JT! Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) As such, I'm not convinced by JT's theory about your hand and a light source. I was talking about refraction of light, so might not technically be considered light 'bending'. Sound will refract round corners much more than light because it has a bigger wavelength, hence being able to hear round corners. Technically if light refracted more w'd be able to see round corners. Edited November 3, 2011 by JT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 I was talking about refraction of light, so might not technically be considered light 'bending'. Ah, fair do's. I was just thinking that you must have one seriously supermassive hand to be distorting the fabric of space-time with it . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casualjoe Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) Yep, that's right. I wonder what loud light looks like, lol. Increasing the amplitude of light would make it brighter. Google says. Increasing intensity makes light appear brighter (louder). Physically this is more photons landing on the same unit area. No one knows what dark energy is yet, they just know there is a force stretching space apart in 3 dimensions by exactly the same amount for all points in space. So a star at twice the distance from us will be moving away from us at twice the speed ect. Gravity bends space in 3D so light travels in a straight line through bent space. This allows astronomers to see stars that are directly behind other stars. This is also how they discovered the existence dark matter, it cannot be seen directly because it emits no light but the effects of its massive gravity bending the space and therefore the light around it can be seen. So they say.. I just happen to be doing all this at school at the moment although it's geared more towards thermonuclear reactions which power the stars and how we can harness this power here on earth. Edited November 3, 2011 by casualjoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete.M Posted March 12, 2012 Report Share Posted March 12, 2012 BUMPED Anyone got any theories as to why Google+ didn't take off? It seems a shame to me, I'm not a fan of facebook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeroMatt Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 Most of the hype surrounding it was when it was rather difficult to get an invite. By the time it was opened up it was all a bit subdued so not many made the jump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 Lack of people, lack of functionality, secret santa launch, overly simplistic, not personal enough. (The whole circles thing rather than just friends). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Dunstan Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) BUMPED Anyone got any theories as to why Google+ didn't take off? It seems a shame to me, I'm not a fan of facebook. I don't think it's the last we'll here of it. I have a feeling one day it will boom. EDIT: Google own Youtube so if they joined both of them somehow like they have with the rest of google? Like turning Youtube into an even more social website. Edited March 13, 2012 by Luke Dunstan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alistair14 Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 Thoughts? I've sometimes been out with me dad and his telescope lookin at the moon / Jupiter, and always wondered ..whats past the stars etc? is there actually more life? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greetings Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 Like turning Youtube into an even more social website. Do you think this is a good idea? I wouldn't want my friends to know about every vid I upload there. *insert perverted door fetish joke here* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Dunstan Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 Do you think this is a good idea? I wouldn't want my friends to know about every vid I upload there. *insert perverted door fetish joke here* I wouldn't use it. But it wouldn't surprise me if it happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hI-OOPS-CAPS Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 I've wondered, does anybody actually need a smartphone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robwalker Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 and with regards to light it's even more useless because sometimes it doesn't even act like a wave. bollocks. look up the electromagnetic spectrum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eskimo Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 I've wondered, does anybody actually need a smartphone? No one needs a mobile. Just everyone gets themselves into the situation where they think they need a phone. And without it, people are all confused. 10 years ago we were doing just fine without everyone having and phone and high speed internet. Infact i wasn't wasting my time here. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hI-OOPS-CAPS Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 No one needs a mobile. Just everyone gets themselves into the situation where they think they need a phone. And without it, people are all confused. 10 years ago we were doing just fine without everyone having and phone and high speed internet. Infact i wasn't wasting my time here. . haha. You're aware of wasting your time but don't do anything about it. people of the future will wonder how we ever coped without a, well if i new future gadgets i'd be psychic. i wonder if it will ever be possible to see into the future Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casualjoe Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 bollocks. look up the electromagnetic spectrum. Look up Richard Feynman's 'Lectures on Physics' then 'QED'. Then have a go on a geiger counter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robwalker Posted March 17, 2012 Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 Well, yeah, things don't just move by themselves, but there's friction to slow stuff down. How about this, sound isn't radiation, it's a wave. Waves, as in the thing you get in the beach, can be slowed down. Why does the speed of sound, which is the movement of physical particles, remain constant? You can apply friction to particles. You know when you hear a siren far away, and you hear it right next to you. They sound different. When it slows, it's amplitude is reduced, not it's frequency, as this itself is what the sound is. Sound does slow, and there's your proof. (not to be confused with the doppler effect). Look up Richard Feynman's 'Lectures on Physics' then 'QED'. Then have a go on a geiger counter. i'm on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted March 17, 2012 Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 (edited) bollocks. look up the electromagnetic spectrum. Look up the Photoelectric Effect. Well, yeah, things don't just move by themselves, but there's friction to slow stuff down. How about this, sound isn't radiation, it's a wave. Waves, as in the thing you get in the beach, can be slowed down. Why does the speed of sound, which is the movement of physical particles, remain constant? You can apply friction to particles. Sound isn't a constant unlike light. Sounds travels much faster through liquids and even faster through solids. It also isn't physical particles moving, but energy through the particles. For example, a wave moving across the ocean isn't water physically moving towards the shore, the water remains in the same place (part from moving up a little) it's the energy that's been transmitted. EDIT: (Forgot I already answered. But I'll leave it there regardless. Edited March 17, 2012 by JT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted March 17, 2012 Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 Here's my ponderous thought: Why is it that, even though I know full well the room is completely still, I still lie down and hold on at this time? Typing is no problem, thinking is no problem, knowing that it's just vodka is no problem, and yet the hanging on still happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casualjoe Posted March 17, 2012 Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 Someone took the video's covering his lectures on physics down from google video which was upsetting but I've managed to find them here, Feynman really is the teacher of teachers when it comes to physics. Amazing scientist, I actually love him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eskimo Posted March 17, 2012 Report Share Posted March 17, 2012 haha. You're aware of wasting your time but don't do anything about it. people of the future will wonder how we ever coped without a, well if i new future gadgets i'd be psychic. i wonder if it will ever be possible to see into the future Yup. I came on the computer to do other things. Daft. I do think some modern technology is trash. Some have genuine uses for people, but most just buy into it because it's marketed so well. And what the f**k is up with pure digital media, i mean downloading/streaming? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greetings Posted March 18, 2012 Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 Magura sure have a weird bleeding system for their new rim brakes. Not quite sure what to think of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete.M Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 (edited) Say you go into a casino and play roulette. You put £100 on red. If you lose then you put £200 on red. If you lose again put £400 on red. Then £800 etc etc. (Doubling each time) Eventually you must win, and each time you do you get the money back that you've put down so far + £100. So you always gain £100 on top. My question is: There must be something that stops this tactic from working, otherwise it'd be too easy, so what is it? Edit: I think I know the answer now Edited March 26, 2012 by Pete.M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTrialSpaz Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 Look up the Photoelectric Effect. Sound isn't a constant unlike light. Sounds travels much faster through liquids and even faster through solids. It also isn't physical particles moving, but energy through the particles. For example, a wave moving across the ocean isn't water physically moving towards the shore, the water remains in the same place (part from moving up a little) it's the energy that's been transmitted. EDIT: (Forgot I already answered. But I'll leave it there regardless. The speed of light does change in different mediums, just as the speed of sound does. The quoted c=300ms^-1 is for light travelling through a vacuum. But yes, I'm pretty sure Einstein got himself a lovely looking Nobel prize in proving the wave-particle duality of light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 c=300ms-1 Really?... Say you go into a casino and play roulette. You put £100 on red. If you lose then you put £200 on red. If you lose again put £400 on red. Then £800 etc etc. (Doubling each time) Eventually you must win, and each time you do you get the money back that you've put down so far + £100. So you always gain £100 on top. My question is: There must be something that stops this tactic from working, otherwise it'd be too easy, so what is it? Edit: I think I know the answer now I think in theory it works but in order to do it in the real world you need a veritable shitload® of cash you're willing to put down and lose before coming up trumps. The other reasons are that for the money put down the return is minimal which isn't what your average gambler is looking for and also that I imagine Casinos would frown on the practise and probably kick you out when you'd just lost your money betting £64000 on red. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTrialSpaz Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Really?... I think in theory it works but in order to do it in the real world you need a veritable shitload® of cash you're willing to put down and lose before coming up trumps. The other reasons are that for the money put down the return is minimal which isn't what your average gambler is looking for and also that I imagine Casinos would frown on the practise and probably kick you out when you'd just lost your money betting £64000 on red. Well, it's been a long time since my last physics lessson. I might have forgotten another 6 zeroes :$ I've been on/off thinking about the bet on red situation, and I figured that most people would back out and start betting in a more traditional manner after their 4th straight loss, mostly due to the shitload® of money you need to bet. Even if you did continue to the first win in eight, you'd have a bet a lot for little reward. In terms of numbers though, the 0 obviously balances out the odds in the casinos favour in a macro scale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.