Run and Gain Weight????

If you run really fast, you gain weight. Not permanently, or it would make a mockery of diet and exercise plans, but momentarily, and only a tiny amount.

Light speed is the speed limit of the universe. So if something is travelling close to the speed of light, and you give it a push, it can’t go very much faster. But you’ve given it extra energy, and that energy has to go somewhere.

Where it goes is mass. According to relativity, mass and energy are equivalent. So the more energy you put in, the greater the mass becomes. This is negligible at human speeds – Usain Bolt is not noticeably heavier when running than when still – but once you reach an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, your mass starts to increase rapidly.

Would a Strawberry Sun be Hot like our sun?

Why is the sun hot?  Why does it stay hot?  What if...the sun was made of strawberries?  Would it be hot?
The answer is well...yes and no.  The sun is hot because of its weight...billion billion billion tons creating vast gravity which pulls its core under colossal pressure.  This pressure leads to enormous temperature.  So if you took a billion billion billion tons of strawberries and stuck them in space it would create equal pressure and a just as high a temperature.  That is the yes part....

Strawberry Sun

Now for the NO part:  Even though the heat would be similar to the sun because strawberries are not made of hydrogen the fusion reaction that keeps the sun going wouldn't get under way and our strawberry sun would cool from its initial heat rather than burning for billions of years!

Rainbows

Looking out Jason and Maria's back window.

Simple really... rainbows.  But how beautiful!  Maybe there are a few things you didn't know.  Likely you knew that a rainbow is sunlight ... spread out into its spectrum of colors and diverted to the eye by water droplets.   But did you notice that the sun is always behind you when you face a rainbow? And what make the bow?
A question like this calls for a proper physical answer. We will discuss the formation of a rainbow by raindrops. It is a problem in optics that was first clearly discussed by Rene Descartes in 1637. An interesting historical account of this is to be found in Carl Boyer's book, The Rainbow From Myth to Mathematics. Descartes simplified the study of the rainbow by reducing it to a study of one water droplet and how it interacts with light falling upon it.
He writes:"Considering that this bow appears not only in the sky, but also in the air near us, whenever there are drops of water illuminated by the sun, as we can see in certain fountains, I readily decided that it arose only from the way in which the rays of light act on these drops and pass from them to our eyes. Further, knowing that the drops are round, as has been formerly proved, and seeing that whether they are larger or smaller, the appearance of the bow is not changed in any way, I had the idea of making a very large one, so that I could examine it better.
Descarte describes how he held up a large sphere in the sunlight and looked at the sunlight reflected in it. He wrote "I found that if the sunlight came, for example, from the part of the sky which is marked AFZ
and my eye was at the point E, when I put the globe in position BCD, its part D appeared all red, and much more brilliant than the rest of it; and that whether I approached it or receded from it, or put it on my right or my left, or even turned it round about my head, provided that the line DE always made an angle of about forty-two degrees with the line EM, which we are to think of as drawn from the center of the sun to the eye, the part D appeared always similarly red; but that as soon as I made this angle DEM even a little larger, the red color disappeared; and if I made the angle a little smaller, the color did not disappear all at once, but divided itself first as if into two parts, less brilliant, and in which I could see yellow, blue, and other colors ... When I examined more particularly, in the globe BCD, what it was which made the part D appear red, I found that it was the rays of the sun which, coming from A to B, bend on entering the water at the point B, and to pass to C, where they are reflected to D, and bending there again as they pass out of the water, proceed to the point ".
This quotation illustrates how the shape of the rainbow is explained. To simplify the analysis, consider the path of a ray of monochromatic light through a single spherical raindrop. Imagine how light is refracted as it enters the raindrop, then how it is reflected by the internal, curved, mirror-like surface of the raindrop, and finally how it is refracted as it emerges from the drop. If we then apply the results for a single raindrop to a whole collection of raindrops in the sky, we can visualize the shape of the bow.
The traditional diagram to illustrate this is shown here as adapted from Humphreys, Physics of the Air. It represents the path of one light ray incident on a water droplet from the direction SA. As the light beam enters the surface of the drop at A, it is bent (refracted) a little and strikes the inside wall of the drop at B, where it is reflected back to C. As it emerges from the drop it is refracted (bent) again into the direction CE. The angle D represents a measure of the deviation of the emergent ray from its original direction. Descartes calculated this deviation for a ray of red light to be about 180 - 42 or 138 degrees.
The ray drawn here is significant because it represents the ray that has the smallest angle of deviation of all the rays incident upon the raindrop. It is called the Descarte or rainbow ray and much of the sunlight as it is refracted and reflected through the raindrop is focused along this ray. Thus the reflected light is diffuse and weaker except near the direction of this rainbow ray. It is this concentration of rays near the minimum deviation that gives rise to the arc of rainbow.
The sun is so far away that we can, to a good approximation, assume that sunlight can be represented by a set of parallel rays all falling on the water globule and being refracted, reflected internally, and refracted again on emergence from the droplet in a manner like the figure. Descartes writes
I took my pen and made an accurate calculation of the paths of the rays which fall on the different points of a globe of water to determine at which angles, after two refractions and one or two reflections they will come to the eye, and I then found that after one reflection and two refractions there are many more rays which can be seen at an angle of from forty-one to forty-two degrees than at any smaller angle; and that there are none which can be seen at a larger angle" (the angle he is referring to is 180 - D).
A typical raindrop is spherical and therefore its effect on sunlight is symmetrical about an axis through the center of the drop and the source of light (in this case the sun). Because of this symmetry, the two-dimensional illustration of the figure serves us well and the complete picture can be visualized by rotating the two dimensional illustration about the axis of symmetry. The symmetry of the focusing effect of each drop is such that whenever we view a raindrop along the line of sight defined by the rainbow ray, we will see a bright spot of reflected/refracted sunlight. Referring to the figure, we see that the rainbow ray for red light makes an angle of 42 degrees between the direction of the incident sunlight and the line of sight. Therefore, as long as the raindrop is viewed along a line of sight that makes this angle with the direction of incident light, we will see a brightening. The rainbow is thus a circle of angular radius 42 degrees, centered on the antisolar point, as shown schematically here.
We don't see a full circle because the earth gets in the way. The lower the sun is to the horizon, the more of the circle we see -right at sunset, we would see a full semicircle of the rainbow with the top of the arch 42 degrees above the horizon. The higher the sun is in the sky, the smaller is the arch of the rainbow above the horizon.

High Voltage On The Moon-Comment

Here is a very interesting thought about high voltage on the moon. Thanks Bob for the contribution.

Since the moon soil is not an effective conductor, grounding is not an option. Think of the crater as a capacitor. If a conductive path were provided between the bottom of the crater and to moon's surface at the top of the crater it would neutralize the potential difference. You would need to attach a faraday grid at each end of the cable to collect and disburse the charge.  The larger the grid, the greater the discharge rate.  
Robert B. Gregory ab4al@att.net


AB4AL-Bob

A Comment on the Black Hole Post

Interesting comment from Bob.  Keep reading...you'll think big!


Neat stuff!  If you read that short deal with the picture of a red giant having its surface sucked into a black hole you will note it talks about and the picture and shows two jets streaming into space from the black hole.  At the core of our galaxy the Milky Way is a huge black hole and likewise streaming from it are like poles.  These poles cause disruption of matter the closer you get to their radiant direction.  When you influence matter you also cause the resulting gravitational field to fluctuate. 

Imagine a pond where you drop a heavy rock, the resulting ripples spread across the surface.  The closer you are to the event point the greater the ripple magnitude.  In the case of a black hole the spindles of energy radiating outward creates these gravitational ripples.  In our travel around the core of the Milky Way our solar system periodically passes through heavy gravity waves.  When the waves are strong enough they actually distort planet Earth like a tennis ball is distorted when you squeeze it.  The results of this distortion of the Earth are powerful earth quakes and resulting tsunami action. 

In 2004 when Sari Lanka was struck with a tsunami as a result of the powerful earthquake at Sumatra, it was as a result of a powerful gravity wave that struck Earth when millions of years ago a super nova exploded and over those millions of years traveling across space the gravity wave finally hit Earth in 2004. 

The waves coming from the galactic core are many times more powerful and were the driving force that broke the land mass apart and caused the separate continents to be formed. The event is often referred to as the Pangaea era.

It is possible that with our next encounter the results would be as described in the Bible, disaster beyond description.



Just thought I'd share that with you, it is all based on information gleaned from credible sources and several astrophysicists, Stephen Hawking being one.  I've been doing the research and have also discovered other things that are very interesting you will never hear in our limited society.



Interesting links:  http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/

                             http://earthchangesmedia.com/

                             http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/GRB.html

                             http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Black_holes

                             http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/01/are-black-holes-actually-white-stephen-hawkings-theory-says-yes.html

Watch Out HIGH VOLTAGE and the moon?

As the solar wind flows over natural obstructions on the moon, it may charge polar lunar craters to hundreds of volts, according to new calculations by NASA’s Lunar Science Institute team.

Polar lunar craters are of interest because of resources, including water ice, which exist there. The moon’s orientation to the sun keeps the bottoms of polar craters in permanent shadow, allowing temperatures there to plunge below minus 400 degrees Fahrenheit, cold enough to store volatile material like water for billions of years. "However, our research suggests that, in addition to the wicked cold, explorers and robots at the bottoms of polar lunar craters may have to contend with a complex electrical environment as well, which can affect surface chemistry, static discharge, and dust cling," said William Farrell of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Farrell is lead author of a paper on this research published March 24 in the Journal of Geophysical Research. The research is part of the Lunar Science Institute’s Dynamic Response of the Environment at the moon (DREAM) project.

"This important work by Dr. Farrell and his team is further evidence that our view on the moon has changed dramatically in recent years," said Gregory Schmidt, deputy director of the NASA Lunar Science Institute at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. "It has a dynamic and fascinating environment that we are only beginning to understand."

Solar wind inflow into craters can erode the surface, which affects recently discovered water molecules. Static discharge could short out sensitive equipment, while the sticky and extremely abrasive lunar dust could wear out spacesuits and may be hazardous if tracked inside spacecraft and inhaled over long periods.
To learn more: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/moonmars/features/electric-craters.html

Black Hole Jets

For decades, X-ray astronomers have studied the complex behavior of binary systems pairing a normal star with a black hole. In these systems, gas from the normal star streams toward the black hole and forms a disk around it. Friction within the disk heats the gas to millions of degrees -- hot enough to produce X-rays. At the disk's inner edge, near the black hole, strong magnetic fields eject some of the gas into dual, oppositely directed jets that blast outward at about half the speed of light.

To learn more: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/black-hole-jets.html