• Why does high temperature not always translate to extreme heat?

    Best answer: Temperature measures how fast particles are moving, whereas heat measures the total amount of energy that they transfer. Particles may be moving fast (high temperature), but if there are very few of them, they won't transfer much energy (low heat). Since space is mostly empty, a spacecraft could be orbiting the... show more
    Best answer: Temperature measures how fast particles are moving, whereas heat measures the total amount of energy that they transfer. Particles may be moving fast (high temperature), but if there are very few of them, they won't transfer much energy (low heat). Since space is mostly empty, a spacecraft could be orbiting the sun at an extremely close distance and with a very small plate for a head shield, protect its internal components. The lack of a transferable medium in interplanetary space ensures that very few particles transfer energy to the spacecraft.

    Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-07-sun-wont-p...
    7 answers · 6 hours ago
  • What does 0.01 mean?

    Does it mean 1mm or 1 micrometer
    Does it mean 1mm or 1 micrometer
    15 answers · 2 days ago
  • Can work (W=Fd) be negative?

    11 answers · 3 days ago
  • Can a dog on a Tread Mill be used to power your Computer?

    Best answer: i dont think so but you can try it and see
    Best answer: i dont think so but you can try it and see
    12 answers · 3 days ago
  • Was Eintsein the first to produce E= MC^2 equation?

    Best answer: No. Heaviside and others had predated Einstein's concept that mass and energy are equivalent. The exact equivalencies of the earlier concepts were a bit different from e = mc^2, but they were similar. Check this out: "Thomson’s slightly complicated result depended on the object’s charge, radius and... show more
    Best answer: No. Heaviside and others had predated Einstein's concept that mass and energy are equivalent. The exact equivalencies of the earlier concepts were a bit different from e = mc^2, but they were similar. Check this out:

    "Thomson’s slightly complicated result depended on the object’s charge, radius and magnetic permeability, but in 1889 English physicist Oliver Heaviside simplified his work to show that the effective mass should be m = (4⁄3) E / c2, where E is the energy of the sphere’s electric field. German physicists Wilhelm Wien, famous for his investigations into blackbody radiation, and Max Abraham got the same result, which became known as the “electromagnetic mass” of the classical electron (which was nothing more than a tiny, charged sphere). Although electromagnetic mass required that the object be charged and moving, and so clearly does not apply to all matter, it was nonetheless the first serious attempt to connect mass with energy." [https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...
    8 answers · 2 days ago
  • Is there such a thing as a perfect circle or a perfect sphere in existance?

    Best answer: Yes, watch the spongebob episode where he goes to art class
    Best answer: Yes, watch the spongebob episode where he goes to art class
    7 answers · 2 days ago
  • What is the definition of a FORCE in physics?

    Best answer: The definition I always use is; a force is that which accelerates a mass.
    Best answer: The definition I always use is; a force is that which accelerates a mass.
    5 answers · 1 day ago
  • !!!!Speed of sound!!!?

    Best answer: d = 2.25(1480-343) = 2558.25 m
    Best answer: d = 2.25(1480-343) = 2558.25 m
    5 answers · 1 day ago
  • If gravitys not a force, why do we still calculate it as one in basic physics?

    I understand Einstein’s idea of gravity more than Newton’s, and it seems like most physicists today do as well. So is the only reason we still define gravity as a force in basic physics classes is because we still have to mathematically account for it? Note: Please excuse if I sound ignorant on the idea of... show more
    I understand Einstein’s idea of gravity more than Newton’s, and it seems like most physicists today do as well. So is the only reason we still define gravity as a force in basic physics classes is because we still have to mathematically account for it? Note: Please excuse if I sound ignorant on the idea of general relativity, I’m still a student taking only my second physics class. We haven’t been taught anything on general relativity, I’m trying to teach myself out of interest so some of the ideas are a little more difficult to me.
    6 answers · 1 day ago
  • What is WORK in physics, I have hard time understanding?

    Best answer: Work and energy are not the same though they are very closely related. The words work and energy are often used interchangeably, but this is technically wrong. Think of work as *energy transferred to an object because of a force on the object*. This energy-transfer requires a displacement (or a component of... show more
    Best answer: Work and energy are not the same though they are very closely related. The words work and energy are often used interchangeably, but this is technically wrong.

    Think of work as *energy transferred to an object because of a force on the object*.

    This energy-transfer requires a displacement (or a component of displacement) in the direction of the force. This gives the basic formula:
    W = Fd.

    Example. Suppose you push a car with a force of 100N a distance 5m.
    The work done on the car by the force 100N x 5m = 500J.
    This means 500J has been transferred through the force, from you to the car. But it doesn’t tell you what type of energy.

    In this simple example you have supplied 500J (chemical energy in muscles) and the car has gained 500J kinetic energy (assuming no friction and a level road).

    The work done on the car is the amount of energy transferred to the car as a result of the force and displacement.

    If F and d (vectors) have opposite directions the work done on the object is negative: energy is removed from the object, e.g. a car slowing down due to a braking force – work done on car is negative.

    It gets messier when there are more than one force, but that’s the general idea.

    Note, not all energy transfers are work. When you heat something in a flame you are giving it energy but this is not work – no force is involved in the energy-transfer.
    5 answers · 1 day ago
  • Why does lightning strike trees or any tall objects??? what's the main reason for that??

    I heard that lightning is produced when negative charges of clouds coming down to ground & positive charges of ground going upward connect with each other...If this is true then how come most of the time lightning only strikes trees or any tall objects??? why not car, house or surface where there's nothing... show more
    I heard that lightning is produced when negative charges of clouds coming down to ground & positive charges of ground going upward connect with each other...If this is true then how come most of the time lightning only strikes trees or any tall objects??? why not car, house or surface where there's nothing (no trees, house or buildings) ???
    8 answers · 6 hours ago
  • True or False: Energy is required to apply a force? Or is it Work is required to apply a force?

    Best answer: Energy is required to apply a force. False. E.g. a box standing on the ground applies a force to the ground, but no energy is required for this. _________________ Or is it Work is required to apply a force? No. Work done on an object means the energy transferred by a force to the object when there is movement... show more
    Best answer: Energy is required to apply a force.
    False. E.g. a box standing on the ground applies a force to the ground, but no energy is required for this.
    _________________

    Or is it Work is required to apply a force?

    No. Work done on an object means the energy transferred by a force to the object when there is movement in the direction of the force.
    4 answers · 8 hours ago
  • Would a large amount of force be able to stop a beam of energy?

    Best answer: First, there is no such thing as a beam of energy. Energy is simply a capability to do work or cause a change. Now we might have a very powerful beam of laser light, for example, and it might have a lot of energy because it could blast things apart...do work. So a proper question would be is there anything that... show more
    Best answer: First, there is no such thing as a beam of energy. Energy is simply a capability to do work or cause a change. Now we might have a very powerful beam of laser light, for example, and it might have a lot of energy because it could blast things apart...do work.

    So a proper question would be is there anything that can stop a beam of light? And the answer, obviously, is sure. Lasers have to get very big and very powerful before they can become destructive. The airborne laser aircraft, for example, has a laser that's virtually the length of a Boeing 747 and it has the energy to punch a hole in an ICBM as the missile launches from its silo. [I worked on this project for Lockheed Martin]

    But lesser lasers simply reflect off the surface of whatever they're aimed at...like a blackboard, for example. And the impact force that reflects that beam of light is just F = dP/dT where dP is the change in the photon momentum as its reflected over time dT. In other words, the impact force F is stopping that beam of energetic photons. And if you were to crunch the numbers for a pointer laser, you'd find it doesn't take much force F to do it.
    5 answers · 2 days ago
  • Dear atheists, explain why is the earth flat and evolution not real. Also, is time travel possible?

    But before you answer I just wanted to let you know that my question clearly isn’t the archetype question for people on the science/math category on ya. No, not at all! Because lack of evidence alone totally isn’t what justifies atheism and bringing up flat earth and evolution is totally necessary and relevant.... show more
    But before you answer I just wanted to let you know that my question clearly isn’t the archetype question for people on the science/math category on ya. No, not at all! Because lack of evidence alone totally isn’t what justifies atheism and bringing up flat earth and evolution is totally necessary and relevant. Everyone knows that lack of evidence for spherical earth is totally good enough to belief the earth is flat. Plus there clearly isn’t loads of evidence for a round earth such as using Eratosthenes’s method for measuring the circumference of earth, the phases of the moon and planets, round planets, and a round shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse. And why would anyone believe evolution when natural selection and descent with modification isn’t logically are obviously real? Nah, they aren’t real who would actually think such a thing. If you don’t understand these concepts, anyone is obligated to claim they're not real. Further, time travel isn’t real, no way. Because no one knows about time dilation, that’s like unknown knowledge. That’s definitely not the example people answer the time travel question with.
    4 answers · 20 hours ago
  • Are the streams of urine in my pee quantumly entangled?

    When I peed today, I have a double stream of urine. The two streams of urine exhibited the same interference pattern that one sees in the double slit experiment. I wonder if that has resulted from quantum entanglement.
    When I peed today, I have a double stream of urine. The two streams of urine exhibited the same interference pattern that one sees in the double slit experiment. I wonder if that has resulted from quantum entanglement.
    5 answers · 2 days ago
  • How does a fan blade cause air to move?

    I understand that there must be a pressure gradient causing the air to move. What I don t understand is how this gradient is created. If the blade of the fan is moving in the x-y plane how does it create a gradient in the z-direction?
    I understand that there must be a pressure gradient causing the air to move. What I don t understand is how this gradient is created. If the blade of the fan is moving in the x-y plane how does it create a gradient in the z-direction?
    4 answers · 22 hours ago
  • What is the rest mass of a photon traveling through water?

    Best answer: The KE of a particle is k = Mvc; where M = m/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2). But when m = 0, no matter what the speed there is no KE by this equation. In other words, the physics, that there is no rest mass, disallows us from using the standard KE relationship. But by experiment we know that E = hF is the total energy of... show more
    Best answer: The KE of a particle is k = Mvc; where M = m/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2). But when m = 0, no matter what the speed there is no KE by this equation. In other words, the physics, that there is no rest mass, disallows us from using the standard KE relationship.

    But by experiment we know that E = hF is the total energy of photons with frequency F (h is a constant). And the total energy equation of a particle is E^2 = e^2 + k^2 where e = mc^2 is the mass.energy term.

    And here's the deal. When m = 0, like photons, we see that e = 0 so that the particle energy equation collapses to become E = hF = Mvc = Mcc = Pc where P = hF/c is the measurable momentum of photons with frequency F.

    In other words, as long as photons are going v = c the speed of light in a vacuum, they'll have no rest mass and their energy (which is all KE) is based on their frequency, not their speed.

    And as I think about everyone here has rightly said, photons always travel at light speed c. The reason you hear of slower speeds through media is because that speed is an average speed, not the actual speed when the photons are moving within the media. And on average they move through media slower than through a vacuum because they are delayed a bit each time they collide with the atoms that make up the media.

    Bottom line. The photons travelling through water are still rest massless. And just to blow your mind a bit, the photons that exit that glass of water are very likely not the same ones that entered that glass of water.
    5 answers · 2 days ago
  • What are all the energy sources?

    Best answer: Fossil fuel: gas, oil, coal

    renewables: biomass, wind, solar, hydro, geo-heat, wind, tide, wave action

    nuclear: fission reactors, fusion reactors (future), radioisotope generators.

    chemical: batteries
    Best answer: Fossil fuel: gas, oil, coal

    renewables: biomass, wind, solar, hydro, geo-heat, wind, tide, wave action

    nuclear: fission reactors, fusion reactors (future), radioisotope generators.

    chemical: batteries
    5 answers · 2 days ago