Best answer gets 10 points!!!!!What happens to an irrisitable force when it hits an immovable object?
the Irresistable force lifts up then slams the immovable object.What happens to an irrisitable force when it hits an immovable object?
If by that you mean what happens when Chuck Norris and Mr. T meet, the answer is the Big Bang. How did you think it happened?
Explodes into a million particles?
it wont move.. because its immovable ';] duh!
Obviously one of the objects will break
It goes ';Boing!';
nuclear fission
What the hell are you talking about?
Friday, January 8, 2010
How does the center of gravity effect the stability of an object?
An object will topple over if it's centre of mass goes over a pivot.
As such, a change in the centre of mass means that one need make a smaller perturbation to topple the object. Making it less stable in that direction.
As such, a change in the centre of mass means that one need make a smaller perturbation to topple the object. Making it less stable in that direction.
I have a collectible object where a small piece broke off off. What type of glue or repairs can I do? ?
It is a diecast car like item.I have a collectible object where a small piece broke off off. What type of glue or repairs can I do? ?
glue for metal.
The two types of glue that work best for gluing two pieces of metal together are two part epoxy glues or Krazy glue. Two part epoxy glue requires mixing two components together but if done correctly is the better choice. The bond formed with Krazy glue can be more brittle.
Step2
Clean the two metal parts thoroughly.
In order to form a strong bond when gluing metal to metal, the two metal parts must be thoroughly cleaned to remove any debris that might prevent a strong bond from being formed.
Step3
Texturize the two metal parts.
The more ';tooth'; the two metal pieces have before gluing, the more likely they are to form a strong bond. Use sandpaper to add texture to the surface of the two metal parts before gluing them together.
Step4
Apply your chosen glue.
Apply your chosen glue (either Krazy Glue or two part epoxy) according to the directions on the package.
Step5
Apply a clamp.
Applying a clamp when gluing metal to metal helps to further promote formation of a strong bond between the two pieces.
Step6
Allow the two pieces to dry for the designated time period.
Always observe the recommended drying time for the particular glue you're using. Not allowing adequate time to draw is one of the biggest reasons for failure when gluing metal to metal.facial skin care facial wrinkles
glue for metal.
The two types of glue that work best for gluing two pieces of metal together are two part epoxy glues or Krazy glue. Two part epoxy glue requires mixing two components together but if done correctly is the better choice. The bond formed with Krazy glue can be more brittle.
Step2
Clean the two metal parts thoroughly.
In order to form a strong bond when gluing metal to metal, the two metal parts must be thoroughly cleaned to remove any debris that might prevent a strong bond from being formed.
Step3
Texturize the two metal parts.
The more ';tooth'; the two metal pieces have before gluing, the more likely they are to form a strong bond. Use sandpaper to add texture to the surface of the two metal parts before gluing them together.
Step4
Apply your chosen glue.
Apply your chosen glue (either Krazy Glue or two part epoxy) according to the directions on the package.
Step5
Apply a clamp.
Applying a clamp when gluing metal to metal helps to further promote formation of a strong bond between the two pieces.
Step6
Allow the two pieces to dry for the designated time period.
Always observe the recommended drying time for the particular glue you're using. Not allowing adequate time to draw is one of the biggest reasons for failure when gluing metal to metal.
What determines whether an object will sink or float?
the ice floats because the ice has less density thenthe water and has less massWhat determines whether an object will sink or float?
well the answers are correct but they skirt the real scientic reason. An object will float because it is bouyant and it has bouyancy because it DISPLACES ITS OWN WEIGHT IN THE WATER. If a shipe weighs 10 ton (remember this is an example) it will float if it displaces or moves out of its way, 10 ton of water. The shape of the bottom determines how far into the water the ship will ride, but it will still displace its weight while it floats. Very small light items float, like insects you see in or on a pond surface, float because of water adhesion.
Taker a boat and put it in the water, its shape of the bottom pushes the water aside until it has moved enough water to replace its weight, and the ship floats. Take the same ship, which weighs the same, and place it in the water bow or stern first, and it will sink, because it is not designed to push aside water unlesss it is right side up and on its bottom.What determines whether an object will sink or float?
Buoyancy
The tendency or capacity to remain afloat in a liquid or rise in air or gas.
The upward force that a fluid exerts on an object less dense than itself. ...and that is exactly why ice floats in water..
Determined by its density
buoyancy and density.
well the answers are correct but they skirt the real scientic reason. An object will float because it is bouyant and it has bouyancy because it DISPLACES ITS OWN WEIGHT IN THE WATER. If a shipe weighs 10 ton (remember this is an example) it will float if it displaces or moves out of its way, 10 ton of water. The shape of the bottom determines how far into the water the ship will ride, but it will still displace its weight while it floats. Very small light items float, like insects you see in or on a pond surface, float because of water adhesion.
Taker a boat and put it in the water, its shape of the bottom pushes the water aside until it has moved enough water to replace its weight, and the ship floats. Take the same ship, which weighs the same, and place it in the water bow or stern first, and it will sink, because it is not designed to push aside water unlesss it is right side up and on its bottom.What determines whether an object will sink or float?
Buoyancy
The tendency or capacity to remain afloat in a liquid or rise in air or gas.
The upward force that a fluid exerts on an object less dense than itself. ...and that is exactly why ice floats in water..
Determined by its density
buoyancy and density.
How do you find the volume of a non-existant object?
Well, how????How do you find the volume of a non-existant object?
ask your math teacher. I'm sure she'll know.How do you find the volume of a non-existant object?
It you can't measure it, but you know the dimensions then: V=LxWxH. That is, if it is a regular shape.
If not, then you would have to use displacement...which is hard for something that's not real xD
well, if its not a non existant object, but an imaginary (i!) object, then you can't, if its simple not existant in real life, then you use the proper formula
First you multiply 'x' by 45. Then add 73, and divide by 5. Then add 'y' with 7.
Troll.
This is by far the most interesting question I've ever read on this website.
ask it politely.
well u cant if it dont exist duh! LOL wat if im soooo wrong that would be funny
Oh this is an easy one, it's 42 of course.
......... you dont?
oh my...
ask your math teacher. I'm sure she'll know.How do you find the volume of a non-existant object?
It you can't measure it, but you know the dimensions then: V=LxWxH. That is, if it is a regular shape.
If not, then you would have to use displacement...which is hard for something that's not real xD
well, if its not a non existant object, but an imaginary (i!) object, then you can't, if its simple not existant in real life, then you use the proper formula
First you multiply 'x' by 45. Then add 73, and divide by 5. Then add 'y' with 7.
Troll.
This is by far the most interesting question I've ever read on this website.
ask it politely.
well u cant if it dont exist duh! LOL wat if im soooo wrong that would be funny
Oh this is an easy one, it's 42 of course.
......... you dont?
oh my...
Small white wart like object on my nose surrounded by red skin?
Does anyone know what it is? I think it may just be a giant white head, but not sure. Its there by itself with nothing but red skin around it, it pops up like a wart but its small and white.Small white wart like object on my nose surrounded by red skin?
It's a pimple. Put some toothpaste on it before yoou go to sleep, it will shrink by the morning.Small white wart like object on my nose surrounded by red skin?
Its most likley a whitehead.
go to a dermatologist. It cold possibly be a basal cell carcinoma, a kind of skin cancer. it usually shows up around the eyes or nose. it starts out like a zit that won't heal and then grows in to this sort of mole thing. don't panic though as they are relatively slow growing and do not hardly ever metastasize. a dermatologist or a plastic surgeon can remove it.
if it looks like this than you need to see a doctor to be treated it can eventually turn into skin cancer
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/im鈥?/a>
It's a pimple. Put some toothpaste on it before yoou go to sleep, it will shrink by the morning.Small white wart like object on my nose surrounded by red skin?
Its most likley a whitehead.
go to a dermatologist. It cold possibly be a basal cell carcinoma, a kind of skin cancer. it usually shows up around the eyes or nose. it starts out like a zit that won't heal and then grows in to this sort of mole thing. don't panic though as they are relatively slow growing and do not hardly ever metastasize. a dermatologist or a plastic surgeon can remove it.
if it looks like this than you need to see a doctor to be treated it can eventually turn into skin cancer
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/im鈥?/a>
Suppose you discovered an object in the Solar System ?
Suppose you discovered an object in the Solar System that you determined was 0.348 arc seconds in angular diameter. After observing it for a few weeks, you determine its orbit (using Kepler's Laws) and find out it is 7.71 billion kilometers away from Earth. What is the diameter of the object you discovered?Suppose you discovered an object in the Solar System ?
Basic trigonometry:
It's diameter is given by:
sin(a) * d
Where a is the angular diameter %26amp; d is the distance. Plug those numbers in and you get:
sin(0.348/3600) * 7,710,000,000 km = 13,008 km
Note that I divided the angular diameter by 3600 to convert it to degrees: 0.348 arc-seconds = 0.348/60 arc-minutes = (0.348/60)/60 degrees.
Also note that often people approximate sin(x) as x for very very small x (this certainly qualifies) but to do that you'd need to convert it to radians first. Using that approximation you'd get the same number. The difference is in the ninth or tenth digit:
Using sin(x): 13,007.93896
Using x: 13,007.93891
Basic trigonometry:
It's diameter is given by:
sin(a) * d
Where a is the angular diameter %26amp; d is the distance. Plug those numbers in and you get:
sin(0.348/3600) * 7,710,000,000 km = 13,008 km
Note that I divided the angular diameter by 3600 to convert it to degrees: 0.348 arc-seconds = 0.348/60 arc-minutes = (0.348/60)/60 degrees.
Also note that often people approximate sin(x) as x for very very small x (this certainly qualifies) but to do that you'd need to convert it to radians first. Using that approximation you'd get the same number. The difference is in the ninth or tenth digit:
Using sin(x): 13,007.93896
Using x: 13,007.93891
Do you think an object used to play rugby should be called a ball, tell me why?
I anylized all the kinds of objects called balls, but rugby one and the others that are related to rugby seem to be not sharing a common factor, it's diameter value.Do you think an object used to play rugby should be called a ball, tell me why?
History my friend.
Originally the 'ball' was round just the same as football(due to the pigs bladder been used)
Due to the development of wanting to pass the ball more often than just kicking the ball did its shape became revised into it's modern day form. If you have a look at the websites it will tell you more.Do you think an object used to play rugby should be called a ball, tell me why?
Are you on crack?
It is played with a ball.
Pointless question really. It's a ball because it rolls around a field with men chasing it. You can't exactly call it a rugby oval can you? It sounds stupid.
Dumb question. Who gives a crap about a rugby balls diameter value.Get a life.
yup. using the logic of if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be a duck the same can be applied to the rugby ball. It bounces like a ball (admittedly unpredictably) and it can be passed like a ball so it must be a ball.
Plus, in terms of the diameter, an basketball would be much larger than a size 5 rugby ball. so by your logic a basketball isn't a ball either
In australia the rugby balls useually called a football anyway so i don't see why not also pundets call it a football!
Dude, it performs all the functions of a ball.
Nihonjin desuka? Anata no eigo wa chotto Nihonjin desho!
Demo, eigo umai,
Watashi tachi boru o kerimasu to pasu koto ga dekimasu.
diameter value shoganai ne, boru desu!
EDIT: This is this guys first question (if you check his profile) and I'm pretty sure English is not his first language.
Some of you tuggers just don't get it. Want to laugh at someones question, try learning another language and posting your own question!
World Peace - pretty falcon far from it if you meatheads can't get it together. Children in the sand pit.
i think it should be called ur bum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is defiantly something wrong with you. What a stupid question. Get a life dude. Really man, do you have nothing else to do ? I bet you do not even watch rugby. Now go away and never ever come here again. It麓s a ******* ball OK.facial skin care facial wrinkles
History my friend.
Originally the 'ball' was round just the same as football(due to the pigs bladder been used)
Due to the development of wanting to pass the ball more often than just kicking the ball did its shape became revised into it's modern day form. If you have a look at the websites it will tell you more.Do you think an object used to play rugby should be called a ball, tell me why?
Are you on crack?
It is played with a ball.
Pointless question really. It's a ball because it rolls around a field with men chasing it. You can't exactly call it a rugby oval can you? It sounds stupid.
Dumb question. Who gives a crap about a rugby balls diameter value.Get a life.
yup. using the logic of if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be a duck the same can be applied to the rugby ball. It bounces like a ball (admittedly unpredictably) and it can be passed like a ball so it must be a ball.
Plus, in terms of the diameter, an basketball would be much larger than a size 5 rugby ball. so by your logic a basketball isn't a ball either
In australia the rugby balls useually called a football anyway so i don't see why not also pundets call it a football!
Dude, it performs all the functions of a ball.
Nihonjin desuka? Anata no eigo wa chotto Nihonjin desho!
Demo, eigo umai,
Watashi tachi boru o kerimasu to pasu koto ga dekimasu.
diameter value shoganai ne, boru desu!
EDIT: This is this guys first question (if you check his profile) and I'm pretty sure English is not his first language.
Some of you tuggers just don't get it. Want to laugh at someones question, try learning another language and posting your own question!
World Peace - pretty falcon far from it if you meatheads can't get it together. Children in the sand pit.
i think it should be called ur bum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is defiantly something wrong with you. What a stupid question. Get a life dude. Really man, do you have nothing else to do ? I bet you do not even watch rugby. Now go away and never ever come here again. It麓s a ******* ball OK.
What small real life object can be used to represent a point, in Geometry? Such as a point on a line?
I was thinking a bb, like for a bb gun. But should it be three dimensional or flat, like a dime? For a project I need to have a picture of real life objects that represent some Geometry terms.What small real life object can be used to represent a point, in Geometry? Such as a point on a line?
Well, if you are going for accuracy, then there is no real-world object that would work. A point is something that can only exist in a mathematical context. Since a point, by definition, is zero dimensional, it has no width, height, or length. There are no zero dimensional objects in the physical world, so nothing you use is going to accurately represent a point.
However, if that degree of accuracy isn't all that important, and you just need a small object, a BB will probably work fine.
Well, if you are going for accuracy, then there is no real-world object that would work. A point is something that can only exist in a mathematical context. Since a point, by definition, is zero dimensional, it has no width, height, or length. There are no zero dimensional objects in the physical world, so nothing you use is going to accurately represent a point.
However, if that degree of accuracy isn't all that important, and you just need a small object, a BB will probably work fine.
What is the type of acceleration that occurs when an object travels at a constant speed in circular motion?
This is centripetal acceleration. Although there is no change in speed, there is a force and hence (by Newton's second law) an acceleration necessary to keep the object traveling in a circle.
Mathematically, it is equal to v^2 / r or equivalently the velocity squared divided by the radius of the circle.What is the type of acceleration that occurs when an object travels at a constant speed in circular motion?
constant speed means there is no acceleration.
Mathematically, it is equal to v^2 / r or equivalently the velocity squared divided by the radius of the circle.What is the type of acceleration that occurs when an object travels at a constant speed in circular motion?
constant speed means there is no acceleration.
How close can an object get near the sun without it burning up?
depends on the chemicals the object is made out ofHow close can an object get near the sun without it burning up?
Depend on the object that it made up if it has a a very high mass that mean it going to burn very slow, but if it has a low mass it going to burn easier.And depend on a chemical composition of that object too. I know one object that not burn when it near to the sun is comet(composition of ice,frozen methane, frozen ammonia) it not burn, but it vaporize yeah it vaporize and after it get to the sun very close it will go in the orbital of the sun and then it going to sling shot heading to somewhere else --How close can an object get near the sun without it burning up?
Noone is absolutely certain because no test runs have been attempted but it is most likely within 1-3 million or so miles given the fact we are 93 million miles from the sun.
Anyways due to the cornacopia of sunspots and solar flares emmitted by the sun, all electricity on the space craft or object would be disabled and youd be screwed.
That depends on what the object is made of. Also, it depends on what your definition of ';burn up'; is. Usually burn up means to break out into a fire - but fire requires oxygen which is absent in space.
6,666,666 miles.
Depend on the object that it made up if it has a a very high mass that mean it going to burn very slow, but if it has a low mass it going to burn easier.And depend on a chemical composition of that object too. I know one object that not burn when it near to the sun is comet(composition of ice,frozen methane, frozen ammonia) it not burn, but it vaporize yeah it vaporize and after it get to the sun very close it will go in the orbital of the sun and then it going to sling shot heading to somewhere else --How close can an object get near the sun without it burning up?
Noone is absolutely certain because no test runs have been attempted but it is most likely within 1-3 million or so miles given the fact we are 93 million miles from the sun.
Anyways due to the cornacopia of sunspots and solar flares emmitted by the sun, all electricity on the space craft or object would be disabled and youd be screwed.
That depends on what the object is made of. Also, it depends on what your definition of ';burn up'; is. Usually burn up means to break out into a fire - but fire requires oxygen which is absent in space.
6,666,666 miles.
How close can an object get near the sun without it burning up?
depends on the chemicals the object is made out ofHow close can an object get near the sun without it burning up?
Depend on the object that it made up if it has a a very high mass that mean it going to burn very slow, but if it has a low mass it going to burn easier.And depend on a chemical composition of that object too. I know one object that not burn when it near to the sun is comet(composition of ice,frozen methane, frozen ammonia) it not burn, but it vaporize yeah it vaporize and after it get to the sun very close it will go in the orbital of the sun and then it going to sling shot heading to somewhere else --How close can an object get near the sun without it burning up?
Noone is absolutely certain because no test runs have been attempted but it is most likely within 1-3 million or so miles given the fact we are 93 million miles from the sun.
Anyways due to the cornacopia of sunspots and solar flares emmitted by the sun, all electricity on the space craft or object would be disabled and youd be screwed.
That depends on what the object is made of. Also, it depends on what your definition of ';burn up'; is. Usually burn up means to break out into a fire - but fire requires oxygen which is absent in space.
6,666,666 miles.
Depend on the object that it made up if it has a a very high mass that mean it going to burn very slow, but if it has a low mass it going to burn easier.And depend on a chemical composition of that object too. I know one object that not burn when it near to the sun is comet(composition of ice,frozen methane, frozen ammonia) it not burn, but it vaporize yeah it vaporize and after it get to the sun very close it will go in the orbital of the sun and then it going to sling shot heading to somewhere else --How close can an object get near the sun without it burning up?
Noone is absolutely certain because no test runs have been attempted but it is most likely within 1-3 million or so miles given the fact we are 93 million miles from the sun.
Anyways due to the cornacopia of sunspots and solar flares emmitted by the sun, all electricity on the space craft or object would be disabled and youd be screwed.
That depends on what the object is made of. Also, it depends on what your definition of ';burn up'; is. Usually burn up means to break out into a fire - but fire requires oxygen which is absent in space.
6,666,666 miles.
What is a cool object to do a presentation on?
for my tech class. it can be any object or item.What is a cool object to do a presentation on?
The vaccuum.What is a cool object to do a presentation on?
how about magnetic levitation, I think thats really cool and it should be an easy presentation!
Good luck with your presentation!
Hope I helped and God Bless!
ipod, everyone has them, and it will keep people interested.
A Rubik's Cube.
Vibrating dildo
hamburger phone
The vaccuum.What is a cool object to do a presentation on?
how about magnetic levitation, I think thats really cool and it should be an easy presentation!
Good luck with your presentation!
Hope I helped and God Bless!
ipod, everyone has them, and it will keep people interested.
A Rubik's Cube.
Vibrating dildo
hamburger phone
How is that an object pulled at constant velocity...?
Have a pulling force equal to sliding friction? Wouldn't that mean that the object should not be moving?
Please explain in middle school terms.How is that an object pulled at constant velocity...?
if its pulled at constant velocity then theres no acceleration. Force is mass x acceleration. If there is a net force, there is an acceleration. Since the two forces (pulling force and friction force) cancel out, there is no net force. Therefore there is no acceleration.facial skin care facial wrinkles
Please explain in middle school terms.How is that an object pulled at constant velocity...?
if its pulled at constant velocity then theres no acceleration. Force is mass x acceleration. If there is a net force, there is an acceleration. Since the two forces (pulling force and friction force) cancel out, there is no net force. Therefore there is no acceleration.
Is it normal to disperse a sacish looking/fetus looking object 4days after a D&C surgery?
it is 4 days after i had a D%26amp;C surgery today and i just recently went to the restroom and my body dispersed what looked like a sac or fetus (shrimp like) and it scared me. is that normal? werent they suppose to clear out the uterus in surgery?Is it normal to disperse a sacish looking/fetus looking object 4days after a D%26amp;C surgery?
It was probably just a clot.
It was probably just a clot.
I saw a blue object shining in the sky with 100mm 25X?
What is it, it was towards the north side dark blue to light blue, the middle color was different. What object was that?I saw a blue object shining in the sky with 100mm 25X?
Could be a star or another heavenly body; it could have been a satellite as there are hundreds up there messing up the natural process of the universe and its properties.I saw a blue object shining in the sky with 100mm 25X?
dude,it was an alie ggrey,stay away from them,they are ugly and will control your brain
My GF called me at work bugging me with an object she said she say, i told her to get a life. I guess i owe her an appology. Thanks dude, we live in Hayward. She said it was probably a meteor. I think it was a little green guys.
Could be a star or another heavenly body; it could have been a satellite as there are hundreds up there messing up the natural process of the universe and its properties.I saw a blue object shining in the sky with 100mm 25X?
dude,it was an alie ggrey,stay away from them,they are ugly and will control your brain
My GF called me at work bugging me with an object she said she say, i told her to get a life. I guess i owe her an appology. Thanks dude, we live in Hayward. She said it was probably a meteor. I think it was a little green guys.
How close can an object get to a black hole if it's anchored in this space with some sort of ';tether';?
More specifically, what I'm wondering about is the ';gravity so powerful that nothing can escape'; bit. If an object is tethered to this cosmos by some super-massive tethering equipment from many different angles, it seems like we might be able to let the object cross the event horizon and still get it back. Just slightly over the lip of the event horizon, light may not be able to escape but something anchored here might prove strong enough. Or not? :-?How close can an object get to a black hole if it's anchored in this space with some sort of ';tether';?
Not strong enough...
If it passed the event horizon, we wouldn't know. It would seem to us to be close to the edge for an infinite amount of time.How close can an object get to a black hole if it's anchored in this space with some sort of ';tether';?
Your question is sort of like ';What do you do when a grizzly looks like he wants to go down the path you're on.'; Answer: get out of his way.
We cannot conceive of a mass so large that it it does all the strange things it does. Or a density for that matter. The laws of inertia are in operation here: when it moves it keeps moving until some external force can stop it.
We do not have a force that could tie a black hole up like it was a steer. If ever there was a candidate for an immovable object, the black hole is it. We have no counter to it. We should just get out of the way.
the gravitational differences between one en of the tether to the other become so great that it will be ripped apart no matter what its made of, the ripping is a result of molecular bonds not being strong enough.
this of course dosn't mention something as absurd as being able to anchor something in space.
An interesting question. When you lower an object on a tether, the tension in the tether becomes infinite when it reaches the event horizon. So nothing would be strong enough to hold it. If you wrapped a very very very very strong tether round a drum fixed to the axle of an electric generator, you could convert matter to energy by lowering rubbish into a black hole. But to get the energy equivalent of the mass that disappeared, Mc^2, you'd need an infinitely strong tether. More realistically, if you had some way to capture the electromagnetic and gravitational radiation from matter spiralling into a black hole and heating up as it fell in, you could capture about half of its energy equivalent. Gravitational radiation is usually very weak, but in some situations about 30% of the energy equivalent is radiated as gravity waves when mass falls into a black hole. Just to give an idea of how much energy is involved, converting a kg of dogshit completely to energy would give you 25 billion kilowatt hours, which here in New Zealand is worth about 3 billion US$. If you've got a rotating black hole, you can extract energy by flying into the ergosphere, which is just outside the event horizon and dumping your rubbish into the black hole. You then fly out of the ergosphere and escape with more energy than you started with.
Not strong enough...
If it passed the event horizon, we wouldn't know. It would seem to us to be close to the edge for an infinite amount of time.How close can an object get to a black hole if it's anchored in this space with some sort of ';tether';?
Your question is sort of like ';What do you do when a grizzly looks like he wants to go down the path you're on.'; Answer: get out of his way.
We cannot conceive of a mass so large that it it does all the strange things it does. Or a density for that matter. The laws of inertia are in operation here: when it moves it keeps moving until some external force can stop it.
We do not have a force that could tie a black hole up like it was a steer. If ever there was a candidate for an immovable object, the black hole is it. We have no counter to it. We should just get out of the way.
the gravitational differences between one en of the tether to the other become so great that it will be ripped apart no matter what its made of, the ripping is a result of molecular bonds not being strong enough.
this of course dosn't mention something as absurd as being able to anchor something in space.
An interesting question. When you lower an object on a tether, the tension in the tether becomes infinite when it reaches the event horizon. So nothing would be strong enough to hold it. If you wrapped a very very very very strong tether round a drum fixed to the axle of an electric generator, you could convert matter to energy by lowering rubbish into a black hole. But to get the energy equivalent of the mass that disappeared, Mc^2, you'd need an infinitely strong tether. More realistically, if you had some way to capture the electromagnetic and gravitational radiation from matter spiralling into a black hole and heating up as it fell in, you could capture about half of its energy equivalent. Gravitational radiation is usually very weak, but in some situations about 30% of the energy equivalent is radiated as gravity waves when mass falls into a black hole. Just to give an idea of how much energy is involved, converting a kg of dogshit completely to energy would give you 25 billion kilowatt hours, which here in New Zealand is worth about 3 billion US$. If you've got a rotating black hole, you can extract energy by flying into the ergosphere, which is just outside the event horizon and dumping your rubbish into the black hole. You then fly out of the ergosphere and escape with more energy than you started with.
How large would an object have to be to create its own noticable graviational field?
';Noticible'; is of course a sloppy non technical term with no well defined meaning.
It seems to me that the measurement back a couple of centuries ago with a barbell on a wire with one of the spheres placed in close proximity to another was with balls of lead (?) of about 90 pounds each. The measurement was to measure the twisting force (torque) on the wire the barbell was suspended from.
They now ';routinely'; can measure gravitational effects between masses of less than a gram (sorry, I don't know exactly)
Of course the big BUT in all this force is inversely proportional to the distance squared. And the distances we are talking about are very very very small.
But effects are noticible with very small masses.
Even Brownian motion in tall containers must take into account gravitational effects.How large would an object have to be to create its own noticable graviational field?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation鈥?/a>
It takes 2 objects to solve for the force between them. So now you gotta ask yourself, ';How much force would I notice?'; Plug that in for ';F';
What is your mass in kg, plug that in for ';m';
How far are you in meters from the object, plug that in for ';r';
Solve for ';M';How large would an object have to be to create its own noticable graviational field?
pretty big everything has a gravitational field but look at it this way the largest man made things on this planet dont even have a noticeable gravitational field so it would have to be a pretty massive object
That depends. What means 'noticable'?
Doug
A black hole is a point in space. It breaks electron apart from protons. I suppose you mean how much mass
It seems to me that the measurement back a couple of centuries ago with a barbell on a wire with one of the spheres placed in close proximity to another was with balls of lead (?) of about 90 pounds each. The measurement was to measure the twisting force (torque) on the wire the barbell was suspended from.
They now ';routinely'; can measure gravitational effects between masses of less than a gram (sorry, I don't know exactly)
Of course the big BUT in all this force is inversely proportional to the distance squared. And the distances we are talking about are very very very small.
But effects are noticible with very small masses.
Even Brownian motion in tall containers must take into account gravitational effects.How large would an object have to be to create its own noticable graviational field?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation鈥?/a>
It takes 2 objects to solve for the force between them. So now you gotta ask yourself, ';How much force would I notice?'; Plug that in for ';F';
What is your mass in kg, plug that in for ';m';
How far are you in meters from the object, plug that in for ';r';
Solve for ';M';How large would an object have to be to create its own noticable graviational field?
pretty big everything has a gravitational field but look at it this way the largest man made things on this planet dont even have a noticeable gravitational field so it would have to be a pretty massive object
That depends. What means 'noticable'?
Doug
A black hole is a point in space. It breaks electron apart from protons. I suppose you mean how much mass
Why does the height model of a thrown object apply to a dropped object as well?
Hint: What is the initial vertical velocity of a dropped object?Why does the height model of a thrown object apply to a dropped object as well?
The answer is, there is an instant when a thrown object (upwards) reaches a velocity of zero, which is what the dropped object has the instant it is released. From these two instants in time, the response of each object is only to gravity.Why does the height model of a thrown object apply to a dropped object as well?
It applies to both because acceleration is always in the same direction-down. If you throw the object up, it's velocity will be opposite to its acceleration.
If you define ';down'; as negative, then ';up'; will be positive, so as the object goes up, the acceleration will subtract from its speed, instead of adding.
Simple: Gravitational force affects both equally.
The answer is, there is an instant when a thrown object (upwards) reaches a velocity of zero, which is what the dropped object has the instant it is released. From these two instants in time, the response of each object is only to gravity.Why does the height model of a thrown object apply to a dropped object as well?
It applies to both because acceleration is always in the same direction-down. If you throw the object up, it's velocity will be opposite to its acceleration.
If you define ';down'; as negative, then ';up'; will be positive, so as the object goes up, the acceleration will subtract from its speed, instead of adding.
Simple: Gravitational force affects both equally.
Does frequency increase, decrease or stay the same as an object moves away from you?
Does frequency increase, decrease or stay the same as an object moves away from you?Does frequency increase, decrease or stay the same as an object moves away from you?
the further away it moves the lower the frequency is the closer it is the higher it isDoes frequency increase, decrease or stay the same as an object moves away from you?
think about it this way: when you're standing at the side of a road and you hear a car coming towards you it sounds high pitched because the frequency is compressed. at the moment it passes you, you can hear it as it would normally sound, and when it moves away from you it sounds lower. therefore as an object moves away from you the frequency is stretched out or decreases.
this is also known as a doppler shift:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/dopple鈥?/a>
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Light/dop鈥?/a>
Towards you, it increases for you.
Away from you, it decreases for you.facial skin care facial wrinkles
the further away it moves the lower the frequency is the closer it is the higher it isDoes frequency increase, decrease or stay the same as an object moves away from you?
think about it this way: when you're standing at the side of a road and you hear a car coming towards you it sounds high pitched because the frequency is compressed. at the moment it passes you, you can hear it as it would normally sound, and when it moves away from you it sounds lower. therefore as an object moves away from you the frequency is stretched out or decreases.
this is also known as a doppler shift:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/dopple鈥?/a>
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Light/dop鈥?/a>
Towards you, it increases for you.
Away from you, it decreases for you.
What is the ratio of the total energy of the object at position A to position B?
An object of mass 2.00 kg is held at a position A, a vertical height of 20.0 m above the ground. Point B is 8.00 m directly below A. Neglect air resistance and use g = 10.0 m/s2 (to the second power)What is the ratio of the total energy of the object at position A to position B?
If there is no air resistance, by the conservation of energy - the energies will be the same at A only has PE; at B has combination of PE + gained KE.What is the ratio of the total energy of the object at position A to position B?
if you are talking about potential energy difference , it is
mgh1 / mgh2 = h1/h2 = 20/12 = 5:3
if you are talking about a freefall from 20 m to 12 m , the the ratio remains 1 as the potential energy is reduced but corresponding Kinetic energy is gained .
If there is no air resistance, by the conservation of energy - the energies will be the same at A only has PE; at B has combination of PE + gained KE.What is the ratio of the total energy of the object at position A to position B?
if you are talking about potential energy difference , it is
mgh1 / mgh2 = h1/h2 = 20/12 = 5:3
if you are talking about a freefall from 20 m to 12 m , the the ratio remains 1 as the potential energy is reduced but corresponding Kinetic energy is gained .
How fast does an object fall towards the singularity of a black hole after it crosses the event horizon?
After entering the event horizon, the object effectively leaves our universe. I'd guess that it accelerates at faster than the speed of light towards the singularity.How fast does an object fall towards the singularity of a black hole after it crosses the event horizon?
that depends on the parent star's mass and the event horizon's radius. the earth's surface gravity is 9.8m/s^2. if for example, the earth was compressed until it became a blackhole, it would have a surface gravity of 5.077x10^18m/s^2.
that depends on the parent star's mass and the event horizon's radius. the earth's surface gravity is 9.8m/s^2. if for example, the earth was compressed until it became a blackhole, it would have a surface gravity of 5.077x10^18m/s^2.
Is it ok to feel an attraction to an inanimate object?
I seriously think I LOVE my cell phone. It's a black enV2 and I wish it were a person. I'm not being metaphoric. I'm serious. I really want to marry my cellular phone.Is it ok to feel an attraction to an inanimate object?
Couldn't you have at least picked something else with a battery in it?Is it ok to feel an attraction to an inanimate object?
it's okay. in my opinion, it's most likely that Inanimated objects have lives themselves...... In other diminsions. It's the weakness of human mind of loving, liking, and desiring. We are just slaves to our mind, consistered as ';The orginization';. Just do what you want because right now, your and mine exsistence are pointless compare to the rest of the world.
lol.
marry it.
but i think it should purpose to you.
please send me an invite to the wedding.
my address is
1234 UNEEDALIFE Lane
Moron,Spaz
123456
If you feel the same way in a year than why not. Seems like a waste of affection, but whatever, the cell phone can't hurt you at least.
It's not okay to feel enamored towards an inanimate object. Get Over It!!!
Somehow I doubt you aren't speaking metaphorically.
once you go black, you never go back.
But i think it would look better in green.
as long as it's not a physical attraction that you act on I don't see any problem with it.
omg i feel the same way about my phone!
Yeah.....we used to have pet rocks in America. It's not that uncommon.
...yes, it is...enjoy all that life is in the moment...enjoy...
Couldn't you have at least picked something else with a battery in it?Is it ok to feel an attraction to an inanimate object?
it's okay. in my opinion, it's most likely that Inanimated objects have lives themselves...... In other diminsions. It's the weakness of human mind of loving, liking, and desiring. We are just slaves to our mind, consistered as ';The orginization';. Just do what you want because right now, your and mine exsistence are pointless compare to the rest of the world.
lol.
marry it.
but i think it should purpose to you.
please send me an invite to the wedding.
my address is
1234 UNEEDALIFE Lane
Moron,Spaz
123456
If you feel the same way in a year than why not. Seems like a waste of affection, but whatever, the cell phone can't hurt you at least.
It's not okay to feel enamored towards an inanimate object. Get Over It!!!
Somehow I doubt you aren't speaking metaphorically.
once you go black, you never go back.
But i think it would look better in green.
as long as it's not a physical attraction that you act on I don't see any problem with it.
omg i feel the same way about my phone!
Yeah.....we used to have pet rocks in America. It's not that uncommon.
...yes, it is...enjoy all that life is in the moment...enjoy...
What is the difference between a positively charged object and a negatively charged object?
The positive, has a surplus of electrons, and the negative has a shortage....What is the difference between a positively charged object and a negatively charged object?
That's actually backwards - negatively-charged substances have more electrons than protons, therefore THEY have the surplus. Report Abuse
What is the difference between a positively charged object and a negatively charged object?
waaaa?
ask some geek dude and why do you really care
im only on my first year of gcse physics so dont really trust me on this but i think its:
positively charged objects have lost electrons (therefore have more protons)
and negatively charged objects have gained electrons (therefore have more electrons)
and remember! only electrons can move!
Boston B has the right answer except he just made a slip up
the Negative has a surplus of electrons (electrons have a negative charge) the positive has a shortage of them.
Positive and Negative signs of electricity is just arbitrary, if we were inventing electricity today they would be the opposite way round but in Benjamin Franklin's days (I think it was down to him) electrons were not understood
the only difference between a negatively charged object and a positively charged one is the number of electrons compared to the protons (+ charged).
If the protons outnumber the electrons then the object has a + charge. If there are more electrons then it has a - charge. if there are the same number then there is no charge.
one is positive and the other is negative. the positive and negative are the charges that are different
An atom that is ionized and missing electrons is positively charged and attracted to the south pole. Then u have beta particles that are free electrons and are attracted to the north pole .
Positive charges repel one another. Negative charges repel one another. Positive and negative charges attract. That's really about all there is to it.
As for how objects become negatively or positively charged:
To positively charge something, rub off some electrons. To negatively charge something, rub some electrons off onto it.
Some number of electrovolts.
the charge.
The charge.
Negatively-charged objects have a greater number of electrons than protons.
Positively-charged objects have fewer electrons than protons.
Electrons have a negative charge, protons have a positive charge.
they are attracted to eachother and if faced with the same sign i.e +,+ they repel one another
that they two atrackt each other?
That's actually backwards - negatively-charged substances have more electrons than protons, therefore THEY have the surplus. Report Abuse
What is the difference between a positively charged object and a negatively charged object?
waaaa?
ask some geek dude and why do you really care
im only on my first year of gcse physics so dont really trust me on this but i think its:
positively charged objects have lost electrons (therefore have more protons)
and negatively charged objects have gained electrons (therefore have more electrons)
and remember! only electrons can move!
Boston B has the right answer except he just made a slip up
the Negative has a surplus of electrons (electrons have a negative charge) the positive has a shortage of them.
Positive and Negative signs of electricity is just arbitrary, if we were inventing electricity today they would be the opposite way round but in Benjamin Franklin's days (I think it was down to him) electrons were not understood
the only difference between a negatively charged object and a positively charged one is the number of electrons compared to the protons (+ charged).
If the protons outnumber the electrons then the object has a + charge. If there are more electrons then it has a - charge. if there are the same number then there is no charge.
one is positive and the other is negative. the positive and negative are the charges that are different
An atom that is ionized and missing electrons is positively charged and attracted to the south pole. Then u have beta particles that are free electrons and are attracted to the north pole .
Positive charges repel one another. Negative charges repel one another. Positive and negative charges attract. That's really about all there is to it.
As for how objects become negatively or positively charged:
To positively charge something, rub off some electrons. To negatively charge something, rub some electrons off onto it.
Some number of electrovolts.
the charge.
The charge.
Negatively-charged objects have a greater number of electrons than protons.
Positively-charged objects have fewer electrons than protons.
Electrons have a negative charge, protons have a positive charge.
they are attracted to eachother and if faced with the same sign i.e +,+ they repel one another
that they two atrackt each other?
What can i get for my friend, money is no object?
really want to get him something. He has done so much for me and he doesnt even want repayment, I told him I was going to get him something and he got annoyed. I need to get him something that says thank you for what you have done, I appreciate it!
Do you have any ideas. Please, a great idea would be much appreciated. I really need to get him something, I owe him my life.What can i get for my friend, money is no object?
if money is no object i would get him a 2010 Ferrari Scuderia Spider 16M. i think he will love you for life after that.What can i get for my friend, money is no object?
Tell us what he likes. And how old are you guys?
...
But if he's done so much for you, like support you through hard times or something like that, an expensive watch wouldn't really compensate for that. If he gets annoyed like that, he probably doesn't like to receive gifts. Just find a way to show him that you are thankful. Take a trip with him or something.
well if this is the case dont get anything that will be shuved in his face. you should take him to a night out to the city and say that wer ur taking him is all free. but really ur paying for it all. then who knows it mite end with u n him being together. a win, win sittuation
http://innnanswers.freeallinsurance.co
A very informative website, kindly stay in website and check
A kindle is a great gift. you can find it on amazon
%26lt; give him the good news.
Do you have any ideas. Please, a great idea would be much appreciated. I really need to get him something, I owe him my life.What can i get for my friend, money is no object?
if money is no object i would get him a 2010 Ferrari Scuderia Spider 16M. i think he will love you for life after that.What can i get for my friend, money is no object?
Tell us what he likes. And how old are you guys?
...
But if he's done so much for you, like support you through hard times or something like that, an expensive watch wouldn't really compensate for that. If he gets annoyed like that, he probably doesn't like to receive gifts. Just find a way to show him that you are thankful. Take a trip with him or something.
well if this is the case dont get anything that will be shuved in his face. you should take him to a night out to the city and say that wer ur taking him is all free. but really ur paying for it all. then who knows it mite end with u n him being together. a win, win sittuation
http://innnanswers.freeallinsurance.co
A very informative website, kindly stay in website and check
A kindle is a great gift. you can find it on amazon
%26lt; give him the good news.
What can defense lawyers object about in a magistrate court?
Exactly the same things they'd object to in any other criminal court. For example:
- Admissibility of evidence (Hearsay, expert evidence from a non expert witness, PACE issues etc)
- Prosecution conduct in court (leading questions to prosecution witnesses, witness badgering, questioning on irrelevant issues etc)
- Prosecution conduct before trial (e.g. failure to give notice of evidence, abuse of process)
Most of these issues will not be dealt with as ';objections'; as the evidence is given but will have been raised and decided before trial or agreed between the lawyers. ';Objections'; will only occur if something goes wrong e.g. if the witness gives inadmissible evidence unprompted, or the lawyer forgets what was decided before hand and asks the wrong question.
If there are really substantial issues of evidence and a not guilty plea, the defendant is likely to be advised to elect jury trial because then admissiblity will be dealt with by a learned Judge, rather than a district judge or even the clerk of the court and 3 lay magistrates.
Objections in the English courts system are not nearly so energetic as they appear on American television. Lawyers are taught to stand up and politely interrupt with words such as ';Sir, while I hesitate to interrupt m'learned friend, that is the *third* leading question he has asked this witness....'; At which point the judge will tell the erring learned friend to re-word his question...What can defense lawyers object about in a magistrate court?
Unless there are special rules for a certain magisterial court, the court operates exactly like it was before a judge. As such, a defense attorney can make all of the same objections as before a full fledged judge.facial skin care facial wrinkles
- Admissibility of evidence (Hearsay, expert evidence from a non expert witness, PACE issues etc)
- Prosecution conduct in court (leading questions to prosecution witnesses, witness badgering, questioning on irrelevant issues etc)
- Prosecution conduct before trial (e.g. failure to give notice of evidence, abuse of process)
Most of these issues will not be dealt with as ';objections'; as the evidence is given but will have been raised and decided before trial or agreed between the lawyers. ';Objections'; will only occur if something goes wrong e.g. if the witness gives inadmissible evidence unprompted, or the lawyer forgets what was decided before hand and asks the wrong question.
If there are really substantial issues of evidence and a not guilty plea, the defendant is likely to be advised to elect jury trial because then admissiblity will be dealt with by a learned Judge, rather than a district judge or even the clerk of the court and 3 lay magistrates.
Objections in the English courts system are not nearly so energetic as they appear on American television. Lawyers are taught to stand up and politely interrupt with words such as ';Sir, while I hesitate to interrupt m'learned friend, that is the *third* leading question he has asked this witness....'; At which point the judge will tell the erring learned friend to re-word his question...What can defense lawyers object about in a magistrate court?
Unless there are special rules for a certain magisterial court, the court operates exactly like it was before a judge. As such, a defense attorney can make all of the same objections as before a full fledged judge.
Does mass have an effect on the acceleration of an object on an incline?
For example, Will a car positioned at the top of a ramp with 20kg weight have the same acceleration as a car with 40kg weight? If not, which car will have the greater acceleration? (Assuming the cars are not moving when they are let go at the top of the ramp)Does mass have an effect on the acceleration of an object on an incline?
I agree with the physics analysis of the previous respondents who conclude that the two cars will accelerate at the same rate.
However, any Cub Scout (or former Cub Scout) who has participated in Pinewood Derby knows the real-world answer: The heavier car accelerates down the ramp faster than the lighter car (all other things being equal).
So we know what Physics tells us, and we know what happens in the real world, and they don't agree. Why not?
I think the answer to the mystery is that the two cars WOULD accelerate at exactly the same rate IF there were no rolling friction (friction of wheels against the track, and of axles against the bearings). But since there IS friction, and since that friction does not increase in proportion to the car's weight, the heavier car will accelerate faster. A smaller proportion of its acceleration force is devoted to overcoming friction, and a larger proportion is available to accelerate it down the ramp.
So the physicists are right if rolling resistance (and wind resistance) are zero. And they would also be right if the friction and wind resistance of the car increased with the car's weight. But while friction increases somewhat with weight, it does NOT increase in exact proportion to weight, so the heavier car wins the race. (If you don't believe me, check with your local cub Scout leader.)Does mass have an effect on the acceleration of an object on an incline?
Acceleration in this situation is independent of mass
No, they will both have the same acceleration, because the same force (forces cause acceleration) is acting on both of them: gravity. Their acceleration will be some fraction of the acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m/s^2); you can calculate what fraction using simple trig. All this was proved by Galileo (I think?), dropping two weights off of the Tower of Pisa: popular opinion at the time held that the larger weight would fall faster (i.e., have greater acceleration). But nope, they both had the same acceleration, same velocity, and hit the ground at the same time. The same would apply to your two cars.
sorry but there is no such thing as a 20 kg weight.... 20 kg is a measure of mass and not weight.
Same size of cars? Mass doesn't not effect but size do, because of friction.
As you Know, F=ma, the Acceleration is Independent of the Mass, Inertia is Dependent of Mass. But the Force Will Be Different.
ok you made things extremely difficult for everyone to understand. you would expect it to be the same thing as in free fall experiments and principes where ideally all objects if released from the seam height they would fall at the same time.
that would have happened as well in the inclined problem situataion that you are considering .....but friction takes place.
since the angle is the same and since we know that a =F/m in idealy world they should behave the same BUT..
friction = friction coeficient * normal ot the plane weight vector.
since one body is heavier than the other it will epxerience greater friction therefore the net force that will make it move will not accelerate it so much. therefore the lighter body will accelerate more. if the freiction was not there it would be the same as ideal free fall whre the F force would be the Wx (components of weight in the x axis of movement.
Why not do the math? Tweak the question a little bit so that you're dropping two cars rather than pushing them down a ramp (think of it as making the ramp infinitely steep).
Then just figure it out - you know acceleration (coming down), that'll be 9.8 m/s^2, and you know v1, and you know the distance they're travelling....
Put all that info together, and you'll see the answer.
the car with the 40 kg weight will have more acceleration due to the force for gravity
I agree with the physics analysis of the previous respondents who conclude that the two cars will accelerate at the same rate.
However, any Cub Scout (or former Cub Scout) who has participated in Pinewood Derby knows the real-world answer: The heavier car accelerates down the ramp faster than the lighter car (all other things being equal).
So we know what Physics tells us, and we know what happens in the real world, and they don't agree. Why not?
I think the answer to the mystery is that the two cars WOULD accelerate at exactly the same rate IF there were no rolling friction (friction of wheels against the track, and of axles against the bearings). But since there IS friction, and since that friction does not increase in proportion to the car's weight, the heavier car will accelerate faster. A smaller proportion of its acceleration force is devoted to overcoming friction, and a larger proportion is available to accelerate it down the ramp.
So the physicists are right if rolling resistance (and wind resistance) are zero. And they would also be right if the friction and wind resistance of the car increased with the car's weight. But while friction increases somewhat with weight, it does NOT increase in exact proportion to weight, so the heavier car wins the race. (If you don't believe me, check with your local cub Scout leader.)Does mass have an effect on the acceleration of an object on an incline?
Acceleration in this situation is independent of mass
No, they will both have the same acceleration, because the same force (forces cause acceleration) is acting on both of them: gravity. Their acceleration will be some fraction of the acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m/s^2); you can calculate what fraction using simple trig. All this was proved by Galileo (I think?), dropping two weights off of the Tower of Pisa: popular opinion at the time held that the larger weight would fall faster (i.e., have greater acceleration). But nope, they both had the same acceleration, same velocity, and hit the ground at the same time. The same would apply to your two cars.
sorry but there is no such thing as a 20 kg weight.... 20 kg is a measure of mass and not weight.
Same size of cars? Mass doesn't not effect but size do, because of friction.
As you Know, F=ma, the Acceleration is Independent of the Mass, Inertia is Dependent of Mass. But the Force Will Be Different.
ok you made things extremely difficult for everyone to understand. you would expect it to be the same thing as in free fall experiments and principes where ideally all objects if released from the seam height they would fall at the same time.
that would have happened as well in the inclined problem situataion that you are considering .....but friction takes place.
since the angle is the same and since we know that a =F/m in idealy world they should behave the same BUT..
friction = friction coeficient * normal ot the plane weight vector.
since one body is heavier than the other it will epxerience greater friction therefore the net force that will make it move will not accelerate it so much. therefore the lighter body will accelerate more. if the freiction was not there it would be the same as ideal free fall whre the F force would be the Wx (components of weight in the x axis of movement.
Why not do the math? Tweak the question a little bit so that you're dropping two cars rather than pushing them down a ramp (think of it as making the ramp infinitely steep).
Then just figure it out - you know acceleration (coming down), that'll be 9.8 m/s^2, and you know v1, and you know the distance they're travelling....
Put all that info together, and you'll see the answer.
the car with the 40 kg weight will have more acceleration due to the force for gravity
Can God create an object so heavy he cannot lift it?
The Christian definition of God is that he possesses all perfections including omnipotence so . . . . . Can God create an object so heavy he cannot lift it?
When questions like this are asked, the person is really just trying to come up with an excuse to not worship God. You are trying to find imperfections in order to lower Him.
He was the first and He is the last. He is the most outward and nothing is beyond Him. Everything and everyone is and has been created by Him. There is NOTHING that is beyond His control. No matter how large he creates something, it is subjected to Him. You have no idea just how large Allah (God) is. He's bigger than all that exists everywhere. Not just this speck of a universe.
Try these youtube videos to get a slightly better picture of just how small and insignificant we are:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7FzjNDpVq1c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw%26amp;feature=related
English Translation by Hilali-Khan
The Throne Verse (Arabic: 丌賷丞 丕賱賰乇爻賶 示膩yatu-l-kurs墨), is ayah 255 of the second sura, in the Qur'an, Al-Baqara, and is widely memorized and displayed in the Islamic world.
Allah! La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), the Ever Living, the One Who sustains and protects all that exists. Neither slumber, nor sleep overtake Him. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on earth. Who is he that can intercede with Him except with His Permission? He knows what happens to them (His creatures) in this world, and what will happen to them in the Hereafter. And they will never compass anything of His Knowledge except that which He wills. His Kursi (Throne) extends over the heavens and the earth, and He feels no fatigue in guarding and preserving them. And He is the Most High, the Supreme.
Isaiah 45:18 (English Standard Version)
For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens
(he is God!),who formed the earth and made it
(he established it; he did not create it empty,
( he formed it to be inhabited!):';I am the LORD, and there is no other.
Acts 17:25 (English Standard Version)
nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.
John 13:16 (English Standard Version)
Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.
So your question doesn't make sense. It's like asking, '; If man makes a piece of paper so huge, will he loose control of it?'; And finally, just from a purely logical standpoint...If you make something, no matter how large, and you yourself put it somewhere. Dosen't that mean that you have the capability of removing it?Can God create an object so heavy he cannot lift it?
Come on people its a yes / no question. Which is it?
My answer is no, because in my opinion god does not exist so cant create anything!
And yes this question has been asked a hundred times in a hundred different forms, but everyone is still waiting on a yes or a no answer.
I love this question, because no believer can ever answer it without squirming to come up with something that makes no sense.
If he can't create such a rock, he's not omnipotent.
If he can create it but still can't lift it, he's still not omnipotent.
If he creates it but then lifts it anyway, or simply ';chooses not to,'; he still hasn't fulfilled the challenge.
Either way, God loses.
It's like asking if God can create a square circle.
Hahaha, bring on the thumbs down. You're all dodging the question. It's a yes or no proposition.
That my Lord and my God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent is not my definition but His.
As for your question, God is pure Spirit, He does not rely of physical strength to move objects or to work in the natural realm.
In other words, measures that apply to humans would not apply to God.
Now, what was your question again?
Nobody has ever asked this on before!
Paradoxes like this one prove nothing. They just show our lack of undestanding of concepts like omnipotence.
Yes, he can. He just chooses not to!
Edit -- to wide awake. Did you just REALLY say the question is MUTE? Why would it ever talk, even if it wasn't mute?
He would have to be more powerful than himself. But his ability to make things heavier and physical strength are both infinite.
I know this doesn't answer your question.
Only followers can be that dense, thicker than depleted uranium.
The question is mute since God does not lift objects in the sense that we do.
Yes, but he never intended to lift it from its mantle.
God can lift anything~!
No, it would go against his nature.
Oh come on ... that's not fair to god.
Why does this question keep popping up?
*drink*
Thanks! I needed that early morning shot to get my head right.
I don't know, but if he can lift the ';B/S'; you're providing, he's got to be pretty strong!
When questions like this are asked, the person is really just trying to come up with an excuse to not worship God. You are trying to find imperfections in order to lower Him.
He was the first and He is the last. He is the most outward and nothing is beyond Him. Everything and everyone is and has been created by Him. There is NOTHING that is beyond His control. No matter how large he creates something, it is subjected to Him. You have no idea just how large Allah (God) is. He's bigger than all that exists everywhere. Not just this speck of a universe.
Try these youtube videos to get a slightly better picture of just how small and insignificant we are:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7FzjNDpVq1c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw%26amp;feature=related
English Translation by Hilali-Khan
The Throne Verse (Arabic: 丌賷丞 丕賱賰乇爻賶 示膩yatu-l-kurs墨), is ayah 255 of the second sura, in the Qur'an, Al-Baqara, and is widely memorized and displayed in the Islamic world.
Allah! La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), the Ever Living, the One Who sustains and protects all that exists. Neither slumber, nor sleep overtake Him. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on earth. Who is he that can intercede with Him except with His Permission? He knows what happens to them (His creatures) in this world, and what will happen to them in the Hereafter. And they will never compass anything of His Knowledge except that which He wills. His Kursi (Throne) extends over the heavens and the earth, and He feels no fatigue in guarding and preserving them. And He is the Most High, the Supreme.
Isaiah 45:18 (English Standard Version)
For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens
(he is God!),who formed the earth and made it
(he established it; he did not create it empty,
( he formed it to be inhabited!):';I am the LORD, and there is no other.
Acts 17:25 (English Standard Version)
nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.
John 13:16 (English Standard Version)
Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.
So your question doesn't make sense. It's like asking, '; If man makes a piece of paper so huge, will he loose control of it?'; And finally, just from a purely logical standpoint...If you make something, no matter how large, and you yourself put it somewhere. Dosen't that mean that you have the capability of removing it?Can God create an object so heavy he cannot lift it?
Come on people its a yes / no question. Which is it?
My answer is no, because in my opinion god does not exist so cant create anything!
And yes this question has been asked a hundred times in a hundred different forms, but everyone is still waiting on a yes or a no answer.
I love this question, because no believer can ever answer it without squirming to come up with something that makes no sense.
If he can't create such a rock, he's not omnipotent.
If he can create it but still can't lift it, he's still not omnipotent.
If he creates it but then lifts it anyway, or simply ';chooses not to,'; he still hasn't fulfilled the challenge.
Either way, God loses.
It's like asking if God can create a square circle.
Hahaha, bring on the thumbs down. You're all dodging the question. It's a yes or no proposition.
That my Lord and my God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent is not my definition but His.
As for your question, God is pure Spirit, He does not rely of physical strength to move objects or to work in the natural realm.
In other words, measures that apply to humans would not apply to God.
Now, what was your question again?
Nobody has ever asked this on before!
Paradoxes like this one prove nothing. They just show our lack of undestanding of concepts like omnipotence.
Yes, he can. He just chooses not to!
Edit -- to wide awake. Did you just REALLY say the question is MUTE? Why would it ever talk, even if it wasn't mute?
He would have to be more powerful than himself. But his ability to make things heavier and physical strength are both infinite.
I know this doesn't answer your question.
Only followers can be that dense, thicker than depleted uranium.
The question is mute since God does not lift objects in the sense that we do.
Yes, but he never intended to lift it from its mantle.
God can lift anything~!
No, it would go against his nature.
Oh come on ... that's not fair to god.
Why does this question keep popping up?
*drink*
Thanks! I needed that early morning shot to get my head right.
I don't know, but if he can lift the ';B/S'; you're providing, he's got to be pretty strong!
Why isn't the object mesh in The Sims 2 usable in my computer?
I already downloaded the CEP files, and all the object meshes and recolors.
But all the object downloads won't show up in the ';Buy Mode';.
It used to show up before I deleted everything in the ';Downloads'; folder.
But after I re-downloaded all of the files again, it did not show up anymore.
Did I accidentally delete something important to make the downloads work?
What should I do to fix this problem? What should I download to make the object downloads usable?Why isn't the object mesh in The Sims 2 usable in my computer?
Check the hardware spec needed for the mesh against the hardware on your machine. Your graphics card may be incompatible or something else may be underspec
But all the object downloads won't show up in the ';Buy Mode';.
It used to show up before I deleted everything in the ';Downloads'; folder.
But after I re-downloaded all of the files again, it did not show up anymore.
Did I accidentally delete something important to make the downloads work?
What should I do to fix this problem? What should I download to make the object downloads usable?Why isn't the object mesh in The Sims 2 usable in my computer?
Check the hardware spec needed for the mesh against the hardware on your machine. Your graphics card may be incompatible or something else may be underspec
If money was no object, how many children would you have?
Say, if you won the lottery? You wouldn't have to work, you could probably hire a cleaner and a cook for all the housework, and you know you wouldn't have to struggle to buy baby stuff and clothes etc. How many would you have?If money was no object, how many children would you have?
i would have 3. i have always wanted 3. so even if i had all the money in the world, i would stop. i don't think i could handle someone else cleaning my house! ahhh!! i would be paranoid they hadn't done it properly.... :)
AND i love cooking because when i get praise for something i have made, it makes me feel sooo good!
plus, what would be your role as a mother if you had someone else do everything for you?
ETA is it bad i compare everything i eat that someone else has made, to my own cooking! (i can't believe that 3 years ago i was so bad, i made an egg explode in its shell!!)
ETA again ummm... would it make me seem really bad if i told you it wasn't even in a microwave?! it was in a pot of boiling water, and i forgot about it! a while later, we heard these massive bangs in the kitchen! lol!
oh oh oh!! and another time, i set the iron on the cooker, went to switch it off to cool, but i switched the cooker on instead, and it melted all over the cooker!! more big bangs.
I AM A DOMESTIC GODDESS!If money was no object, how many children would you have?
i have 3 now and if i had tons of money and had a cook and cleaner I would consider one more,..... but 3 is really a handful..... but with the extra help I would have more time to spend with them so maybe....lol!
actually no, 3 is enough. if i had all that extra help then i really could devote my time to them exclusively. having that extra child would mean each child gets less time, so no, 3 is it for me!!!
but maybe if I adopted....see now you've got me thinking!
Well i already have three
The oldest is at university and the other two are 9 and 14
Under any other circumstances i'd consider myself done
But
If i won the lottery
i think i'd adopt
a few older kids
share my fortune with those less fortunate
as for giving birth to more myself
i can't pay anyone to bear the stretch marks and sleepless nights so
nah
If money were no object i would have about 6 children. I would probably adopt 2 or 3 children out of that lot.
I would also have a chef and cleaner at my house as i am a useless chef and hate cleaning. Oh, and i forgot to add that i would have to hire someone that would do all of the laundry.
If money was no object I'd want three. But they'd be a few years age difference between each, because I don't fancy running around after a toddler when I have a newborn! Plus I think any more than three and it gets hard to give each child individual attention.
As money Is a factor, I'll probably stop at two, which makes me quite sad really.
money hasnt got anything to do with the amount of kids i have. not that im a millionaire or anything.
i have three and would love to have more but i dont think i can go through all the pregnancy and labour anymore so thats why i havent had anymore than 3.
although i long for a little baby girl :-)
I don't need help, I am satisfied with 5 Sons.
Money can't buy everything, and Hubster and I love our Children, but money can't fix everything.
We have a few minor health difficulties in 3 of our Boys, and we will not push our luck any more. No matter how much money we had.
Between 3-5. I have one now and she is quite a bit of work, and I wouldn't feel right or want someone doing everything for me. On the other hand, I grew up in a really small family and it can be kind of boring, and my partner has a huge family (9 kids!) and I looooove hanging out with them it is so much fun.
3 or 4. I would say i would hire a nanny, but then i would feel guilty and wouldnt be raising my children myself. I have 1 and definately want one more. But if money was no object then 3 i think. I could afford to get a boob job after all the breast feeding and a tummy tuck...lol
Im an only child and i always wanted lots of brother and sisters
If money wasnt a problem i would have NO more than 4! I have 2 already and i can say im a good mummy and i love kids, you will live forever through your kiddies (sad i know)
But saying that i know someone who is skint as beans and she has 8!!
I would still want the same size family regardless of money. Lots of money would give my family a better standard of living and the best childhood ever, I would want to take them on holiday at least 3 times a year! but having 2 children is still my wish, or 3 at the very most
I would have about 5 or 6! i love children i really do but i'm finding it quite hard to even have one at the moment lol!
I want 5 kids anyway but like you said its all money so maybe i'll only have 3 unless i do win the lottery then yep 5 or 6 for me!
How many would you have?
xxx
Four probably, I have one who I love to death and had her through ivf after waiting 7 years for a baby. I would definitely have another if I could afford the ivf again but I'd want to bring them up myself but yes if money was no object I'd have some other help.
I want 3 kids and if money wasn't difficult to come by I think I would still have 3! I have a daughter right now and she is the best in the world!! Someone to help with the housework would be a dream come true! :-)
~~ (I gave everyone a thumbs UP!)
if i had unlimited money i would have a baby every year or so , but since i am kind of poor i dont have any. what really sucks is all the poor people that have 3 or 6 or 10 kids they are dragging the whole world down into poverty
Yes, I'd say two as well. Money is not all (though very important of course) and I'd want to make sure I got time for them, time to take care of them and raise them in the best possible way.
I would have 4, but have them 3 years apart.
Well personally even if I didn't win the lottery I would have six if I could but I honestly don't know if I can handle being pregnant six times! This is my first pregnancy and I just figured out that it's hard at times!
ive planned to have 2 - hopefully one of each!
i wouldnt want anymore for the pure fact i wouldnt want to ruin my body! ive never really wanted a large family so 2 is enough for me!
my mom takes really gud care of kids. i need her till the baby is of 5 months atlest. with her support i would like to have 4 atleast if money is not a prob.
5. I think I might have that anyway though. I already have 3, 2 of which are twins. I really don't want another set of twins though because my body just didn't handle being pregnant with the twins.
We have a blended family, 2 his, one mine and one ours. I'd still have stopped there. Even with all the extra help, I don't think I'd want more than that.
Maybe four?
I grew up as one of four and its quite cool - 2 girls close together, big gap then 2 boys close together, mum had built in mates for her kids and babysitters for the littlies (who are now 20 %26amp; 21!!)
ETA:
I would foster too, maybe cos of my job?
Probably around 4-6
You have to have enough lovee tooo :D:D
x
If it wasn't so hard on my bod (I'm just a little thing), I would have had 5; just one more than I have, now. :)
Before I had my children I would have said 5 or 6 - but now they are teenagers - I would definitely say that 3 is more than enough!!!
I have 2, ttc number 3 but I would probably have 4 or 5 if I could afford them
Five. I'm having five anyway, we will afford it! As long as I don't need government assistance, i'm going for five!
as many as possible
Only one more. Just because I don't want to go through the pain of childbirth loads of time, and I think I could give more love to two rather then 4.
4 but my body will have to survive 4 pregnancy. Otherwise, i'll adopt
i would have 3. i have always wanted 3. so even if i had all the money in the world, i would stop. i don't think i could handle someone else cleaning my house! ahhh!! i would be paranoid they hadn't done it properly.... :)
AND i love cooking because when i get praise for something i have made, it makes me feel sooo good!
plus, what would be your role as a mother if you had someone else do everything for you?
ETA is it bad i compare everything i eat that someone else has made, to my own cooking! (i can't believe that 3 years ago i was so bad, i made an egg explode in its shell!!)
ETA again ummm... would it make me seem really bad if i told you it wasn't even in a microwave?! it was in a pot of boiling water, and i forgot about it! a while later, we heard these massive bangs in the kitchen! lol!
oh oh oh!! and another time, i set the iron on the cooker, went to switch it off to cool, but i switched the cooker on instead, and it melted all over the cooker!! more big bangs.
I AM A DOMESTIC GODDESS!If money was no object, how many children would you have?
i have 3 now and if i had tons of money and had a cook and cleaner I would consider one more,..... but 3 is really a handful..... but with the extra help I would have more time to spend with them so maybe....lol!
actually no, 3 is enough. if i had all that extra help then i really could devote my time to them exclusively. having that extra child would mean each child gets less time, so no, 3 is it for me!!!
but maybe if I adopted....see now you've got me thinking!
Well i already have three
The oldest is at university and the other two are 9 and 14
Under any other circumstances i'd consider myself done
But
If i won the lottery
i think i'd adopt
a few older kids
share my fortune with those less fortunate
as for giving birth to more myself
i can't pay anyone to bear the stretch marks and sleepless nights so
nah
If money were no object i would have about 6 children. I would probably adopt 2 or 3 children out of that lot.
I would also have a chef and cleaner at my house as i am a useless chef and hate cleaning. Oh, and i forgot to add that i would have to hire someone that would do all of the laundry.
If money was no object I'd want three. But they'd be a few years age difference between each, because I don't fancy running around after a toddler when I have a newborn! Plus I think any more than three and it gets hard to give each child individual attention.
As money Is a factor, I'll probably stop at two, which makes me quite sad really.
money hasnt got anything to do with the amount of kids i have. not that im a millionaire or anything.
i have three and would love to have more but i dont think i can go through all the pregnancy and labour anymore so thats why i havent had anymore than 3.
although i long for a little baby girl :-)
I don't need help, I am satisfied with 5 Sons.
Money can't buy everything, and Hubster and I love our Children, but money can't fix everything.
We have a few minor health difficulties in 3 of our Boys, and we will not push our luck any more. No matter how much money we had.
Between 3-5. I have one now and she is quite a bit of work, and I wouldn't feel right or want someone doing everything for me. On the other hand, I grew up in a really small family and it can be kind of boring, and my partner has a huge family (9 kids!) and I looooove hanging out with them it is so much fun.
3 or 4. I would say i would hire a nanny, but then i would feel guilty and wouldnt be raising my children myself. I have 1 and definately want one more. But if money was no object then 3 i think. I could afford to get a boob job after all the breast feeding and a tummy tuck...lol
Im an only child and i always wanted lots of brother and sisters
If money wasnt a problem i would have NO more than 4! I have 2 already and i can say im a good mummy and i love kids, you will live forever through your kiddies (sad i know)
But saying that i know someone who is skint as beans and she has 8!!
I would still want the same size family regardless of money. Lots of money would give my family a better standard of living and the best childhood ever, I would want to take them on holiday at least 3 times a year! but having 2 children is still my wish, or 3 at the very most
I would have about 5 or 6! i love children i really do but i'm finding it quite hard to even have one at the moment lol!
I want 5 kids anyway but like you said its all money so maybe i'll only have 3 unless i do win the lottery then yep 5 or 6 for me!
How many would you have?
xxx
Four probably, I have one who I love to death and had her through ivf after waiting 7 years for a baby. I would definitely have another if I could afford the ivf again but I'd want to bring them up myself but yes if money was no object I'd have some other help.
I want 3 kids and if money wasn't difficult to come by I think I would still have 3! I have a daughter right now and she is the best in the world!! Someone to help with the housework would be a dream come true! :-)
~~ (I gave everyone a thumbs UP!)
if i had unlimited money i would have a baby every year or so , but since i am kind of poor i dont have any. what really sucks is all the poor people that have 3 or 6 or 10 kids they are dragging the whole world down into poverty
Yes, I'd say two as well. Money is not all (though very important of course) and I'd want to make sure I got time for them, time to take care of them and raise them in the best possible way.
I would have 4, but have them 3 years apart.
Well personally even if I didn't win the lottery I would have six if I could but I honestly don't know if I can handle being pregnant six times! This is my first pregnancy and I just figured out that it's hard at times!
ive planned to have 2 - hopefully one of each!
i wouldnt want anymore for the pure fact i wouldnt want to ruin my body! ive never really wanted a large family so 2 is enough for me!
my mom takes really gud care of kids. i need her till the baby is of 5 months atlest. with her support i would like to have 4 atleast if money is not a prob.
5. I think I might have that anyway though. I already have 3, 2 of which are twins. I really don't want another set of twins though because my body just didn't handle being pregnant with the twins.
We have a blended family, 2 his, one mine and one ours. I'd still have stopped there. Even with all the extra help, I don't think I'd want more than that.
Maybe four?
I grew up as one of four and its quite cool - 2 girls close together, big gap then 2 boys close together, mum had built in mates for her kids and babysitters for the littlies (who are now 20 %26amp; 21!!)
ETA:
I would foster too, maybe cos of my job?
Probably around 4-6
You have to have enough lovee tooo :D:D
x
If it wasn't so hard on my bod (I'm just a little thing), I would have had 5; just one more than I have, now. :)
Before I had my children I would have said 5 or 6 - but now they are teenagers - I would definitely say that 3 is more than enough!!!
I have 2, ttc number 3 but I would probably have 4 or 5 if I could afford them
Five. I'm having five anyway, we will afford it! As long as I don't need government assistance, i'm going for five!
as many as possible
Only one more. Just because I don't want to go through the pain of childbirth loads of time, and I think I could give more love to two rather then 4.
4 but my body will have to survive 4 pregnancy. Otherwise, i'll adopt
With no drag in space, can we potentially accelerate an object up to the speed of light?
If NASA's deep space 1 craft could accelerate to 10,000mph given that it had constant power for 2 years, couldn't a bigger shuttle over time build up so much speed it catch's up with the speed of light? and what would be stopping it from accelerating further still?
With no drag in space, can we potentially accelerate an object up to the speed of light?
By accelerating at 1 g (9.8m/sec^2), you would ';close in'; on the speed of light rather quickly. But don't forget about the mass that you would have as you near that speed. You could get very close, but you could never reach or exceed the speed of light.With no drag in space, can we potentially accelerate an object up to the speed of light?
The problem is,even in deep space,the vacuum isn't total. Hydrogen atoms of almost zero mass are still attracted to one-another,as they are the only gravitational masses within the attraction area of their respective molecules,but they WILL eventually meet. So,if light as a particle-wave has no mass,it will bend around any mass within it's path. You also have the question of-if light has had several billion years to travel
between point A and point B,why doesn't it keep on accelerating infinitely? The answer seems to be,because all known matter,wether of quantifiable mass or not,have an ultimate attainable speed,and that speed is the speed of light.
Look at Einstein's equations that have been proved quite well. At the speed of light, an object made of matter has infinite inertia and thus infinite mass, in effect, and its length in direction of travel becomes zero. So does time for it. There is not enough matter and energy in the universe or a googloplex like it to overcome infinite inertia, so material objects cannot closely approach the speed of light. They would also be squashed absolutely flat.
Look at Einstein's equations that have been proved quite well. At the speed of light, an object made of matter has infinite inertia and thus infinite mass, in effect, and its length in direction of travel becomes zero. So does time for it. There is not enough matter and energy in the universe or a googloplex like it to overcome infinite inertia, so material objects cannot closely approach the speed of light. They would also be squashed absolutely flat.
1) The speed of light in a vacuum is not the fastest speed attainable by something of mass in the universe. This has already been shown.
';But in an experiment in Princeton, New Jersey, physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering.';
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/鈥?/a>
Just like the article above states, ';However, our experiment does show that the generally held misconception that `nothing can travel faster than the speed of light' is wrong.'; It is a misconception that the speed of light is some universal speed limit.
You cannot reach light speed if you have mass.
You could keep accelerating and getting closer and closer to light speed, but never quite get there. Not to mention the ridiculous mass ratio that sort of constant acceleration would entail.
To accelerate to the speed of light, you would require infinite energy.
With no drag in space, can we potentially accelerate an object up to the speed of light?
By accelerating at 1 g (9.8m/sec^2), you would ';close in'; on the speed of light rather quickly. But don't forget about the mass that you would have as you near that speed. You could get very close, but you could never reach or exceed the speed of light.With no drag in space, can we potentially accelerate an object up to the speed of light?
The problem is,even in deep space,the vacuum isn't total. Hydrogen atoms of almost zero mass are still attracted to one-another,as they are the only gravitational masses within the attraction area of their respective molecules,but they WILL eventually meet. So,if light as a particle-wave has no mass,it will bend around any mass within it's path. You also have the question of-if light has had several billion years to travel
between point A and point B,why doesn't it keep on accelerating infinitely? The answer seems to be,because all known matter,wether of quantifiable mass or not,have an ultimate attainable speed,and that speed is the speed of light.
Look at Einstein's equations that have been proved quite well. At the speed of light, an object made of matter has infinite inertia and thus infinite mass, in effect, and its length in direction of travel becomes zero. So does time for it. There is not enough matter and energy in the universe or a googloplex like it to overcome infinite inertia, so material objects cannot closely approach the speed of light. They would also be squashed absolutely flat.
Look at Einstein's equations that have been proved quite well. At the speed of light, an object made of matter has infinite inertia and thus infinite mass, in effect, and its length in direction of travel becomes zero. So does time for it. There is not enough matter and energy in the universe or a googloplex like it to overcome infinite inertia, so material objects cannot closely approach the speed of light. They would also be squashed absolutely flat.
1) The speed of light in a vacuum is not the fastest speed attainable by something of mass in the universe. This has already been shown.
';But in an experiment in Princeton, New Jersey, physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering.';
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/鈥?/a>
Just like the article above states, ';However, our experiment does show that the generally held misconception that `nothing can travel faster than the speed of light' is wrong.'; It is a misconception that the speed of light is some universal speed limit.
You cannot reach light speed if you have mass.
You could keep accelerating and getting closer and closer to light speed, but never quite get there. Not to mention the ridiculous mass ratio that sort of constant acceleration would entail.
To accelerate to the speed of light, you would require infinite energy.
How to protect an object from entrance of magnetic field?
and in the case we don't have access to null (earth) forexample in the planes, what should we do?How to protect an object from entrance of magnetic field?
I assume that you are referring to low frequency (or static) magnetic fields. Note that this answer may not apply to high frequency fields. The answer is more complex if the fields are changing. If you are interested in quickly changing fields, you should post a new question specifically about that.
Because ';magnetic monopoles'; don't exist, there is no way to block a magnetic field directly like you can with an electric field. However, you can surround an object with a material of much higher ';magnetic permeability'; and a large proportion of the magnetic field will travel through that surrounding material instead of through the object it surrounds.
For example, a box with sides made of iron will assist in ';shielding'; the contents from a magnetic field because surrounding field lines will have a tendency to bunch up around the iron box rather than going through the air inside the box.
You may want to check out the third source below, on ';Mu-metal,'; which is a special alloy with a very high magnetic permeability. To quote it, ';The high permeability makes mu-metal very effective at screening static or low-frequency magnetic fields, which cannot be attenuated by other methods.';facial skin care facial wrinkles
I assume that you are referring to low frequency (or static) magnetic fields. Note that this answer may not apply to high frequency fields. The answer is more complex if the fields are changing. If you are interested in quickly changing fields, you should post a new question specifically about that.
Because ';magnetic monopoles'; don't exist, there is no way to block a magnetic field directly like you can with an electric field. However, you can surround an object with a material of much higher ';magnetic permeability'; and a large proportion of the magnetic field will travel through that surrounding material instead of through the object it surrounds.
For example, a box with sides made of iron will assist in ';shielding'; the contents from a magnetic field because surrounding field lines will have a tendency to bunch up around the iron box rather than going through the air inside the box.
You may want to check out the third source below, on ';Mu-metal,'; which is a special alloy with a very high magnetic permeability. To quote it, ';The high permeability makes mu-metal very effective at screening static or low-frequency magnetic fields, which cannot be attenuated by other methods.';
If a free falling object falls in 2 seconds at a beginning velocity of 0?
f a free falling object falls in 2 seconds - at a beginning velocity of 0 - what is the final velocity before it touches the ground?If a free falling object falls in 2 seconds at a beginning velocity of 0?
According to Ist Eq of motion
Vf = Vi + at
Vf = Vi + gt (a= acceleration due to gravity)
Putting the values of vi, g and t,
we have
Vf= (0)+ (9.8)(2)
Vf = 19.6 m/s
Hope i helped!If a free falling object falls in 2 seconds at a beginning velocity of 0?
Time(t) = 2 s
Initial velocity(u) = 0
Acceleration(a) due to gravity = 9.8 m/s2
according to the equations of motion,
Final velocity = u +at
=0+9.8 *2
=19.6 m/s2
Acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2
This means, that it increases its speed by 9.8 m/s every second.
So in two seconds it's speed will be 19.6 m/s
depends on the size and shape of the object. Real life or in a vacume?
According to Ist Eq of motion
Vf = Vi + at
Vf = Vi + gt (a= acceleration due to gravity)
Putting the values of vi, g and t,
we have
Vf= (0)+ (9.8)(2)
Vf = 19.6 m/s
Hope i helped!If a free falling object falls in 2 seconds at a beginning velocity of 0?
Time(t) = 2 s
Initial velocity(u) = 0
Acceleration(a) due to gravity = 9.8 m/s2
according to the equations of motion,
Final velocity = u +at
=0+9.8 *2
=19.6 m/s2
Acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2
This means, that it increases its speed by 9.8 m/s every second.
So in two seconds it's speed will be 19.6 m/s
depends on the size and shape of the object. Real life or in a vacume?
Program for cutting an object out of a photo and transferring it to a different background?
I have a picture that i like of me and my friend but the background isnt that great and i want to take us out of the picture and put it with a better background and i cant find a program that i can easily do this with and that isnt so complicated. Your help would be much appreciated.Program for cutting an object out of a photo and transferring it to a different background?
Photoshop is easy but expensive
try gimp it is hard but free.Program for cutting an object out of a photo and transferring it to a different background?
I use MGI Photosuite 8.1...It came on the disk supplied with my first digital camera about 5 years ago. (Sony) Its very easy to use,but I'm not sure where you'll find a copy now. You could find a friend who has a Sony camera and see if the software (or a later version) is still supplied on the disc.
The GIMP which is a free photo editor will help you do this.
Get if from http://www.gimp.org/downloads/
adobe photoshop
Photoshop is easy but expensive
try gimp it is hard but free.Program for cutting an object out of a photo and transferring it to a different background?
I use MGI Photosuite 8.1...It came on the disk supplied with my first digital camera about 5 years ago. (Sony) Its very easy to use,but I'm not sure where you'll find a copy now. You could find a friend who has a Sony camera and see if the software (or a later version) is still supplied on the disc.
The GIMP which is a free photo editor will help you do this.
Get if from http://www.gimp.org/downloads/
adobe photoshop
Why do some people object to Organ Donation?
I can't see a single logical point in favour of organ donation's objectors. I mean your legally dead, never going to use those organs again and could save or extend someones life. To me you'd have to be a horrible person to object to this. Any thoughts?Why do some people object to Organ Donation?
Baed on religious beliefs. Jewish law (Halacha) has threee rulngs against organ donations;
There are three biblical prohibitions concerning a cadaver that would, at first blush, seem to indicate that organ donation should be forbidden. They are:
Nivul Hamet, a biblical prohibition that forbids the needless mutilation of a cadaver. This prohibition is the basis why autopsies are generally forbidden. But Jewish law does permit autopsies where the results of the autopsy have a real and immediate chance to save lives (Rabbi Yechezkel Landau, the former Chief Rabbi of Prague, in his Noda Beyehuda). Most all Rabbis agree that saving lives, pikuach nefesh, is more important than the prohibition of Nivul Hamet. Organ transplant saves lives.
Halanat Hamet, Deuteronomy 21:23, a biblical prohibition that forbids delaying burial of a body. All Rabbis agree that Pikuach Nefesh, saving lives, is more important than expedient burial. Organ transplant saves lives
Hana鈥檃t Hamet is a prohibition, some say biblical others say rabbinical, that forbids one from getting any benefit from a dead body, such as selling it for medical research. All Rabbis agree that Pikuach Nefesh, saving a life, is more important than this prohibition. Organ transplant saves lives
The above prohibitions afford respect and dignity to cadavers, for they once hosted life itself. In this context, it makes sense that all Rabbis agree that saving a life outweighs observing prohibitions concerning a cadaver because by saving a life one is giving utmost respect and dignity to the human body. As it is written in Jewish Law, ';Save one life and it is as if you have saved the entire world,'; Sanhedrin 4:5.
Brain-Stem Death
Rabbis who object to organ donation do not do so on the basis that a body must be buried whole. They object to organ donation because organs are usually taken from a brain-stem dead person whose heart is still beating and some Rabbis consider this person to still be alive according to Jewish law. Their objection makes sense because taking critical organs from a live person is, in effect, killing the patient. The questions is whether or not a brain-stem dead patient is alive or dead
Superstition beliefs: The evil eye; resurrrection of the dead or reincarnation; healthcare abuse; corneas do not save lives
Fear of disfurgement.Why do some people object to Organ Donation?
There are some people who object because of their beliefs, but if they dug a little deeper, they would find that their beliefs are either not based in fact or or wildly misinformed.
To Rosie C - The primary Jewish law of Pikuah Nefesh actually supports organ donation, so please don't go around spreading false information. We have enough misinformation and fear of organ donation (often, surprisingly, from within the medical profession).
';The inestimable value of human life is a cardinal principle of Jewish law. This principle includes an obligation for maintenance of our own health and for selfpreservation. This obligation, known as pikuah nefesh, also includes the duty to save the life of one's fellow human being, should he or she be in mortal danger.
This is the significance of the Commandment: ';You shall not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor'; (Lev. 19:16). Codifying this mitzvah in his Mishneh Torah, Maimonides emphasizes how broadly its obligation devolves: ';Anyone who is able to save a life, but fails to do so, violates 'You shall not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor.'';
These sources provide the halakhic basis for the decision by the Rabbinical Assembly's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards that ';the preservation of human life is obligatory, not optional. When needed for life-saving transplantation, withholding consent for post-mortem tissue donation must be considered forbidden.'; This decision is the conclusion of my responsum, ';The Obligation to Preserve Life and the Question of Post-Mortem Organ Donation,'; which the Committee recently adopted. Based on this responsum, the Committee has also unanimously approved a Conservative Movement Organ Donor Card, published and distributed in a joint effort with The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism.';
for some people its for religious reasons or they believe you can only really be laid to rest if all of you is buried.
maybe they just don't like the idea of losing things, even after they're dead. some ppl just don't like that sort of thing.
well are you going to
Baed on religious beliefs. Jewish law (Halacha) has threee rulngs against organ donations;
There are three biblical prohibitions concerning a cadaver that would, at first blush, seem to indicate that organ donation should be forbidden. They are:
Nivul Hamet, a biblical prohibition that forbids the needless mutilation of a cadaver. This prohibition is the basis why autopsies are generally forbidden. But Jewish law does permit autopsies where the results of the autopsy have a real and immediate chance to save lives (Rabbi Yechezkel Landau, the former Chief Rabbi of Prague, in his Noda Beyehuda). Most all Rabbis agree that saving lives, pikuach nefesh, is more important than the prohibition of Nivul Hamet. Organ transplant saves lives.
Halanat Hamet, Deuteronomy 21:23, a biblical prohibition that forbids delaying burial of a body. All Rabbis agree that Pikuach Nefesh, saving lives, is more important than expedient burial. Organ transplant saves lives
Hana鈥檃t Hamet is a prohibition, some say biblical others say rabbinical, that forbids one from getting any benefit from a dead body, such as selling it for medical research. All Rabbis agree that Pikuach Nefesh, saving a life, is more important than this prohibition. Organ transplant saves lives
The above prohibitions afford respect and dignity to cadavers, for they once hosted life itself. In this context, it makes sense that all Rabbis agree that saving a life outweighs observing prohibitions concerning a cadaver because by saving a life one is giving utmost respect and dignity to the human body. As it is written in Jewish Law, ';Save one life and it is as if you have saved the entire world,'; Sanhedrin 4:5.
Brain-Stem Death
Rabbis who object to organ donation do not do so on the basis that a body must be buried whole. They object to organ donation because organs are usually taken from a brain-stem dead person whose heart is still beating and some Rabbis consider this person to still be alive according to Jewish law. Their objection makes sense because taking critical organs from a live person is, in effect, killing the patient. The questions is whether or not a brain-stem dead patient is alive or dead
Superstition beliefs: The evil eye; resurrrection of the dead or reincarnation; healthcare abuse; corneas do not save lives
Fear of disfurgement.Why do some people object to Organ Donation?
There are some people who object because of their beliefs, but if they dug a little deeper, they would find that their beliefs are either not based in fact or or wildly misinformed.
To Rosie C - The primary Jewish law of Pikuah Nefesh actually supports organ donation, so please don't go around spreading false information. We have enough misinformation and fear of organ donation (often, surprisingly, from within the medical profession).
';The inestimable value of human life is a cardinal principle of Jewish law. This principle includes an obligation for maintenance of our own health and for selfpreservation. This obligation, known as pikuah nefesh, also includes the duty to save the life of one's fellow human being, should he or she be in mortal danger.
This is the significance of the Commandment: ';You shall not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor'; (Lev. 19:16). Codifying this mitzvah in his Mishneh Torah, Maimonides emphasizes how broadly its obligation devolves: ';Anyone who is able to save a life, but fails to do so, violates 'You shall not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor.'';
These sources provide the halakhic basis for the decision by the Rabbinical Assembly's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards that ';the preservation of human life is obligatory, not optional. When needed for life-saving transplantation, withholding consent for post-mortem tissue donation must be considered forbidden.'; This decision is the conclusion of my responsum, ';The Obligation to Preserve Life and the Question of Post-Mortem Organ Donation,'; which the Committee recently adopted. Based on this responsum, the Committee has also unanimously approved a Conservative Movement Organ Donor Card, published and distributed in a joint effort with The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism.';
for some people its for religious reasons or they believe you can only really be laid to rest if all of you is buried.
maybe they just don't like the idea of losing things, even after they're dead. some ppl just don't like that sort of thing.
well are you going to
I used a metal object with a design and burned my arm, what is the best way to heal it properly?
Used a lighter to heat up the end of a stick, planted into arm for about 5 seconds, healing but possibly infected, been using neosporinI used a metal object with a design and burned my arm, what is the best way to heal it properly?
Treat it as any other burn; keep the skin clean and moist, and covered with neosporin and a gauze dressing. If you start to see streaks of red radiating from the area, get to a doctor or emergency room, as this can be a sign of sepsis.
Treat it as any other burn; keep the skin clean and moist, and covered with neosporin and a gauze dressing. If you start to see streaks of red radiating from the area, get to a doctor or emergency room, as this can be a sign of sepsis.
How to make uncharged object have a negative charge?
thanks ten points best answer!How to make uncharged object have a negative charge?
stroke it with something like a cloth
stroke it with something like a cloth
What is the relationship between the working distance of an object lens and its magnification power?
It decreases as you increase the magnification..facial skin care facial wrinkles
How to protect an object from entrance of magnetic field?
and in the case we don't have access to null (earth) forexample in the planes, what should we do?How to protect an object from entrance of magnetic field?
I assume that you are referring to low frequency (or static) magnetic fields. Note that this answer may not apply to high frequency fields. The answer is more complex if the fields are changing. If you are interested in quickly changing fields, you should post a new question specifically about that.
There is no way to completely ';shield'; anything from a magnetic field because magnetic field lines must always find some path back to their source. (in other words, complete shielding is not possible due to the lack of ';magnetic monopoles';)
However, field lines can be gathered up within objects with a high ';magnetic permeability.'; For example, an object made of iron will have a higher magnetic permeability than air, thus magnetic lines will tend to flow through iron objects more easily than they will through air.
Thus, if you can provide a highly permeable path for flux lines to return to their source, then that path will be followed more readily than paths through the air. (see the first source below for an example) Note that some lines may still pass through the shield, especially with large fields. However, less will penetrate the area ';behind'; the shield than would without it.
So you need to look for permeable materials. See the second source below for some examples. Note that *NOT* all metals are good shields.
You may want to check out the third source below, on ';Mu-metal,'; which is a special alloy with a very high magnetic permeability. To quote it, ';The high permeability makes mu-metal very effective at screening static or low-frequency magnetic fields, which cannot be attenuated by other methods.';How to protect an object from entrance of magnetic field?
call Superman
planes??? as in aeroplanes??
well they also cut some components of the earths magnetic field !!
well to prevent magnetic field i guess you could laminate the substance !!
i dont know how useful that would be !!
but as long as you are on the earth or within the gravitational limit of the earth you are under a magnetic field !!
I assume that you are referring to low frequency (or static) magnetic fields. Note that this answer may not apply to high frequency fields. The answer is more complex if the fields are changing. If you are interested in quickly changing fields, you should post a new question specifically about that.
There is no way to completely ';shield'; anything from a magnetic field because magnetic field lines must always find some path back to their source. (in other words, complete shielding is not possible due to the lack of ';magnetic monopoles';)
However, field lines can be gathered up within objects with a high ';magnetic permeability.'; For example, an object made of iron will have a higher magnetic permeability than air, thus magnetic lines will tend to flow through iron objects more easily than they will through air.
Thus, if you can provide a highly permeable path for flux lines to return to their source, then that path will be followed more readily than paths through the air. (see the first source below for an example) Note that some lines may still pass through the shield, especially with large fields. However, less will penetrate the area ';behind'; the shield than would without it.
So you need to look for permeable materials. See the second source below for some examples. Note that *NOT* all metals are good shields.
You may want to check out the third source below, on ';Mu-metal,'; which is a special alloy with a very high magnetic permeability. To quote it, ';The high permeability makes mu-metal very effective at screening static or low-frequency magnetic fields, which cannot be attenuated by other methods.';How to protect an object from entrance of magnetic field?
call Superman
planes??? as in aeroplanes??
well they also cut some components of the earths magnetic field !!
well to prevent magnetic field i guess you could laminate the substance !!
i dont know how useful that would be !!
but as long as you are on the earth or within the gravitational limit of the earth you are under a magnetic field !!
Find the position of object which when placed in front of concave mirror of?
Find the position of object which when placed in front of concave mirror of
focal length 20cm produces a virtual image,which is twice the size of the object?Find the position of object which when placed in front of concave mirror of?
m= -v/u
so, 2= -v/u
u=-v/2
we know, 1/f =1/v +1/u ( f= -20cm, u=-v/2)
so, 1/-20=1/v + 1/-v/2
-1/20 = 1/v - 2/v
-1/20 = 1-2/v
-20=-v
so, v=20cm
so u= -10 cmFind the position of object which when placed in front of concave mirror of?
f = 20 cm
m = -v/u = 2
v = - 2u
Using mirror formula-
1/f = 1/v + 1/u
1/20 = 1/-2u + 1/u
u = 10 cm
Manu's ans is correct as f is negative because it is calculated in the opposite direction to the ray coming from the object.
between f and 2f
focal length 20cm produces a virtual image,which is twice the size of the object?Find the position of object which when placed in front of concave mirror of?
m= -v/u
so, 2= -v/u
u=-v/2
we know, 1/f =1/v +1/u ( f= -20cm, u=-v/2)
so, 1/-20=1/v + 1/-v/2
-1/20 = 1/v - 2/v
-1/20 = 1-2/v
-20=-v
so, v=20cm
so u= -10 cmFind the position of object which when placed in front of concave mirror of?
f = 20 cm
m = -v/u = 2
v = - 2u
Using mirror formula-
1/f = 1/v + 1/u
1/20 = 1/-2u + 1/u
u = 10 cm
Manu's ans is correct as f is negative because it is calculated in the opposite direction to the ray coming from the object.
between f and 2f
Why is it that when you stare at a stationary object for a long time it can appear as if its moving slightly?
No, I'm not crazy. I don't know if you have experienced this yourself, but if you stare at something for a really long time it almost looks like its slightly moving. Does anyone know why this is?Why is it that when you stare at a stationary object for a long time it can appear as if its moving slightly?
This is because it is YOU who starts to move - not the object.Why is it that when you stare at a stationary object for a long time it can appear as if its moving slightly?
Your eyes are focused and by fixing the image they move making the brain think it's moving. Thats what i've been told
i would say its either:
1) you are moving yourself...
2) you expect the object to move hence your brain makes you think it does......
or 3) your eyes are working to focus on the one object, but dont forget you have 2 eyes which one eye sees a different point of view than the other. Even with just a slight adjustment from either or both eyes there will be a shift in your view... and this will occur because your eyes are not stationary unlike a microscope lens or something.
This is because it is YOU who starts to move - not the object.Why is it that when you stare at a stationary object for a long time it can appear as if its moving slightly?
Your eyes are focused and by fixing the image they move making the brain think it's moving. Thats what i've been told
i would say its either:
1) you are moving yourself...
2) you expect the object to move hence your brain makes you think it does......
or 3) your eyes are working to focus on the one object, but dont forget you have 2 eyes which one eye sees a different point of view than the other. Even with just a slight adjustment from either or both eyes there will be a shift in your view... and this will occur because your eyes are not stationary unlike a microscope lens or something.
10 points for how do u work out the final velocity of an object before it hits the ground?
1)a balloon is 21 m above the ground a water is dropped from that height, the bottle accelerate at a uniformaly speed and reaches the ground in 2.1 seconds.
find out the average speed as the bottle falls
i got s=d/t 21/2.1= 10m-1
now it asks show the final velocity is 20m-1 just before it hots the ground.10 points for how do u work out the final velocity of an object before it hits the ground?
And what is your question?10 points for how do u work out the final velocity of an object before it hits the ground?
I think what you got is correct.
Average speed is change in distance over change in time.
= 螖x/螖t
= 21/2.1
= 10 m/s
The question is probably wrong.
What it wants you to do is impossible.
Or maybe I just don't understand the problem well enough.
1) 10ms^-1 10m/s
2) v^2 = u^2 + 2as
v = sqrt (2as)
=sqrt 411.6
= 20.28ms-1
find out the average speed as the bottle falls
i got s=d/t 21/2.1= 10m-1
now it asks show the final velocity is 20m-1 just before it hots the ground.10 points for how do u work out the final velocity of an object before it hits the ground?
And what is your question?10 points for how do u work out the final velocity of an object before it hits the ground?
I think what you got is correct.
Average speed is change in distance over change in time.
= 螖x/螖t
= 21/2.1
= 10 m/s
The question is probably wrong.
What it wants you to do is impossible.
Or maybe I just don't understand the problem well enough.
1) 10ms^-1 10m/s
2) v^2 = u^2 + 2as
v = sqrt (2as)
=sqrt 411.6
= 20.28ms-1
Why do I see two thing if they are in front of the object im foucusing on?
I was trying to determine which eye is dominate yesterday, so I focused on the object, and when I tried to point to it, I found that I saw 2 index fingers. Does anyone know why this happens? Is this normal? Background info, im 14, never worn glasses, this has gone on for as long as I can remember, but I normaly ignore it.Why do I see two thing if they are in front of the object im foucusing on?
Hold one finger 8 inches away and another 16 inches away.
When you fixate one of the fingers the other will double.
This is called physiological diplopia. It is normal.
The term dominant eye doeesn't mean much to an Optometrist.Why do I see two thing if they are in front of the object im foucusing on?
Don't worry. If you would like to tell with eye is dominate, don't do it that way. You have to make a small circle with your fingers, and focus on something your looking at, slowly bring your hand in and it will land over one eye. That is the dominate one.
Hold one finger 8 inches away and another 16 inches away.
When you fixate one of the fingers the other will double.
This is called physiological diplopia. It is normal.
The term dominant eye doeesn't mean much to an Optometrist.Why do I see two thing if they are in front of the object im foucusing on?
Don't worry. If you would like to tell with eye is dominate, don't do it that way. You have to make a small circle with your fingers, and focus on something your looking at, slowly bring your hand in and it will land over one eye. That is the dominate one.
What is the highest speed an object can reach without burning airborn but close to ground?
what is the acceleration of a unmanned launch vehicle?What is the highest speed an object can reach without burning airborn but close to ground?
If you're referring to the surface of the Earth, coasting after reaching speed and ignoring drag, the highest speed is orbital velocity at zero altitude, about 7907 m/s. At any higher speed you're in a higher-energy orbit and are off the surface some of the time.
There is obviously no human health limit for an unmanned launch vehicle (as there is for the Space Shuttle, 3 g), but if you are referring to large payload carriers up to Ariane size, 4-8 g is a practical limit, based on fuel costs for too-low acceleration (more delta-V needed the closer you get to simply hovering at 1 g) and added structural mass needed for high acceleration. Pegasus, an air-launched small-payload carrier, has a peak acceleration of 13 g. If what is being launched is a warhead and the vehicle is some sort of interceptor, up to 50 g (and possibly more) has been used.What is the highest speed an object can reach without burning airborn but close to ground?
Theoretically, light speed. Realistically, we've had objects travel up to Mach 15 and above, objects such as rockets.facial skin care facial wrinkles
If you're referring to the surface of the Earth, coasting after reaching speed and ignoring drag, the highest speed is orbital velocity at zero altitude, about 7907 m/s. At any higher speed you're in a higher-energy orbit and are off the surface some of the time.
There is obviously no human health limit for an unmanned launch vehicle (as there is for the Space Shuttle, 3 g), but if you are referring to large payload carriers up to Ariane size, 4-8 g is a practical limit, based on fuel costs for too-low acceleration (more delta-V needed the closer you get to simply hovering at 1 g) and added structural mass needed for high acceleration. Pegasus, an air-launched small-payload carrier, has a peak acceleration of 13 g. If what is being launched is a warhead and the vehicle is some sort of interceptor, up to 50 g (and possibly more) has been used.What is the highest speed an object can reach without burning airborn but close to ground?
Theoretically, light speed. Realistically, we've had objects travel up to Mach 15 and above, objects such as rockets.
How can you tell if a word is being used as an adverb, object of a preposition, or complement in a sentence?
You have to figure out what the function of the word is.
An adverb modifies a verb, adjective, or another adverb. The object of a preposition is a noun or pronoun linked by the preposition to the rest of the sentence. A complement is the part of a sentence that restates or gives you more information about the subject or object.
The Owl at Purdue is the BEST grammar reference site! http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resour…
An adverb modifies a verb, adjective, or another adverb. The object of a preposition is a noun or pronoun linked by the preposition to the rest of the sentence. A complement is the part of a sentence that restates or gives you more information about the subject or object.
The Owl at Purdue is the BEST grammar reference site! http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resour…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)