Is the hutchison effect for real?
825966
see here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutchison_effect#Nature_of_the_effect\nand the other links in this site
252852
no , they tested that on mythbusters and proved it wrong. One person has survived a elevator crashing down 30 stories in a fire, and that person said it was because he had jumped in the elevator. That is where the rumor started.\n\nMythbusters showed that this women actually survoved because the air under the falling elevator acted as a cushion and the snapped cable under it acted as a coil. So to answer your question, NO
219105
After reading much on the subject, it is my impression that none of the ways work well.  Most of the theories out there are about as scientific as astrology.  Most financial experts recommend against dealing in foreign exchange at all. You're more likely to lose money than gain. If you do try it, watch out for the scammers.
405317
I think that it is a very real thing.  As to the chances of it actually happening to me, I seriously doubt that will happen, but who knows!  Most cases probably have a contributing factor, such as falling asleep with a cigarette and making it seem like spontaneous combustion, but I think if Tibetan Monks can raise their body temperature through mind control, who's to say their internal thermostat might go on the fritz and kaboom....of course if Tibetan Monks can do it, then some other people might be able too without realizing that's what they're doing.
1044959
You know, MythBusters did an experiment on this once.\n\nhttp://kwc.org/mythbusters/2003/09/mythbusters.html\n\nRead the second bullet point.
502394
No(yes). It is not real(it is).\n\nhttp://www.poleshift.org/sublim/
874570
NO!!  If people would stop (mis)quoting half-remembered precepts here, and do a spot of THINKING, instead, we might get somewhere.\n\n1.  If a moving spherical ball directly hits an identical free, stationary ball head on in an elastic collision, the moving ball STOPS, and the previously stationary one heads off with the original velocity of the other.  So ALL of the moving ball's K.E. has been transferred to the other ball.  \n\nHere are two ways to see this:\n\n1a.  The device known somewhat indelicately to British schoolboys as "Newton's balls" (but in squeamish America as "The Swinging Wonder") provides an excellent table-top demonstration of this.  Most undergraduate physics instructors must haul this out from time to time.\n\n1b.  You can easily solve it analytically, but a thought experiment will also demonstrate it.  In the originally stationary ball's frame, let the other ball approach with speed v.  Now shift (with an appropriately directed speed of v/2) to the frame in which the two equal balls are simply approaching each other, each with a speed in this frame of that same v/2 (oppositely directed, of course)!  Clearly, from the symmetry of the situation, they'll bounce off each other with the same (oppositely directed) speeds in this frame, still of v/2.  Now go back to the original frame: the previously moving ball is now completely stationary, while the originally stationary one is haring off with speed v.  (You may need to make little sketches of what is happening as viewed successively from each of these frames, to see this; I admit that that's what I did.)\n\n2a.  A similar approach can be used to solve the general case for an arbitrary ratio of masses, m (initially moving)/M (initially stationary).  Hint: have the balls approach one another in their center of mass frame with equal but opposite momenta of mv and  MV.  They'll clearly bounce off one another in such a frame, retaining the same values of their respective (but now oppositely directed) speeds.  Then you can do the other frame-jugglings from there. \n\nHowever, this analytical approach, done accurately, is a tedious mess.  So, to appreciate the general problem more physically, consider just the following:\n\n2b.  The case of m << M.\n\nConsider the "equal but opposite momentum" frame for these two balls, in which MV = mv.  This means that if ball M is VERY MASSIVE, the speed it will have in such a frame, V = (m/M)v; that is, it's VERY SMALL compared to little puny m's high speed.\n\nSo, transforming to the frame in which M itself (the big guy) is initially stationary takes only a speed shift of O(m/M)v.  (In fact identically so.)  This only affects the speed of puny m minutely, so m's initial K.E. is still of order O(m v^2).  (There's no need to do picky constant book-keeping for these purposes.)  \n\nNow after the collision: In the original frame, Big M is now moving (and in fact at 2V if you think about it.)  But, being loose about the constants, M's K.E is only O(MV^2).  \n\nSo, the ratio (m's K.E.)/(M's K.E.) ~ (mv^2)/(MV^2)\n\n= (m/M)(M/m)^2 (since mv = MV)\n\n= M/m.\n\nBINGO!  The little bugger still carries by far the larger amount of the kinetic energy.  The massive ball (i) moves sluggishly, and (ii) because  K.E. involves both mass but also the SQUARE of the speed, the TWO POWERS of (small) speed more than cancel out the effect of its (large) mass.\n\nThis is a well-known fact in particle collision theory, that little particles basically bounce off big ones.  \n\nYou could also say that it's well-known in "space billiards": when spacecraft head close to Jupiter to receive a "gravitational sling-shot effect" that sends them off to the outermost planets.  \n\nIt's more complicated because of 3-D effects there, but analogous frame-shifting methods can be used to show that the spacecraft can pick up considerable speed AND change
949653
No.\n\nNo chain letter has been, is, or ever will be real.
761270
it is quite an inexact calculation, here are a few attempts\n\nhttp://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/KristineMcPherson.shtml
1182496
Yes it just depends on what you beleive in and what you don't.  This kind of science is called quantum physics.  Check it out some time, it's very interesting.
696982
No.  This has been postulated since the early 1900s but as of this writing there is no conclusive evidence that it is true.  If it WERE true there would be dozens and dozens of these unrelated doubles coming forth every single year.  As it it NONE have come forth--EVER.\n\n\nAdded note:  The moron below who goes by the name Chong Sian C claimed the Double Theory was real and then he left behind several links--hoping no one would ever check them.  I did.  Everyone had NOTHING at all to do with the theory you asked about.  He is clearly an idiot who thinks you can simply type the term "Double Theory" into Google and whatever comes up is a valid website.  One of his sites talked about grammar, one talked about possible photo double used for Saddam Hussain, and one simply used the word "Double" in the title but it had NOTHING to do with YOUR question.\n\nI hope this teaches you a lesson, that whenever someone who claims to be an expert gives you books or websites to look up you had better double check them (like I ALWAYS do, because it keeps you from being suckered by fakes like Chong Sian C is.)\n\nDon't be fooled.
1093591
Sure.  The 'Butterfly Effect'.  Research the chaos theory.  Amazing stuff.
269782
That's what they say.  I haven't seen it work in action yet.  Most of those who have set something free, it didn't come back.  I'm running my own experiment, so maybe I'll have an answer for you then.
546779
I think it is more accurate to say we can easily replicate the EFFECTS of gravity, rather than gravity itself.  Gravity relies on mass.  More mass, more gravity.  Any "replication" of real gravity is not replication it is the real thing.
84436
Below is the source for a fact sheet that talks about that.  Effect depends on the age of student and what is being watched.  Check it out!  Good luck.
338364
Wagon wheel effect read about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_rotation_effect
1132483
their is one in (north burlington ontario) as well  .I have also read their is one in  Oshawa ,ontario, If you go to the bottom and place your car in neutral it drags your car uphil slowly .\n____________________________________________\nscientifically it is an optical illusion \nSometimes you may find or hear of a mysterious place where objects can apparently roll uphill. This is a remarkably common illusion which is found in numerous locations around the world. Usually it is a stretch of road in a hilly area where the level horizon is obscured. Objects such as trees and walls which normally provide visual clues to the true vertical, may be leaning slightly. This creates an optical illusion making a slight downhill look like an uphill slope. Objects may appear to roll uphill. \nSpots where the illusion is especially powerful often become tourist attractions. Tour guides may like to claim that the effect is a mystery or that it is due to magnetic or gravitational irregularities or even that it is a paranormal phenomenon which science can not explain. This is not true of course. Natural irregularities can only be detected with sensitive equipment and cannot account for these places but science can easily explain them as optical illusions. \n\nThere are several things which enable us to sense which way is up. The balance mechanism in our inner ears is one system we have, but visual clues are also important and can be overriding. If the horizon cannot be seen or is not level then we may be fooled by objects which we expect to be vertical but which aren't really. \nPeople often overestimate the angle of a slope. If you are standing on a slope of 1 degrees it will seem like a slope of 5 degrees. Because of this effect the anti-gravity illusion can seem stronger than it should be even when you know the cause.\n\nEven when the true cause is understood it can be difficult to believe. If you think there is a magnetic anomaly just use two plumb lines, one made of iron and one of stone. They would hang at different angles if a strong magnetic field was acting horizontally. \nHowever, it is not always easy to demonstrate that a slope which appears to go uphill is really going downhill. The only reliable way of determining the true horizontal is by careful surveying. If a good topographical map of the area is available it may be sufficient to show which way the land is really sloping. The results will confirm the illusion. \n...\nyou can also check the info I found on the Oshawa site \nhttp://www.shopinoshawa.com/magnetichill.htm