Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 20:16:00 -
[331] - Quote
T'san Manaan wrote:Didn't read everything as it was making my head hurt so if this was covered sorry. I got excited to read the OP as I have a question that has been bothering me for a while.
If the universe is constantly expanding what is it expanding into and why can't we see what it is expanding into?
no worries =D i write about this on post #196 on page 10 of this thread. the long and short of it is that the term "expanding" is somewhat misleading. it's more like the universes "unit of measure for distance" is increasing. this IS a good question though. when i took my first cosmology class it gave me no end of headaches heheh. |
Kehro Urgus
168
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 23:56:00 -
[332] - Quote
This is more about geophysics but I was very bored one day reading Wikipedia and stumbled across one article where it stated gravity is slightly stronger when moving east to west (or vice-versa... I can't remember) and it never offered an explanation why. I can't remember the subject of the article. I vaguely remember looking up the Coriolis effect.
I thought it was very strange and I couldn't really figure out why this is true. Only thing I can think of is if one is travelling west the earth's surface rises underfoot ever so slightly due to earth's curvature and rotation but I have my doubts whether it's a valid explanation. I hear voices and they don't like you very much! |
Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
74
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 01:22:00 -
[333] - Quote
There is a theory that at the moment a large part of the Universe ( I think it was around 75-60%) consists out of Dark Matter.
This might be a reason as of why our Universal expansion rate keeps increasing instead of the expected decreasing rate which would resolve in the Big Implosion.
However if Dark Matter is the reason the Universe might be keeping on expanding at an increasing rate might this also not hold true on micro level at an linear rate?
Also if Dark Mattr is one of the main reasons the Universe is on an increasing expansion rate, then why doesn't the expansion rate drop anyways since this would involve more Dark Matter comming into existense to keep the expansion rate increasing. How and why does Dark Matter seem to increase
A: Universal expansion rate B: Why don't we see a decline in the expansion velocity anyways or does Dark Matter create more Dark matter? Is there a theory about that? C: If Dark Matter is really around 75-80% of the known Universe, wouldn't that also open up the theory that this matter is also present in solid forms on a very microscopic level. If so what effects would those have.
Appologies for my poor english.
|
Professor Alphane
Alphane Research Co-operative
301
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 13:25:00 -
[334] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Professor Alphane wrote:Now this is based on something I saw on QI and may or may not be true.
Speed of light can be slowed by passing the beam through other materials (bromine or bromide sounds familiar).
Given this and given we do not really know the 'consitancy' of space, how do we know what the universe really looks like , AFAIK all our assumptions are based on the speed of light being constant ?
A. this question actually gave me pause. i was going to try and quote empirical evidence for the geometry of the universe that did not rely on our current cosmological models, and therefore the speed of light, but i couldn't (at least not off the top of my head)! if we ever gain the ability to travel astronomical distances easily, the measurement of spacial geometry becomes trivial. simply travel vast distances and make three turns. if you are able to return to your initial location by making only 90 degree turns, then the universe is "closed" (spherical. like drawing a large triangle over the surface of the earth). if you can return to your initial position and the angle of the turns add up to less than 180 degrees, then the universe is "open" (saddle shaped, like trying to draw a triangle inside of a large bowl). if you return to your initial position and the angles of your turn add up to exactly 180 degrees, then the universe is "flat" (like drawing a triangle on a piece of paper). on another note, the speed of light is different in all mediums when compared to a vacuum =D in water it is approximately 33% slower, and we can get this directly from the refractive index, n. the refractive index is defined as the ratio between the speed of light in a vacuum, c, and the speed of light in a material, V. we can measure n from a simple geometric examination of how light bends in a given material, and yes, this is somewhat of a simplification (there are wavelength effects as well) but the point is matter slows light down.the universality of c can be seen directly from classical electrodynamics. i think i wrote about this in an earlier post, which was to answer a similar question. hope this helps! T.
Wow I think I might of actually stumped you with that one. How about we try this little twist on the theory
If matter slows light
taken to it's nth degree matter STOPS light.
Given thats is the edge of the universe as you see it merely the edge of the 'visible' univerese given the length of a beam of light is not infinite.
Beyond the 'edge' you see nothing as no (photon) light reaches you from that space.
This might also explain the fact people seem to believe there is more mass in the univerese than there should be (hence the dark matter theory) .
It's possible that because gravity is an interaction beween 2 objects and not an energy packet you would still see the gravitational effect upon bodies you can see from bodies you cannot because of photonic decay (for want of a better phrase)
What do you reckon?
YOU MUST THINK FIRST.... |
Professor Alphane
Alphane Research Co-operative
301
|
Posted - 2012.03.17 10:17:00 -
[335] - Quote
Sorry perhaps I went to far , I hope I haven't offeded you.
It was just a logic game to me but I later realised this does sort of challenge some of the fundamentals in a totally unporavable way , these fundametals are most likely 'proved' in maths ( a form that is beyond my comprehesion currently) and far beyond my rather childish 'If X , why Y?' post.
Thanks for your time and effort in this thread though it has been frankly fascinating.
A.
YOU MUST THINK FIRST.... |
Amaroq Dricaldari
Malicious Mission Murderers
105
|
Posted - 2012.03.18 11:16:00 -
[336] - Quote
Schrodinger's Cat. Need we say more? This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.19 15:50:00 -
[337] - Quote
Professor Alphane wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:Professor Alphane wrote:Now this is based on something I saw on QI and may or may not be true.
Speed of light can be slowed by passing the beam through other materials (bromine or bromide sounds familiar).
Given this and given we do not really know the 'consitancy' of space, how do we know what the universe really looks like , AFAIK all our assumptions are based on the speed of light being constant ?
A. this question actually gave me pause. i was going to try and quote empirical evidence for the geometry of the universe that did not rely on our current cosmological models, and therefore the speed of light, but i couldn't (at least not off the top of my head)! if we ever gain the ability to travel astronomical distances easily, the measurement of spacial geometry becomes trivial. simply travel vast distances and make three turns. if you are able to return to your initial location by making only 90 degree turns, then the universe is "closed" (spherical. like drawing a large triangle over the surface of the earth). if you can return to your initial position and the angle of the turns add up to less than 180 degrees, then the universe is "open" (saddle shaped, like trying to draw a triangle inside of a large bowl). if you return to your initial position and the angles of your turn add up to exactly 180 degrees, then the universe is "flat" (like drawing a triangle on a piece of paper). on another note, the speed of light is different in all mediums when compared to a vacuum =D in water it is approximately 33% slower, and we can get this directly from the refractive index, n. the refractive index is defined as the ratio between the speed of light in a vacuum, c, and the speed of light in a material, V. we can measure n from a simple geometric examination of how light bends in a given material, and yes, this is somewhat of a simplification (there are wavelength effects as well) but the point is matter slows light down.the universality of c can be seen directly from classical electrodynamics. i think i wrote about this in an earlier post, which was to answer a similar question. hope this helps! T. Wow I think I might of actually stumped you with that one. How about we try this little twist on the theory If matter slows light taken to it's nth degree matter STOPS light. Given thats is the edge of the universe as you see it merely the edge of the 'visible' univerese given the length of a beam of light is not infinite. Beyond the 'edge' you see nothing as no (photon) light reaches you from that space. This might also explain the fact people seem to believe there is more mass in the univerese than there should be (hence the dark matter theory) . It's possible that because gravity is an interaction beween 2 objects and not an energy packet you would still see the gravitational effect upon bodies you can see from bodies you cannot because of photonic decay (for want of a better phrase) What do you reckon?
no no! you didn't offend me at all! i just got side tracked, that's all. i'm not entirely sure i understand your question though... the idea of stopped light is somewhat nonsensical. light exists as a self propagating wave-particle, it MUST have a velocity. stopped light would just be a static electromagnetic field. stopped light in matter would then simply be a configuration of charges and currents that holds the energy carried by the initial photon.
as for dark matter being the result of matter out beyond our field of view (this is the "surface" of the cosmic microwave background), i can certainly say this isn't the case. we can directly observe the changed trajectories of objects in the universe in the presence of dark matter, and the effect is definitely local (circular and elliptical orbits, not hyperbolic). |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.19 15:56:00 -
[338] - Quote
Killer Gandry wrote:There is a theory that at the moment a large part of the Universe ( I think it was around 75-60%) consists out of Dark Matter.
This might be a reason as of why our Universal expansion rate keeps increasing instead of the expected decreasing rate which would resolve in the Big Implosion.
However if Dark Matter is the reason the Universe might be keeping on expanding at an increasing rate might this also not hold true on micro level at an linear rate?
Also if Dark Mattr is one of the main reasons the Universe is on an increasing expansion rate, then why doesn't the expansion rate drop anyways since this would involve more Dark Matter comming into existense to keep the expansion rate increasing. How and why does Dark Matter seem to increase
A: Universal expansion rate B: Why don't we see a decline in the expansion velocity anyways or does Dark Matter create more Dark matter? Is there a theory about that? C: If Dark Matter is really around 75-80% of the known Universe, wouldn't that also open up the theory that this matter is also present in solid forms on a very microscopic level. If so what effects would those have.
Appologies for my poor english.
no worries about your english, it's fine =D again, i wrote about the expansion of the universe on post #196 on page 10 of this thread. the rate of expansion of the universe has the same value on all scales. the reason why we don't "experience" it is because that rate carries an inverse factor of distance measured in megaparsecs! the energy that fuels this expansion is tentatively called Dark Energy and questions like "where do dark matter and dark energy come from?" are some of the biggest questions in modern cosmology. i am sorry to say that i cannot give any concrete answer to this because the scientific community is still trying to figure it out =D |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.19 16:19:00 -
[339] - Quote
Kehro Urgus wrote:This is more about geophysics but I was very bored one day reading Wikipedia and stumbled across one article where it stated gravity is slightly stronger when moving east to west (or vice-versa... I can't remember) and it never offered an explanation why. I can't remember the subject of the article. I vaguely remember looking up the Coriolis effect.
I thought it was very strange and I couldn't really figure out why this is true. Only thing I can think of is if one is travelling west the earth's surface rises underfoot ever so slightly due to earth's curvature and rotation but I have my doubts whether it's a valid explanation.
an excellent question! what we experience on the surface of the earth as gravitational acceleration is actually the combined effect of multiple accelerations, the two greatest contributors of which are pure gravitational acceleration and centripetal acceleration. the total acceleration towards the center of the earth that an object feels is often referred to as the apparent or effective gravity. if you move with or against the rotation of the earth (east-west or west-east) you change your angular velocity and therefore your centripetal acceleration. this then also affects the effective gravity you experience. this change would only occur while you are moving. |
Professor Alphane
Alphane Research Co-operative
301
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 04:21:00 -
[340] - Quote
RE: Stopped light - the fact matter can slow light to me implies something can interact with the beam and slow it, over a possibly infinite space surely this decelaration must = total , ie loss of momentum.. so yes basically what I am suggesting is that this beam will deteriote into your blob of random EM eventually.
You say that light has some property to self perpatuate, that sort of goes against my thoughts that nothing is truely infinite other than 'change' .
YOU MUST THINK FIRST.... |
|
Professor Alphane
Alphane Research Co-operative
301
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 04:26:00 -
[341] - Quote
You also may be able to explain this to me ..
I once saw a 'gimmik' item on a website that was a small ball that somehow became heavier with somesort of spinning item inside . Never saw one and only vaguley remeber the details but it did sort of imply to me it is possible to increase the gravity of an item somehow.
Is that true.. if so how and are there more than one method?
YOU MUST THINK FIRST.... |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
57
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 15:40:00 -
[342] - Quote
Professor Alphane wrote:RE: Stopped light - the fact matter can slow light to me implies something can interact with the beam and slow it, over a possibly infinite space surely this decelaration must = total , ie loss of momentum.. so yes basically what I am suggesting is that this beam will deteriote into your blob of random EM eventually.
You say that light has some property to self perpatuate, that sort of goes against my thoughts that nothing is truely infinite other than 'change' .
i've said it before and i'll say it again, you can be as uncomfortable with the scientific results all you want, but that wont change the nature of the universe.
yes, light is self propagating. this comes directly from Maxwell's equations when applying them as a solution to the wave equation. a changing E field can induce a changing B field which can induce a changing E field etc...
the other thing to note that the slowing down of light i am referring to in my previous post is a change in its velocity when it enters a medium, not the continual deceleration of light. we have no evidence to support the latter. light traveling at c enters a medium where the speed of light is 1 m/s, the light will start traveling at 1 m/s and keep traveling at 1 m/s until it is absorbed or it leaves the medium.
as for the spinning toy thing, i've never heard of this. now, it IS true that that space-time curves in the presence of energy densities (and mass carries a great deal of it, hence Newtonian gravitation). we have indeed proved this in the lab and it implies that a compressed spring is ever so slightly "heavier" than an uncompressed spring, but to see this at a macroscopic level, and in a toy non the less, makes me suspicious. do you have a link to this thing? i would love to read about it! =D |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1127
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 17:23:00 -
[343] - Quote
I remember reading 10+ years ago that someone built a spinning device that uses the fact that capacitors become slightly heavier when they take a charge. The idea was to charge the capacitor at the top of the loop and discharge it at the bottom, adding a tiny bit of inertia "lifting" the device and making it lighter. The sensationalist press reporting it called it "antigravity". It was a neat trick that could only reduce the weight by a fraction of a percent. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Professor Alphane
Alphane Research Co-operative
301
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 22:03:00 -
[344] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Professor Alphane wrote:RE: Stopped light - the fact matter can slow light to me implies something can interact with the beam and slow it, over a possibly infinite space surely this decelaration must = total , ie loss of momentum.. so yes basically what I am suggesting is that this beam will deteriote into your blob of random EM eventually.
You say that light has some property to self perpatuate, that sort of goes against my thoughts that nothing is truely infinite other than 'change' . i've said it before and i'll say it again, you can be as uncomfortable with the scientific results all you want, but that wont change the nature of the universe. yes, light is self propagating. this comes directly from Maxwell's equations when applying them as a solution to the wave equation. a changing E field can induce a changing B field which can induce a changing E field etc... the other thing to note that the slowing down of light i am referring to in my previous post is a change in its velocity when it enters a medium, not the continual deceleration of light. we have no evidence to support the latter. light traveling at c enters a medium where the speed of light is 1 m/s, the light will start traveling at 1 m/s and keep traveling at 1 m/s until it is absorbed or it leaves the medium. as for the spinning toy thing, i've never heard of this. now, it IS true that that space-time curves in the presence of energy densities (and mass carries a great deal of it, hence Newtonian gravitation). we have indeed proved this in the lab and it implies that a compressed spring is ever so slightly "heavier" than an uncompressed spring, but to see this at a macroscopic level, and in a toy non the less, makes me suspicious. do you have a link to this thing? i would love to read about it! =D
I'll need to do some searching to find the link to that toy, I saw one at christmas when I was shopping for my son but can't remeber what it called itself.
Still your description of light is hard to reconcile to my mind what you now describe is a perfect resonating 'pertual motion' entity that while being influenced in velocity by enviroment doesn't lose it's perfectly phased and balanced wave unto the infinite. You are implying it is constant in everything but velocity but then it was earlier though it was of constant velocity.
Science is only the abiltiy to see what can be seen, but forever there is more that could be seen
YOU MUST THINK FIRST.... |
Tarn Kugisa
Space Mongolian Pinked
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 05:18:00 -
[345] - Quote
How possible is FTL Travel? If it isn't why isn't it?
Though I believe that anything is possible through Science, because our understanding of the Universe is all Theory Real Caldari Hull Tank (And Win doing so) Support https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=16580 |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
497
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 09:49:00 -
[346] - Quote
Tarn Kugisa wrote:How possible is FTL Travel? If it isn't why isn't it?
Though I believe that anything is possible through Science, because our understanding of the Universe is all Theory
I hope Tsadkiel won't mind me trying and I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong. But what I remember from school, the reason you'll never achieve FTL is because of mass. The larger the object is, the more energy you'll need.
I think you'll reach like 99.9% of traveling at the speed of light but you are looking (I think) at infinite mass and infinite energy for that one procent. I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
Professor Alphane
Alphane Research Co-operative
301
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 13:37:00 -
[347] - Quote
Thanks again for this thread , most enjoyable on EVE gate EVA so far
I hope your not offended if I seem to be stubbonly holding on to my small minded lttle view but truely that is probably a fair assement. 'Small minded'
I more than appreciate you taking your time and effort to teach me somehting I'm very interested in, but unfortunatly I don't have the knowledge of the fundamentals nor the mathmatical ablity to fully understand your answers, while I generally know what your on about and I can compare that to what I think I know, your full meaning escapes me.
I'm not being obtuse and stubborn of my views (well hopefully) I really don't understand the technicalities or full implications of what you say and it would take me some time to fully study the subject to understand even half of what you have said in this thread.
But if you would be good enough to indulge me once again
Oribital deteration- Is the earth destined to die in a fiery death by orbiting closer and closer the sun?
YOU MUST THINK FIRST.... |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
497
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 14:06:00 -
[348] - Quote
Professor Alphane wrote:
Oribital deteration- Is the earth destined to die in a fiery death by orbiting closer and closer the sun?
Anyone's guess at this point. But not really a concern of ours since it is about, oh, four billion years into the future. I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
So Sensational
Ventures
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 14:34:00 -
[349] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:Professor Alphane wrote:
Oribital deteration- Is the earth destined to die in a fiery death by orbiting closer and closer the sun?
Anyone's guess at this point. But not really a concern of ours since it is about, oh, four billion years into the future. Not to mention that in theory 4 billion years of technological evolution is also likely something that would allow us to stop it from happening, seeing as how we're already considering how to do this with asteroids headed our way. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
58
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 15:33:00 -
[350] - Quote
i am sorry for the sparse replies, i have a lot on my plate at the moment. a few days ago i found evidence that completely invalidates the research i've been doing for the past six months... XP so i've been going over my work with a fine toothed comb... such is science...
oh, and Professor Alphane, again, you haven't offended me at all! i tend to be somewhat blunt and terse at times so so it may come across like that, but i assure you it's nothing.
i will try to answer your questions as soon as i get more time, but again, busy busy busy. keep them coming and i will do what i can! thank you all for contributing to this thread. i for one have really enjoyed the experience so far! |
|
Whitehound
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 13:55:00 -
[351] - Quote
Why look at something that is far away, unreachable and happened in the past?
Why the need to find and to explain gravity when it is all around us?
Why make a difference between time and gravity? |
The Lobsters
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 03:48:00 -
[352] - Quote
Two part question
1. Gyroscopes, and the forces contained/created by them. Why do they prefer to stay in a certain alignment. I've never had a decent answer on that one and I've asked a few scientists chums.
2. Fusion reactors. No longer a scientific problem. Now an engineering problem, we should see them soon enough.
Aren't they going to be big-assed gyroscopes powered by big-assed magnets? Are there going to be any secondary space/time effects when we start to produce forces of that scale?
You thread's mega btw! |
Selinate
682
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:02:00 -
[353] - Quote
The Lobsters wrote:Two part question
2. Fusion reactors. No longer a scientific problem. Now an engineering problem, we should see them soon enough.
Aren't they going to be big-assed gyroscopes powered by big-assed magnets? Are there going to be any secondary space/time effects when we start to produce forces of that scale?
You thread's mega btw!
It's still a scientific problem, but it's also an engineering problem. The two can overlap sometimes.
But no, they aren't going to be gyroscopes. I cringe at using the general word "magnets" when describing it also, but some designs include large electromagnets. The reason that I cringe at using the word magnet is that the plasma inside a fusion reactor produces it's own magnetic field also.
The big problem with these is that none of them run continuously, they all pulse over and over again to produce fusion. These pulses use a LOT of energy. Hint, this is also why I scoffed at people in a thread a long, long time ago who suggested a space craft that runs off fusion of deuterium in free space. The energy required to acquire that hydrogen and fuse it? BHAHAHAHAHA.
I got sidetracked, any who it gets more complicated than that. Different fuel types produce different types of particles which also carries it's own issues, or creates a better method of energy production (some fuels produce charged particles at high energy, which is nice charged particles produce electric energy very efficiently). However, some of these fuel types are almost non-existent naturally on earth, and while they can be produced, no one has really made the effort yet (probably due to funding problems and over-regulation by the government).
The other method is kinetic confinement, and I don't know much about that other than it uses huge lasers to compress deuterium into a very small space until it begins to undergo fusion.
One note you should consider is most advancements in nuclear reactors/technology (fusion included) is almost always hampered by over regulation of the government. There are designs floating around right now which still have yet to be accepted by the NRC, and these all just use UO2. When you start using new fuel types, it's incredibly expensive and time consuming.
So, in short, no, fusion reactors aren't coming any time soon and probably won't until people realize "OMG WTF WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF FOSSIL FUELS" or "OMG WTF THE WORLD IS ON FIRE FROM GLOBAL WARMING". |
The Lobsters
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:21:00 -
[354] - Quote
Wow, thanks for a prompt reply. And yes, the 'magnet' description is crass.
A friend of mine returned from CERN last year with the news that the scientific team working on the fusion reactor had been reduced. Certain breakthroughs had been made and their main problem now was finding a way to build the next big self sustaining machine.
So he said anyway. They could have just sacked him and told him they'd 'cracked it, thanks for the help mate' just to get rid of him
I guess my real pondering was, with these forces of a whole new magnitude, it's gotta be bending space |
Professor Alphane
Alphane Research Co-operative
308
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 13:01:00 -
[355] - Quote
When I saw a proggrame about that sort of experiment the (biggest) laser (array in the world) wasn't used for commpresion , the 'pellet' was in a massive pressure chamber, the laser was the 'Ignition' device.
YOU MUST THINK FIRST.... |
Whitehound
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:46:00 -
[356] - Quote
Selinate wrote:... I cringe at using the general word "magnets" when describing it also, but some designs include large electromagnets. The reason that I cringe at using the word magnet is that the plasma inside a fusion reactor produces it's own magnetic field also. ... It is pretty pointless to use magnets on anything that does not somehow have a magnetic field, you know?
I cringe at your fake cringing! |
Selinate
684
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:24:00 -
[357] - Quote
Professor Alphane wrote:When I saw a proggrame about that sort of experiment the (biggest) laser (array in the world) wasn't used for commpresion , the 'pellet' was in a massive pressure chamber, the laser was the 'Ignition' device.
Ignition is achieved by compression of the fuel pellet down to a certain volume, at which point it begins to fuse. |
Selinate
684
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:27:00 -
[358] - Quote
The Lobsters wrote:Wow, thanks for a prompt reply. And yes, the 'magnet' description is crass. A friend of mine returned from CERN last year with the news that the scientific team working on the fusion reactor had been reduced. Certain breakthroughs had been made and their main problem now was finding a way to build the next big self sustaining machine. So he said anyway. They could have just sacked him and told him they'd 'cracked it, thanks for the help mate' just to get rid of him I guess my real pondering was, with these forces of a whole new magnitude, it's gotta be bending space
CERN? I didn't think they were doing any fusion-related research up there, I thought it was mainly theoretical nuclear/particle physics. Self-sustaining is also what I'm referring to as far as the fact that these reactors must currently pulse in order to achieve fusion, they need to run continuously, i.e. self-sustaining.
But yeah, that sounds about right, cutting the research funds for fusion. TBH, As far as I know, one of the few real bastions of fusion research is the nuclear engineering department at MIT. Most other people will just go "meh" at it.
As far as bending space, I don't know. That's a theoretical physicist's field, not mine. I'm sure they might argue that there are some theories that argue that all magnetic fields in itself is some form of bending a dimension of space, but it's just not something I'm familiar with. |
Selinate
684
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:30:00 -
[359] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Selinate wrote:... I cringe at using the general word "magnets" when describing it also, but some designs include large electromagnets. The reason that I cringe at using the word magnet is that the plasma inside a fusion reactor produces it's own magnetic field also. ... It is pretty pointless to use magnets on anything that does not somehow have a magnetic field, you know? I cringe at your fake cringing!
You see, this is one of the biggest misconceptions about magnetic fields.
A magnetic field does not attract. It does not repel. That is an electric field. All particles have an electric field. However, a particle only needs charge to respond to a magnetic field, in itself if a particle is still, it has no magnetic field.
A magnetic field simply causes charged particles to go round in a circle. However, moving electric fields also cause a magnetic field, but no, it's not pointless to use magnets on something that does not have a magnetic field. This is a misconception. It's pointless to use a magnetic field on a particle without charge (like a neutron) though, or a charged particle that isn't moving.. |
Whitehound
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:46:00 -
[360] - Quote
Selinate wrote:You see, this is one of the biggest misconceptions about magnetic fields.
A magnetic field does not attract. It does not repel. That is an electric field. All particles have an electric field. However, a particle only needs charge to respond to a magnetic field, in itself if a particle is still, it has no magnetic field.
A magnetic field simply causes charged particles to go round in a circle. However, moving electric fields also cause a magnetic field, but no, it's not pointless to use magnets on something that does not have a magnetic field. This is a misconception. You mean this is your biggest misconception about magnetic fields. It is pretty pointless to use magnets on anything that does not somehow have a magnetic field. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |