »
You are right I think I am being a bit unfair. Like I said I am not a scientist but I would love to see all diseases exorcised in order to make our world a better one for all. I am sure the scientists involved feel the same otherwise they would not be doing what they do. My hat is off to all who do. I have to thank god I have not yet been afflicted and hope I never will with anything as of yet. I thought I would try to add a new perspective in hopes of helping maybe someone to think in a new direction indirectly.:) Kinda like on many discoveries are made by happenstance through other means. Thanks again for your input as you are right.
18
« on: 03/11/2011 00:19:27 »
I have received great input so far regarding the intricacies of many diseases. Thanks to all who have responded to what I have asked. I hope this helps anyone as I have another input I would like to add: One thing I noticed when diseases are found there always seems to be some type of constant. As far as aids goes, it turns out that the 'cholesterol' portion (from what I have read so far)can be eliminated and render the ever mutating and evolving AIDS virus vulnerable in order to be eradicated by the immune system. There is something else I would like to add concerning this as I have heard this before: If you are too close to the trees you can't see the forest. Please correct me or add if you like.. I love to learn about new things. One can either accept or reject but, one must have proof on order to do so. Right?
19
« on: 29/10/2011 02:31:49 »
Thanks Cheryl and Imatfaal as I appreciate your input. I do believe it can be complicated when trying to figure out solutions to problems but, at the same time I believe sometimes a simplistic answer could be overlooked when trying to view with a microscope. 
20
« on: 28/10/2011 05:16:16 »
To all the scientific community concerned:
I am not a scientist but, I do have an I.Q. of 129+. Not a genius according to the I.Q. scale so, I guess you can take this with a grain of salt if you will... Here is my solution to all diseases that plague mankind. It turns out that the "aids" virus got figured out within itself by looking at the components of the virus itself and taking steps to 'finally eradicating' by isolating each of the components and disabling by attacking certain properties of the virus which renders the aids virus benign. What I don't get is how come this is not part of the scientific program overall in order to eradicate all diseases. One thing I know is when you want to solve a problem, you have to look at the individual components that comprise the problem. Does this not make sense to anyone? If a certain part of the problem (disease in this case)is disabled, then there is no disease, right? Why is this so complicated?
Pages: [1]
Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.
The contents of this site are © The Naked Scientists®
2000-2013. The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science™ are registered
trademarks.
|
Show Posts
