Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-21-2006, 08:55 AM   #31
4thgeneration
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Choobus wrote
http://www.cmr.wsu.edu/keck/science.html

here's something I wrote a few years ago
Do you have a Nature article, too? If so, I think I have read it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2006, 12:09 PM   #32
myst7426
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Are you the man in the picture, Choobus?
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2006, 01:08 PM   #33
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
Quote:
4thgeneration wrote
Quote:
Choobus wrote
http://www.cmr.wsu.edu/keck/science.html

here's something I wrote a few years ago
Do you have a Nature article, too? If so, I think I have read it.
maybe.

That was a long time ago, in a university far far away

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2006, 01:38 PM   #34
4thgeneration
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
You brilliant bastard! Nature is a goddamn good publication.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2006, 01:39 PM   #35
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
Quote:
4thgeneration wrote
You brilliant bastard! Nature is a goddamn good publication.
shush, you're ruining my reputation

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2006, 02:33 PM   #36
RenaissanceMan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hey Choob! You want your head to explode? Go over to the flat earth website and get edumacated about the 'S-9' atom from this guy!

Quote:
pringles wrote
if you would care to read my other post, these can be easily explained with the theory of the S-9 atom:

the atom is neither sphericle, flat, or triangular.. it is in fact made up of mostly... empty space..
now.. what if, the govornment could manipulate these atoms into certain bonds, such as the "o-zone" layer, if all of these atoms, instead of carrying empty space, were in fact filled with the govornment-made holo-genetic, synthetic material, whats to say all that we see at night, is in fact a hologram?

explaining, different constellations would be explained, as for the seasons: climate control inside a dome (as explained somewhere else) is in fact relatively easy, like having an indoor snow room
It's a real laugh riot over there. Did you know, for example... that the sun is only 32 miles in dameter and is only 3000 miles off the ground? Sunlight can only go 7000 miles, too.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2006, 02:46 PM   #37
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
Quote:
RenaissanceMan wrote
Hey Choob! You want your head to explode? Go over to the flat earth website and get edumacated about the 'S-9' atom from this guy!

Quote:
pringles wrote
if you would care to read my other post, these can be easily explained with the theory of the S-9 atom:

the atom is neither sphericle, flat, or triangular.. it is in fact made up of mostly... empty space..
now.. what if, the govornment could manipulate these atoms into certain bonds, such as the "o-zone" layer, if all of these atoms, instead of carrying empty space, were in fact filled with the govornment-made holo-genetic, synthetic material, whats to say all that we see at night, is in fact a hologram?

explaining, different constellations would be explained, as for the seasons: climate control inside a dome (as explained somewhere else) is in fact relatively easy, like having an indoor snow room
It's a real laugh riot over there. Did you know, for example... that the sun is only 32 miles in dameter and is only 3000 miles off the ground? Sunlight can only go 7000 miles, too.
holy jeebus, I can't even argue with such idiocy. It's like trying to explain to a 750 lb shut in why he can't join the navy seals.

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2006, 03:05 PM   #38
EvelKnievel
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Choobus wrote
holy jeebus, I can't even argue with such idiocy. It's like trying to explain to a 750 lb shut in why he can't join the navy seals.
Discrimination!!
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2006, 03:06 PM   #39
schemanista
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Choobus wrote
holy jeebus, I can't even argue with such idiocy. It's like trying to explain to a 750 lb shut in why he can't join the navy seals.
Dr. Choob, you just got a keyboard kill.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2006, 03:13 PM   #40
4thgeneration
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Choobus wrote
Quote:
RenaissanceMan wrote
Hey Choob! You want your head to explode? Go over to the flat earth website and get edumacated about the 'S-9' atom from this guy!

Quote:
pringles wrote
if you would care to read my other post, these can be easily explained with the theory of the S-9 atom:

the atom is neither sphericle, flat, or triangular.. it is in fact made up of mostly... empty space..
now.. what if, the govornment could manipulate these atoms into certain bonds, such as the "o-zone" layer, if all of these atoms, instead of carrying empty space, were in fact filled with the govornment-made holo-genetic, synthetic material, whats to say all that we see at night, is in fact a hologram?

explaining, different constellations would be explained, as for the seasons: climate control inside a dome (as explained somewhere else) is in fact relatively easy, like having an indoor snow room
It's a real laugh riot over there. Did you know, for example... that the sun is only 32 miles in dameter and is only 3000 miles off the ground? Sunlight can only go 7000 miles, too.
holy jeebus, I can't even argue with such idiocy. It's like trying to explain to a 750 lb shut in why he can't join the navy seals.
I doubt even Paul G. Hewitt could get through to these fuckers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2006, 04:59 PM   #41
UnknownUser
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Choobus i was wondering if i was correct in the idea that anti-particles are simply their identical counter particle, however could be thought of as a electron which is reversed in time. I think it was John Wheeler who first proposed the idea that positrons are simply electrons that have a reversed flow in time so they follow a wave like pattern of switching between the future and the past, causing, as they interact with electrons, a completely destructive wave to form, and at the points where the waves intersect you have the destruction/creation of the pair/anti-pair.

I believe that it was Richard Feynman who used this for his model of quantum electrodynamics...
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2006, 05:31 PM   #42
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
Quote:
UnknownUser wrote
Choobus i was wondering if i was correct in the idea that anti-particles are simply their identical counter particle, however could be thought of as a electron which is reversed in time. I think it was John Wheeler who first proposed the idea that positrons are simply electrons that have a reversed flow in time so they follow a wave like pattern of switching between the future and the past, causing, as they interact with electrons, a completely destructive wave to form, and at the points where the waves intersect you have the destruction/creation of the pair/anti-pair.

I believe that it was Richard Feynman who used this for his model of quantum electrodynamics...
well, this idea has been floating around, as you say, since Wheeler and Feynman, but it's not really all that useful. When you solve the Dirac equation you get a wavefunction that looks something like

F=Aexp(-Et)

which is a plane wave. The solution for a positron gives you a negative energy so it looks like

F = Aexp(-(-E)t)

so it make time negative you go back to

F = Aexp(-Et)

in other words, a positron moving backwards in time looks just like an electron moving forwards in time.

However, there are all sortfs of problems with causality and as far as I know this interpretation has no predictive or practical uses.

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2006, 08:20 PM   #43
Gathercole
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I don't mean to turn this thread into Ask Choobus, but here's something I don't understand: momentum and its relationship to energy. My brother used to be a weapons engineer for GD, and once he was trying to explain to me why it's so hard to make an energy weapon like a weaponized laser. He invoked E=m2c4+p2c2 and said that matter is like concentrated energy. He said that when you fire a piece of matter at something, it's like firing a whole ton of energy, and to get that much energy out of a laser requires hundreds of megawatts.

But, if you take the amount of gunpowder in a pistol cartridge, and combust it in a chemical laser, the laser has far less energy than the impact energy of the bullet. If the extra energy in the bullet situation comes from the mass of the bullet, as my brother seemed to imply, why isn't the energy used up, instead of being available to be shot off again with another amount of gunpowder that couldn't even power a laser pointer?
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2006, 08:32 PM   #44
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
Quote:
Gathercole wrote
I don't mean to turn this thread into Ask Choobus, but here's something I don't understand: momentum and its relationship to energy. My brother used to be a weapons engineer for GD, and once he was trying to explain to me why it's so hard to make an energy weapon like a weaponized laser. He invoked E=m2c4+p2c2 and said that matter is like concentrated energy. He said that when you fire a piece of matter at something, it's like firing a whole ton of energy, and to get that much energy out of a laser requires hundreds of megawatts.

But, if you take the amount of gunpowder in a pistol cartridge, and combust it in a chemical laser, the laser has far less energy than the impact energy of the bullet. If the extra energy in the bullet situation comes from the mass of the bullet, as my brother seemed to imply, why isn't the energy used up, instead of being available to be shot off again with another amount of gunpowder that couldn't even power a laser pointer?
Matter is like concentrated energy, but that energy is locked up in the matter. When you shhot a bullet technically it has all that rest mass energy, but the energy never gets used for anything. It's still there in the bullet after.

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2006, 08:51 AM   #45
FishFace
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Gathercole wrote
I don't mean to turn this thread into Ask Choobus, but here's something I don't understand: momentum and its relationship to energy. My brother used to be a weapons engineer for GD, and once he was trying to explain to me why it's so hard to make an energy weapon like a weaponized laser. He invoked E=m2c4+p2c2 and said that matter is like concentrated energy. He said that when you fire a piece of matter at something, it's like firing a whole ton of energy, and to get that much energy out of a laser requires hundreds of megawatts.

But, if you take the amount of gunpowder in a pistol cartridge, and combust it in a chemical laser, the laser has far less energy than the impact energy of the bullet. If the extra energy in the bullet situation comes from the mass of the bullet, as my brother seemed to imply, why isn't the energy used up, instead of being available to be shot off again with another amount of gunpowder that couldn't even power a laser pointer?
The energy in matter is only released if that matter is converted into energy. So if the bullet were converted - completely - into energy - it would yield quite a bit of energy. Since we don't have nuclear reactions when we shoot bullets, this doesn't happen.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:30 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational