| Thread | Last Post | Replies |
|
| The sun is entering its third year of eerie calm | 20 Jul 2008 23:42 GMT | 17 |
NASA Science News for July 11, 2008 http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/images/solarcycleupdate/ssn_predict_l_st rip.gif The sun is entering its third year of eerie calm. Sunspots are rare and solar flares simply aren't happening. Is this "solar minimum" lasting longer than ...
|
| Latest Statistics Reveal 'Science' Journalists Totally Bored by "Global Warming" Topic | 20 Jul 2008 21:46 GMT | 17 |
Dear Fellow 'Science' Journalists, Newly breaking bad news may threaten your livelihood and your sanity. Statistics reveal there has been a precipitous drop in 'science' journalism publications on the topic of "global warming". Google now offers statistical
|
| Al Gore's Kennedy Moment | 20 Jul 2008 21:28 GMT | 9 |
Ok, so far so good, Al. But does Al ever bother to check here : http://arxiv.org/archive/cond-mat That's where the answers to his problem lie :
|
| What Obama Should Do in Baghdad | 20 Jul 2008 18:13 GMT | 10 |
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1823684,00.html "What Obama Should Do in Baghdad Wednesday, Jul. 16, 2008 By BOBBY GHOSH Visits by individual VIPs and congressional delegations are carefully stage-managed, and follow a predictable course. A visitor gets to spend some ...
|
| Modelling air resistance | 20 Jul 2008 15:42 GMT | 5 |
I think I've read that one may assume that projectiles experience air resistance proportional to the cube of their speed and I know I've read that one may assume that projectiles experience air resistance proportional to their speed (for example in Simmons _Differential
|
| BLAMING SPECIAL RELATIVITY? | 20 Jul 2008 14:56 GMT | 43 |
Albert Einstein said in Scientific American April 1950: "I do not see any reason to assume that.. the principle of general relativity is restricted to gravitation and that the rest of physics can be dealt with separately
|
| Special Theory of Relativity question | 20 Jul 2008 14:33 GMT | 6 |
For two objects sitting side by side at "rest" time passes at the same rate. As one object starts moving, time starts to slow down for it relative to the one at rest, however infinitesimal at low speeds. When the speeds start to approach the speed of light, time slows down
|
| Why can't NASA turn a few more rocks on Mars to see if they are fossils or not? | 20 Jul 2008 13:47 GMT | 1 |
Why can't NASA turn a few more rocks on Mars to see if they are fossils or not? Mars Lander Phoenix turned a rock nicknamed “Alice” in “Wonderland”(Ref. 1).
|
| The unitary dimensional model of the space-time-mass, gotten through c, by Romano Amodeo, of the N.I.S. | 20 Jul 2008 13:39 GMT | 3 |
The unitary dimensional model, of the space-time-mass, is gotten by 299 792 458 divided by (300 000 000 less 299 792 458). POSTULATE I consider “ABSOLUTE speed” of the electromagnetism,
|
| The Universe in a Grain of Sand | 20 Jul 2008 08:24 GMT | 20 |
Is there a way to tell whether the universe is really that big? I mean. When we write computer programs, the virtual world can be any size compared to the computer hardware. Using a Dell Pentium the size of a table. We could
|
| circ motion question | 20 Jul 2008 08:02 GMT | 102 |
Please help me clear up a confusion about circular motion. The net force causing the centripetal acceleration is directed toward the center of the circle. The instantaneous velocity of the object undergoing centripetal acceleration is tangential to the circle path,
|
| Magnetic field transmitters and receivers. | 20 Jul 2008 05:52 GMT | 13 |
Would it be possible to create a magnetic field transmitter and a receiver, maybe there already is such devices on market? If not what is the case against such devices, not energy efficient? Could neodynium magnets glued on a speaker qualify like a magnetic
|
| A Photon is a string? | 19 Jul 2008 23:01 GMT | 4 |
That is bunk. Mitch Raemsch
|
| Spacetime in Astronomy | 19 Jul 2008 20:27 GMT | 6 |
So, I understand that time near a black hole slows down, the whole twin paradox thing, which for me I equates to, "more mass per space is a slower time frame" and the reverse, "less mass per space is a faster time frame".
|
| A Pure Scientific Site | 19 Jul 2008 18:06 GMT | 1 |
Only see: http://hvansari.googlepages.com or http://www.geocities.com/hamid_vasigh
|