Go ahead!...ask us anything!

[El Duque]

American Presidents are elected in November(Ithink ) and inaugarated in January.
George W. was inaugarated Jan 20 2001 so in all it's pretty close to 2 years.

 

[imported_bronco]

How do you get the My Documents icon back on your desktop? Don't ask how but I deleted it stupidly and now I can't get it back on my desktop. I've had to make my own shortcut for it on the desktop which was easy but its dissapeared from the drop down menu on the address bar as well which makes it bloody inconvenient.
I'm using windows 2000 pro by the way. I have no idea how I get windows to put it back on my desktop and on the drop down menu.

 

[ozbash]

isn,t it just a matter of opening my documents,clicking file and then where it says send,choosing the create shortcut on desktop or something like that.
me and 98se had that option as probably do all of them like this bloody xp

 

[imported_bronco]

Yes as I've said Ozbash I've already done that. The thing is it has deleted the my documents thing from the dropdown menu in the address bar which is very annoying as I was constantly using that link in the address bar. I'm guessing if I find a way to put the proper icon back on the destop (its not a shortcut like the one I'm currently using) then it'll also place my documents back in the dropdown menu.

 

[imported_kier]

Some people on the forum are aware I'm in Thailand atm.........and I ahve a question that I'm hoping some here will be able to hekp me with.

Some (very few) of the Thais look EXACTLY like Maori/Islanders........except without the physical bulk - minature versions so to speak.

Is there a region/sub race from the penisula that are thought to be the origionators of the settlers in NZ?

Both my wife (a kiwi) and I have done double takes when we've seen these particular Thais - who do look very disimilar to the majority of the people here.

 

[ozbash]

there are theorys that the maori came from those parts,or sth america,or pacific islands.
then of course there is the fact that many maori gentlemen have travelled far and wide,leaving a legacy behind them.
they are firm believers in the "go forward and multiply "theory.

the ultimate test is to say "kia ora bro""--(g,day mate) or,,,"got any DB ?"

 

[ozbash]

kier, my mate was in thailand recently (yes, a maori !) and he brought back a heap of english soccer jerseys.man u,everton, leeds
he got them from some market for $6 (nz) ea.
he said you could get them everywhere.bali was the same, sportswear everywhere..

 

[imported_Reservoir Dog]

How can you tell a persons IP addressfrom an email they send you?

 

[El Duque]

Right click on the email in your inbox

click on properties

click on details

click on message source

Then it should be on about the 4th Received from down(I think).

 

[imported_eels fan...]

If you are driving a car at the speed of light, what happens when you turn the headlights on?

 

[Willow]

eels fan.. I think this is an old question. Something to do with the car and its headlights being relative to each other... if you turned on the headlights, they would simply come on because the light is emanating from the car which is travelling at light speed... I think..

In any case, it's one of thise hypotheticals and it has a paradox or two which tends to turn my brain inside out. How is it possible to have a an object travel faster than light when light itself is without mass? Buggered if I know.

I understand that the correct answer is, at this point in time, there is no answer.

This from Einstein in 1896:
"If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum) , I should observe such a beam of light as a spatially oscillatory electromagnetic field at rest. However, there seems to be no such thing, whether on the basis of experience or according to Maxwell's equations. From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an observer, everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest. For how, otherwise, should the first observer know, i.e., be able to determine, that he is in a state of fast uniform motion? One sees that in this paradox the germ of the special relativity theory is already contained. Today everyone knows, of course, that all attempts to clarify this paradox satisfactorily were condemned to failure as long as the axiom of the absolute character of time, viz., of a simultaneous, unrecognizedly was anchored in the unconscious. Clearly to recognize this axiom and its arbitrary character really implies already the solution to the problem"

Yeah... what he said...
No wonder I flunked Physics.

 

[imported_Kaon]

Willow is right, the lights would work as they normally should.


Willow in regards to your other question, in currently accepted theory nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Also you can't speed matter up to the speed of light because you need force for <span>acceleration</span>. As velocity <span>approaches </span>the speed of light, force <span>approaches </span>zero.

 

[imported_Kaon]

With regards about the mass thing, Force is the change in momentum over the change in time. To have infinite Force to overcome the reducing force as the velocity reaches the speed of light you need infinite momentum which makes up force. momentum is made up from velocity and importantly mass.

To have infinite momentum of matter, you need infinite mass which is more than there is in the entire universe.

We will overcome this dilema but i dont know when.

 

[Willow]

Thanks Kaon...
What of photons that travel at light speed? Are they too small to considered as being mass? Whats the definition of mass?

 

[Willow]

btw Kaon, my last post was sent before I read your last post... I see you have partially answered my question before I asked it... how did you that?

 

[imported_Kaon]

I should point out that my explanation about infinite mass could be a little clearer with getting into other quantities.&lt;?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comoffice" />&lt;o>&lt;/o> &lt;o>&lt;/o> When looking up "what is mass" in one of my textbooks i found the section relating to why things cant travel at the speed of light but i couldn't find a definition of what it is. When mass travels faster and faster, it increases. As this velocity approaches the speed of light, mass approaches infinity. i.e. we can't get to the speed of light because we don’t have enough mass. The reasons why are explained in the above post.&lt;o>&lt;/o> &lt;o>&lt;/o> &lt;o>&lt;/o> This is what i believe and was taught on what mass is. There are two types of mass. One is the rest mass and the other is the relativistic mass. The rest mass is what everyone considers 'mass' and this means that there is some energy that can be converted to other forms of energy when the thing is at rest.&lt;o>&lt;/o> Using the energy momentum relation E^2 = (p^2)(c^2) + (mc^2)^2&lt;o>&lt;/o> When the object is at rest, momentum, p, goes to zero leaving E= mc^2. When the object is at rest, it's energy can be converted to mass. If anything has energy when it is at rest, it has mass.&lt;o>&lt;/o> &lt;o>&lt;/o> The question you asked about things like photons and neutrinos is they have no rest mass. They are described by the other part if the energy momentum relation E = pc.&lt;o>&lt;/o> <span>It's not really an explanation for the real world, which i couldn't find but that’s my definition of "mass".</span>&lt;o>&lt;/o> &lt;o>&lt;/o>

 

[imported_Kaon]

It really didn't come out but i hope it's clear.

 

[Willow]

Thanks again.

Yes, its clear.. I meanI can read it okay. But its does create more questions... which I guess shouldnt be surprising.

What you're saying is that light particles are not mass... according to current theory.
This being because they are in constant state of momentum (correct me if I misunderstood that).
And... mass, in theory, cannot reach infinite proportions which makes it impossible to reach the speed of light.

So... does that mean that light particles like photons are of infinite quantity?

If thats the case, then we still have a way to go.

 

[imported_Kaon]

It does create more questions and i'd just pose one.

Saying 'light particles' is wrong, they are not particles.


Things light photons and electrons and various other things exhibit particle and wave properties and are classed as quantums. When these move at relativistic speeds they are under the subject of Quantum Field Theory.


In a few short posts we went from theory that was invented in 1907 to things in the 1950's . I have to hand in a paper on this very topic in 3 weeks so when i'm finished i might get back to you. The only problem is that i have to finish my thesis in the meantime

.

 

[imported_Outlaw]

I found this while surfing...

Question:
If you're in a car traveling at the speed of light and you turn your headlights on, what and-or does anything happen?
Answered by: Paul Walorski, B.A. Physics, Part-time Physics Instructor

Your question contradicts Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity which states that no object with mass CAN travel at, or above, the speed of light (c). As your car approaches c, its resistance to acceleration (mass) increases so that it would take an impossibly infinite force to actually reach c. Your question, then, is based on an impossible premise. It's like asking 'What would happen if I reached the North Pole and kept going north?'
As you approach the speed of light with your headlights on, however, you would still measure the light beam racing away from your car at 186,000 miles per second (c). A 'stationary' observer watching this happen, though, would not then measure the beam's speed at almost twice c. Relativity says that all observers always get the same measurement for c.
While that may not sound logical or plausible, it happens because what we normally think of as fixed concepts--length and time--are both variable at high speeds. If you observed a car travelling past you at close to c, its length in the direction of travel would appear shortened and the passage of time on board would appear slowed down.
Although these ideas sound strange to all of us not used to moving at relativistic speeds, they have all been confirmed experimentally.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Answered by: Warren Davis, Ph.D., President, Davis Associates, Inc., Newton, MA USA

First of all, you need to realize that when you say you are traveling at the speed of light, that has to be with respect to, or relative to, something else. It is an underlying fundamental assumption of Einstein's special theory of relativity that uniform, non-accelerated motion has no meaning of and by itself. That is, there is, by assumption, no meaning to the idea of moving uniformly at the speed of light in an empty universe. That state is completely equivalent to being at rest in an empty universe..
I preface my answer with this comment because it leads immediately to the answer to the question. Imagine that you are in your car 'traveling at the speed of light' and that you turn on your headlights. That state of motion is utterly equivalent to being at rest in an empty universe. Since, when at rest, the light from your headlights would be launched forward from your car at the speed of light, relative to you, with a certain color spectrum, that is exactly what would happen if somehow you could be moving instead at the speed of light.
In other words, the presence or absence of other objects or matter in the universe relative to which, if present, you could make a determination that you were moving at the speed of light makes absolutely no difference to your own experiences and experiments. The light that you launch behaves in exactly the same way whether the other referential matter exists or not.
This leads into another interesting question, however. And that is whether the rest of the matter (mass) in the universe in some way affects your own local observations. So far this question has come up in relation to theories of gravity. If effect, the question is how does the universal gravitational constant, G, which determines how strongly gravitating masses attract each other, know what value to assume if there is no other mass in the universe. Mach proposed, essentially on philosophical grounds, that G must be determined by the sum total of all of the mass in the universe. Einstein assumed in his General Theory of Relativity that G is simply a universal constant, independent of the specific mass distribution of the universe. On the other hand, Brans and Dicke later proposed a so-called scalar-tensor theory of gravity in which the local value of G depends upon the rest of the mass in the universe through an additional scalar field that does not appear in Einstein's theory.