It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 141
74
<< 138  139  140    142  143  144 >>

log in

join
share:
(post by bottleslingguy removed for a manners violation)
(post by bottleslingguy removed for a manners violation)

posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 04:51 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Do you think there will ever be a way to stabilize liquid metallic hydrogen at STP?



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy
No. Metallic hydrogen in either liquid or solid form requires a lot of pressure. It sounds like you're asking if the material will have properties other than it has. If you change the composition of the material by adding different substances the properties can change but then you're not talking about the same material.

To me a far more interesting question is whether room temperature (or zero degrees C) superconductors can be made. One of the candidates that has been proposed is solid metallic hydrogen at extremely high pressure

Room-temperature superconductor

Theoretical work by Neil Ashcroft predicted that solid metallic hydrogen at extremely high pressure (~500 GPa) should become superconducting at approximately room-temperature because of its extremely high speed of sound and expected strong coupling between the conduction electrons and the lattice vibrations (phonons).[10] This prediction is yet to be experimentally verified, as yet the pressure to achieve metallic hydrogen is not known but may be of the order of 500 GPa.
Even if that works it's swapped the need to create very low temperatures with the need to create very high pressures, so the ideal material would be something that requires neither, but we don't know if that's possible.



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy
Do you think there will ever be a way to stabilize liquid metallic hydrogen at STP?


"Metallic hydrogen can only be fabricated at the specialized facility near the event horizon. I have sent you there as you asked, but I am not sure you will survive the experience..."

(or something very close...)

"The World Is Round" Tony Rothman



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 12:10 AM
link   
I have to ask. how much wood can a woodchuck chuck fi a woodchuck could chuck wood? Explain how in psychics speak.



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 02:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
I have to ask. how much wood can a woodchuck chuck fi a woodchuck could chuck wood? Explain how in psychics speak.



Groundhogs, aka woodchucks or whistle pigs though they aren't like pigs and eat anything especially wood they prefer green leafy things like grass leaves etc.However like beavers they will chew onto wood to make a burrough, (Yes ironically a wood chuck can chuck wood). They are a rodent of the Sciurid family. They live all over the US, and it's pretty common to see them along the side of the road (usually as roadkill, but sometimes you get lucky and see a live one.) well apparently when they said to chuck wood I'm guessing they meant chew? Though I know when I was a kid up chucking deffinatwly wasn't chewing. Now to the answer but at least next time ground hog day rolls around you know a lot about groundhogs.

Now the answer according to Cornell is about About 700 pounds. Compared to beavers, groundhogs/woodchucks are not adept at moving timber, although some will chew wood. (At Cornell, woodchucks that gnaw their wooden nest boxes are given scraps of 2-by-4 lumber.) A wildlife biologist once measured the inside volume of a typical woodchuck burrow and estimated that -- if wood filled the hole instead of dirt -- the industrious animal would have chucked about 700 pounds' worth.


edit on 8/7/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

That was educational and made me LMAO. thank you for the answer.



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

141 pages in, this is the answer to the burning question we were all looking for.



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: dragonridr

141 pages in, this is the answer to the burning question we were all looking for.


Science should be fun I don't see a problem with it. See science doesn't have to something scientists does in a lab somewhere. And people don't think about the world around them. That's all science tries to do explain what we see.

edit on 8/7/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 06:52 AM
link   
ok that's fine, but can you explain why that is so concerning the sunspots? why aren't they hotter than the surface since they should be "windows" to the interior where, if the standard model is correct, they should be hotter and also brighter? I understand you accept the standard idea but doesn't that make you want to question it? it doesn't make sense.

a reply to: pfishy



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
ok that's fine, but can you explain why that is so concerning the sunspots? why aren't they hotter than the surface since they should be "windows" to the interior where, if the standard model is correct, they should be hotter and also brighter? I understand you accept the standard idea but doesn't that make you want to question it? it doesn't make sense.

a reply to: pfishy



Sunspots occur where there is a very concentrated magnetic field. The field that creates the spot reduces convection under the spot. The spot's gases are isolated from energy in convective flows below.

So they're cooler than the surrounding areas. But they still glow. They just look dark by contrast.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 03:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
ok that's fine, but can you explain why that is so concerning the sunspots? why aren't they hotter than the surface since they should be "windows" to the interior where, if the standard model is correct, they should be hotter and also brighter? I understand you accept the standard idea but doesn't that make you want to question it? it doesn't make sense.

a reply to: pfishy



See previous post he explains it well. The only reason I'm replying is this seeing into the sun thing. Your confused this isn't a hole in the surface and you can't see the interior. We do have a way to see into the sun much like an ultrasound, We can use frequencies to measure density levels. So we can now detect a sun spot moving to the surface about 2 days out that's a good thing.

Because our sins pot has looping magnetic fields in the plasma as it rises to the surface, and the field lines pierce the surface, forming gigantic arcs. When these field lines snap we end up with a solar flare that can reach all the way to earth.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 04:37 AM
link   
I have two "physics-y" questions...

i) My conception of what is labelled "The Big Bang" basically consists of a large expansion from a single point. Does this mean, then, that all matter in what is described as an ever expanding universe is moving outwards from this single point? Can we thus calculate "where" this single point is?

ii) What, if anything, exists beyond the Gamma and Long Wave extremes of the electromagnetic spectrum?



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I have a fun question.

I was watching some speed boat races in long beach yesterday.(one guy flipped his boat at like 60knots , boat got about 10 feet of air, yikes. he was unhurt but wow the boat sank fast. )

while watching the thought occuured to me. is it easier to push a boat through fresh water or salt water? salt water should make the boat more buoyant but it's also denser water than fresh. so granted its perfectly calm water. which woukd require more work to travel at same speed, a boat engine pushing through salt water or freshwater ?



next question.

I know oceans and seas experience tide. what about ponds and small bodies of water? they should too right?

but what I really want to know do rivers experience tide. does the fact the water is flowing make a difference?



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   
A bit of a space question here.
We can look back in time with the hubble ect so if we built a scope big enough could we see the big bang?.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr
Good answer, starred, except he asked for the answer in "psychics speak", not physics speak or whatever that scientist from Cornell who did the 700 pound calculation used.

The following psychic hotline has a toll-free number and is probably a better source of "psychics speak" than this thread:
Darth Vader's Psychic Hotline



originally posted by: AdmiralTriceratops
I have two "physics-y" questions...

i) My conception of what is labelled "The Big Bang" basically consists of a large expansion from a single point. Does this mean, then, that all matter in what is described as an ever expanding universe is moving outwards from this single point? Can we thus calculate "where" this single point is?
While its thought the entire universe was once smaller than the head of a pin, you can't point anywhere and say, "that's where it used to be", because what happened we think is that the pinhead expanded to the size it is now, so it was everywhere you look.


ii) What, if anything, exists beyond the Gamma and Long Wave extremes of the electromagnetic spectrum?
If you generate high enough frequency gamma EM waves, they will end up making electron/positron pairs and give up some of their energy in doing so. You could briefly attain energies higher than that but they would be unstable. I never heard of any name given to shorter wavelengths than gamma.

On the long end of wavelengths, the limit is probably the size of the universe, but on Earth ELF or extrememly low frequency waves in the range of 3-30 Hz can be produced by natural phenomena like lightning strikes, but they aren't so useful for human scales because the antennae need to be so large (corresponding wavelengths from 100,000 to 10,000 kilometers).


originally posted by: BASSPLYR
while watching the thought occuured to me. is it easier to push a boat through fresh water or salt water? salt water should make the boat more buoyant but it's also denser water than fresh.
I don't know but it's an interesting question. If I had to guess, my guess would be that the answer might depend on the hull design and how much it was able to take advantage of the improved buoyancy in salt water, but that's only a guess.


I know oceans and seas experience tide. what about ponds and small bodies of water? they should too right?
I don't see why they would, I would think not significantly. Maybe there's an effect too small to notice that you could measure with sensitive instruments, but if the body of water is small it doesn't have as much opportunity to distort from tidal forces as large bodies of water.


but what I really want to know do rivers experience tide. does the fact the water is flowing make a difference?
I'm pretty sure some rivers do, but it probably depends on the river. In fact when the tide moves in and out it might actually reverse the flow of the river temporarily like it does here:

Reversing Falls

The Reversing Falls are a series of rapids on the Saint John River located in Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada, where the river runs through a narrow gorge before emptying into the Bay of Fundy.

The semidiurnal tides of the bay force the flow of water to reverse against the prevailing current at this location when the tide is high


a reply to: boymonkey74
Yes and no. If by "see" you're implying anything in visible light, no, partly because there was no visible light right after the big bang happened, and partly because even if there was it would probably be redshifted beyond the visible spectrum. But what we can detect is very red-shifted radiation leftover from the big bang called the cosmic microwave Background, or "CMB" for short. That is considered part of the evidence for the big bang in addition to the observations of galaxies moving away from each other.

edit on 201589 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

found an answer for the lake/pond tide thing on some meteorological site.

apparently lakes and ponds do have tides. however they are so small and inconsequential that they are concidered non-tidal. barometric and wind pressures will cause greater changes/fluctuations in the water height. for instance the strongest tide for the great lakes a is 5 centimeter change in height.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
I have a fun question.

I was watching some speed boat races in long beach yesterday.(one guy flipped his boat at like 60knots , boat got about 10 feet of air, yikes. he was unhurt but wow the boat sank fast. )

while watching the thought occuured to me. is it easier to push a boat through fresh water or salt water? salt water should make the boat more buoyant but it's also denser water than fresh. so granted its perfectly calm water. which woukd require more work to travel at same speed, a boat engine pushing through salt water or freshwater ?



next question.

I know oceans and seas experience tide. what about ponds and small bodies of water? they should too right?

but what I really want to know do rivers experience tide. does the fact the water is flowing make a difference?


Boats go from salt to fresh water with no difference in performance. The big difference is salt water boats tend to be heavier do to using using metal to prevent corosion, as well as they are required to have 2 engines.

Now Fresh water has a density of 1.0 while salt water has a density of 1.025. Meaning to a boat they don't see the difference. Boyancy levels on boats are by design the 1/2 in the boat sets higher on fresh water won't make a difference.



new topics




 
74
<< 138  139  140    142  143  144 >>

log in

join