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
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
68
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 16:37:00 -
[421] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:does anyone have anymore physics questions? Describe the effects on our solar system should a black hole get within two light years and at what distance would people get sucked into space from the surface of Earth?
this depends on the mass of the black hole, though two light years is quite a distance, so it would have to be exceptionally massive. i need a bit more to go on to properly answer this.
i wrote a bit about "death by black holes" on post #289 of page 15 on this thread if you are interested ^^ |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1282
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 16:54:00 -
[422] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:Describe the effects on our solar system should a black hole get within two light years and at what distance would people get sucked into space from the surface of Earth? I'm pretty sure people would never "get sucked into space from the surface of Earth." By the time the pull of the black hole was sufficient to pull us off the surface, it would have destroyed the planet. There would be no Earth from which to pull us...for that matter, there would be no "us" at that point. Just a lot of rocks with little blobs of carbon and ice mixed in. 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. |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released
592
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 17:21:00 -
[423] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Alpheias wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:does anyone have anymore physics questions? Describe the effects on our solar system should a black hole get within two light years and at what distance would people get sucked into space from the surface of Earth? this depends on the mass of the black hole, though two light years is quite a distance, so it would have to be exceptionally massive. i need a bit more to go on to properly answer this. i wrote a bit about "death by black holes" on post #289 of page 15 on this thread if you are interested ^^
How about the OJ287 Quasar?
The inspiration for my question actually comes from a cartoon where the supervillian uses gravity to consume.
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Alpheias wrote:Describe the effects on our solar system should a black hole get within two light years and at what distance would people get sucked into space from the surface of Earth? I'm pretty sure people would never "get sucked into space from the surface of Earth." By the time the pull of the black hole was sufficient to pull us off the surface, it would have destroyed the planet. There would be no Earth from which to pull us...for that matter, there would be no "us" at that point. Just a lot of rocks with little blobs of carbon and ice mixed in.
Which is a very plausible scenario of what would happen, still let us entertain the "sci-fi" aspect of it. I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1282
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 18:33:00 -
[424] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Alpheias wrote:Describe the effects on our solar system should a black hole get within two light years and at what distance would people get sucked into space from the surface of Earth? I'm pretty sure people would never "get sucked into space from the surface of Earth." By the time the pull of the black hole was sufficient to pull us off the surface, it would have destroyed the planet. There would be no Earth from which to pull us...for that matter, there would be no "us" at that point. Just a lot of rocks with little blobs of carbon and ice mixed in. Which is a very plausible scenario of what would happen, still let us entertain the "sci-fi" aspect of it. Warning: I'm no science major. If I get any of this wrong, I expect to be promptly corrected by someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
It sounds like what would be necessary is a Lagrangian Point right at the surface of the Earth. If I'm not completely screwing this math up, you'd need a black hole with something like 1x10^40 times the mass of the Sun to do that from two lightyears away. That's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 suns.
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. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3699
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 18:51:00 -
[425] - Quote
What would happen when one half of a quantum entangled particles gets sucked into a black hole?
Would the pair simply unlink or would something catastrophic happen to both as one particle gets destroyed by a massive force.
|
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 15:44:00 -
[426] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:What would happen when one half of a quantum entangled particles gets sucked into a black hole?
Would the pair simply unlink or would something catastrophic happen to both as one particle gets destroyed by a massive force.
nothing, actually. because you can no longer observe the second entangled particle, you can no longer tell that the one that escaped was ever entangled at all.
it sounds like your question may have been inspired by something called Hawking Radiation, which is a mode through which a black hole can evaporate. it is caused by the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs forming near the horizon of the black hole. half of the pair falls in, and the other half travels away from the black hole. |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 15:53:00 -
[427] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Alpheias wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Alpheias wrote:Describe the effects on our solar system should a black hole get within two light years and at what distance would people get sucked into space from the surface of Earth? I'm pretty sure people would never "get sucked into space from the surface of Earth." By the time the pull of the black hole was sufficient to pull us off the surface, it would have destroyed the planet. There would be no Earth from which to pull us...for that matter, there would be no "us" at that point. Just a lot of rocks with little blobs of carbon and ice mixed in. Which is a very plausible scenario of what would happen, still let us entertain the "sci-fi" aspect of it. Warning: I'm no science major. If I get any of this wrong, I expect to be promptly corrected by someone who actually knows what they're talking about. It sounds like what would be necessary is a Lagrangian Point right at the surface of the Earth. If I'm not completely screwing this math up, you'd need a black hole with something like 1x10^40 times the mass of the Sun to do that from two lightyears away. That's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 suns.
Lagrange / Lagrangian points are actually the points where a small object can be placed and remain stationary with respect to two orbiting bodies. for any two body orbiting system you can define 5 such points by calculating the effective potential of the system (so, gravitational potential + orbital effects). wherever this potential is "flat" you have a Lagrange point (so imagine a hilly landscape of some kind. the Lagrange points would be any points in this landscape where you can place a ball and it will not roll). |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 16:02:00 -
[428] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:
How about the OJ287 Quasar?
Quasars are highly energetic active galactic nuclei, which essentially means that the accretion disk of the black hole IS a galaxy. I looked up OJ 278 and based on observed orbits this quasar has an estimated mass of around 18 billion suns... if this thing were anywhere in our solar system we, and the rest of the galaxy, would literally be torn apart XD |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released
595
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 16:19:00 -
[429] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Alpheias wrote:
How about the OJ287 Quasar?
Quasars are highly energetic active galactic nuclei, which essentially means that the accretion disk of the black hole IS a galaxy. I looked up OJ 278 and based on observed orbits this quasar has an estimated mass of around 18 billion suns... if this thing were anywhere in our solar system we, and the rest of the galaxy, would literally be torn apart XD
You said, and I quote:
Tsadkiel wrote:this depends on the mass of the black hole, though two light years is quite a distance, so it would have to be exceptionally massive. i need a bit more to go on to properly answer this.
I figured I should toss in a real monster! I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1288
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 16:42:00 -
[430] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Lagrange / Lagrangian points are actually the points where a small object can be placed and remain stationary with respect to two orbiting bodies. for any two body orbiting system you can define 5 such points by calculating the effective potential of the system (so, gravitational potential + orbital effects). wherever this potential is "flat" you have a Lagrange point (so imagine a hilly landscape of some kind. the Lagrange points would be any points in this landscape where you can place a ball and it will not roll). For the sake of not getting too into the details which I can only claim to marginally understand myself, I skipped over a lot of technical babble. I was speaking specifically of the L1 point, the one directly between the two bodies. It also represents the point at which you would move from one body's gravity well into another's, does it not? For example, on one side of the L1 point you would experience a slight pull toward the black hole, while on the other you would be pulled toward Earth?
Assuming I'm understanding *that* part properly, it follows that a Lagrange point existing on the surface of the earth would result in what would essentially be a zone of such low gravity that it would take very little force to overcome it. In such a zone, even the slightest disturbance should result in us drifting away from the surface.
For the black hole to actually directly pull things off the surface of the planet, it would have to be pulling the planet as well, and that goes back to the "death by black hole" post mentioned earlier.
Of course this all a "frictionless vacuum" discussion as there are so many other ways we're breaking the laws of physics for this scenario. And again, I could be completely missing something, as my understanding of L-points doesn't cover how they would behave on the surface of a planet. 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. |
|
Jhagiti Tyran
Muppet Ninja's Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
244
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 18:28:00 -
[431] - Quote
If a technology could be developed that changed the mass of an object (like the mass field tech in Mass Effect) how would the momentum and inertia of a moving object be affected if its mass where changed? |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 20:45:00 -
[432] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:Lagrange / Lagrangian points are actually the points where a small object can be placed and remain stationary with respect to two orbiting bodies. for any two body orbiting system you can define 5 such points by calculating the effective potential of the system (so, gravitational potential + orbital effects). wherever this potential is "flat" you have a Lagrange point (so imagine a hilly landscape of some kind. the Lagrange points would be any points in this landscape where you can place a ball and it will not roll). For the sake of not getting too into the details which I can only claim to marginally understand myself, I skipped over a lot of technical babble. I was speaking specifically of the L1 point, the one directly between the two bodies. It also represents the point at which you would move from one body's gravity well into another's, does it not? For example, on one side of the L1 point you would experience a slight pull toward the black hole, while on the other you would be pulled toward Earth? Assuming I'm understanding *that* part properly, it follows that a Lagrange point existing on the surface of the earth would result in what would essentially be a zone of such low gravity that it would take very little force to overcome it. In such a zone, even the slightest disturbance should result in us drifting away from the surface. For the black hole to actually directly pull things off the surface of the planet, it would have to be pulling the planet as well, and that goes back to the "death by black hole" post mentioned earlier. Of course this all a "frictionless vacuum" discussion as there are so many other ways we're breaking the laws of physics for this scenario. And again, I could be completely missing something, as my understanding of L-points doesn't cover how they would behave on the surface of a planet.
no, what i am trying to say here is that the location of Legrange points depend on the location of the orbiting bodies. if our two body system consists of the earth and our black hole, you will never have a Legrange point on the surface of either. also, the Legrange points are not locations of zero acceleration. objects at Legrange points are simply stationary with respect to one of the bodies. objects at L-points still orbit as normal. if we calculate the effective potential for say, the sun and a black hole, and place the earth at L1 with respect to the hole, it simply orbits the sun with the exact same angular velocity as the black hole. |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 20:47:00 -
[433] - Quote
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:If a technology could be developed that changed the mass of an object (like the mass field tech in Mass Effect) how would the momentum and inertia of a moving object be affected if its mass where changed?
assuming conservation laws still hold, if we were somehow able to dial down the mass of a moving object, its velocity would need to increase in order for its momentum to remain constant. if we increase the mass, the velocity would need to decrease. the objects inertia would change directly with the mass (more mass more inertia. less mass less inertia). |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1292
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 21:13:00 -
[434] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:no, what i am trying to say here is that the location of Legrange points depend on the location of the orbiting bodies. if our two body system consists of the earth and our black hole, you will never have a Legrange point on the surface of either. also, the Legrange points are not locations of zero acceleration. objects at Legrange points are simply stationary with respect to one of the bodies. objects at L-points still orbit as normal. if we calculate the effective potential for say, the sun and a black hole, and place the earth at L1 with respect to the hole, it simply orbits the sun with the exact same angular velocity as the black hole. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the difference between casual scientific interest and a real science education :)
I'm curious now exactly what WOULD be required to lift people off the earth from 2 LY away. You know, in an environment where the Earth was immune to the tidal forces and other nastiness that come with a gravity well capable of sucking relatively massive objects off its surface. 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. |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 21:42:00 -
[435] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:no, what i am trying to say here is that the location of Legrange points depend on the location of the orbiting bodies. if our two body system consists of the earth and our black hole, you will never have a Legrange point on the surface of either. also, the Legrange points are not locations of zero acceleration. objects at Legrange points are simply stationary with respect to one of the bodies. objects at L-points still orbit as normal. if we calculate the effective potential for say, the sun and a black hole, and place the earth at L1 with respect to the hole, it simply orbits the sun with the exact same angular velocity as the black hole. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the difference between casual scientific interest and a real science education :) I'm curious now exactly what WOULD be required to lift people off the earth from 2 LY away. You know, in an environment where the Earth was immune to the tidal forces and other nastiness that come with a gravity well capable of sucking relatively massive objects off its surface.
so, with so much interest in this i just had to do a rough calculation =D
to start "sucking" people off the surface of the earth from 2 LY away, we simply need to calculate the mass required such that the net force acting on that object is 0
Fnet = Fearth - Fhole = 0
where Fearth is the weight of the object and Fhole (heheheh) is the force exerted on the object by the "black hole"
so Fearth = Fhole
mg = G*M*m / r^2
where
G is the universal Gravitation Constant = 6.67E-11 (m^3 kg^-1 s^-2) m and M are the mass of the object and the hole respectively and r is the distance to the hole in meters.
the little m's cancel out and we get
g = G*M / r^2
now we can rearrange the equation based on our unknowns. in this case, we know r, but not the mass of the object doing the sucking (pfff)
so we just solve for M
M = g*r^2 / G
for your example this comes to about 2.9E13 solar masses!! just for some perspective, the aforementioned quasar, OJ 287, is only around 1.8E10 solar masses! so it wouldn't tear the galaxy apart per say, so much as just ruin everyones day by scrambling the orbits of stars along its trajectory.
we can calculate the distance the quasar needs to be to start sucking people off the earth by just rearranging our equation to solve for r.
r = sqrt(M*G/g)
and we get and r of only .05 light years~! less then a tenth of a single light year, which was really not what i expected at all from doing this calculation! you learn something new every day =D
again though, this is very rough. i didn't put much thought here and there are a lot of other effects to take into account. what you should take away from this though is that the "sucking distance" of a black hole is independant of the mass of the object being sucked. ye gods this post is rife with innuendos! |
Jeyson Vicious
The Scope Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 02:36:00 -
[436] - Quote
I spent a good few hours the other weekend Googling how strong the power of freezing water is (I once heard it was an unstoppable force!). Did you ever see anything cool or amazing in school or a lab in that regard?
I tried to break a plastic water bottle in the freezer. It bloated quite a bit, but didn't bust. |
Mathis Athins
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 05:25:00 -
[437] - Quote
This one has always irked me: Why is the speed of light the fastest anything in the universe can travel? I just can't wrap my head around the idea that there is a limit to the maximum velocity of any and all objects and that it happens to be the specific speed that light travels. |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 15:18:00 -
[438] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:... what you should take away from this though is that the "sucking distance" of a black hole is independant of the mass of the object being sucked. ye gods this post is rife with innuendos! I have no idea what you are trying to say, but I think you are wrong.
Two objects with an equal mass and an equal density will always posses a Lagrange point (L1) in between them regardless of their distance to each other.
Two objects with different masses can have no L1 point, because the gravitational force is a square function and not a linear function. The point shifts quickly towards the object with the lesser mass and can then "fall" into the object if the difference in mass is large enough. This is especially true when the objects not only posses a difference in mass, but have different densities, too, because the L1 point will fall into it sooner the more bloated it is.
Quote:...Fearth = Fhole
mg = G*M*m / r^2 ...
the little m's cancel out and we get... You have cancelled out the mass of Earth and the blackhole, knowing they are different!
Maybe you wanted to say that gravity always sucks? |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 15:46:00 -
[439] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:... what you should take away from this though is that the "sucking distance" of a black hole is independant of the mass of the object being sucked. ye gods this post is rife with innuendos! I have no idea what you are trying to say, but I think you are wrong. Two objects with an equal mass and an equal density will always posses a Lagrange point (L1) in between them regardless of their distance to each other. Two objects with different masses can have no L1 point, because the gravitational force is a square function and not a linear function. The point shifts quickly towards the object with the lesser mass and can then "fall" into the object if the difference in mass is large enough. This is especially true when the objects not only posses a difference in mass, but have different densities, too, because the L1 point will fall into it sooner the more bloated it is. Quote:...Fearth = Fhole
mg = G*M*m / r^2 ...
the little m's cancel out and we get... You have cancelled out the mass of Earth and the blackhole, knowing they are different! Maybe you wanted to say that gravity always sucks and never blows?
little m is the mass of the object. the force of gravity acting on you at the surface of the earth is m*g, where m is your mass...
because they cancel out, the position and mass of the black hole required to negate earths gravity is independent of the mass of the object experiencing the effect.
and, AGAIN, this calculation has nothing to do with Legrange points... your second statement concerning objects of unequal mass not possessing an L1 point is just flat out wrong by counter example. the earth-sun system possesses an L1 point. we've BEEN there (with probes)... |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 15:54:00 -
[440] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:and, AGAIN, this calculation has nothing to do with Legrange points... your second statement concerning objects of unequal mass not possessing an L1 point is just flat out wrong by counter example. the earth-sun system possesses an L1 point. we've BEEN there (with probes)... Yes, it does. The Lagrange point is where the gravitational force turns around. And yes, Sun and Earth do posses an L1 point.
I wrote they (two objects of different mass) can have no L1 point. Not they never can have one. Are you really this bad at reading?!
I am starting to think that you are no more than a kid who tries to be clever by using Google and pretends to be a scientist in the off-topic section of a game forum. |
|
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 16:00:00 -
[441] - Quote
Mathis Athins wrote:This one has always irked me: Why is the speed of light the fastest anything in the universe can travel? I just can't wrap my head around the idea that there is a limit to the maximum velocity of any and all objects and that it happens to be the specific speed that light travels.
well, the speed of light has the unique property of being a property only of the medium in which the light travels (i posted about this earlier in the thread. still looking for it). this means that no matter how fast you go, if you are in a vacuum, light will move at a speed INDEPENDENT of your velocity. this is very unlike what you expect from common sense. if you move at 1 m/s, and throw a ball ahead of you at 2 m/s, YOU see the ball move at 2 m/s and a stationary observer sees it move at 3 m/s. but if you do this with light (say you move and turn on a flashlight), and if you are in a vacuum, you and a stationary observer will both AGREE that the light is moving at c, because its velocity only depends on the properties of the medium.
this is why the speed of light in a vacuum is a speed "limit". no matter how fast you go in a vacuum, light will always ALWAYS be faster.
|
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 16:22:00 -
[442] - Quote
Jeyson Vicious wrote:I spent a good few hours the other weekend Googling how strong the power of freezing water is (I once heard it was an unstoppable force!). Did you ever see anything cool or amazing in school or a lab in that regard?
I tried to break a plastic water bottle in the freezer. It bloated quite a bit, but didn't bust.
yes actually! water has many interesting properties and the two most important for the effects i think you are referring to is the fact that it is an incompressible fluid and that it expands when it freezes. a good example of the former is something that some friends of mine and i did as undergrads. we decided to try and shatter a Nalgene bottle! after several attempts, all of which failed, we eventually succeeded by filling the bottle completely with water (as little air inside as possible) and dropping off an eleven story building XD the bottle deformed when it hit the ground, but the water inside was incompressible, so its volume stayed approximately constant. the resulting pressure differential shattered the bottle :3 freezing water is a major erosive force on the earth because it expands (a property observed in only a select few materials)! again, because the fluid is incompressible we might have been able to break the bottle filled with water by freezing it as well!
there may be a number of reasons why your experiment failed. the most likely may be the presence of air in the bottle. unlike water, air is extremely compressible and if it is present in the bottle, then it will simply compress as the water freezes. the second reason may be the type of bottle used. many plastic bottles are designed with their ductility in mind, and your bottle may have simply stretched under the expanding force of the water.
hope this helps! |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 16:34:00 -
[443] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:well, the speed of light has the unique property of being a property [b][u][i] ... Boring!
We only do not know if it is possible to travel faster than light. We only know it is impossible with our current understanding.
To travel faster than light means that we need a propulsion system that pushes us forward faster than the speed of light. Because we do not know of anything being faster than light and having a mass to push away from will we never be able to travel faster than light with the help of conventional propulsion systems.
It is like saying that we cannot have engines with more than 1000HP when we do not know how to build an engine with more than 1000HP.
It does not mean that there is an upper limit to speed. We only do not know how to make it happen. If we could bend space - or warp it - then we could travel faster by using only a propulsion system that is slower than light. This is the idea behind warp drives.
Stargates are another fictional transport system, which avoids the speed of light limit. It is based on the idea that we travel by transporting the information of us rather than our physical representation, meaning, your body. For this to become possible do we however need to find a way to transport information faster than light. |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 16:41:00 -
[444] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:yes actually! water has many interesting properties and the two most important for the effects i think you are referring to is the fact that it is an incompressible fluid and that it expands when it freezes. a good example of the former is something that some friends of mine and i did as undergrads. we decided to try and shatter a Nalgene bottle! after several attempts, all of which failed, we eventually succeeded by filling the bottle completely with water (as little air inside as possible) and dropping off an eleven story building XD the bottle deformed when it hit the ground, but the water inside was incompressible, so its volume stayed approximately constant. the resulting pressure differential shattered the bottle :3 freezing water is a major erosive force on the earth because it expands (a property observed in only a select few materials)! again, because the fluid is incompressible we might have been able to break the bottle filled with water by freezing it as well!
there may be a number of reasons why your experiment failed. the most likely may be the presence of air in the bottle. unlike water, air is extremely compressible and if it is present in the bottle, then it will simply compress as the water freezes. the second reason may be the type of bottle used. many plastic bottles are designed with their ductility in mind, and your bottle may have simply stretched under the expanding force of the water.
hope this helps! Boring!
In my 5th or 6th grade did we fill a cast iron ball with water and sealed it with a thick screw. When we froze the cast iron ball did the freezing water burst it.
Nalgene bottles, really?!? |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 17:04:00 -
[445] - Quote
so now you aren't even trying to hide the fact that you're trolling -_- great. |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 17:10:00 -
[446] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:so now you aren't even trying to hide the fact that you're trolling -_- great. I am not the one who seeks recognition in an off-topic forum for being a particle astrophysicists. |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 17:12:00 -
[447] - Quote
the goal of this thread was to get better at writing and talking about physics for people who don't necessarily have the background. i'm really bad at it and i mentioned this goal right in my first post :( i'm not trying to get recognition for anything... this is supposed to be an exercise... |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 17:14:00 -
[448] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:the goal of this thread was to get better at writing and talking about physics for people who don't necessarily have the background. i'm really bad at it and i mentioned this goal right in my first post :( i'm not trying to get recognition for anything... this is supposed to be an exercise... I know, but you are also bad at accepting a lesson or two. Maybe try not to carve in too quickly? |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 18:34:00 -
[449] - Quote
in any case, a call for more questions! =D |
Mister LEM0NS
SWARTA Mostly Clueless
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 23:03:00 -
[450] - Quote
I believe I heard this one from the science channel. The belief is that faster than light travel is possible and our assumptions are that it would literally be easier to move space itself rather than the vehicle.
So how would untold ammounts of ships (all fitted for 'warp' travel) effect the universe if theyre all sporadicly tugging everything in all directions at basicly the same time? Sounds like kids fighting over a blanket, only you know, there isnt a winner... |
|
|
|
|
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 |