Recent content by jwalker1196

You'd have to coat the bulb and its assembly too, or it would absorb the photons as well. Actually, jump to this thread.

Let us pretend you could. Then the sphere would indeed get more massive. Now, if you were asking could this be done, I would have to say no. You'd have to open the sphere to put them in, allowing for the escape of photons already inside.But I'll do you one better. Let's say the inside of the...

Is it possible, given the infinite possible "base" number systems that can be used (we use base 10 of course) that e and pi have a very simple definition in one "native" base system? This lends itself to a creator of course. Or an influencer. ZapperZ made a very good analogy. I myself am a...

The light and therefore the mass is coming from somewhere, and that somewhere is getting lighter by definition. If that somewhere is within the sphere already, then the sphere would maintain its mass.

Near-field magnetoresistance was exactly the topic I read about, and 6-Jul-07 is about the right time as well. I believe their article also mentioned they expected a large improvement in efficiency as they continued to research, as well.

Agreed, the tap is unnecessary when there are indeed better and even simpler alternatives. (Though some places, ie Walmart, are better served by their IR detectors, because you would get mischievious kids/teens putting something heavy on the footrest to cause the very thing that prompted the IR...

I'm not so sure... I thought I'd seen something recently in the news... but then again, the news isn't always reliable. I'll try to find it. The gist was, the creation of an oscillating EM field, which was then "focused" to be strongest in the spot where it was to be recieved, and then turned...

It's an interesting thought, but I'm sure the answer is, you couldn't. That's a bit like asking to "move" one piece of space to another. And I mean space in the vacuum-ed sense. How would you go about changing the position of space? You can change objects' positions in space, but not the...

My dad's a EE with a minor in CS, and he does quite well for himself... retired as a AVP at HP making ~$200k /year and got a big bonus for doing it... before that he had plenty of work all the time, and had lots of fun designing half the crap in your PC. But he's pretty bright.

Haha. Very nicely put. Energy has mass, just immeasurably small mass under our daily circumstances. Get near lightspeed, and the added mass from energy becomes large.

Imagine any rocket with enough fuel. Left to accelerate indefinitely, it too would exceed c. Yet we know that to be impossible. It's the same question, and I don't have an answer as to why it would be impossible. Maybe it's not. We don't yet know.

I'm not entirely sure what malty means... but PatPwnt: You're still thinking 3-dimensionally. If the universe had only 3 dimensions, this would be violated (along with lightspeed). But in our example, the travel is done through another dimension. So the energy, while gained in one place, is...

Maybe what's confusing you is you're thinking of friction. The equation which produces that result ignores friction (which includes wind resistance, etc). So in the real world, no, you don't land with quite as much speed. Also don't forget the difference between velocity and speed. Initial...

Haha. Sure, if the ends of the wormhole are stationary in our 3-dimensional space, and the broom is long enough (50m in my example) then two people 50,000 km away could touch the same broom. We are also assuming that the wormhole is straight in its "native" dimensions.

Say there's nth-dimensional wormhole. This wormhole, while only, say, 50m long in its "native" dimensions, begins and ends in our 3 dimensions some large distance apart. So, let's say you travel at a velocity of 3x the speed of sound (340.29 m/s at Earth sea level) through the wormhole: so 50m...