| Author |
Message |
keith
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:40 am Post subject:
Re: breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:22:25 +0000, Ken Smith wrote:
| Quote: | In article <42072404.D3D29A5@earthlink.net>,
Robert Baer <robertbaer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
[...]
It is very common for circuits to have unequal slew rates and other
non-linear characteristics that make matter a great deal which way an edge
is going. Take a look at the specs of a 7400.
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
But, the delay is always positive...
I've mever seen a case where it isn't in fact. I have seen cases where
the misuse of measuring equipment can make what looks like negitive
delays.
|
Or cases where the PHBs tell the engineers how to engineer. After showing
them the negative delays they were smart enough to agree that "threshold
to threshold" made a tad more sense than 50-to-50.
--
Keith
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
keith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:40 am Post subject:
Re: breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:26:17 -0600, John Fields wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 02:00:54 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 09:25:31 -0500, Keith Williams wrote:
In article <420724DA.EDE0D172@earthlink.net>, robertbaer@earthlink.net
says...
~~SciGirl~~ wrote:
" And guess what? The third law of thermodynamics guarantees that all
electronics will get warmer."
The trouble with that is that they aren't even getting into
thermodynamics yet (I can decode the latin roots of that I think -
temperature change?)
Crudely stated, the three laws of thermodynamics are:
1) You cannot win.
2) You cannot break even.
3) You always lose.
3) You cannot get out of the game.
Capitalism is based on the belief that you can win,
Socialism is based on the belief that you can break even,
Mysticism is based on the belief that you can get out of the game.
---
Capitalism is based on the belief that you can control the game.
Socialism is based on the belief that everyone should be playing the
game the same way you are.
Mysticism is the belief that there is a game.
|
Democrats believe the game should have a "fair" outcome.
--
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:40 am Post subject:
Re: breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 22:20:08 -0800, Geodanah wrote:
| Quote: |
keith wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 17:04:37 -0800, Geodanah wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote:
Geodanah@yahoo.com wrote:
E=MC^2-GammaMV is the full equation. Gamma is proportional to
how
fast
you are going. It effects length contraction, time dilation,
and
apparent mass. Basically, by looking at the equations, as you
get
closer and closer to the speed of light, you're apparent mass
gets
larger and larger with your mass equalling infinity at the speed
of
light. Hence it would take an infinite amount of energy for you
to
get
to the speed of light. Photons get around this by being
massless.
Hmmmm... but photons have energy. How so if no mass ?
That's easy, they just don't have kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is
1/2mv^2 which, coupled with mass inflation, is why you would need
infinite energy to reach the speed of light. But it is not the only
energy in the ballgame.
So, you'e saying that photons striking an object don't impart any
kenetic
energy to that object? Conservation of energy and all here...
--
Keith
Kinetic is not the only type of energy. Conservation of Energy just
says you can't create it or destroy it, but you can change it.
|
So you're standing behind the proposition tha light has no KE?
--
Keith
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:40 am Post subject:
Re: breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 01:55:35 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 16:47:17 -0800, ~~SciGirl~~ wrote:
Superbowl's on. I don't understand football, so I'm going to stare at
the TV and think about how it works. :)
Not much to understand, really. The point is to get the ball across that
line when you're on offense, or stop the other team from getting it across
your line when you're defense. They switch back and forth throughout the
game. :-)
|
Ya' dumb twit! She want's to figure out how the television works, not the
guys on the screen! I figured that out about her age, so decided to relax
and watch the game. A few years later I found that beer was good while
watching. Last night was a bit of a bore, though the outcome was good.
Now it's back to the NHL. Oh, wait! ;-)
....at least UIUC is kicking NCAA donkey!
| Quote: | The rest is just gingerbread, much like calculus. ;-)
(big hint - be in the presence of males while watching - how they react
will give you a pretty good insight as to what's "important".)
|
Few males (though fewer females) have a clue how a TV works! Grise, you
really need glasses.
--
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:40 am Post subject:
Re: breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:06:21 -0600, John Fields wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 01:40:40 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:14:30 -0800, ~~SciGirl~~ wrote:
"I don't really know that many 14 year olds, so maybe the question is
best left for you to answer. Do you know anyone else who's 14 who
understands quantum physics at your level of comprehension?"
I have a friend who is 13, will be taking trig and calculus next year,
and is capable of understanding it but just doesn't care enough about
science to do so. She helps me with math, I help her memorize the
periodic table. She's got it to zirconium now, I think.
Also, no, I actually do not think I'm smart at all. It's not like I
just read it and get it. As I said, it took me three months to get
relativity. I had a report card full of C's in 6th grade and worked
hard to pull it up from there. If any one of my mentally normal
classmates loved science as much as I do and really wanted to learn
this stuff, and put the effort in that I did, I'd be willing to bet
they could, too.
The biggest reason people don't want to believe that you're 14 is that
you're writing coherent English. And you seem to have humility. The entire
group is gaping in awe at such a phenomenon. ;-)
When we were 14, we were lucky if we could pick our nose without putting
our eye out. ;-D
---
Well, when _I_ was 14, I had already learned the difference between my
nose and my eyes. ;)
|
But you're not Grise.
--
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:40 am Post subject:
Re: breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 01:46:34 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:18:59 -0800, ~~SciGirl~~ wrote:
Ok, I admit I stink at quoting stuff here.
I volunteered my age so that you guys wouldn't answer my questions with
a bunch of calculus that I wouldn't understand.
I am so sick of coming up with calculus equations whenever I search for
anything that I decided to make it clear right off that I don't
understand it.
Well, you didn't just wake up one morning knowing algebra either, or
English, for that matter. Take little bites - calculus is more-or-less the
next "stage" after algebra.
|
The *next* stage? Isn't "limit theory" inbetween there somewhere? If one
has no appreciation for "infinity", "zero", and "almost" one cannot
appreciate calculus.
--
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spehro Pefhany
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:40 am Post subject:
Re: breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:33:30 -0500, the renowned keith
<krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 01:46:34 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:18:59 -0800, ~~SciGirl~~ wrote:
Ok, I admit I stink at quoting stuff here.
I volunteered my age so that you guys wouldn't answer my questions with
a bunch of calculus that I wouldn't understand.
I am so sick of coming up with calculus equations whenever I search for
anything that I decided to make it clear right off that I don't
understand it.
Well, you didn't just wake up one morning knowing algebra either, or
English, for that matter. Take little bites - calculus is more-or-less the
next "stage" after algebra.
The *next* stage? Isn't "limit theory" inbetween there somewhere? If one
has no appreciation for "infinity", "zero", and "almost" one cannot
appreciate calculus.
|
Yup. Without delta-epsilon proofs, calculus is just a bunch of
fooling around. ;-)
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Fields
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:40 am Post subject:
Re: breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:35:30 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:06:21 -0600, John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 01:40:40 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:14:30 -0800, ~~SciGirl~~ wrote:
"I don't really know that many 14 year olds, so maybe the question is
best left for you to answer. Do you know anyone else who's 14 who
understands quantum physics at your level of comprehension?"
I have a friend who is 13, will be taking trig and calculus next year,
and is capable of understanding it but just doesn't care enough about
science to do so. She helps me with math, I help her memorize the
periodic table. She's got it to zirconium now, I think.
Also, no, I actually do not think I'm smart at all. It's not like I
just read it and get it. As I said, it took me three months to get
relativity. I had a report card full of C's in 6th grade and worked
hard to pull it up from there. If any one of my mentally normal
classmates loved science as much as I do and really wanted to learn
this stuff, and put the effort in that I did, I'd be willing to bet
they could, too.
The biggest reason people don't want to believe that you're 14 is that
you're writing coherent English. And you seem to have humility. The entire
group is gaping in awe at such a phenomenon. ;-)
When we were 14, we were lucky if we could pick our nose without putting
our eye out. ;-D
---
Well, when _I_ was 14, I had already learned the difference between my
nose and my eyes. ;)
But you're not Grise.
|
---
Ah yes, but you missed his 'we' and my '_I_' ;)
--
John Fields |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:40 am Post subject:
Re: breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com |
|
|
| It's been two years since I took that quantum course. Am I wrong? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Woodgate
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:40 am Post subject:
Re: breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com |
|
|
I read in sci.electronics.design that keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote (in
<pan.2005.02.08.03.33.30.247251@att.bizzzz>) about 'breaking the speed
of light article on howstuffworks.com', on Mon, 7 Feb 2005:
| Quote: | The *next* stage? Isn't "limit theory" inbetween there somewhere? If
one has no appreciation for "infinity", "zero", and "almost" one cannot
appreciate calculus.
|
No, you are making it too difficult. You don't need anything as $10 as
'limit theory' for differential calculus, just a drawing showing a curve
with a chord and a tangent.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Woodgate
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:41 am Post subject:
Re: breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com |
|
|
I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
wrote (in <pan.2005.02.08.01.55.27.422643@example.net>) about 'breaking
the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com', on Tue, 8 Feb 2005:
| Quote: | On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 16:47:17 -0800, ~~SciGirl~~ wrote:
Superbowl's on. I don't understand football, so I'm going to stare at
the TV and think about how it works. :)
Not much to understand, really. The point is to get the ball across that
line when you're on offense, or stop the other team from getting it
across your line when you're defense. They switch back and forth
throughout the game. :-)
The rest is just gingerbread, much like calculus. ;-)
(big hint - be in the presence of males while watching - how they react
will give you a pretty good insight as to what's "important".)
|
I THINK she was going to think about how the TV works.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Woodgate
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:41 am Post subject:
Re: breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com |
|
|
I read in sci.electronics.design that ~~SciGirl~~ <palmtree117@juno.com>
wrote (in <1107826311.149077.114330@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>) about
'breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com', on Mon, 7
Feb 2005:
| Quote: | what the link is
between light as a particle and light as a wave.
|
Light isn't EITHER a particle OR a wave. It is something more
fundamental, that sometimes BEHAVES as a particle and sometimes as a
wave.
We can only describe things that we can't see and touch in terms of
things we can.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Terry Given
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:03 am Post subject:
Re: breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com |
|
|
~~SciGirl~~ wrote:
| Quote: | "14 = 9th grade? Algebra, sounds about right. You're doing well. Keep
up
the interest."
Actually, 8th grade, but in 9th grade math. Still in 8th grade science,
but will be working on a research project a couple days a week instead
of class because class got too easy for me and I was bored to death.
They're doing convection, conduction, and radiation. It's like sitting
in a chair for an hour listening to a repetitive explanation of why one
plus one equals two.
|
Diffusion equations are more fun.
Cheers
Terry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Terry Given
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:05 am Post subject:
Re: breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com |
|
|
YD wrote:
| Quote: | On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 10:49:32 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
On 5 Feb 2005 09:41:17 -0800, "~~SciGirl~~" <palmtree117@juno.com
wrote:
Just for the record... I intend to be a meteorologist when I grow up,
not a physicist.
With your obvious mental talents, I'd aim a wee bit higher... unless
you want to be on the TV news hour ;-)
...Jim Thompson
Real meteorologists are a long way from any TV studio and they do all
kinds of physics, fluid dynamics, math, whatnot.
- YD.
|
yep. rather tricky actually - geophysics really. I have a very
interesting book on acoustic waveguides - oceanics. fascinating stuff,
all the underlying physics is much the same as we use for
electromagnetics, its just nastier - anisotropy and inhomogeneity are
the order of the day.
Cheers
Terry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Terry Given
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:13 am Post subject:
Re: breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com |
|
|
~~SciGirl~~ wrote:
| Quote: | And where do we get the enormous amounts of energy and equipment
required to do that?
|
Digikey
Cheers
Terry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in