network profile
| bio | website | nuovolabs.com |
|---|---|---|
| location | Jupiter, FL | |
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 1 year, 3 months |
| seen | Dec 19 '12 at 1:39 | |
| stats | profile views | 15 |
I am a Python / Django developer. I specialize in developing SAAS applications using Django. My language of choice is Python, but I am sometimes forced to use English. Django rules.
|
Aug 25 |
comment |
Why can't electromagnetic radiation from magnets be used for apparent perpetual motion? @celtschk - thanks for the explanation. I appreciate you sharing your knowledge. |
|
Aug 25 |
comment |
Why can't electromagnetic radiation from magnets be used for apparent perpetual motion? Meant to say "N facing upstream against..." |
|
Aug 25 |
comment |
Why can't electromagnetic radiation from magnets be used for apparent perpetual motion? @Ron - so if you have a finite energy output and it lasts forever... that's finite? What about a candle that burns forever. -1 on all your questions :) |
|
Aug 24 |
comment |
Why can't electromagnetic radiation from magnets be used for apparent perpetual motion? Would you mind commenting on the new answer and on my reply to it? |
|
Aug 24 |
comment |
Why can't electromagnetic radiation from magnets be used for apparent perpetual motion? Imagine a row of permanent magnets, 1,000,000 miles long, each's N facing downstream in the line, and then you accelerate 1 magnet with its S facing upstream against the N magnets. It's on a track and locked from turning. Couldn't you accelerate the magnet down track at a certain speed SP and have it remain at speed SP until the end of the line (assuming you set up everything just right and there was low friction) |
|
Aug 20 |
comment |
Physical -> Chemical -> Nuclear -> [what comes next] @dmckee - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPERA_experiment states that OPERA was a collaboration between CERN themselves, and 1 other agency. At this point, I'll leave you with a suggestion: Do some research before further posturing. |
|
Aug 19 |
comment |
Physical -> Chemical -> Nuclear -> [what comes next] @dmckee - Ha, if you'd read it, you'd have know that OPERA was the name of the experiment, by CERN, not some other agency - public.web.cern.ch/public/en/spotlight/SpotlightCNGS-en.html |
|
Aug 19 |
comment |
Physical -> Chemical -> Nuclear -> [what comes next] @dmckee - AdamRedwine - My seemingly cynical comments are indented to be thought provoking. Science is about questioning what we know, not assuming we know everything. I defer to CERN's recent "discoveries", again, and the reason I ask for a proof that can be directly witnessed by my 5 senses is because when our senses provide extraneous and/or erroneous data we can use interpersonal communication (as a control) to rule it out as anomalous (e.g., the case of the floating objects after a stroke). How can we determine anomalous behavior in tools which rely on data without controls? |
|
Aug 19 |
awarded | Commentator |
|
Aug 19 |
comment |
Physical -> Chemical -> Nuclear -> [what comes next] @AdamRedwine - You trust your brain more than your nervous system? If memory serves me, your brain is kind of the core of your nervous system. |
|
Aug 17 |
accepted | Physical -> Chemical -> Nuclear -> [what comes next] |
|
Aug 17 |
comment |
Physical -> Chemical -> Nuclear -> [what comes next] @AdamRedwine - Yeah, just like Cern examined faster than light particles, or Higgs Boson? And, then... realized they didn't. You see, there is a degree of separation between anything and everything, but if the only degree of separation is a microscope and your own nervous system, one can more confidently conclude that one has "examined" something :) |
|
Aug 17 |
comment |
Physical -> Chemical -> Nuclear -> [what comes next] (in my last comment, I'm attempting to suggest that or ask whether E=mc2 need not having anything to do with atoms, specifically, meaning that the potential nuclear yield of a given portion of U235 might not be representative of the amount of energy contained therein) |
|
Aug 17 |
comment |
Physical -> Chemical -> Nuclear -> [what comes next] @user758556 - can you put that into an answer, and perhaps elaborate a bit more about why mass energy equivalence (the theory) precludes the possibility of there being more mass in an object than we can observe at the atomic level. |
|
Aug 17 |
comment |
Physical -> Chemical -> Nuclear -> [what comes next] @AdamRedwine - we don't examine them, rather their effects. If you know otherwise, I'd like to see a few photos of your favorite quarks, or perhaps you could tell me about the experiences of those who have felt them, or in any way otherwise experienced them with their 5 senses. |
|
Aug 17 |
awarded | Student |
|
Aug 17 |
asked | Physical -> Chemical -> Nuclear -> [what comes next] |
|
Jun 21 |
awarded | Editor |
|
Jan 30 |
accepted | Why can't electromagnetic radiation from magnets be used for apparent perpetual motion? |
|
Jan 30 |
awarded | Supporter |
