961 reputation
723
bio website ericmenze.com
location Minneapolis, MN
age 30
visits member for 2 years, 11 months
seen 18 hours ago

I'm a Computer (Web) Programmer/Analyst based in Anchorage, AK and Minneapolis, MN. I use (among other things) ASP.NET, C# and SQL Server.

I build things. Bicycles, computers, websites, guitars, cars, motorcycles, sound sytems... lots of things.


1d
comment Why is the singularity of the Big Bang not considered to be the center of the Universe?
Or did the original $1m^3$ volume somehow vanish or disappear onto a different dimension?
1d
comment Why is the singularity of the Big Bang not considered to be the center of the Universe?
Are you saying that the big bang happened in a fourth spatial dimension? If not, I think the balloon analogy falls short. At one point, the universe occupied $1m^3$. Then it expanded to $10m^3$, while fully encapsulating the volume of the original $1m^3$. Why is it not accurate to find 'where' this original $1m^3$ was in relation to the current universe, and call that the center?
Apr
8
comment Is there any difference between fusing and smashing particles?
I was referring to stellar fusion with H + H => He, and did not specify the isotope. Or were you saying that the 'stable' qualifier is incorrect?
Apr
8
comment Is there any difference between fusing and smashing particles?
It is not just about stability. Two nuclei => hundreds of stable Hydrogen nuclei is still not fusion. Put simplistically, you're either combining nuclei (Fusion), splitting nuclei with neutrons (Fission). Smashing things together can do either of those, or neither (energy production, misses, breaking nucleii with momentum).
Apr
8
comment Is there any difference between fusing and smashing particles?
In short, though perhaps not without some exceptions, the 'products' of Fusion will be more massive than its 'reactants'. The products of a Particle collider, if there are any stable products (it could in theory be 100% energy), are less massive than the 'reactants'.
Apr
8
revised Path of a proton in a magnetic field
added 18 characters in body
Apr
8
answered Path of a proton in a magnetic field
Apr
8
answered Is there any difference between fusing and smashing particles?
Apr
5
comment Why is the sky of the moon always dark?
Indeed! I meant 7% / 0.07, not both.
Mar
31
revised Are nuclear processes the only processes that release more energy than is input?
added 315 characters in body
Mar
31
answered Are nuclear processes the only processes that release more energy than is input?
Mar
29
comment Why is the sky of the moon always dark?
However, where landings happen the duller dust is stirred up and moved; and the angle of incidence to the camera is not perpendicular to the surface. Check out this page with a reproduction on earth with a soup can: www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/fillit.htm
Mar
29
comment Why is the sky of the moon always dark?
I can't find many good measurements of lunar surface albedo near landing sites, but it does have an overall average of 0.07% to 0.11% (0.12% including earthshine), comparable to worn asphalt on earth. This would put it quite low compared to snow and deserts, see this chart on the Albedo wiki page.
Mar
28
comment Why is the sky of the moon always dark?
Rovers have, and they have cameras.
Mar
28
answered Why is the sky of the moon always dark?
Mar
19
awarded  Notable Question
Mar
3
answered Is the difference between an event horizon and a singularity merely perspective?
Jan
26
answered Is it possible for the universe to be moving towards something, rather than expanding?
Jan
22
awarded  Popular Question
Jan
20
comment Would cosmological redshift be present in the following situation?
What's a better way? I was hoping to pin it down to this (preposterous) example to nail down specifically what I'm having a hard time understanding; which is the two planets are fully stationary with respect to each other.