It can be any speed, depending on it's kinetic energy (how much energy it has to move; energy of movement), mass, and other factors such as other planets. However, some people say that the speed of light is the fastest any object can go, it depends on how you look at it.What is the speed of an object travelling to infinity when it is 10000000000km from earth?
there's not enough data there all that is given is distance.What is the speed of an object travelling to infinity when it is 10000000000km from earth?
i think around 16000000000 lightyears
Sunday, December 27, 2009
What makes a heeled boot an object of fetishism?
I'll admit I have a serious heel boot fetish, but what makes it so that people are turned on by it?What makes a heeled boot an object of fetishism?
First, let's begin at the bottom. The boot conforms to the shape of the woman's foot and toes, some reveal the shape of the ends of her toes, then continues up her foot clinging tightly showing the shape of her foot. It continues up showing the shape and contour of her leg all the way to the top of the boot. The heel adds a degree of fascination from the difficulty of walking with a heel and some daring to wear a heel. Knowing the the woman's leg and foot are inside adds a mystique. Hope this is a good answer, email if you wish.
First, let's begin at the bottom. The boot conforms to the shape of the woman's foot and toes, some reveal the shape of the ends of her toes, then continues up her foot clinging tightly showing the shape of her foot. It continues up showing the shape and contour of her leg all the way to the top of the boot. The heel adds a degree of fascination from the difficulty of walking with a heel and some daring to wear a heel. Knowing the the woman's leg and foot are inside adds a mystique. Hope this is a good answer, email if you wish.
Would your parents or grandparents secretly object to you in a biracial relationship?
Be honest, we know its wrong to discriminate, but what about the previous generation?Would your parents or grandparents secretly object to you in a biracial relationship?
My parents and grandparents wouldn't secretly object.
They would both openly object.
That being said, if I meet someone who isn't my race I enjoy, I'm going to do what I want.Would your parents or grandparents secretly object to you in a biracial relationship?
Depending on the family they may not say anything to your face to avoid hurting your feelings. But my feeling is sooner or later they would let you know if they have a problem with it. And if they do have a problem with it, they'll just have to get over it.
Nope my mom is very happy that I'm with a black guy. She tells me and him all the time that she always wanted a black son too bad my dad was just as white as she was. lolcleanses clarifying shampoo
My parents and grandparents wouldn't secretly object.
They would both openly object.
That being said, if I meet someone who isn't my race I enjoy, I'm going to do what I want.Would your parents or grandparents secretly object to you in a biracial relationship?
Depending on the family they may not say anything to your face to avoid hurting your feelings. But my feeling is sooner or later they would let you know if they have a problem with it. And if they do have a problem with it, they'll just have to get over it.
Nope my mom is very happy that I'm with a black guy. She tells me and him all the time that she always wanted a black son too bad my dad was just as white as she was. lol
How do people get a big object into a beer bottle?
I've seen shells and toy ships in beer bottles that shouldn't fit in there so my question is, how do they do it?How do people get a big object into a beer bottle?
If your hands shake, forget about trying it yourself!
When I was a kid I thought that they made the model first, and then they would somehow put the bottle around it!
Those artists (I had the chance to watch one of them at work) are very patient, and very careful. They use very delicate 'tools' (anything long and thin can become a tool for them) and plan carefully every move, specially when they handle glue because every mistake is fatal in such an art.How do people get a big object into a beer bottle?
In parts, assembled with special elongated pliers.
Some ships in bottles are assembled outside the bottle, but with the sails down - the sails are raised after the ship goes in the bottle.
If your hands shake, forget about trying it yourself!
When I was a kid I thought that they made the model first, and then they would somehow put the bottle around it!
Those artists (I had the chance to watch one of them at work) are very patient, and very careful. They use very delicate 'tools' (anything long and thin can become a tool for them) and plan carefully every move, specially when they handle glue because every mistake is fatal in such an art.How do people get a big object into a beer bottle?
In parts, assembled with special elongated pliers.
Some ships in bottles are assembled outside the bottle, but with the sails down - the sails are raised after the ship goes in the bottle.
How can I convert a flash object on a webpage to a fla file?
I made a flash effect for my friend's site and he won't let me get the flash back after a fight. I can see the effect on the homepage of his website. Is there any way I can get the flash to an fla file on my computer? Is there any way I can find the swf file on his websites system and convert it to an fla? Please help, thanks.How can I convert a flash object on a webpage to a fla file?
Open the web page where this swf is placed then go for the source code by right clicking on page anywhere. Then find the name of the swf file like if the name is myFlash.swf then search it but if you do not know the name then just search .swf you will get the file path on your friend's web. like it would be yourFriendWeb.com/flash/flashFile.swf or what ever is the name. Then copy the link and paste on your web browser and when the swf is opened then save it by going to File menu.
Now you have the swf file on your PC. Now the task is to convert it to fla. This thing can be done by a flash decompiler like Flash Decompiler Trillix. Decompiling will end up with your orignal fla file. I can e-mail you that decompiler if you give your e-mail address. You can e-mail your e-mail address on coolsun4ever@yahoo.com with a subject Flash Decompiler on Yahoo Answers.
Open the web page where this swf is placed then go for the source code by right clicking on page anywhere. Then find the name of the swf file like if the name is myFlash.swf then search it but if you do not know the name then just search .swf you will get the file path on your friend's web. like it would be yourFriendWeb.com/flash/flashFile.swf or what ever is the name. Then copy the link and paste on your web browser and when the swf is opened then save it by going to File menu.
Now you have the swf file on your PC. Now the task is to convert it to fla. This thing can be done by a flash decompiler like Flash Decompiler Trillix. Decompiling will end up with your orignal fla file. I can e-mail you that decompiler if you give your e-mail address. You can e-mail your e-mail address on coolsun4ever@yahoo.com with a subject Flash Decompiler on Yahoo Answers.
Is it possible to shield an object from the effects of magnets? Can magnetic force be directed with shielding?
I know you can shield objects and electronics/electronic signals %26amp; wires from interference, but that's electromagnetic. I'm talking about a regular neodynium rare earth magnet. Can it be done with a substance, like lead, as opposed to a ';powered'; or electrically induced counterforce?Is it possible to shield an object from the effects of magnets? Can magnetic force be directed with shielding?
Sure. You can concentrate magnetic flux in a shield of a very high-permittivity material (a so-called ';mu-metal';) and thereby direct most of it around something inside. Alternatively, you can put your object-to-be-shielded inside a superconducting cavity: superconductors oppose the introduction of magnetic fields very efficiently.Is it possible to shield an object from the effects of magnets? Can magnetic force be directed with shielding?
Yes, there exist many different types of magnetic shields; they work due to their permeability.
Sure. You can concentrate magnetic flux in a shield of a very high-permittivity material (a so-called ';mu-metal';) and thereby direct most of it around something inside. Alternatively, you can put your object-to-be-shielded inside a superconducting cavity: superconductors oppose the introduction of magnetic fields very efficiently.Is it possible to shield an object from the effects of magnets? Can magnetic force be directed with shielding?
Yes, there exist many different types of magnetic shields; they work due to their permeability.
Object released at equator falls towards Earth due to gravity, where is magnetic force acting on it?
If an object is released at equator and falls towards Earth due to gravity,where is the magnetic force acting on it?
North South East or West?
Why?Object released at equator falls towards Earth due to gravity, where is magnetic force acting on it?
Depends if the object contains any magnetic material. I would guess that if it did, the magnetic force would be acting South. Even though needles etc point to the North pole, the force is actually reversed and is coming from the South Pole.
North South East or West?
Why?Object released at equator falls towards Earth due to gravity, where is magnetic force acting on it?
Depends if the object contains any magnetic material. I would guess that if it did, the magnetic force would be acting South. Even though needles etc point to the North pole, the force is actually reversed and is coming from the South Pole.
What is the name of the object with 5 metal balls connected to strings that swing?
The object has five metal balls in a line that are hanging by a wire and when the one on the edge swings and hits the others the last one on the other side swings as well. People usually have them on tables for decoration I guess.What is the name of the object with 5 metal balls connected to strings that swing?
Pendulum
Here is a picture of it:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=h鈥?/a>What is the name of the object with 5 metal balls connected to strings that swing?
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en%26amp;safe=off%26amp;resnum=0%26amp;q=newton's+cradle%26amp;um=1%26amp;ie=UTF-8%26amp;sa=N%26amp;tab=wi
Newton's Cradle
It is a Newtons Cradle and was quite popular a few years back. Did you ever notice you can't fool it? If you drop three balls, three come up the other side, not two. If you drop two, two come up. You can't get three by slaming two down a little harder! Pretty interesting, huh?
It is called the newtons cradle
Newtons Cradle
Pendulum
Here is a picture of it:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=h鈥?/a>What is the name of the object with 5 metal balls connected to strings that swing?
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en%26amp;safe=off%26amp;resnum=0%26amp;q=newton's+cradle%26amp;um=1%26amp;ie=UTF-8%26amp;sa=N%26amp;tab=wi
Newton's Cradle
It is a Newtons Cradle and was quite popular a few years back. Did you ever notice you can't fool it? If you drop three balls, three come up the other side, not two. If you drop two, two come up. You can't get three by slaming two down a little harder! Pretty interesting, huh?
It is called the newtons cradle
Newtons Cradle
How to find shadow of an object when light is falling at 45 degrees? What is this study called?
When light falls across an object at 45deg the length of the shadow is exactly the same as the height of the object. I was not aware that the study of shadow length had any particular title.cleanses clarifying shampoo
What is the weight of an object on Earth converted to weight on the moon?
For example, if something weighs 3.75 N on Earth, what would the weight in newtons be on the moon?What is the weight of an object on Earth converted to weight on the moon?
About 1/6. Keep in mind that the mass of the object does not change....the weight changes, because weight is the force applied by an object due to the gravitational field it is in.
About 1/6. Keep in mind that the mass of the object does not change....the weight changes, because weight is the force applied by an object due to the gravitational field it is in.
Why does a heavy object not fall faster than a light object?
The force of gravity acting on an object near Earth's surface is proportional to the mass of the object. Why does a heavy object not fall faster than a light object?Why does a heavy object not fall faster than a light object?
yes, the force is proportional to the mass, but so is the acceleration. It cancels. It is the acceleration that is constant even though the force varies.
Gravitational attraction
F = G m₁m₂/r²
G = 6.67e-11 m³/kgs²
m₁ and m₂ are the masses of the two objects in kg
r is the distance in meters between their centers (center of mass)
F=ma
combine the two
ma = G m₁m₂/r²
mass cancels
a = Gm₂/r² where m₂ is the mass of the earth.
.Why does a heavy object not fall faster than a light object?
as you know heavy objects need more force to move them, suppose you have two objects one of them is 10 times heavier than the other one, so it need 10 times the force of the lighter on to move with the same acceleration, when they are both forced to gravity the heavier one faces a gravity force of ten times the lighter one but it needs 10 times the force to get the same acceleration. also you can understand this by equations:
since gravity acceleration is constant regardless of the object mass then any object under gravity will move with an acceleration of (g=9.8m/s^2).
Given the objects are the same size and shape a heavier object will fall faster due to its ';better'; drag coefficient and ability to achieve higher velocity during a drop in the earths atmosphere, saying objects fall the same because gravity acts on them with the same force is just a simplification that makes concepts easier to understand in Physics, also the drag effect is minimal at low speeds and has an increasing effect at much higher speeds needing a great distance to drop objects from which isn't really an easy setup for a classroom to observe.
yes, the force is proportional to the mass, but so is the acceleration. It cancels. It is the acceleration that is constant even though the force varies.
Gravitational attraction
F = G m₁m₂/r²
G = 6.67e-11 m³/kgs²
m₁ and m₂ are the masses of the two objects in kg
r is the distance in meters between their centers (center of mass)
F=ma
combine the two
ma = G m₁m₂/r²
mass cancels
a = Gm₂/r² where m₂ is the mass of the earth.
.Why does a heavy object not fall faster than a light object?
as you know heavy objects need more force to move them, suppose you have two objects one of them is 10 times heavier than the other one, so it need 10 times the force of the lighter on to move with the same acceleration, when they are both forced to gravity the heavier one faces a gravity force of ten times the lighter one but it needs 10 times the force to get the same acceleration. also you can understand this by equations:
since gravity acceleration is constant regardless of the object mass then any object under gravity will move with an acceleration of (g=9.8m/s^2).
Given the objects are the same size and shape a heavier object will fall faster due to its ';better'; drag coefficient and ability to achieve higher velocity during a drop in the earths atmosphere, saying objects fall the same because gravity acts on them with the same force is just a simplification that makes concepts easier to understand in Physics, also the drag effect is minimal at low speeds and has an increasing effect at much higher speeds needing a great distance to drop objects from which isn't really an easy setup for a classroom to observe.
What is the ratio of the shear strain for the larger object to that of the smaller object?
Shear forces are applied to a rectangular solid. The same forces are applied to another rectangular solid of the same material, but with three times each edge length. In each case the forces are small enough that Hooke's law is obeyed.What is the ratio of the shear strain for the larger object to that of the smaller object?
Elastic modulus = Stress/Strain = (Force/Area)/DeltaX/h
since all we really care about is ratio between the strain
Strain = Stress/ElasticModulus
The modulus is a constant as is the force in this question, therefore the only affecting variable is Area, which is L x W or L^2 for a square.
Ratio = L^2/(3L)^2
Elastic modulus = Stress/Strain = (Force/Area)/DeltaX/h
since all we really care about is ratio between the strain
Strain = Stress/ElasticModulus
The modulus is a constant as is the force in this question, therefore the only affecting variable is Area, which is L x W or L^2 for a square.
Ratio = L^2/(3L)^2
How do people get a big object into a beer bottle?
I've seen shells and toy ships in beer bottles that shouldn't fit in there so my question is, how do they do it?How do people get a big object into a beer bottle?
If your hands shake, forget about trying it yourself!
When I was a kid I thought that they made the model first, and then they would somehow put the bottle around it!
Those artists (I had the chance to watch one of them at work) are very patient, and very careful. They use very delicate 'tools' (anything long and thin can become a tool for them) and plan carefully every move, specially when they handle glue because every mistake is fatal in such an art.How do people get a big object into a beer bottle?
In parts, assembled with special elongated pliers.
Some ships in bottles are assembled outside the bottle, but with the sails down - the sails are raised after the ship goes in the bottle.
If your hands shake, forget about trying it yourself!
When I was a kid I thought that they made the model first, and then they would somehow put the bottle around it!
Those artists (I had the chance to watch one of them at work) are very patient, and very careful. They use very delicate 'tools' (anything long and thin can become a tool for them) and plan carefully every move, specially when they handle glue because every mistake is fatal in such an art.How do people get a big object into a beer bottle?
In parts, assembled with special elongated pliers.
Some ships in bottles are assembled outside the bottle, but with the sails down - the sails are raised after the ship goes in the bottle.
Object released at equator falls towards Earth due to gravity, where is magnetic force acting on it?
If an object is released at equator and falls towards Earth due to gravity,where is the magnetic force acting on it?
North South East or West?
Why?Object released at equator falls towards Earth due to gravity, where is magnetic force acting on it?
Depends if the object contains any magnetic material. I would guess that if it did, the magnetic force would be acting South. Even though needles etc point to the North pole, the force is actually reversed and is coming from the South Pole.
North South East or West?
Why?Object released at equator falls towards Earth due to gravity, where is magnetic force acting on it?
Depends if the object contains any magnetic material. I would guess that if it did, the magnetic force would be acting South. Even though needles etc point to the North pole, the force is actually reversed and is coming from the South Pole.
What is the name of the object with 5 metal balls connected to strings that swing?
The object has five metal balls in a line that are hanging by a wire and when the one on the edge swings and hits the others the last one on the other side swings as well. People usually have them on tables for decoration I guess.What is the name of the object with 5 metal balls connected to strings that swing?
Pendulum
Here is a picture of it:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=h鈥?/a>What is the name of the object with 5 metal balls connected to strings that swing?
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en%26amp;safe=off%26amp;resnum=0%26amp;q=newton's+cradle%26amp;um=1%26amp;ie=UTF-8%26amp;sa=N%26amp;tab=wi
Newton's Cradle
It is a Newtons Cradle and was quite popular a few years back. Did you ever notice you can't fool it? If you drop three balls, three come up the other side, not two. If you drop two, two come up. You can't get three by slaming two down a little harder! Pretty interesting, huh?
It is called the newtons cradle
Newtons Cradlecleanses clarifying shampoo
Pendulum
Here is a picture of it:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=h鈥?/a>What is the name of the object with 5 metal balls connected to strings that swing?
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en%26amp;safe=off%26amp;resnum=0%26amp;q=newton's+cradle%26amp;um=1%26amp;ie=UTF-8%26amp;sa=N%26amp;tab=wi
Newton's Cradle
It is a Newtons Cradle and was quite popular a few years back. Did you ever notice you can't fool it? If you drop three balls, three come up the other side, not two. If you drop two, two come up. You can't get three by slaming two down a little harder! Pretty interesting, huh?
It is called the newtons cradle
Newtons Cradle
How to find shadow of an object when light is falling at 45 degrees? What is this study called?
When light falls across an object at 45deg the length of the shadow is exactly the same as the height of the object. I was not aware that the study of shadow length had any particular title.
How to Paste an Object transparently over another object?
I wish to paste say one chain with locket onto my own photo, but after I paste it, it should look transparently visible thru my shirt, as if the shirt is transparently showing my chain and locket from inside.How to Paste an Object transparently over another object?
Paste the object on a new layer (or as a new layer) then lower the opacity of that layer until you get the effect you desire.
Paste the object on a new layer (or as a new layer) then lower the opacity of that layer until you get the effect you desire.
What is the weight of an object on Earth converted to weight on the moon?
For example, if something weighs 3.75 N on Earth, what would the weight in newtons be on the moon?What is the weight of an object on Earth converted to weight on the moon?
About 1/6. Keep in mind that the mass of the object does not change....the weight changes, because weight is the force applied by an object due to the gravitational field it is in.
About 1/6. Keep in mind that the mass of the object does not change....the weight changes, because weight is the force applied by an object due to the gravitational field it is in.
Why does a heavy object not fall faster than a light object?
The force of gravity acting on an object near Earth's surface is proportional to the mass of the object. Why does a heavy object not fall faster than a light object?Why does a heavy object not fall faster than a light object?
yes, the force is proportional to the mass, but so is the acceleration. It cancels. It is the acceleration that is constant even though the force varies.
Gravitational attraction
F = G m₁m₂/r²
G = 6.67e-11 m³/kgs²
m₁ and m₂ are the masses of the two objects in kg
r is the distance in meters between their centers (center of mass)
F=ma
combine the two
ma = G m₁m₂/r²
mass cancels
a = Gm₂/r² where m₂ is the mass of the earth.
.Why does a heavy object not fall faster than a light object?
as you know heavy objects need more force to move them, suppose you have two objects one of them is 10 times heavier than the other one, so it need 10 times the force of the lighter on to move with the same acceleration, when they are both forced to gravity the heavier one faces a gravity force of ten times the lighter one but it needs 10 times the force to get the same acceleration. also you can understand this by equations:
since gravity acceleration is constant regardless of the object mass then any object under gravity will move with an acceleration of (g=9.8m/s^2).
Given the objects are the same size and shape a heavier object will fall faster due to its ';better'; drag coefficient and ability to achieve higher velocity during a drop in the earths atmosphere, saying objects fall the same because gravity acts on them with the same force is just a simplification that makes concepts easier to understand in Physics, also the drag effect is minimal at low speeds and has an increasing effect at much higher speeds needing a great distance to drop objects from which isn't really an easy setup for a classroom to observe.
yes, the force is proportional to the mass, but so is the acceleration. It cancels. It is the acceleration that is constant even though the force varies.
Gravitational attraction
F = G m₁m₂/r²
G = 6.67e-11 m³/kgs²
m₁ and m₂ are the masses of the two objects in kg
r is the distance in meters between their centers (center of mass)
F=ma
combine the two
ma = G m₁m₂/r²
mass cancels
a = Gm₂/r² where m₂ is the mass of the earth.
.Why does a heavy object not fall faster than a light object?
as you know heavy objects need more force to move them, suppose you have two objects one of them is 10 times heavier than the other one, so it need 10 times the force of the lighter on to move with the same acceleration, when they are both forced to gravity the heavier one faces a gravity force of ten times the lighter one but it needs 10 times the force to get the same acceleration. also you can understand this by equations:
since gravity acceleration is constant regardless of the object mass then any object under gravity will move with an acceleration of (g=9.8m/s^2).
Given the objects are the same size and shape a heavier object will fall faster due to its ';better'; drag coefficient and ability to achieve higher velocity during a drop in the earths atmosphere, saying objects fall the same because gravity acts on them with the same force is just a simplification that makes concepts easier to understand in Physics, also the drag effect is minimal at low speeds and has an increasing effect at much higher speeds needing a great distance to drop objects from which isn't really an easy setup for a classroom to observe.
What is the ratio of the shear strain for the larger object to that of the smaller object?
Shear forces are applied to a rectangular solid. The same forces are applied to another rectangular solid of the same material, but with three times each edge length. In each case the forces are small enough that Hooke's law is obeyed.What is the ratio of the shear strain for the larger object to that of the smaller object?
Elastic modulus = Stress/Strain = (Force/Area)/DeltaX/h
since all we really care about is ratio between the strain
Strain = Stress/ElasticModulus
The modulus is a constant as is the force in this question, therefore the only affecting variable is Area, which is L x W or L^2 for a square.
Ratio = L^2/(3L)^2
Elastic modulus = Stress/Strain = (Force/Area)/DeltaX/h
since all we really care about is ratio between the strain
Strain = Stress/ElasticModulus
The modulus is a constant as is the force in this question, therefore the only affecting variable is Area, which is L x W or L^2 for a square.
Ratio = L^2/(3L)^2
Is it possible to embed an object over an image?
I have an image I want to act as the main part of my website, that I'm planning on putting in the center of the page. But I'd like to embed my Twitter activity over the image in a certain location. Is that possible?
Specifically, in the image there will be a box drawn in where I'd like to put the Twitter activity so the drawn box seems like a frame. Hope someone can help!Is it possible to embed an object over an image?
You could try just using the image in the background of the element.
%26lt;div style=';background-image:url('url here');';%26gt;%26lt;!-- Twitter code here --%26gt;%26lt;/div%26gt;
For more info on the background image in CSS, check here:
http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_backgro鈥?/a>cleanses clarifying shampoo
Specifically, in the image there will be a box drawn in where I'd like to put the Twitter activity so the drawn box seems like a frame. Hope someone can help!Is it possible to embed an object over an image?
You could try just using the image in the background of the element.
%26lt;div style=';background-image:url('url here');';%26gt;%26lt;!-- Twitter code here --%26gt;%26lt;/div%26gt;
For more info on the background image in CSS, check here:
http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_backgro鈥?/a>
How do I focus on one object in a photo and make the background blurry?
I have a Nikon D40, and I was wondering if anyone knew how I could achieve this. Aperture settings, Shutter settings, etc.
Also, If you have any other cool techniques that I could use, I'd really appreciate it.
Thanks.How do I focus on one object in a photo and make the background blurry?
Look at your guide Fishmeister, DOF changed with aperture and subject distance. The focal length of the lens merely magnified the example image and did not change the DOF.
I've noticed that what was once correctly called a perceived change is now accepted as a real change. One day DOF will be called Bokeh.
---edit---
The DOFMaster has discovered a new dimension? Set at 35mm film, 105mm, f/32, distance 1鈥?the calculation shows a DOF total of 0.03鈥?with In Front of Subject 0.02鈥?(49%) Behind Subject 0.02鈥?(51%)!How do I focus on one object in a photo and make the background blurry?
use a mode and use low aperture....u will have to mess around with it but use something below f6 and hold down shutter button half way on what you want to be in focus then take picture.
if you need anymore help or have more questions email me....will be glad to help
What you are asking about is Depth of Field (DOF). Three things control DOF:
1) Lens focal length.
2) The f-stop chosen.
3) Subject distance.
At http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html you'll find a good explanation of DOF and a DOF Calculator. You can use the Calculator to compute DOF for any combination of focal length, f-stop and subject distance imaginable. The Calculator allows you to choose your particular camera so its completely accurate.
(A)perture Priority
Open aperture to lowest f number available (physically widest)
Zoom out
Move close to subject while maintaining focus on subject.
Enjoy blurred background
Research ';Depth of Field'; or ';DOF'; for complete details.
Using your camera in manual or aperture priority mode, set the aperture as wide as possible (the lowest value) for the lighting conditions. Move in close to your subject, focus and shoot.
You will have to change the focus mode.
Here is a link on how to do that (in the beige box at the bottom):
http://www.slrphotographyguide.com/camer鈥?/a>
The mode you need to use in order to focus on is the AF-S (area focus-single) mode.
I have noticed that most of these answers here think that aperture entirely controls DOF. This is not true.
There are three things that control it..
1) Aperture
2) Focal Length
3) Distance To Subject
This guide (with examples) will explain it better than I could..
http://bc-photo.smugmug.com/gallery/7394鈥?/a>
+++
';One day DOF will be called Bokeh.';... Most of the kids on here are already calling it that!.
+++
.
The longer your lense the blurrier your background, especially good for portraits.
You want to adjust your aperture.
use a large aperture
Also, If you have any other cool techniques that I could use, I'd really appreciate it.
Thanks.How do I focus on one object in a photo and make the background blurry?
Look at your guide Fishmeister, DOF changed with aperture and subject distance. The focal length of the lens merely magnified the example image and did not change the DOF.
I've noticed that what was once correctly called a perceived change is now accepted as a real change. One day DOF will be called Bokeh.
---edit---
The DOFMaster has discovered a new dimension? Set at 35mm film, 105mm, f/32, distance 1鈥?the calculation shows a DOF total of 0.03鈥?with In Front of Subject 0.02鈥?(49%) Behind Subject 0.02鈥?(51%)!How do I focus on one object in a photo and make the background blurry?
use a mode and use low aperture....u will have to mess around with it but use something below f6 and hold down shutter button half way on what you want to be in focus then take picture.
if you need anymore help or have more questions email me....will be glad to help
What you are asking about is Depth of Field (DOF). Three things control DOF:
1) Lens focal length.
2) The f-stop chosen.
3) Subject distance.
At http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html you'll find a good explanation of DOF and a DOF Calculator. You can use the Calculator to compute DOF for any combination of focal length, f-stop and subject distance imaginable. The Calculator allows you to choose your particular camera so its completely accurate.
(A)perture Priority
Open aperture to lowest f number available (physically widest)
Zoom out
Move close to subject while maintaining focus on subject.
Enjoy blurred background
Research ';Depth of Field'; or ';DOF'; for complete details.
Using your camera in manual or aperture priority mode, set the aperture as wide as possible (the lowest value) for the lighting conditions. Move in close to your subject, focus and shoot.
You will have to change the focus mode.
Here is a link on how to do that (in the beige box at the bottom):
http://www.slrphotographyguide.com/camer鈥?/a>
The mode you need to use in order to focus on is the AF-S (area focus-single) mode.
I have noticed that most of these answers here think that aperture entirely controls DOF. This is not true.
There are three things that control it..
1) Aperture
2) Focal Length
3) Distance To Subject
This guide (with examples) will explain it better than I could..
http://bc-photo.smugmug.com/gallery/7394鈥?/a>
+++
';One day DOF will be called Bokeh.';... Most of the kids on here are already calling it that!.
+++
.
The longer your lense the blurrier your background, especially good for portraits.
You want to adjust your aperture.
use a large aperture
How may I be able to cut out pictures of objects from a picture and place that object in another pic?
I want to know how i can cut around objects(like a cut out) and then place them in another picture.How may I be able to cut out pictures of objects from a picture and place that object in another pic?
go to google search GIMP photo editor. download either a trial or the actual thing and you can use it to cut out stuff around a picture
go to google search GIMP photo editor. download either a trial or the actual thing and you can use it to cut out stuff around a picture
How Can I make an object sink than float without touching it?
In my science class where doing a subject on Submarines were learning how a Submarine works. Can anyone help me I need to know how to make an object sink and float. I need it to sink first than come back up on its own.How Can I make an object sink than float without touching it?
The trick is to include some baking powder that will react with water to produce gasses. Capture these gasses to make your ';submarine'; rise to the surface.
Many years ago I remember a Cap'n Crunch plastic submarine toy that would sink, rise to the surface, then slighly tip to one side and ';burp'; a bubble before sinking again. This would continue until the baking powder was all consumed.
You want something that just barely sinks to begin with.How Can I make an object sink than float without touching it?
That's a tough one.
Perhaps get it close to neutral density, than connect a small weight on the bottom of the boat, with some sort of mechanical trigger so that when the boat hits bottom the weight is released, and the boat will go up.
I had to do this once; look at the source
you would need to build some sort of balast
The trick is to include some baking powder that will react with water to produce gasses. Capture these gasses to make your ';submarine'; rise to the surface.
Many years ago I remember a Cap'n Crunch plastic submarine toy that would sink, rise to the surface, then slighly tip to one side and ';burp'; a bubble before sinking again. This would continue until the baking powder was all consumed.
You want something that just barely sinks to begin with.How Can I make an object sink than float without touching it?
That's a tough one.
Perhaps get it close to neutral density, than connect a small weight on the bottom of the boat, with some sort of mechanical trigger so that when the boat hits bottom the weight is released, and the boat will go up.
I had to do this once; look at the source
you would need to build some sort of balast
What are three things an object can do to cause acceleration?
This is IPC (integrated physics and chemistry), and I got this answer wrong on a test I took. It's probably pretty obvious, but I forgot and I need help answering it.
Thanks!What are three things an object can do to cause acceleration?
technically, there are 2. Change speed, and change direction. If you must have three, it would be speed up, slow down, or change direction.What are three things an object can do to cause acceleration?
how is that not what you asked? That explains why you're in IPC... Report Abuse
speed up,slow down or change direction
Thanks!What are three things an object can do to cause acceleration?
technically, there are 2. Change speed, and change direction. If you must have three, it would be speed up, slow down, or change direction.What are three things an object can do to cause acceleration?
how is that not what you asked? That explains why you're in IPC... Report Abuse
speed up,slow down or change direction
How to find distance of object on incline plane by ignoring resistive forces?
A 1200-kg car is being towed up an 18o incline by means of a rope attached to a truck. The rope makes an angle of 27o with the incline. What is the greatest distance that the car can be towed in the first 7.5s starting from rest if the rope has a breaking strength of 4.6 kN? Ignore all resistive forces on the car.How to find distance of object on incline plane by ignoring resistive forces?
summation forces in x direction
4600cos9 - mgsin18 = ma
solve for a
x = vt + 0.5at^2
x = 0.5at^2
summation forces in x direction
4600cos9 - mgsin18 = ma
solve for a
x = vt + 0.5at^2
x = 0.5at^2
What is the strangest foreign object to ever enter one of your nostrils?
My friend got a pebble stuck up his nose, and I heard of one of my cousins getting a rusty nail stuck in his nose.
What have you had up your nose, or have you heard of anything strange?What is the strangest foreign object to ever enter one of your nostrils?
When I was only about a year old I poked a hole in the outside of my diaper, pulled out the stuffing, and up the nose it went. The docs said I had it all the way up under my eyes in my sinuses.What is the strangest foreign object to ever enter one of your nostrils?
Plain M%26amp;M's and those pinto beans you use for counting in kindergarten...
A straw...was in my glas and I shoved it way up...not pretty
stick-on-earings. and rocks on the kindergarden playground.
l had a fly once.ehen l was riding my bike. not very nice. dont like flies any more.
A Kraft shell (as in shells and cheese). I should point out that it had already been through some level of digestion before it got there, intact, I might ad.
how bout a fly in the middle of the night? lol
a tip of the leef of the pineapple statue
i dont usually stick things up my nose... when i worked at a daycare center a lil girl stuck a ton of playdough up there. luckily it came out when she blew her nose...
I got a lego stuck in my nose. Not a regular one, though. One of those big blue Duplos. Last Monday.
I once lost my car keys up there.
Oh and white rice - by way of exit. Twice.
one of my friends stuck a acorn in his nose
Someone I know stuck a bean up her nose.cleanses clarifying shampoo
What have you had up your nose, or have you heard of anything strange?What is the strangest foreign object to ever enter one of your nostrils?
When I was only about a year old I poked a hole in the outside of my diaper, pulled out the stuffing, and up the nose it went. The docs said I had it all the way up under my eyes in my sinuses.What is the strangest foreign object to ever enter one of your nostrils?
Plain M%26amp;M's and those pinto beans you use for counting in kindergarten...
A straw...was in my glas and I shoved it way up...not pretty
stick-on-earings. and rocks on the kindergarden playground.
l had a fly once.ehen l was riding my bike. not very nice. dont like flies any more.
A Kraft shell (as in shells and cheese). I should point out that it had already been through some level of digestion before it got there, intact, I might ad.
how bout a fly in the middle of the night? lol
a tip of the leef of the pineapple statue
i dont usually stick things up my nose... when i worked at a daycare center a lil girl stuck a ton of playdough up there. luckily it came out when she blew her nose...
I got a lego stuck in my nose. Not a regular one, though. One of those big blue Duplos. Last Monday.
I once lost my car keys up there.
Oh and white rice - by way of exit. Twice.
one of my friends stuck a acorn in his nose
Someone I know stuck a bean up her nose.
What does a four dimensional object really look like?
I'm having trouble picturing a four dimensional object. It has lenght, width, height, and hyperheight, and if you multiply that together, you get the hypervolume in unit hypercubed.
Please give me an insight of how to picture this! Also please tell me about 5 to 10 dimensional shapes if you can!What does a four dimensional object really look like?
Yes, definitely multiple postings...
well... a fourth dimension is time... so anything that changes over time is a fourth dimensional object. But that isn't what you are really asking.
We can only perceive four dimensions with our senses, so perceiving it is difficult. To us it would look as if it were a regular three-dimensional object, perhaps changing over time in some subtle way. Jack L. Chalker did a good job of describing such a structure in his ';Quintarra Marathon'; books. This is similar in idea to how you would describe a three-dimensional object such as a pencil to a person living in a two-dimensional world, at best they could only see a cross-section of the pencil, or if the world they were living on were curved they would see multiple cross-sections and not realize they were the same object (put a pencil through a folded piece of paper).
If you are looking for a way to visualize it to help with problem solving I recommend thinking about it in terms of computer arrays, or a group of three dimensional objects, each can be looked at seperately.
Good luck with your conundrum :-)What does a four dimensional object really look like?
well string theory has some error. Actual calculation show
4.05 x10^-35 meters and the time related to that space is
1.35x10^-43 seconds.
The unit of space time is then equal to=5.475 x 10^-58 meter-seconds. Report Abuse
A tesseract is the best example, but even then it is limited to 3 dimensions in our view.
The answer would take too long for an easy post.
You can read the book ';Warped Passages : Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universe's Hidden Dimensions'; -- by Lisa Randall
(I have no interest or connection with the book, the publishers, or the author.)
L陌FE is 4 dimensional.It looks like life.
Please give me an insight of how to picture this! Also please tell me about 5 to 10 dimensional shapes if you can!What does a four dimensional object really look like?
Yes, definitely multiple postings...
well... a fourth dimension is time... so anything that changes over time is a fourth dimensional object. But that isn't what you are really asking.
We can only perceive four dimensions with our senses, so perceiving it is difficult. To us it would look as if it were a regular three-dimensional object, perhaps changing over time in some subtle way. Jack L. Chalker did a good job of describing such a structure in his ';Quintarra Marathon'; books. This is similar in idea to how you would describe a three-dimensional object such as a pencil to a person living in a two-dimensional world, at best they could only see a cross-section of the pencil, or if the world they were living on were curved they would see multiple cross-sections and not realize they were the same object (put a pencil through a folded piece of paper).
If you are looking for a way to visualize it to help with problem solving I recommend thinking about it in terms of computer arrays, or a group of three dimensional objects, each can be looked at seperately.
Good luck with your conundrum :-)What does a four dimensional object really look like?
well string theory has some error. Actual calculation show
4.05 x10^-35 meters and the time related to that space is
1.35x10^-43 seconds.
The unit of space time is then equal to=5.475 x 10^-58 meter-seconds. Report Abuse
A tesseract is the best example, but even then it is limited to 3 dimensions in our view.
The answer would take too long for an easy post.
You can read the book ';Warped Passages : Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universe's Hidden Dimensions'; -- by Lisa Randall
(I have no interest or connection with the book, the publishers, or the author.)
L陌FE is 4 dimensional.It looks like life.
What is the most distant object discovered by astronomers?
Since light has to travel for 15 billion years to reach us if this light comes from 15 billion light-years, then, this would mean that this light would come from 15 billion years ago, which is the time the big bang happened. So, if there was a telescope powerful enough, we could see the Big Bang.
What is, for now, the farthest we have went in our explorations?What is the most distant object discovered by astronomers?
You cannot see Big Bang because it has already occurred. You could only detect the radiation and the particles using the Hubble and other powerful telescopes. The farthest we went gone to is only to the outer part of our own solar system using the Voyager 1 and 2. If the whole universe is explored, there might not be Earth to come home to.What is the most distant object discovered by astronomers?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4274187/
What is, for now, the farthest we have went in our explorations?What is the most distant object discovered by astronomers?
You cannot see Big Bang because it has already occurred. You could only detect the radiation and the particles using the Hubble and other powerful telescopes. The farthest we went gone to is only to the outer part of our own solar system using the Voyager 1 and 2. If the whole universe is explored, there might not be Earth to come home to.What is the most distant object discovered by astronomers?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4274187/
How can I draw an object to appear high up/elevated above the ground without using arrows or lines?
In this case, I'm trying to draw a camera sitting atop a 50 foot tripod. Any tips are appreciated!How can I draw an object to appear high up/elevated above the ground without using arrows or lines?
perspective drawing.
http://mathforum.org/sum95/math_and/pers鈥?/a>How can I draw an object to appear high up/elevated above the ground without using arrows or lines?
set yourself up a still life and draw what you see. be sure to utilize forshortening and perspective rules.
perspective drawing.
http://mathforum.org/sum95/math_and/pers鈥?/a>How can I draw an object to appear high up/elevated above the ground without using arrows or lines?
set yourself up a still life and draw what you see. be sure to utilize forshortening and perspective rules.
What happens when an immovable object meets an irresistable force?
For example gravity would be an irresistable force and the ground yould be an immovable object. Or any other ways you could think to explain it.What happens when an immovable object meets an irresistable force?
Gravity isn't irresistible, and the ground isn't immovable. Actual irresistible/immovable problems really only happen in philosophy, I'm afraid. In those circles, they're the sort of conundrum that keeps metaphysicians puzzled and metaphysics students infuriated at the university level. ;)
Now if you want to know what happens in the real world when strong forces meet tough objects on roughly equal grounds, there I can help you. In your example, gravity (pulling on an object) and the ground (resisting that pull) meet halfway: the ground gives a little as gravity pushes the object into it. Since the force isn't genuinely irresistible, it can't pull the object all the way into the center of the earth; since the object isn't genuinely immovable, it falls to the ground and leaves a dent. The dent may be large or small, but even in solid rock there is one (it's just too tiny to see).What happens when an immovable object meets an irresistable force?
It would be nice to say '; the irresistable force stops and the immovable object moves! '; However, in the real world the question has little meaning.
An immovable object would have infinite mass or be constrained by an infinite force. An irresistable force implies a force which is infinite in magnitude. Remember, infinity is a concept, not a number.
Gravity isn't irresistible, and the ground isn't immovable. Actual irresistible/immovable problems really only happen in philosophy, I'm afraid. In those circles, they're the sort of conundrum that keeps metaphysicians puzzled and metaphysics students infuriated at the university level. ;)
Now if you want to know what happens in the real world when strong forces meet tough objects on roughly equal grounds, there I can help you. In your example, gravity (pulling on an object) and the ground (resisting that pull) meet halfway: the ground gives a little as gravity pushes the object into it. Since the force isn't genuinely irresistible, it can't pull the object all the way into the center of the earth; since the object isn't genuinely immovable, it falls to the ground and leaves a dent. The dent may be large or small, but even in solid rock there is one (it's just too tiny to see).What happens when an immovable object meets an irresistable force?
It would be nice to say '; the irresistable force stops and the immovable object moves! '; However, in the real world the question has little meaning.
An immovable object would have infinite mass or be constrained by an infinite force. An irresistable force implies a force which is infinite in magnitude. Remember, infinity is a concept, not a number.
What is a normal everyday object with the element iodine in it?
salt is a good sourceWhat is a normal everyday object with the element iodine in it?
Salt (like you put on your food) has iodine in it to help prevent gout.What is a normal everyday object with the element iodine in it?
Kelp, yogurt... There's a few more. Go to the website.
shrimp
Salt (like you put on your food) has iodine in it to help prevent gout.What is a normal everyday object with the element iodine in it?
Kelp, yogurt... There's a few more. Go to the website.
shrimp
How would you explain an object to disappear just a fraction of a second before a lightning bolt strikes?
How would you explain something like that?
A question for trekkies or real scientists?How would you explain an object to disappear just a fraction of a second before a lightning bolt strikes?
It's an illusion. The object is vaporized by the lightning strike, and its plasma as well as the plasma generated in the air is what you see as the lightning strike. The light emitted lags the actual event.How would you explain an object to disappear just a fraction of a second before a lightning bolt strikes?
Q1) I wouldn't
Q2) I wouldn't
Q3) trekkies, certainly (or possibly that magician from 'THe Prestige')cleanses clarifying shampoo
A question for trekkies or real scientists?How would you explain an object to disappear just a fraction of a second before a lightning bolt strikes?
It's an illusion. The object is vaporized by the lightning strike, and its plasma as well as the plasma generated in the air is what you see as the lightning strike. The light emitted lags the actual event.How would you explain an object to disappear just a fraction of a second before a lightning bolt strikes?
Q1) I wouldn't
Q2) I wouldn't
Q3) trekkies, certainly (or possibly that magician from 'THe Prestige')
How can I embed an object from a video clip into another one?
I want to extract an object (a person with his movements-actions) from a video clip and embed the same into another. Is there any software for that?How can I embed an object from a video clip into another one?
Try iMovie on a Mac.
Otherwise, Google.
Try iMovie on a Mac.
Otherwise, Google.
What will happen to an object if it happens to fall inside a black hole?
Please don't give me a wikipedia link or a copy-and-paste from there; I don't understand a word of it. Could the black hole actually teleport you somewhere? Or does the object get crushed?What will happen to an object if it happens to fall inside a black hole?
It will basically get crushed into nothing. Whether it can be a source of ';wormholes'; has not been proven yet, it's just skepticism.What will happen to an object if it happens to fall inside a black hole?
Scientist don't know all the answers, of course, but they are reasonably certain of the following if and when an object falls inside a black hole then:
1. It will experience that flash of embarrassment
2. It will look around to see if anyone saw what happened
3. It will try to smoothly get to its feet, as if it ';meant'; to fall
4. It will discover that it has skinned its knee
5. Despite the pain, it will walk normally until WELL out of the area, at which time it will begin to limp and whimper like a baby
A black hole is an object with a gravitational field so powerful that a region of space becomes cut off from the rest of the universe 鈥?no matter or radiation, including visible light, that has entered the region can ever escape.
It would be interesting if you could sit and watch an object go into a black hole ... The object would actually appear to slow down and stop before it entered, and would begin to turn red and gradually get dimmer and dimmer unti lyou could no longer see it...
How and why this happens is too long to write here...but everything you would want to know is right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
It is sort of like the Borg -resistance is futile. You are just another piece of mass being incorporated into the great mass in a small spherical entity at the end of the black hole. What eventually happens to the hole and its contents is guess. We haven't seen any evidence of a black-hole blowout.
It will Emplode ! Emplode is like explode only instead of the pieces flying outwards in all directions it is crushed inwards towards its own gravity, so it crushed in on itself.
All gone, crunchy, crunchy. Mass density of earth so high after crunching it would be about the size of a baseball still having the same mass and all the space between the atoms and molecules (much less the dust mites) would be gone.
The correct scientific term is anniahlated. It sounds too common but its the process in which a particle comes in contact with its antiparticle and completely destroyed.
After the particles are made into nothing,the left over energy would become antimatter, the definition of a black hole. A great source of energy.
Methods to develop antimatter exist today and are currently being used to make new energy sources and weapons for the military.
One would have to assume that black holes actually exist. Scientists assume they are looking through a vacuum at things millions of miles away. According to what they say, you would just be sucked up and crushed into a dense little speck.
well it might get suck to a parrelle universe.
A black whole is kind of like a trash compactor of the universe. You were just about right on target when you said ';just gets crushed';. At least thats what I learned in astronomy in highschool. haha.
In a brief explanation, yes, objects do get crushed. Generally in a black hole, there exist a gravitional pull so immense, that any objects who are close to it will become indefinitely crushed. The pull is so strong that not even light itself can escape it.
Stretched into infinity.
black holes are mysterious bodies present in space. there are various theories regarding this. some say it is a source for a parrale universe while some say the heat produced will bun anything in its limit. for more info type black holes and search it through google.
Despite overwhelming evidence that black holes do exist they are still just theoretical objects in space. The most popular theory about black holes is that anything pulled in to it gets crushed. But you can't ask a complicated question with out getting a complicated answer. No one really knows what happens. The theory I like is the possibility that light and time go hand in hand with each other, and since light can't even escape the gravity of a black hole that maybe it's an opening to another dimension or possible to another point in time. We probably will not ever know. For right now it's just best guess until astrophysicists can figure out something we don't know yet.
My understanding is that objects falling into black holes get stretched out, and time slows down for them, as they get crushed. So, from the perspective of a person falling into a black hole, billions of years would go by in fast forward, as they are stretched out, spiraling faster and faster around the black hole. But from an outside observer, if they could magically see through the event horizon, the person falling would get crushed.
I think the object in the middle of a black hole is a singularity, that is, an object that occupies no volume but which has a huge mass and infinite density. At least that's my understanding.
As it began to enter the black hole it would stretch and scew. then as it came close it would begin to condense and finally it would become apart of the highly dense matter in the center of the black hole which is often only the size of a needle but contains the amount of matter that is in giant space rocks.
It will basically get crushed into nothing. Whether it can be a source of ';wormholes'; has not been proven yet, it's just skepticism.What will happen to an object if it happens to fall inside a black hole?
Scientist don't know all the answers, of course, but they are reasonably certain of the following if and when an object falls inside a black hole then:
1. It will experience that flash of embarrassment
2. It will look around to see if anyone saw what happened
3. It will try to smoothly get to its feet, as if it ';meant'; to fall
4. It will discover that it has skinned its knee
5. Despite the pain, it will walk normally until WELL out of the area, at which time it will begin to limp and whimper like a baby
A black hole is an object with a gravitational field so powerful that a region of space becomes cut off from the rest of the universe 鈥?no matter or radiation, including visible light, that has entered the region can ever escape.
It would be interesting if you could sit and watch an object go into a black hole ... The object would actually appear to slow down and stop before it entered, and would begin to turn red and gradually get dimmer and dimmer unti lyou could no longer see it...
How and why this happens is too long to write here...but everything you would want to know is right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
It is sort of like the Borg -resistance is futile. You are just another piece of mass being incorporated into the great mass in a small spherical entity at the end of the black hole. What eventually happens to the hole and its contents is guess. We haven't seen any evidence of a black-hole blowout.
It will Emplode ! Emplode is like explode only instead of the pieces flying outwards in all directions it is crushed inwards towards its own gravity, so it crushed in on itself.
All gone, crunchy, crunchy. Mass density of earth so high after crunching it would be about the size of a baseball still having the same mass and all the space between the atoms and molecules (much less the dust mites) would be gone.
The correct scientific term is anniahlated. It sounds too common but its the process in which a particle comes in contact with its antiparticle and completely destroyed.
After the particles are made into nothing,the left over energy would become antimatter, the definition of a black hole. A great source of energy.
Methods to develop antimatter exist today and are currently being used to make new energy sources and weapons for the military.
One would have to assume that black holes actually exist. Scientists assume they are looking through a vacuum at things millions of miles away. According to what they say, you would just be sucked up and crushed into a dense little speck.
well it might get suck to a parrelle universe.
A black whole is kind of like a trash compactor of the universe. You were just about right on target when you said ';just gets crushed';. At least thats what I learned in astronomy in highschool. haha.
In a brief explanation, yes, objects do get crushed. Generally in a black hole, there exist a gravitional pull so immense, that any objects who are close to it will become indefinitely crushed. The pull is so strong that not even light itself can escape it.
Stretched into infinity.
black holes are mysterious bodies present in space. there are various theories regarding this. some say it is a source for a parrale universe while some say the heat produced will bun anything in its limit. for more info type black holes and search it through google.
Despite overwhelming evidence that black holes do exist they are still just theoretical objects in space. The most popular theory about black holes is that anything pulled in to it gets crushed. But you can't ask a complicated question with out getting a complicated answer. No one really knows what happens. The theory I like is the possibility that light and time go hand in hand with each other, and since light can't even escape the gravity of a black hole that maybe it's an opening to another dimension or possible to another point in time. We probably will not ever know. For right now it's just best guess until astrophysicists can figure out something we don't know yet.
My understanding is that objects falling into black holes get stretched out, and time slows down for them, as they get crushed. So, from the perspective of a person falling into a black hole, billions of years would go by in fast forward, as they are stretched out, spiraling faster and faster around the black hole. But from an outside observer, if they could magically see through the event horizon, the person falling would get crushed.
I think the object in the middle of a black hole is a singularity, that is, an object that occupies no volume but which has a huge mass and infinite density. At least that's my understanding.
As it began to enter the black hole it would stretch and scew. then as it came close it would begin to condense and finally it would become apart of the highly dense matter in the center of the black hole which is often only the size of a needle but contains the amount of matter that is in giant space rocks.
What is the most impressive object discovered by an amateur astronomer?
Yeh that is my question.
Could Clyde Tombaugh be considered as an amateur? Although I just read that he has 2 astronomy degrees. However discovering Pluto is pretty impressive.What is the most impressive object discovered by an amateur astronomer?
Here are a couple:
鈥?Kemble's Cascade: a long chain of stars in Camelopardalis, discovered by Father Lucian Kemble, amateur Canadian deep sky observer.
鈥?Comet Hale-Bopp: probably the nicest comet of the last 15 years, discovered independently by two amateurs Alan Hale and Thomas Bopp.
Tombaugh is not considered an amateur.What is the most impressive object discovered by an amateur astronomer?
It depends on what you mean by ';impressive.'; Amateur astronomers have discovered powerful supernovae, gorgeous comets, planets orbiting other stars, and many of the same things the professionals have. There are far more amateur astronomers than professionals, looking at far more of the sky at any one time, and the quality of amateur equipment is good enough that the major difference between well-equipped amateurs and professionals is whether or not they get paid for their telescope time.
Recently Supernova, but remember originally most astronomers were amateurs
Could Clyde Tombaugh be considered as an amateur? Although I just read that he has 2 astronomy degrees. However discovering Pluto is pretty impressive.What is the most impressive object discovered by an amateur astronomer?
Here are a couple:
鈥?Kemble's Cascade: a long chain of stars in Camelopardalis, discovered by Father Lucian Kemble, amateur Canadian deep sky observer.
鈥?Comet Hale-Bopp: probably the nicest comet of the last 15 years, discovered independently by two amateurs Alan Hale and Thomas Bopp.
Tombaugh is not considered an amateur.What is the most impressive object discovered by an amateur astronomer?
It depends on what you mean by ';impressive.'; Amateur astronomers have discovered powerful supernovae, gorgeous comets, planets orbiting other stars, and many of the same things the professionals have. There are far more amateur astronomers than professionals, looking at far more of the sky at any one time, and the quality of amateur equipment is good enough that the major difference between well-equipped amateurs and professionals is whether or not they get paid for their telescope time.
Recently Supernova, but remember originally most astronomers were amateurs
What is the relationship between heat lost by one object and the heat gained by another object?
What is the relationship between heat lost by one object and the heat gained by another object?
What is the law that proves this ?What is the relationship between heat lost by one object and the heat gained by another object?
Heat is a term used to define the amount of energy an object holds. Energy defines how fast the atoms that make up an object move/vibrate. If an object is hot, its atoms vibrate much more than that of an object that is cold.
If a hot object touches a cold object, the energy from the hot object is transfered to the cold one in order to maintain an equilibrium (I know that the term is used differently in some context, but it will do here.)
Example: Water. If it's ice, then it's cold, meaning that the particles that make it up hardly move at all, which is evident by its physical properties: it's a solid. If energy is applied to it, then the particles start moving more, thus causing the ice to turn into water, which is made up of atoms that move more than that of the ice, which makes sense, as water is much more versatile. Then, if more energy is given to the water, then it will turn into gas, whose atoms move a lot more than those of the ice, and those of the water.
The law that governs this is the first Law of Thermodynamics (Also known as the law of conservation of energy), which states: ';Energy is neither created nor destroyed.'; It can change form, such as kinetic energy changing into thermal energy.
What is the law that proves this ?What is the relationship between heat lost by one object and the heat gained by another object?
Heat is a term used to define the amount of energy an object holds. Energy defines how fast the atoms that make up an object move/vibrate. If an object is hot, its atoms vibrate much more than that of an object that is cold.
If a hot object touches a cold object, the energy from the hot object is transfered to the cold one in order to maintain an equilibrium (I know that the term is used differently in some context, but it will do here.)
Example: Water. If it's ice, then it's cold, meaning that the particles that make it up hardly move at all, which is evident by its physical properties: it's a solid. If energy is applied to it, then the particles start moving more, thus causing the ice to turn into water, which is made up of atoms that move more than that of the ice, which makes sense, as water is much more versatile. Then, if more energy is given to the water, then it will turn into gas, whose atoms move a lot more than those of the ice, and those of the water.
The law that governs this is the first Law of Thermodynamics (Also known as the law of conservation of energy), which states: ';Energy is neither created nor destroyed.'; It can change form, such as kinetic energy changing into thermal energy.
How can I mathematically find the acceleration of an object from the position graph of the object?
I don't want to draw the velocity and acceleration graphs so I want to know how I can find the acceleration due to gravity using the graph. The position graph is the graph of the motion of a ball tossed above a motion detector. The detector used a software to draw a graph and I want to find the force of gravity from this graph, which is the same as the acceleration. Please help!How can I mathematically find the acceleration of an object from the position graph of the object?
Mathematically? Well, there are a number of mathematical operations you can use such as multiplication, addition, substraction...or my favorite: division.How can I mathematically find the acceleration of an object from the position graph of the object?
You're graph looks like a parabola, right?
The easiest way do this is to set your reference height (origin of your graph) at the maximum of the parabola. If you've taken algebra 2, you should be able to determine the equation of a parabola just from its graph.
If you don't remember, here's a refresher:
The equation of a parabola has the form: y-k=a(x-h)^2.
k and h refer to the vertex of the parabola. If you've set your reference axis so that the vertex is at the origin like I suggested above, h and k should equal zero.
Now you have y=ax^2.
All that's left to do is solve for a. This is easy, just pick another point on the graph and plug those coordinates into this equation and solve for a.
If gravity still works, your a number should come out to about 4.9. Differentiating this equation twice will yield a constant acceleration value of two times the value that you found for a...probably about 9.8 m/s/s with some margin of error for air friction, etc.
the derivative of it's position with respect to time should give you velocity and take the derivative of the velocity with respect to time will give you the acceleration
distance = 0.5*A*T^2
Start at:
Time = 0
Distance = 0
Measure a time, say 5 seconds
Measure the distance the object moved in that 5 seconds, say 10 meters
then
10 m = 0.5A*5^2
10 = 0.5*25*A
A = 10 / (12.5)
A = 0.8 m/s^2
Mathematically? Well, there are a number of mathematical operations you can use such as multiplication, addition, substraction...or my favorite: division.How can I mathematically find the acceleration of an object from the position graph of the object?
You're graph looks like a parabola, right?
The easiest way do this is to set your reference height (origin of your graph) at the maximum of the parabola. If you've taken algebra 2, you should be able to determine the equation of a parabola just from its graph.
If you don't remember, here's a refresher:
The equation of a parabola has the form: y-k=a(x-h)^2.
k and h refer to the vertex of the parabola. If you've set your reference axis so that the vertex is at the origin like I suggested above, h and k should equal zero.
Now you have y=ax^2.
All that's left to do is solve for a. This is easy, just pick another point on the graph and plug those coordinates into this equation and solve for a.
If gravity still works, your a number should come out to about 4.9. Differentiating this equation twice will yield a constant acceleration value of two times the value that you found for a...probably about 9.8 m/s/s with some margin of error for air friction, etc.
the derivative of it's position with respect to time should give you velocity and take the derivative of the velocity with respect to time will give you the acceleration
distance = 0.5*A*T^2
Start at:
Time = 0
Distance = 0
Measure a time, say 5 seconds
Measure the distance the object moved in that 5 seconds, say 10 meters
then
10 m = 0.5A*5^2
10 = 0.5*25*A
A = 10 / (12.5)
A = 0.8 m/s^2
What happens if an unstoppable object, hits an immovable object, and both of the objects are indestructible?
What happens if an unstoppable object, hits an immovable object, and both of the objects are indestructible?What happens if an unstoppable object, hits an immovable object, and both of the objects are indestructible?
The amount of energy involved would cause an event horizon to surround both objects, and they'd disappear into a black hole.What happens if an unstoppable object, hits an immovable object, and both of the objects are indestructible?
Sparkles.
That's how the world starts!
Joke...
Isaac Asimov answered this question rather neatly, I thought. I can't remember in which of his many books I read it (it was a long time ago), but the gist of his argument was this: A universe in which there exists such a thing as an irresistible force is, by definition, a universe which cannot also contain an immovable object. And a universe which contains an immovable object cannot, by definition, also contain an irresistible force. So the question is essentially meaningless: either the force is irresistible or the object is immovable, but not both.
When an irresistible force such as you,
Meets an old immovable object like me,
You can bet, as sure as you li-i-i-ive;
Somethin's gotta give
Somethin's gotta give
Somethin's gotta give
The correct set-up would be ';What would happen if an immovable object were confronted with an unstoppable force.'; We will have to further define out unstoppable force as having infinite momemtum (right?) and the immovable object having infinite inertia (right.) Therefore, our unstoppable force would have an infinite energy (measure this in joules/calories/whatever) and the unstoppable force would be able to absorb infinite energy.
There would be an endless transfer of energy.
The two would appear as if they are resting, but are actually transferring their infinite energies from one to the other. Equilibrium or a relation would never be established since we're dealing in the infinite regarding energy.
Sad, but true
The best thing I can come up with is it would bounce. Since they are indestructible, the force of the unstopible one would be redirected, and since the change would happen over time, as a whole the object would never stop moving, though at any given time it might not be moving in the same direction with itself. Though the course would be altered, the movement requirement would be met by both objects, as well as the indistructible requirement. It just requires a little elastic deformation.
this question has been asked before!!!
an elastic collision. An inelastic collision requires one of the objects to become deformed.
a body in motion tends to stay in motion and a body at res tends to stay in motion. Einsteins theory of relativity
There is no such thing as an unstoppable force, an immovable object, or an indestructible object. Everything has its limits.
The result is whatever the author thinks would make it a good story, because the only way that will happen is in a book.
It would be a perfectly elstic collision.cleanses clarifying shampoo
The amount of energy involved would cause an event horizon to surround both objects, and they'd disappear into a black hole.What happens if an unstoppable object, hits an immovable object, and both of the objects are indestructible?
Sparkles.
That's how the world starts!
Joke...
Isaac Asimov answered this question rather neatly, I thought. I can't remember in which of his many books I read it (it was a long time ago), but the gist of his argument was this: A universe in which there exists such a thing as an irresistible force is, by definition, a universe which cannot also contain an immovable object. And a universe which contains an immovable object cannot, by definition, also contain an irresistible force. So the question is essentially meaningless: either the force is irresistible or the object is immovable, but not both.
When an irresistible force such as you,
Meets an old immovable object like me,
You can bet, as sure as you li-i-i-ive;
Somethin's gotta give
Somethin's gotta give
Somethin's gotta give
The correct set-up would be ';What would happen if an immovable object were confronted with an unstoppable force.'; We will have to further define out unstoppable force as having infinite momemtum (right?) and the immovable object having infinite inertia (right.) Therefore, our unstoppable force would have an infinite energy (measure this in joules/calories/whatever) and the unstoppable force would be able to absorb infinite energy.
There would be an endless transfer of energy.
The two would appear as if they are resting, but are actually transferring their infinite energies from one to the other. Equilibrium or a relation would never be established since we're dealing in the infinite regarding energy.
Sad, but true
The best thing I can come up with is it would bounce. Since they are indestructible, the force of the unstopible one would be redirected, and since the change would happen over time, as a whole the object would never stop moving, though at any given time it might not be moving in the same direction with itself. Though the course would be altered, the movement requirement would be met by both objects, as well as the indistructible requirement. It just requires a little elastic deformation.
this question has been asked before!!!
an elastic collision. An inelastic collision requires one of the objects to become deformed.
a body in motion tends to stay in motion and a body at res tends to stay in motion. Einsteins theory of relativity
There is no such thing as an unstoppable force, an immovable object, or an indestructible object. Everything has its limits.
The result is whatever the author thinks would make it a good story, because the only way that will happen is in a book.
It would be a perfectly elstic collision.
What was the fiery object in the sky over the Cotswolds tonight?
At about 8.40 this evening we watched a fiery disk travel across the sky above Tetbury in the Cotswolds. It was travelling too quickly to be a balloon and was travelling across the sky at similar speeds to an aeroplane. It also seemed similar in size to an aeroplane to the naked eye, though it was clearly aflame. It was quite difficult to focus on, however, which may suggest it was higher than a plane. Any suggestions as to what it may have been?What was the fiery object in the sky over the Cotswolds tonight?
The ISS crossed the sky at about 8:15, taking about 5 minutes from horizon to horizon. It is very bright (much brighter than Jupiter) and tonight was a very clear sky - well it was 100 miles north of you anyway. I saw both that pass and the next one at about 9:45 which went into the earth's shadow half way across.
Meteors are only visible for a few seconds, so they don't fit your description of ';similar speed to a plane'; but the ISS does cross the sky at about the same apparent speed as a high flying plane, though it is much brighter than most plane lights and it doesn't have any flashing or colored lights..What was the fiery object in the sky over the Cotswolds tonight?
9.10pm last night (Monday 14th September) over Portobello, Edinburgh. Heading north over Fife and ascending. Object looked like an oblong with bulging sides, it appeared translucent and contained clearly visible flames. It seemed quite close initially as it resembled a lampshade (in fact I thought it was a reflection in the window except it was much larger than ours) but took only a few minutes to appear as a fiery dot high up in the distance before we lost sight of it. It was not a balloon, or an aeroplane, or a meteor. Couldn't see if there was any more to its shape as it was dark and cloudy outside.
a meteor like the thousands that burn up in our atmosphere everyday
+Congrats on seeing a fine meteor! Hopefully, you got some nice video of it!
The ISS crossed the sky at about 8:15, taking about 5 minutes from horizon to horizon. It is very bright (much brighter than Jupiter) and tonight was a very clear sky - well it was 100 miles north of you anyway. I saw both that pass and the next one at about 9:45 which went into the earth's shadow half way across.
Meteors are only visible for a few seconds, so they don't fit your description of ';similar speed to a plane'; but the ISS does cross the sky at about the same apparent speed as a high flying plane, though it is much brighter than most plane lights and it doesn't have any flashing or colored lights..What was the fiery object in the sky over the Cotswolds tonight?
9.10pm last night (Monday 14th September) over Portobello, Edinburgh. Heading north over Fife and ascending. Object looked like an oblong with bulging sides, it appeared translucent and contained clearly visible flames. It seemed quite close initially as it resembled a lampshade (in fact I thought it was a reflection in the window except it was much larger than ours) but took only a few minutes to appear as a fiery dot high up in the distance before we lost sight of it. It was not a balloon, or an aeroplane, or a meteor. Couldn't see if there was any more to its shape as it was dark and cloudy outside.
a meteor like the thousands that burn up in our atmosphere everyday
+Congrats on seeing a fine meteor! Hopefully, you got some nice video of it!
What is a random object in which you can compare a person to?
I have to write a simile poem and I am having a hard time coming up with objects in which to compare somebody that I know to. If you would be able to help that would be much appreciated. Thanks if you help.What is a random object in which you can compare a person to?
Depends on the personality of the person.
Examples:
Like a pin ball in a pin ball machine
Like a piece of paper in a wind storm
Like a Red Wood tree, stately and grandWhat is a random object in which you can compare a person to?
A rubix cube perhaps. A lot of the time hard to figure out but no matter how annoying they can be they're still amazing.
A puzzle could do the same thing, with all the pieces fitting to create the person, with the missing pieces representing the parts of them that haven't been created yet.
I am sorry if this answer is completely nonsensical. I was feeling creative haha
She was like a delicate flower, lovely but fragile.
Her eyes where soft and hazy, like a shimmering pool of water.
a wet rug or
the sun
Ex. Shes vibrant like the sun.
Or.
He does nothing, he just sits there like a wet rug.
He's like glass, you can see right through him.
Depends on the personality of the person.
Examples:
Like a pin ball in a pin ball machine
Like a piece of paper in a wind storm
Like a Red Wood tree, stately and grandWhat is a random object in which you can compare a person to?
A rubix cube perhaps. A lot of the time hard to figure out but no matter how annoying they can be they're still amazing.
A puzzle could do the same thing, with all the pieces fitting to create the person, with the missing pieces representing the parts of them that haven't been created yet.
I am sorry if this answer is completely nonsensical. I was feeling creative haha
She was like a delicate flower, lovely but fragile.
Her eyes where soft and hazy, like a shimmering pool of water.
a wet rug or
the sun
Ex. Shes vibrant like the sun.
Or.
He does nothing, he just sits there like a wet rug.
He's like glass, you can see right through him.
What was the brown object to hit Obama's forehead during the Cairo speech?
I don't remember exactly where in the speech it occurred, but I believe it was in the first fifteen minutes or so. A brown, ovular object appeared on the President's forehead, and a moment later, he wiped it away with his hand.
Does anyone know what it was? It confused me a great deal.What was the brown object to hit Obama's forehead during the Cairo speech?
A fly?What was the brown object to hit Obama's forehead during the Cairo speech?
white people are so F**king racist and jealous , all they do is hate lol! no surprise that is what they do all the time even in the simplest life events . obama is going to bring america up again in the eyes of the world , at least now when you travel out of the US no one will throw a shoe at you like bush ahahahahahah that was so funny and oh my god hella funny i can't believe it until today but its true the stupid zombie got hit by a shoe. not all white people but those who think bush was better off plus obama is doing this for us imagine if saudi arabia stops giving US patrol ? no you got his plan 4 us .
well he was doing a lot of brown nosing to the arabs so I'll leave the rest to your imagination
It was a blessing from a Muslim praying ritual , like Ash Wednsday.
roosterm great answer............
Heal mark from a shoe.
Does anyone know what it was? It confused me a great deal.What was the brown object to hit Obama's forehead during the Cairo speech?
A fly?What was the brown object to hit Obama's forehead during the Cairo speech?
white people are so F**king racist and jealous , all they do is hate lol! no surprise that is what they do all the time even in the simplest life events . obama is going to bring america up again in the eyes of the world , at least now when you travel out of the US no one will throw a shoe at you like bush ahahahahahah that was so funny and oh my god hella funny i can't believe it until today but its true the stupid zombie got hit by a shoe. not all white people but those who think bush was better off plus obama is doing this for us imagine if saudi arabia stops giving US patrol ? no you got his plan 4 us .
well he was doing a lot of brown nosing to the arabs so I'll leave the rest to your imagination
It was a blessing from a Muslim praying ritual , like Ash Wednsday.
roosterm great answer............
Heal mark from a shoe.
What kind of underwater object do you think a beta fish will enjoy?
What do you think it would enjoy hidding in? A plant , coral ....What kind of underwater object do you think a beta fish will enjoy?
A BETTA splendens would enjoy a variety of things. Firstly, silk and live plants are the best. Do not put plastic plants in their tanks. Plastic will shred delicate fins.
Hiding places, such as new terra cotta pots with sealed holes are great too. Basically, any decoration that will not tear or harm the betta is enjoyed.
Do not add coral, shells, limestone rock, etc. These materials slowly dissolved in the water. They add ions of calcium to the water that harden the water. Bettas prefer softer water, and the pH fluctuations will stress the betta. The prolonged stress will eventually lead to disease. If in doubt, pour some vinegar on an object and hold your ear close. If you hear some fizzing and popping, the material will dissolve in water, you don't want that.
You can get live plants are local fish stores, or by mail order.What kind of underwater object do you think a beta fish will enjoy?
I have my male betta, Bubbles, in a small tank with a gravel, a silk plant, and a figurine that looks like one of those crazy sculptures from Easter Island. He spends alot of time in and around the plant, with the occasional cruise to check out the statue. If I'm near his tank, he's usually circling the top, begging for food.
i always use baby cuttings of java ferns in my tanks. live plants are really a must in betta tanks as they help with the water quality.
Bettas dont need anything to play with, but plants are very good and it isnt uncommon for people to find there bettas acting cute in hte plants. some will rest on the leaves.
i wouldnt put a live plant in there unless u have a nice size tank. i would go to walmart or a petstore and get some small plants but dont over do it. good luck
You can either get a silk plant, a SMOOTH cave, or some live plants. You can get floating plants, but make sure that they don't cover the entire top of the tank. I recommend some java fern. You can get it at some petsmart and some petco stores, as well as several fish shops. Good luck, and don't get anything sharp or plastic.
A BETTA splendens would enjoy a variety of things. Firstly, silk and live plants are the best. Do not put plastic plants in their tanks. Plastic will shred delicate fins.
Hiding places, such as new terra cotta pots with sealed holes are great too. Basically, any decoration that will not tear or harm the betta is enjoyed.
Do not add coral, shells, limestone rock, etc. These materials slowly dissolved in the water. They add ions of calcium to the water that harden the water. Bettas prefer softer water, and the pH fluctuations will stress the betta. The prolonged stress will eventually lead to disease. If in doubt, pour some vinegar on an object and hold your ear close. If you hear some fizzing and popping, the material will dissolve in water, you don't want that.
You can get live plants are local fish stores, or by mail order.What kind of underwater object do you think a beta fish will enjoy?
I have my male betta, Bubbles, in a small tank with a gravel, a silk plant, and a figurine that looks like one of those crazy sculptures from Easter Island. He spends alot of time in and around the plant, with the occasional cruise to check out the statue. If I'm near his tank, he's usually circling the top, begging for food.
i always use baby cuttings of java ferns in my tanks. live plants are really a must in betta tanks as they help with the water quality.
Bettas dont need anything to play with, but plants are very good and it isnt uncommon for people to find there bettas acting cute in hte plants. some will rest on the leaves.
i wouldnt put a live plant in there unless u have a nice size tank. i would go to walmart or a petstore and get some small plants but dont over do it. good luck
You can either get a silk plant, a SMOOTH cave, or some live plants. You can get floating plants, but make sure that they don't cover the entire top of the tank. I recommend some java fern. You can get it at some petsmart and some petco stores, as well as several fish shops. Good luck, and don't get anything sharp or plastic.
What is the weirdest object you have in your closet?
Mine is:: A ';steam n' go'; thing. It's a thing you put water in and it makes steam so you can steam your clothes...while on the go. .. I've never used it.What is the weirdest object you have in your closet?
I have Jerry Berry's skeleton covered in dried roses. nmWhat is the weirdest object you have in your closet?
I have a piece of stainless steel that's shaped like a bar of soap. It has its own little rubber soap dish. I keep a damp paper towel in the ';soapdish';, under the ';soap';. It's a very effective air freshener. Found the thing at Wally-weird. It's supposed to clean garlic %26amp; onion smell off your hands. Rather whimsical, I guess, but it does work for both jobs.
A Halloween costume for a baby, designed like a flying unicorn, which I have no idea why I bought--I don't have babies around the house.
Art work, movie posters, etc. where no one can see them.
...skeletons...'nuff said...
A big sized plastic skelleton missing an arm, I found him I dont know how at party ( not halloween ) and danced with him and got to name him Tanya!! He sbeen there for like 4 yrs already I think...
My EX in a plastic bag, I hope she doesn't start to smell!
An old (and dead) wasp nest.
I had a dead squirrel in there. Long story. Basically, there was a live squirrel in my house, which I trapped in my closet and inadvertantly killed it by squishing it against a box and the wall when I was trying to shut the door in my panic. I was too scared to open the door again for two days. I was sure it had escaped until I saw a furry tail...
Well the weirdest thing in my closet, the stuff ranges from nude photos of me the wife or someone else to a 200 year old cuco clock. I have so much stuff in that small space I am afraid to look. Hmmmm, I guess the weirdes thing is the photo of me when I was fat, I shot it nude so I could compare it to me when I wasnt fat, Both pics were nude and the wife appreciated the difference, the nude part was just for fun. Oh I have books on everything under the sun there too, cameras, tripods, kites, a filing cabinet, even some clothes. Oh well I am not going to venture into that space to see if I forgot anything. Take care and be good like me if u can. Jim Bob here.
My computer
a Babylonian clay tablet.
a plant
My inlaws clothes. They don't even live with us. They asked us to store it for them a while ago but after a year they never came to get it. Now their closet at home is full again.
i have pictures of my ex, my friend put them on the highest shelf so i couldn't reach them since i'm so short.
I have Jerry Berry's skeleton covered in dried roses. nmWhat is the weirdest object you have in your closet?
I have a piece of stainless steel that's shaped like a bar of soap. It has its own little rubber soap dish. I keep a damp paper towel in the ';soapdish';, under the ';soap';. It's a very effective air freshener. Found the thing at Wally-weird. It's supposed to clean garlic %26amp; onion smell off your hands. Rather whimsical, I guess, but it does work for both jobs.
A Halloween costume for a baby, designed like a flying unicorn, which I have no idea why I bought--I don't have babies around the house.
Art work, movie posters, etc. where no one can see them.
...skeletons...'nuff said...
A big sized plastic skelleton missing an arm, I found him I dont know how at party ( not halloween ) and danced with him and got to name him Tanya!! He sbeen there for like 4 yrs already I think...
My EX in a plastic bag, I hope she doesn't start to smell!
An old (and dead) wasp nest.
I had a dead squirrel in there. Long story. Basically, there was a live squirrel in my house, which I trapped in my closet and inadvertantly killed it by squishing it against a box and the wall when I was trying to shut the door in my panic. I was too scared to open the door again for two days. I was sure it had escaped until I saw a furry tail...
Well the weirdest thing in my closet, the stuff ranges from nude photos of me the wife or someone else to a 200 year old cuco clock. I have so much stuff in that small space I am afraid to look. Hmmmm, I guess the weirdes thing is the photo of me when I was fat, I shot it nude so I could compare it to me when I wasnt fat, Both pics were nude and the wife appreciated the difference, the nude part was just for fun. Oh I have books on everything under the sun there too, cameras, tripods, kites, a filing cabinet, even some clothes. Oh well I am not going to venture into that space to see if I forgot anything. Take care and be good like me if u can. Jim Bob here.
My computer
a Babylonian clay tablet.
a plant
My inlaws clothes. They don't even live with us. They asked us to store it for them a while ago but after a year they never came to get it. Now their closet at home is full again.
i have pictures of my ex, my friend put them on the highest shelf so i couldn't reach them since i'm so short.
What qualifications must an object have in order to be considered living according to organicism?
what about mechanicism and vitalism?
i know for organicism for something to be living it's not just about composition, but organization...is there anything else?What qualifications must an object have in order to be considered living according to organicism?
Internal organs, the ability to intake energy and disperse energy?
I mean really, what IS NOT living? The Human being is comprised of so many atoms, is not every atom in its body then alive? And if not, then what about the Human is living?
I see the Earth as a living organism and beyond that I see the universe as an eternal creature made up of an eternal amount of living finite ones, kinda the same as our body, except we are a finite creature made up of various finite ones (atoms, molecules, sensory organs, etc.).What qualifications must an object have in order to be considered living according to organicism?
the DNA-RNA coding system for reproducibility,
must be GOAL ORIENTED
2 A-levels at b+ and a diploma in spoonery.cleanses clarifying shampoo
i know for organicism for something to be living it's not just about composition, but organization...is there anything else?What qualifications must an object have in order to be considered living according to organicism?
Internal organs, the ability to intake energy and disperse energy?
I mean really, what IS NOT living? The Human being is comprised of so many atoms, is not every atom in its body then alive? And if not, then what about the Human is living?
I see the Earth as a living organism and beyond that I see the universe as an eternal creature made up of an eternal amount of living finite ones, kinda the same as our body, except we are a finite creature made up of various finite ones (atoms, molecules, sensory organs, etc.).What qualifications must an object have in order to be considered living according to organicism?
the DNA-RNA coding system for reproducibility,
must be GOAL ORIENTED
2 A-levels at b+ and a diploma in spoonery.
What was the last object you had a meaningful one sided conversation with?
.
What did you talk about?
And did it make you feel better?
Talking to my spoon always makes me feel a lil upside down
;)
.What was the last object you had a meaningful one sided conversation with?
My ice cream. It made me angry becuz it melted in the ****** freezer! WTF??? damn it walmart ice cream!What was the last object you had a meaningful one sided conversation with?
You and Shawna Monique. It made me feel happy that u took the tyme to listen to wat I have to say, and for wat I wanna help Shawna for what she need helps wit. hey I also took to my spoon while eating ice cream.
Billy Jr. I asked him how cold does the shower need to be in the morning before he'll lay down? Afterwards I felt cold, exposed and used. Not unlike the feeling I got when my guy friends caught me buying tickets to see Mama Mia! ... by myself.
LOL Well I didn't actually talk to it but I really thought about it. It was this picture:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/10…
My computer, it is the source of my pleasures and my pains.
effing 'ell, who needs a missus? lol
Myself about many subjects I always feel better when I have a one sided conversation with myself.
Lmaooooo.
OBJECT? my teddy bear makes my day every single day!
the mirror.
telling it to be a bit more generous in the mornings.
A bottle of Coke Zero, telling him I am gonna introduce him to a Captain when we get out of work this morning.
the lamp post outside, it called lord, wondering why he never called after their one night in heaven ;)
chicken salad
My brain.
yes it helped
Mrs. Mangle who shares my room with me dear - I consider her an ';object'; because she was dead at the time.
I'm always shouting at my car when driving, it helps !! ;-)
My dogs normally
Hi Venus
This bottle of water , it is doing my head in , the top will not come off..
a woman
lots of things
nope
My Cats lol
i talk to my laptop
my joint telling him how wonderful full he is
i talk to my penis. he talks back. we go bowling together.
What did you talk about?
And did it make you feel better?
Talking to my spoon always makes me feel a lil upside down
;)
.What was the last object you had a meaningful one sided conversation with?
My ice cream. It made me angry becuz it melted in the ****** freezer! WTF??? damn it walmart ice cream!What was the last object you had a meaningful one sided conversation with?
You and Shawna Monique. It made me feel happy that u took the tyme to listen to wat I have to say, and for wat I wanna help Shawna for what she need helps wit. hey I also took to my spoon while eating ice cream.
Billy Jr. I asked him how cold does the shower need to be in the morning before he'll lay down? Afterwards I felt cold, exposed and used. Not unlike the feeling I got when my guy friends caught me buying tickets to see Mama Mia! ... by myself.
LOL Well I didn't actually talk to it but I really thought about it. It was this picture:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/10…
My computer, it is the source of my pleasures and my pains.
effing 'ell, who needs a missus? lol
Myself about many subjects I always feel better when I have a one sided conversation with myself.
Lmaooooo.
OBJECT? my teddy bear makes my day every single day!
the mirror.
telling it to be a bit more generous in the mornings.
A bottle of Coke Zero, telling him I am gonna introduce him to a Captain when we get out of work this morning.
the lamp post outside, it called lord, wondering why he never called after their one night in heaven ;)
chicken salad
My brain.
yes it helped
Mrs. Mangle who shares my room with me dear - I consider her an ';object'; because she was dead at the time.
I'm always shouting at my car when driving, it helps !! ;-)
My dogs normally
Hi Venus
This bottle of water , it is doing my head in , the top will not come off..
a woman
lots of things
nope
My Cats lol
i talk to my laptop
my joint telling him how wonderful full he is
i talk to my penis. he talks back. we go bowling together.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
How fast would an object be moving the instant it went through the event horizon of a black hole?
While the previous answer is technically correct, if an object were to enter the event horizon of a black hole, it could be moving (according to an external reference frame) at anywhere from almost no speed to the speed of light. If this last were the case, such as with a photon with a trajectory perfectly orthogonal to the surface of the event horizon, it would appear the same from all frames of reference. Basically, there's no set speed anything would have to be moving at relative to the black hole.
Edit: A black hole does not have infinite gravity. Gravitationally, it is exactly like any other object, only in this case the matter is condensed into an infinitesimal space: the density goes to infinity.How fast would an object be moving the instant it went through the event horizon of a black hole?
2000kphHow fast would an object be moving the instant it went through the event horizon of a black hole?
For all we know nothing can ever pass the event horizon. Time slows down in gravitational fields. Since a black hole has ';infinite'; gravity, it's possible that you could be at the event horizon and watch the death of the universe around you before the black hole finally decayed. our physics breaks down at these extremes.
it would be going faster than the speed of light otherwise it wouldnt be able to reach escape velocity as we know nothing can escape a black hole even light thus we can conclude that anything beyond the event horizon is going faster than
i agree wid the 2nd answerer completely....but i donno if black holes grow..so i am gonna keenly track ur question
Edit: A black hole does not have infinite gravity. Gravitationally, it is exactly like any other object, only in this case the matter is condensed into an infinitesimal space: the density goes to infinity.How fast would an object be moving the instant it went through the event horizon of a black hole?
2000kphHow fast would an object be moving the instant it went through the event horizon of a black hole?
For all we know nothing can ever pass the event horizon. Time slows down in gravitational fields. Since a black hole has ';infinite'; gravity, it's possible that you could be at the event horizon and watch the death of the universe around you before the black hole finally decayed. our physics breaks down at these extremes.
it would be going faster than the speed of light otherwise it wouldnt be able to reach escape velocity as we know nothing can escape a black hole even light thus we can conclude that anything beyond the event horizon is going faster than
i agree wid the 2nd answerer completely....but i donno if black holes grow..so i am gonna keenly track ur question
What elements of an object determine the color that will be reflected from it?
I understand that when light hits an object it absorbs all color, the color that the object does not obsorb gets reflected.. For instance a red apple absorbs all the color in the spectrum except red.. That is why we see the color red in the apple, however what element determines what will not be obsorbed by any particular object?What elements of an object determine the color that will be reflected from it?
it all depends upon the intermolecular structure of that material. wat happens is that when light is directed on any object the electrons within the material get excited and try to leave their orbit but they are unable to do so and hence fall back to their holes and release the absorbed energy in the form of light. thats y gold has its goldish colour and silver has its own. now this colour is visible to us and out of seven colour in the light only that colour is reflected that is released by that material during the process of electron holes recombinationWhat elements of an object determine the color that will be reflected from it?
So does that mean that a peacock feather has different intermolecular material inside it? What is this material that makes lets say 1 peice of the feather look blue and the other look green? is there a name of this material? or is it just a hypothosis? Report Abuse
the chemicals inside it, Plants have chloraplasts, thus reflect green
it all depends upon the intermolecular structure of that material. wat happens is that when light is directed on any object the electrons within the material get excited and try to leave their orbit but they are unable to do so and hence fall back to their holes and release the absorbed energy in the form of light. thats y gold has its goldish colour and silver has its own. now this colour is visible to us and out of seven colour in the light only that colour is reflected that is released by that material during the process of electron holes recombinationWhat elements of an object determine the color that will be reflected from it?
So does that mean that a peacock feather has different intermolecular material inside it? What is this material that makes lets say 1 peice of the feather look blue and the other look green? is there a name of this material? or is it just a hypothosis? Report Abuse
the chemicals inside it, Plants have chloraplasts, thus reflect green
What is an ordinary object that weighs exactly 1 gram which I can also bring to school?
No food please, just a common object that weighs exactly 1 gram which I can bring to school. Thanks!What is an ordinary object that weighs exactly 1 gram which I can also bring to school?
a medium sized paperclip buddy. we weighed paperclips in science class yesterdayWhat is an ordinary object that weighs exactly 1 gram which I can also bring to school?
a paperclip, weighs exactly 1 gram
a medium sized paperclip buddy. we weighed paperclips in science class yesterdayWhat is an ordinary object that weighs exactly 1 gram which I can also bring to school?
a paperclip, weighs exactly 1 gram
How fast would an object have to move to stay in Earth orbit at treetop level?
Things stay in orbit by moving fast enough to resist gravity, right? And the more mass an object has, the slower it can move without falling out of orbit. So how fast would an object the size of an airliner have to be moving to stay in orbit at treetop level, ';flying'; without wings? I know it's impractical, but just curious.How fast would an object have to move to stay in Earth orbit at treetop level?
Mass has nothing to do with it:
v^2/r = g; v = sqrt(rg) = sqrt(6.4 x 10^6 m x 9.8 m/s^2) = 7200 m/s = 28500 km/h
At this speed, the object would circle the earth in just under an hour and a half.How fast would an object have to move to stay in Earth orbit at treetop level?
No. The speed in an orbit, and the period of the orbit, are both functions of the semimajor axis of the orbit. The period is the time to make one complete trip around the planet, as measured in reference to the stars (i.e., the sidereal period).
P = sqrt { 4 pi a^3 / (GM) } Report Abuse
v = sqrt { GM ( 2/r - 1/a ) }
G = the gravitational constant = 6.673E-11 m^3 kg^-1 sec^-2
M = the mass of Earth = 5.974E+24 kg
a = the semimajor axis of the orbit in meters
r = the current distance from the center of the Earth Report Abuse
The reason the international space station moves almost as fast and completes an orbit in almost the same time as something in orbit at treetop level is that the altitude of the ISS (350 km) is small compared with the radius of Earth (6378 km). Report Abuse
wasn't that a short story by Isaac Asimov?
only it was on Mars?
%26lt;edit%26gt;
looks like i need to correct myself. Some guy named McGruff posted this:
';';My favorite form within the sci-fi genre is the short story, and one especially cute little tale that stuck in my head is about Mars. I read ';The Holes Around Mars'; by (Jerome) Bixby in an anthology, although it was most likely first published in a magazine. As with some of the best sci-fi stories, this one includes a good bit of humor. The story is about solving the mystery of a series of holes that the first human explorers discovered when they landed on the planet. Eventually, they find that these are caused by a moon orbiting so low that people have to duck so as not to be in its path. The final pun is a real groaner. Because the other two moons of Mars are called Phobos and Deimos, this lowest orbiting moon is named Bottomos.';';
This tree top level thing.. Don't think you could get anything going fast enough. Think the shuttle orbits at 12,000 mph with no resistance.
It's what is inside the Earth's atmosphere that makes this one impossible
It would have to travel at about 25,000 miles per hour no matter how big or massive it was.
Faesson stole my thoughts. I remember that short story, and thought of it as soon as I read your question.
.
Mass has nothing to do with it:
v^2/r = g; v = sqrt(rg) = sqrt(6.4 x 10^6 m x 9.8 m/s^2) = 7200 m/s = 28500 km/h
At this speed, the object would circle the earth in just under an hour and a half.How fast would an object have to move to stay in Earth orbit at treetop level?
No. The speed in an orbit, and the period of the orbit, are both functions of the semimajor axis of the orbit. The period is the time to make one complete trip around the planet, as measured in reference to the stars (i.e., the sidereal period).
P = sqrt { 4 pi a^3 / (GM) } Report Abuse
v = sqrt { GM ( 2/r - 1/a ) }
G = the gravitational constant = 6.673E-11 m^3 kg^-1 sec^-2
M = the mass of Earth = 5.974E+24 kg
a = the semimajor axis of the orbit in meters
r = the current distance from the center of the Earth Report Abuse
The reason the international space station moves almost as fast and completes an orbit in almost the same time as something in orbit at treetop level is that the altitude of the ISS (350 km) is small compared with the radius of Earth (6378 km). Report Abuse
wasn't that a short story by Isaac Asimov?
only it was on Mars?
%26lt;edit%26gt;
looks like i need to correct myself. Some guy named McGruff posted this:
';';My favorite form within the sci-fi genre is the short story, and one especially cute little tale that stuck in my head is about Mars. I read ';The Holes Around Mars'; by (Jerome) Bixby in an anthology, although it was most likely first published in a magazine. As with some of the best sci-fi stories, this one includes a good bit of humor. The story is about solving the mystery of a series of holes that the first human explorers discovered when they landed on the planet. Eventually, they find that these are caused by a moon orbiting so low that people have to duck so as not to be in its path. The final pun is a real groaner. Because the other two moons of Mars are called Phobos and Deimos, this lowest orbiting moon is named Bottomos.';';
This tree top level thing.. Don't think you could get anything going fast enough. Think the shuttle orbits at 12,000 mph with no resistance.
It's what is inside the Earth's atmosphere that makes this one impossible
It would have to travel at about 25,000 miles per hour no matter how big or massive it was.
Faesson stole my thoughts. I remember that short story, and thought of it as soon as I read your question.
.
What happens when an object on a circular track is accelerated faster than the speed of light? Time travel?
What happens when an object on a circular track is accelerated faster than the speed of light? Time travel? Will the object run into itself?What happens when an object on a circular track is accelerated faster than the speed of light? Time travel?
Its mass becomes infinite What happens when an object on a circular track is accelerated faster than the speed of light? Time travel?
Albert Einstein hypothesized it is impossible to travel faster than light. So, I suppose this is science fiction. If you could travel faster than the speed of light, I suppose you could travel through time, the object could run into itself, it could break apart and be in many places at once, it could jump through space (hyperspace, warp, wormhole, all sorts of terminology for this), or any number of other ideas.
But, in short, travelling faster than the speed of light is a false premise.
That's interesting. According to Einstein, any object approaching the speed of light becomes total energy. The mass disappears, it becomes energy. Besides, you can't accelerate anything beyond the speed of light. Light is supposed to be the limit, the ultimate in the Physical aspect. Thought waves, they say are faster than light, it could go to the past and to the future, but that is either occult or Sci-Fi.
So, light in a circular path? You have violated so many assumptions. First, you accelerated beyond the speed of light, then you bend light. Wow. Einstein destroyed the Law of conservation of Matter, that matter can neither be created or destroyed. But you went beyond Einstein. Keep up dude. Nice imagination. It doesn't cost us any.
Since no object can go faster than the speed of light anyway, what difference would it make if it's on a straight or circular path?
Light speed isn't infinite speed, it's just very very fast. Even if you could get something to go that fast on a circular pathway (and we nearly do just that with particle accelerators), it will still never run into itself.
Why would it run into itself? It can't move faster than itself, since it has to have a finite speed. Since we are unsure of the properties and changes that occur when an object reaches this theoretical speed, it's a bit of a moot question.
when an observer sees the object travel at the speed of light, it length may appear shorter..
the object may also gain weight..
that is according to einstein..
simply if something was to traval faster than the speed of light it would convert and have infinite mass. very confusing and long theory behind it.
you can't go faster than the speed of light, sorry.
Maybe it vanishes at that speed.
i travel ';10x the speed of light.';cleanses clarifying shampoo
Its mass becomes infinite What happens when an object on a circular track is accelerated faster than the speed of light? Time travel?
Albert Einstein hypothesized it is impossible to travel faster than light. So, I suppose this is science fiction. If you could travel faster than the speed of light, I suppose you could travel through time, the object could run into itself, it could break apart and be in many places at once, it could jump through space (hyperspace, warp, wormhole, all sorts of terminology for this), or any number of other ideas.
But, in short, travelling faster than the speed of light is a false premise.
That's interesting. According to Einstein, any object approaching the speed of light becomes total energy. The mass disappears, it becomes energy. Besides, you can't accelerate anything beyond the speed of light. Light is supposed to be the limit, the ultimate in the Physical aspect. Thought waves, they say are faster than light, it could go to the past and to the future, but that is either occult or Sci-Fi.
So, light in a circular path? You have violated so many assumptions. First, you accelerated beyond the speed of light, then you bend light. Wow. Einstein destroyed the Law of conservation of Matter, that matter can neither be created or destroyed. But you went beyond Einstein. Keep up dude. Nice imagination. It doesn't cost us any.
Since no object can go faster than the speed of light anyway, what difference would it make if it's on a straight or circular path?
Light speed isn't infinite speed, it's just very very fast. Even if you could get something to go that fast on a circular pathway (and we nearly do just that with particle accelerators), it will still never run into itself.
Why would it run into itself? It can't move faster than itself, since it has to have a finite speed. Since we are unsure of the properties and changes that occur when an object reaches this theoretical speed, it's a bit of a moot question.
when an observer sees the object travel at the speed of light, it length may appear shorter..
the object may also gain weight..
that is according to einstein..
simply if something was to traval faster than the speed of light it would convert and have infinite mass. very confusing and long theory behind it.
you can't go faster than the speed of light, sorry.
Maybe it vanishes at that speed.
i travel ';10x the speed of light.';
What is the smallest object an electron microscope can observe?
What is the range of an electron microscope? Is it enough to view cell membranes or even the double helix?
How about single atoms? And why is there a limit to its capability?What is the smallest object an electron microscope can observe?
Even atoms have been directly observed using the electron microscope. You can google for some pictures. There is a minimum size-limit though. The minimum size of the 'object' that can be observed is the De Broglie -wavelength of the electron.
Remember that particles are also waves. Now since the particle is a wave, it has a wavelength relative to its mass and velocity. A wave can never hit an object that is smaller than its wavelength. That's why. You can always increase the speed of the electrons to view smaller and smaller 'objects', but the electron-microscope requires the electrons to reflect back from the atoms, and as such increasing speed will likely destabilize the picture. Also, observing the particle (hitting it with an electron) will definitely cause the observed particle to move. So the picture gained is never the current situation, but the situation before the collision. Any observation of a particle alters its place and speed.
More about particle-waves here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_broglie_鈥?/a>What is the smallest object an electron microscope can observe?
Transmission Electron Microscopes have produced images with sufficient resolution to show carbon atoms in diamond and atoms in silicon, at magnifications of 50 million times.
The limit to the capability of electron microscopes is the wavelength of electrons.
I believe with electron microscopes, we can view arrays of atoms, but in black and white.
As to the limit question, when we're talking about things as small as subatomic particles, attempting to observe these particles would disrupt their natural behaviour.
How about single atoms? And why is there a limit to its capability?What is the smallest object an electron microscope can observe?
Even atoms have been directly observed using the electron microscope. You can google for some pictures. There is a minimum size-limit though. The minimum size of the 'object' that can be observed is the De Broglie -wavelength of the electron.
Remember that particles are also waves. Now since the particle is a wave, it has a wavelength relative to its mass and velocity. A wave can never hit an object that is smaller than its wavelength. That's why. You can always increase the speed of the electrons to view smaller and smaller 'objects', but the electron-microscope requires the electrons to reflect back from the atoms, and as such increasing speed will likely destabilize the picture. Also, observing the particle (hitting it with an electron) will definitely cause the observed particle to move. So the picture gained is never the current situation, but the situation before the collision. Any observation of a particle alters its place and speed.
More about particle-waves here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_broglie_鈥?/a>What is the smallest object an electron microscope can observe?
Transmission Electron Microscopes have produced images with sufficient resolution to show carbon atoms in diamond and atoms in silicon, at magnifications of 50 million times.
The limit to the capability of electron microscopes is the wavelength of electrons.
I believe with electron microscopes, we can view arrays of atoms, but in black and white.
As to the limit question, when we're talking about things as small as subatomic particles, attempting to observe these particles would disrupt their natural behaviour.
What is a concrete object that can be used to represent something from Julius Caesar?
I need a concrete object or ';prop'; that represents something from Julius Caesar to present in my english class. I know a dagger would be a good idea [and a cloak] but what is something else that I can use?What is a concrete object that can be used to represent something from Julius Caesar?
A toga, a laurel wreath, or a scroll representing the petition that the Senators had called Caesar to the forum to read when they assassinated him.
A toga, a laurel wreath, or a scroll representing the petition that the Senators had called Caesar to the forum to read when they assassinated him.
What building or large object is only viewed always from a single distance?
Meaning is there a building or large object ( such as public toilet block ) which is always viewed at the same distance but not necessarily in the same location.What building or large object is only viewed always from a single distance?
Geosynchronous satellite.What building or large object is only viewed always from a single distance?
The Moon and the Sun are both sufficiently far enough away from the Earth's surface that the viewing distance is unchanged as the viewer moves around the globe.
If you count astronauts, then the Sun.
Geosynchronous satellite.What building or large object is only viewed always from a single distance?
The Moon and the Sun are both sufficiently far enough away from the Earth's surface that the viewing distance is unchanged as the viewer moves around the globe.
If you count astronauts, then the Sun.
What is a good object to compare yourself to?
Weird question, I know. I'm taking a speech class at my university and one of the assignments is to pick out a random object, write a speech about it and read your speech infront of the class. I've been trying for two days to think of something cool, but I've failed. %26amp;It can't be a physical comparison either. It can even be food too, it just can't be a big object that I wouldn't be able to take into class. Any suggestions?What is a good object to compare yourself to?
A marshmallow. A bit tough on the outside, but very soft and sweet on the inside.
Salad. A lot of different parts that come together for one delicious dish.
An umbrella. Quiet and unassuming when not needed. But when the rain starts to pour, you are there.
A pillow. Always there for someone to rest their head on.
A lamp/flashlight/candle/lighter. Shines brightest in the dark.
A marshmallow. A bit tough on the outside, but very soft and sweet on the inside.
Salad. A lot of different parts that come together for one delicious dish.
An umbrella. Quiet and unassuming when not needed. But when the rain starts to pour, you are there.
A pillow. Always there for someone to rest their head on.
A lamp/flashlight/candle/lighter. Shines brightest in the dark.
What is a good object oriented programing language to learn?
I am seriously looking into going back to programming as I would like to participate in the open source community. I am currently running in a Linux enviroment. I do have a background with VB and I did do a little BASIC programing on my TI-83+ (although it has been a long time and I dont't count this expirence for very much). What language would you reccomend for me to learn and why?What is a good object oriented programing language to learn?
If you plan to work with open source, C++ is very important, with Java as a strong contender. Either of those two will be a good choice. Simply those two languages cover a strong majority of the open source projects in existence.
If you want to look at Linux itself, you'll need plain C.What is a good object oriented programing language to learn?
Java and/or C++
If you plan to work with open source, C++ is very important, with Java as a strong contender. Either of those two will be a good choice. Simply those two languages cover a strong majority of the open source projects in existence.
If you want to look at Linux itself, you'll need plain C.What is a good object oriented programing language to learn?
Java and/or C++
How can the liberals object to Sarah Palin's candidacy without blowing to smithereens the entire justification?
...for affirmative action?
Sure, she's unqualified, and ignorant to boot, and so what? Are they saying she should have to go through everything a man has to go through before she can be considered ready for the job? Then they have just blown to smithereens the entire justification for affirmative action.
A third-generation freethinkerHow can the liberals object to Sarah Palin's candidacy without blowing to smithereens the entire justification?
';Then they have just blown to smithereens the entire justification for affirmative action.';
Crap !
You are suggesting I should agree with her cos she's a woman?
I disagree with everything she stand for no matter how milfy she is.
If she believed in the same things I do I would support her.
Forth generation atheist.
~
How can the liberals object to Sarah Palin's candidacy without blowing to smithereens the entire justification?
I don't think you understand what affirmative action actually is. I'm no lawyer, but I think affirmative action stands for the proposition that as between two equally qualified candidates applying for a job at a firm or in an industry with a history of racial discrimination, race can be considered as a factor. That's it. Besides, if you think that affirmative action beneficiaries can't be fired in a heartbeat if they screw up, you're dreaming.
Under affirmative action, an applicant has to be qualified for the job. So, Palin would not get hired under affirmative action, because she is not qualified. However, McCain could have picked other Republican women for his ticket that were qualified. I question why he chose not to do this.
I think that you're missing the point. This has nothing to do with qualification, but everything to do with politics. The premise, in my opinion, is simple, to get all the disgruntled Hillary (by the way, I think Palin is a pale comparison to Hillary) votes and sweep up all the right-wing Christian Conservatives. Besides that,... (taken from ';War'; lyrics)
Palin, huh, yeah
What is she good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
Palin, huh, yeah
What is she good for
Absolutely nothing
What?
No.
A moron is a moron, no matter what sex. I can justify not wanting her to be VP because she is a horrible person whose views I do not support.
Politics section is THAT way.
%26lt;-----------------------cleanses clarifying shampoo
Sure, she's unqualified, and ignorant to boot, and so what? Are they saying she should have to go through everything a man has to go through before she can be considered ready for the job? Then they have just blown to smithereens the entire justification for affirmative action.
A third-generation freethinkerHow can the liberals object to Sarah Palin's candidacy without blowing to smithereens the entire justification?
';Then they have just blown to smithereens the entire justification for affirmative action.';
Crap !
You are suggesting I should agree with her cos she's a woman?
I disagree with everything she stand for no matter how milfy she is.
If she believed in the same things I do I would support her.
Forth generation atheist.
~
How can the liberals object to Sarah Palin's candidacy without blowing to smithereens the entire justification?
I don't think you understand what affirmative action actually is. I'm no lawyer, but I think affirmative action stands for the proposition that as between two equally qualified candidates applying for a job at a firm or in an industry with a history of racial discrimination, race can be considered as a factor. That's it. Besides, if you think that affirmative action beneficiaries can't be fired in a heartbeat if they screw up, you're dreaming.
Under affirmative action, an applicant has to be qualified for the job. So, Palin would not get hired under affirmative action, because she is not qualified. However, McCain could have picked other Republican women for his ticket that were qualified. I question why he chose not to do this.
I think that you're missing the point. This has nothing to do with qualification, but everything to do with politics. The premise, in my opinion, is simple, to get all the disgruntled Hillary (by the way, I think Palin is a pale comparison to Hillary) votes and sweep up all the right-wing Christian Conservatives. Besides that,... (taken from ';War'; lyrics)
Palin, huh, yeah
What is she good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
Palin, huh, yeah
What is she good for
Absolutely nothing
What?
No.
A moron is a moron, no matter what sex. I can justify not wanting her to be VP because she is a horrible person whose views I do not support.
Politics section is THAT way.
%26lt;-----------------------
How fast can a object be propelled out of a lawn mower chute?
My sister-in-law had her husband remove the deflector on the discharge of their riding lawn mower and I tried to tell her how dangerous this was. Any help?How fast can a object be propelled out of a lawn mower chute?
Find out what brand of mower they have and ask blade speed. Small riding tractors can have blade tip speeds of up to 180 mph. Speed goes up with tractor and engine sizes. Removing the deflector is very dangerous, especially if something like a rock comes out of the deck at 180 miles per hour.How fast can a object be propelled out of a lawn mower chute?
Fast enough to NOT survive the next day. apparently some woman was only saved by her breast implants. otherwise the object would have gone through her hart!
ive heard well over 100mph+
Pretty fast, I got hit by a stone once and it left a big red welt and a cut on my thigh. Removing it is dangerous. It should be replaced. I can only imagine what could have happened had it hit me in the head or eye.
Find out what brand of mower they have and ask blade speed. Small riding tractors can have blade tip speeds of up to 180 mph. Speed goes up with tractor and engine sizes. Removing the deflector is very dangerous, especially if something like a rock comes out of the deck at 180 miles per hour.How fast can a object be propelled out of a lawn mower chute?
Fast enough to NOT survive the next day. apparently some woman was only saved by her breast implants. otherwise the object would have gone through her hart!
ive heard well over 100mph+
Pretty fast, I got hit by a stone once and it left a big red welt and a cut on my thigh. Removing it is dangerous. It should be replaced. I can only imagine what could have happened had it hit me in the head or eye.
What fraction of and object's kinetic energy is transferred in an elastic collision?
A neutron in a reactor makes an elastic head-
on collision with the nucleus of an atom initially at rest.
Assume: The mass of the atomic nucleus is
about 13.2 the mass of the neutron.
What fraction of the neutron鈥檚 kinetic energy is transferred to the atomic nucleus?What fraction of and object's kinetic energy is transferred in an elastic collision?
M1 = 1
M2 = 13.2
% energy transferred = M2^2 / (M1 + M2)^2 * 100
% energy transferred = (13.2)^2 / (13.2 + 1)^2 * 100 = 86.4%
See website below for a good graphic animation of elastic collisions of unequal masses.
Hope this helps
Bill
on collision with the nucleus of an atom initially at rest.
Assume: The mass of the atomic nucleus is
about 13.2 the mass of the neutron.
What fraction of the neutron鈥檚 kinetic energy is transferred to the atomic nucleus?What fraction of and object's kinetic energy is transferred in an elastic collision?
M1 = 1
M2 = 13.2
% energy transferred = M2^2 / (M1 + M2)^2 * 100
% energy transferred = (13.2)^2 / (13.2 + 1)^2 * 100 = 86.4%
See website below for a good graphic animation of elastic collisions of unequal masses.
Hope this helps
Bill
What 3 object handheld objects can exceed the speed of sound?
Do not say jets or any aircraft. I already know the answer but do you know?What 3 object handheld objects can exceed the speed of sound?
the end of a whip.
bullets.
edit: neat idea - but the light from the laser cannot be ';held';, and the laser itself is not exceeding the speed of sound.What 3 object handheld objects can exceed the speed of sound?
the end of a bull whip
a bullet firing
and a handheld laser
the end of a whip.
bullets.
edit: neat idea - but the light from the laser cannot be ';held';, and the laser itself is not exceeding the speed of sound.What 3 object handheld objects can exceed the speed of sound?
the end of a bull whip
a bullet firing
and a handheld laser
What happens to an object when it is sucked into a black hole?
What will we theoretically find if we can go inside a black hole? Do the objects get destroyed or there is a seperate world there?What happens to an object when it is sucked into a black hole?
Holy crap... 19 answers so far and every last one is wrong (God's was the closest to being accurate, but that is NOT what Hawking Radiation is, if you want to know what it is really all about just post the question).
All the stuff people are talking about regarding physics breaking down and things getting ripped apart and squashed only applies at near the singularity. A black hole's event horizon (what we normally think of as the size of the black hole) extends WAY beyond that.
Someone mentioned the black hole that is believed to be at the center of our galaxy. If it exists, it can be as big as 20 LIGHT YEARS in radius. That's a lot of black hole where physics doesn't break down and we can still talk about what's going on.
So let's talk about it.
If you free fall into the black hole, you'll never know that you cross the event horizon. You are free falling which is an inertial reference frame and the principle of Special Relativity still holds, and will still hold, all the way down to the singularity. It'd be no different than if you were just floating around in space.
We won't find anything in our decent down to the singularity, save for what we brought with us / things that are falling along with us. Everything else will have already met it's doom before we got there down in the all consuming singularity.
At the singularity though, our models for physics break down and we can't say for sure what happens. We can say though, that immediately before you hit the singularity, the gravitational differences will curve spacetime enough to rip you apart. That only happens when you are close to the singularity though NOT the event horizon.
As far as a ';separate'; world, you could think of your life as you plummet down to the singularity at the center of the black hole, as being a separate world in the sense that nothing that goes on past the event horizon will ever be known by anyone outside the event horizon.
There's no other universes though.
Point of Techicallity: Black holes are theoretical objects and all this discussion is just theoretical. Also, the life I described inside the black hole only applies to ones that aren't spinning very signicantly / don't have a significant amount of charge. Simply put, ones where the Swarzchild Metric can be considered valid.What happens to an object when it is sucked into a black hole?
objects get crushed down so far there is no space between atoms. Just one big trash compactor. Some of the matter does get ejected at high speeds though.
It will be destroyed. If it doesn't it will be sent into hyperspace and stop somewhere in the future.
its gone
im not even going to tell you what went down with me and the black whore...i mean hole
As it approaches the Event Horizon, the gravity becomes so intense, that even the difference in the length of an object creates enough gravitational difference because of the amount of pull from one end of an objecy to the other, that an object is pulled and stretched and is pulled apart(spaghetti). as the individual particles( it is argued how far matter is pulled apart before entering the event horizon), reach the Event Hoizon( a boundery defined as the point of no return, even light), that from the perspective of an outside observer, the observed object disappears, but from the standpoint of the object(now very small pieces), time then stands still. It is argued that nothing ever reaches the center of a Black Hole because as time is so warped that the effect of movement is forever halted. Oters speculate that even though time is not perceived from the objects standpoint, there is now no defined end point or center to get to. Cheers!!
ask homer simpson........he got sucked into one...........
when a dic k (object) gets sucked into a black hole(vagina) you get a orgasm soon....... :)
the object just gets stuck into it to never get out.. due to its strong gravitational force
There are several theories. What is known is that the gravity exerted within makes it difficult if not impossible for light to escape. and so the phenomenon which can be as tiny as a pin hole can appear as large as a planet in space. What happens once something enters is still unknown.
Well, if something gets sucked into a black hole, it will probably be crushed because of the intense gravity that is said to have created a black hole. One scientific belief is that a black hole was once a star or planet that has ';died'; and no longer exsists, but the gravitational force which has become greater does.
I lost some socks too but I think theres a rogue Ninja Sock Puppet on the loose.
Astronomers debate this a lot.
1) the object might emplode or explode.
2) it could be a short cut to another universe or galaxy.
3)It might allow us a means of time travel.
They just don't know yet.
Try to imagine the entire earth being compressed down into a 1-inch cube. Something similar would happen to you. I don't think it would be a pleasant experience.
One, black holes aren't actually proven to exist so there are only unproven hypothesis about what could go on in them. If they do exist than they are simply gravity wells that would crush everything that entered them. There would be nothing inside of them because everything would get destroyed.
there are several theories too, but this is the one I like the best.
When the black hole has the gravity that can suck within the vicinity of 2 million light years, for example, the body/material will extend to the black hole, so imagine a rubber band extending from a certain space in...er... space 2 million light years in distance. Anyway, when it dissipates in a certain time, the rubber band will turn to electrons... talking about cheap electricity...
I am going to resist the urge to ask if you were dropped on your head as a child. No, there is no alternate reality inside of black holes. If you are thinking of wormholes that is different, but a black hole is an immensely dense object in space that is the remnants of a large star (our star is an average size star) that has Supernovaed. Black holes come in all different sizes ranging from so small that we could theoretically drag them into the earths orbit and use them for power to Super-massive black holes that are theorized to exist in the center of all galaxies. When an object falls into a black hole (or more appropriately it is drawn into it) it is so dense that not even the fastest moving particles (aka light) can escape from it. It is so dense that physics in its most primitive forms breaks down, so that time itself no longer exists. Matter is broken down and returned to its original state- energy and is expelled from the black hole in the form of radiation. This expulsion was first observed by the physicist Steven Hawking and was therefore named Hawking Radiation for him. Wormholes on the other hand- all we know of them is that they are too unstable to be of any use to us at the present. But a wormhole would be used to travel across vast distances, not to live in.
I have no idea....but if you ever find a blanky that I lost when i was 2 can I have it back ?! Thanks !
come out of a black mouth
I dunno about NOW, but, just 1 HUNDRED years ago, or so, we COULDN'T see BACTERIA!! or GERMS!! Small is an act of rudeness, or evil.
No objects can enter a Black Hole. All the mass of any object is converted to energy and radiated as X rays as the object approaches a Black Hole.
science thinks that a black hole is just an object so dense and so gravitational that light cannot even escape.(hence ';black';)
so basically its like something the size of the sun compressed into the size of a marble.
anything that goes into a black hole gets crushed and smashed and becomes part of the black hole.
Holy crap... 19 answers so far and every last one is wrong (God's was the closest to being accurate, but that is NOT what Hawking Radiation is, if you want to know what it is really all about just post the question).
All the stuff people are talking about regarding physics breaking down and things getting ripped apart and squashed only applies at near the singularity. A black hole's event horizon (what we normally think of as the size of the black hole) extends WAY beyond that.
Someone mentioned the black hole that is believed to be at the center of our galaxy. If it exists, it can be as big as 20 LIGHT YEARS in radius. That's a lot of black hole where physics doesn't break down and we can still talk about what's going on.
So let's talk about it.
If you free fall into the black hole, you'll never know that you cross the event horizon. You are free falling which is an inertial reference frame and the principle of Special Relativity still holds, and will still hold, all the way down to the singularity. It'd be no different than if you were just floating around in space.
We won't find anything in our decent down to the singularity, save for what we brought with us / things that are falling along with us. Everything else will have already met it's doom before we got there down in the all consuming singularity.
At the singularity though, our models for physics break down and we can't say for sure what happens. We can say though, that immediately before you hit the singularity, the gravitational differences will curve spacetime enough to rip you apart. That only happens when you are close to the singularity though NOT the event horizon.
As far as a ';separate'; world, you could think of your life as you plummet down to the singularity at the center of the black hole, as being a separate world in the sense that nothing that goes on past the event horizon will ever be known by anyone outside the event horizon.
There's no other universes though.
Point of Techicallity: Black holes are theoretical objects and all this discussion is just theoretical. Also, the life I described inside the black hole only applies to ones that aren't spinning very signicantly / don't have a significant amount of charge. Simply put, ones where the Swarzchild Metric can be considered valid.What happens to an object when it is sucked into a black hole?
objects get crushed down so far there is no space between atoms. Just one big trash compactor. Some of the matter does get ejected at high speeds though.
It will be destroyed. If it doesn't it will be sent into hyperspace and stop somewhere in the future.
its gone
im not even going to tell you what went down with me and the black whore...i mean hole
As it approaches the Event Horizon, the gravity becomes so intense, that even the difference in the length of an object creates enough gravitational difference because of the amount of pull from one end of an objecy to the other, that an object is pulled and stretched and is pulled apart(spaghetti). as the individual particles( it is argued how far matter is pulled apart before entering the event horizon), reach the Event Hoizon( a boundery defined as the point of no return, even light), that from the perspective of an outside observer, the observed object disappears, but from the standpoint of the object(now very small pieces), time then stands still. It is argued that nothing ever reaches the center of a Black Hole because as time is so warped that the effect of movement is forever halted. Oters speculate that even though time is not perceived from the objects standpoint, there is now no defined end point or center to get to. Cheers!!
ask homer simpson........he got sucked into one...........
when a dic k (object) gets sucked into a black hole(vagina) you get a orgasm soon....... :)
the object just gets stuck into it to never get out.. due to its strong gravitational force
There are several theories. What is known is that the gravity exerted within makes it difficult if not impossible for light to escape. and so the phenomenon which can be as tiny as a pin hole can appear as large as a planet in space. What happens once something enters is still unknown.
Well, if something gets sucked into a black hole, it will probably be crushed because of the intense gravity that is said to have created a black hole. One scientific belief is that a black hole was once a star or planet that has ';died'; and no longer exsists, but the gravitational force which has become greater does.
I lost some socks too but I think theres a rogue Ninja Sock Puppet on the loose.
Astronomers debate this a lot.
1) the object might emplode or explode.
2) it could be a short cut to another universe or galaxy.
3)It might allow us a means of time travel.
They just don't know yet.
Try to imagine the entire earth being compressed down into a 1-inch cube. Something similar would happen to you. I don't think it would be a pleasant experience.
One, black holes aren't actually proven to exist so there are only unproven hypothesis about what could go on in them. If they do exist than they are simply gravity wells that would crush everything that entered them. There would be nothing inside of them because everything would get destroyed.
there are several theories too, but this is the one I like the best.
When the black hole has the gravity that can suck within the vicinity of 2 million light years, for example, the body/material will extend to the black hole, so imagine a rubber band extending from a certain space in...er... space 2 million light years in distance. Anyway, when it dissipates in a certain time, the rubber band will turn to electrons... talking about cheap electricity...
I am going to resist the urge to ask if you were dropped on your head as a child. No, there is no alternate reality inside of black holes. If you are thinking of wormholes that is different, but a black hole is an immensely dense object in space that is the remnants of a large star (our star is an average size star) that has Supernovaed. Black holes come in all different sizes ranging from so small that we could theoretically drag them into the earths orbit and use them for power to Super-massive black holes that are theorized to exist in the center of all galaxies. When an object falls into a black hole (or more appropriately it is drawn into it) it is so dense that not even the fastest moving particles (aka light) can escape from it. It is so dense that physics in its most primitive forms breaks down, so that time itself no longer exists. Matter is broken down and returned to its original state- energy and is expelled from the black hole in the form of radiation. This expulsion was first observed by the physicist Steven Hawking and was therefore named Hawking Radiation for him. Wormholes on the other hand- all we know of them is that they are too unstable to be of any use to us at the present. But a wormhole would be used to travel across vast distances, not to live in.
I have no idea....but if you ever find a blanky that I lost when i was 2 can I have it back ?! Thanks !
come out of a black mouth
I dunno about NOW, but, just 1 HUNDRED years ago, or so, we COULDN'T see BACTERIA!! or GERMS!! Small is an act of rudeness, or evil.
No objects can enter a Black Hole. All the mass of any object is converted to energy and radiated as X rays as the object approaches a Black Hole.
science thinks that a black hole is just an object so dense and so gravitational that light cannot even escape.(hence ';black';)
so basically its like something the size of the sun compressed into the size of a marble.
anything that goes into a black hole gets crushed and smashed and becomes part of the black hole.
How fast does a object have to travel threw air before it will start to burn into a flame of fire?
like if a rock fell from the sky and starts to burn up.How fast does a object have to travel threw air before it will start to burn into a flame of fire?
Short answer: 93,600mph
Every object can only fall so fast. The highest speed it can reach is it's terminal velocity. When its weight is matched by air speed.
But to cause enough friction I'd say...
well meteors go at 93,600mph and they burn to smithereens!
So about 26 mile per second!How fast does a object have to travel threw air before it will start to burn into a flame of fire?
Depends on what it's made of. When the speed reaches a point that friction causes it to heat suffciently, it will ignite.
The Space Shuttle, for example, uses a material that is 'ablative', or inert. However, a piece of iron-nickel asteroid would heat much faster.
This also depends on the density of the air. The more dense the air, the slower the speed. The speed is relative to the conditions. Meteorites travel anywhere from 12-70 km/s.
A bullet is slow compared to a meteor, by a factor of about 17.
It really depends on how much it weighs and what it is.
depends on what it is made of.
Short answer: 93,600mph
Every object can only fall so fast. The highest speed it can reach is it's terminal velocity. When its weight is matched by air speed.
But to cause enough friction I'd say...
well meteors go at 93,600mph and they burn to smithereens!
So about 26 mile per second!How fast does a object have to travel threw air before it will start to burn into a flame of fire?
Depends on what it's made of. When the speed reaches a point that friction causes it to heat suffciently, it will ignite.
The Space Shuttle, for example, uses a material that is 'ablative', or inert. However, a piece of iron-nickel asteroid would heat much faster.
This also depends on the density of the air. The more dense the air, the slower the speed. The speed is relative to the conditions. Meteorites travel anywhere from 12-70 km/s.
A bullet is slow compared to a meteor, by a factor of about 17.
It really depends on how much it weighs and what it is.
depends on what it is made of.
How fast does a object have to travel threw air before it will start to burn into a flame of fire?
like if a rock fell from the sky and starts to burn up.How fast does a object have to travel threw air before it will start to burn into a flame of fire?
Short answer: 93,600mph
Every object can only fall so fast. The highest speed it can reach is it's terminal velocity. When its weight is matched by air speed.
But to cause enough friction I'd say...
well meteors go at 93,600mph and they burn to smithereens!
So about 26 mile per second!How fast does a object have to travel threw air before it will start to burn into a flame of fire?
Depends on what it's made of. When the speed reaches a point that friction causes it to heat suffciently, it will ignite.
The Space Shuttle, for example, uses a material that is 'ablative', or inert. However, a piece of iron-nickel asteroid would heat much faster.
This also depends on the density of the air. The more dense the air, the slower the speed. The speed is relative to the conditions. Meteorites travel anywhere from 12-70 km/s.
A bullet is slow compared to a meteor, by a factor of about 17.
It really depends on how much it weighs and what it is.
depends on what it is made of.cleanses clarifying shampoo
Short answer: 93,600mph
Every object can only fall so fast. The highest speed it can reach is it's terminal velocity. When its weight is matched by air speed.
But to cause enough friction I'd say...
well meteors go at 93,600mph and they burn to smithereens!
So about 26 mile per second!How fast does a object have to travel threw air before it will start to burn into a flame of fire?
Depends on what it's made of. When the speed reaches a point that friction causes it to heat suffciently, it will ignite.
The Space Shuttle, for example, uses a material that is 'ablative', or inert. However, a piece of iron-nickel asteroid would heat much faster.
This also depends on the density of the air. The more dense the air, the slower the speed. The speed is relative to the conditions. Meteorites travel anywhere from 12-70 km/s.
A bullet is slow compared to a meteor, by a factor of about 17.
It really depends on how much it weighs and what it is.
depends on what it is made of.
What is this object in my bottle of guiness?
I just opened a bottle of guiness for the first time, and there is some type of foreign object in the bottle that won't come out. It looks like a little plastic rocket. Any idea what this could be?What is this object in my bottle of guiness?
It's a widget. Depending on if you are drink a bottle or can the shape will change. Round marble like for cans and cone like for the bottle.
The widget releases nitrogen into the beer when it is open. This simulates the nitro injection used when it is poured from a tap. Or at least the injection that should be done.. I hate it when cheap bars don't do this. It makes for a creamer head and fuller taste to the beer.What is this object in my bottle of guiness?
It's the widget.
you must be drinking guinness draught. that rocket-shaped thingy is a widget. it controls the flow of nitrogen, helping to produce a perfect head on your beer.
brilliant!
thanks for the two points.
Its a C02 canister. It adds carbonation so the beer can be shipped uncarbonated and therefore last longer.
It's a widget. Depending on if you are drink a bottle or can the shape will change. Round marble like for cans and cone like for the bottle.
The widget releases nitrogen into the beer when it is open. This simulates the nitro injection used when it is poured from a tap. Or at least the injection that should be done.. I hate it when cheap bars don't do this. It makes for a creamer head and fuller taste to the beer.What is this object in my bottle of guiness?
It's the widget.
you must be drinking guinness draught. that rocket-shaped thingy is a widget. it controls the flow of nitrogen, helping to produce a perfect head on your beer.
brilliant!
thanks for the two points.
Its a C02 canister. It adds carbonation so the beer can be shipped uncarbonated and therefore last longer.
When does an object like a ball have the greatest potential and kinetic energy?
I really need to know as soon as possible for a science test i have tomorrow. Thanks a lot for answering!When does an object like a ball have the greatest potential and kinetic energy?
potential energy = stored energy or when it is about to move
Kinetic Energy = motion energy or the point where something is moving fastest.
In the case of dropping a ball, it has most PE when you are holding it, it has most KE when it is very close to ground, b4 it hits.When does an object like a ball have the greatest potential and kinetic energy?
Potential= at the moment it is dropped
Kinetic= the moment it hits the ground
u need a life nessa. know one cares. go drink ur own piss. ur avatar is UGLY
potential energy = stored energy or when it is about to move
Kinetic Energy = motion energy or the point where something is moving fastest.
In the case of dropping a ball, it has most PE when you are holding it, it has most KE when it is very close to ground, b4 it hits.When does an object like a ball have the greatest potential and kinetic energy?
Potential= at the moment it is dropped
Kinetic= the moment it hits the ground
u need a life nessa. know one cares. go drink ur own piss. ur avatar is UGLY
Can the magnetic field strength of an object affect the distance in between the objects?
I have a science fair project. The subject is in physics and astronomy combined. I am trying to prove that the magnetic field strength of a Magnetar affects the distance in-between a star nearby within the Magnetar's constellation. Can it?Can the magnetic field strength of an object affect the distance in between the objects?
I'm not sure what you mean by ';distance in between a star nearby'; but 'nearby' is a very relative term. If I understand your question to be, ';can a Magnetar repel or attract a nearby star'; I would have to say no, unless it was in a binary system, and a binary system usually isn't the type in which a magnetar would develop. While it's true that the magnetic field of a magnetar is incredibly powerful, the magnetic flux decreases the further away you get. Star systems are on the order of tens to thousands of light years away from each other. Like magnetism, gravitational attraction decreases the further two objects are from each other, however, gravitational forces are much more influential in a star systems motion. As a side note, a Magnetar's life span is on the order of a few thousand to 20 thousand years. In astronomic terms, this is the blink of an eye. Any effect a magnetar had on an adjacent system would be over as soon as it began. The biggest influence a magnetar has on surrounding systems are the huge amounts of x-ray and gamma radiation they can put out.Can the magnetic field strength of an object affect the distance in between the objects?
Do you mean like how magnets of like ';charges'; repel one another? And that a magnetar would ';repel'; other magnetically ';charged'; stars?
If so, then no. If not, then I don't know what you're talking about.
Sure. Just as the magnet's opposite poles attract. (or is it repel?)
I'm not sure what you mean by ';distance in between a star nearby'; but 'nearby' is a very relative term. If I understand your question to be, ';can a Magnetar repel or attract a nearby star'; I would have to say no, unless it was in a binary system, and a binary system usually isn't the type in which a magnetar would develop. While it's true that the magnetic field of a magnetar is incredibly powerful, the magnetic flux decreases the further away you get. Star systems are on the order of tens to thousands of light years away from each other. Like magnetism, gravitational attraction decreases the further two objects are from each other, however, gravitational forces are much more influential in a star systems motion. As a side note, a Magnetar's life span is on the order of a few thousand to 20 thousand years. In astronomic terms, this is the blink of an eye. Any effect a magnetar had on an adjacent system would be over as soon as it began. The biggest influence a magnetar has on surrounding systems are the huge amounts of x-ray and gamma radiation they can put out.Can the magnetic field strength of an object affect the distance in between the objects?
Do you mean like how magnets of like ';charges'; repel one another? And that a magnetar would ';repel'; other magnetically ';charged'; stars?
If so, then no. If not, then I don't know what you're talking about.
Sure. Just as the magnet's opposite poles attract. (or is it repel?)
How's momentum stored in a moving object? Is this information stored inside the moving object or from outside?
Lets say someone fires a bullet and midway time freezes. During this time, the bullet will appear to be stand still. The question is, how is the momentum stored in the bullet. How does the bullet know that it has to travel in a particular direction. If your answer has anything to do with potential energy and kinetic energy, pls skip answering because I am looking for much deeper answer.How's momentum stored in a moving object? Is this information stored inside the moving object or from outside?
Not sure what you mean by a ';deeper answer';, but you have a pretty fundamental problem with your question:
';Lets say someone fires a bullet and midway %26gt;%26gt;%26gt;time freezes%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;.';
';%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;During this time%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;, the bullet will appear to be stand still.';
If time was frozen (and realize this in itself is a pure hypothetical) then there is no ';during this time';. No time passes. As far as the bullet is concerned, it never happened so it just keeps going as it did due to momentum.
The momentum isn't ';stored'; anywhere per se, it's more the result of the fact that matter doesn't change its state of movement unless a force acts upon it. Since no force acted upon it and, from perspective of the bullet, time never stopped it just keeps going.How's momentum stored in a moving object? Is this information stored inside the moving object or from outside?
Your question doesn't make sense to me because time doesn't freeze
Not sure what you mean by a ';deeper answer';, but you have a pretty fundamental problem with your question:
';Lets say someone fires a bullet and midway %26gt;%26gt;%26gt;time freezes%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;.';
';%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;During this time%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;, the bullet will appear to be stand still.';
If time was frozen (and realize this in itself is a pure hypothetical) then there is no ';during this time';. No time passes. As far as the bullet is concerned, it never happened so it just keeps going as it did due to momentum.
The momentum isn't ';stored'; anywhere per se, it's more the result of the fact that matter doesn't change its state of movement unless a force acts upon it. Since no force acted upon it and, from perspective of the bullet, time never stopped it just keeps going.How's momentum stored in a moving object? Is this information stored inside the moving object or from outside?
Your question doesn't make sense to me because time doesn't freeze
What is an object that has the most signifance to you?
What object is most important to you, I have to chose one and describe it, but it cannot be an electronic because you have to bring it to school. And it can fit into my bag and has some signifance any idea what I can write.
And no I do not have a teddy bear on me.What is an object that has the most signifance to you?
A Mickey Mouse blanket my mom gave me 14 years ago.What is an object that has the most signifance to you?
photo album
And no I do not have a teddy bear on me.What is an object that has the most signifance to you?
A Mickey Mouse blanket my mom gave me 14 years ago.What is an object that has the most signifance to you?
photo album
What is the object of the preposition in the following sentences?
I know the preposition, just not sure of the object.
The crackling of the cozy fire made me sleepy.
Between you and me, I think his plan is more cost-effective than ours.
He will leave Time magazine on the hall table.
Thank you!What is the object of the preposition in the following sentences?
1- fire
2- you, me
3- tableWhat is the object of the preposition in the following sentences?
1. ';the cozy fire';
2. ';you and me';
3. ';the hall table';cleanses clarifying shampoo
The crackling of the cozy fire made me sleepy.
Between you and me, I think his plan is more cost-effective than ours.
He will leave Time magazine on the hall table.
Thank you!What is the object of the preposition in the following sentences?
1- fire
2- you, me
3- tableWhat is the object of the preposition in the following sentences?
1. ';the cozy fire';
2. ';you and me';
3. ';the hall table';
What is the outcome when an unstoppable object runs into an immovable object?
My friends and I argued about this and we can't come to a conclusion. Thanks in advance.What is the outcome when an unstoppable object runs into an immovable object?
If there was no air resistance, or friction, yet Newtons laws still stood:
The immovable objects high inertia would resist the movement, therefore the unstoppable object would continue in another direction. The best example I could give you is throwing a bouncy ball at the floor. The ball will bounce back, because every force gives off an equal and opposite push.What is the outcome when an unstoppable object runs into an immovable object?
There's no such thing as an immovable object. Even an object with arbitrarily large mass has no absolute velocity, because absolute velocity doesn't exist. All objects are motionless from one point of view, and moving from another.
There's also no such thing as an unstoppable object. Such an object would have infinite mass, therefore the entire universe would have infinite gravity. Clearly this is not the case.
Basically, you're trying to resolve two mutually exclusive statements. You may as well say, ';I am a square, and I am not a square. Am I a square?';
lolzzz you'll have to give a bit more detail.
In a perfect scenerio, disregarding air resistance etc etc,
when the unstoppable object collides, it will rebound, and continue moving in the reverse direction ( sort of like throwing a tennis ball towards a wall). The wall will remain stationary, while the ball speeds off in the other direction.
An endless vortex opens that leave the unmovable object unmoved, yet keeps the unstoppable object continously moving. Like lithium said there is no unmovable object because Chuck Norris would make it move itself.
The outcome is the pitter patter of lots of little unstoppable feet in immovable shoes.
Can't happen...remember physics (the little thing called friction)
Cheez It...Cheez It
Kaboom! The question has no meaning as it refers to objects that not only do not exist, but cannot exist.
The universe implodes and everyone has a real bad day and God gets mad.
its only happend once that i know of....
created enough energy to fuel the big bang...
thats my guess anyways
If there was no air resistance, or friction, yet Newtons laws still stood:
The immovable objects high inertia would resist the movement, therefore the unstoppable object would continue in another direction. The best example I could give you is throwing a bouncy ball at the floor. The ball will bounce back, because every force gives off an equal and opposite push.What is the outcome when an unstoppable object runs into an immovable object?
There's no such thing as an immovable object. Even an object with arbitrarily large mass has no absolute velocity, because absolute velocity doesn't exist. All objects are motionless from one point of view, and moving from another.
There's also no such thing as an unstoppable object. Such an object would have infinite mass, therefore the entire universe would have infinite gravity. Clearly this is not the case.
Basically, you're trying to resolve two mutually exclusive statements. You may as well say, ';I am a square, and I am not a square. Am I a square?';
lolzzz you'll have to give a bit more detail.
In a perfect scenerio, disregarding air resistance etc etc,
when the unstoppable object collides, it will rebound, and continue moving in the reverse direction ( sort of like throwing a tennis ball towards a wall). The wall will remain stationary, while the ball speeds off in the other direction.
An endless vortex opens that leave the unmovable object unmoved, yet keeps the unstoppable object continously moving. Like lithium said there is no unmovable object because Chuck Norris would make it move itself.
The outcome is the pitter patter of lots of little unstoppable feet in immovable shoes.
Can't happen...remember physics (the little thing called friction)
Cheez It...Cheez It
Kaboom! The question has no meaning as it refers to objects that not only do not exist, but cannot exist.
The universe implodes and everyone has a real bad day and God gets mad.
its only happend once that i know of....
created enough energy to fuel the big bang...
thats my guess anyways
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)