|
| Author | Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
 Vivus Mors    |
Posted - 2005.07.17 23:10:00 -
[1] Dyson Sphere... Titan? oh please, that's a rinky dink dinghy in comparison to a weaponised sphere that's multiple hundred thousand kilometers in diameter... power??? only a star! no need for capacitor limitations here, the real thing would be how much juice could it pump into a laser beam to fry a target on the other side of the galaxy... weapon fitting potential??? well... with the surface area of a sphere many hundreds of thousands of miles across, I'll let you all here conjure figures on just how many weapons you could fit... weapon bonuses??? we don't need no stinking bonuses, it would have omni-directional fire with tens of thousands of mounts of every weapon imagineable... who needs to fire fast or even accurately when the entire firing horizon is literally set ablaze with hellfire from a single volley  not to mention it would have a gravitational wake able to disrupt entire solarsystems with ease, so anything "smaller than it" which is pretty much EVERYTHING would be buffeted to oblivion should it have the desire to even shrug in its general direction. ------------------------------------------------- For the price of one can of Quafe cola a day, you can adopt an Ewok... Please... think of the Ewoks... |
 Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.17 23:10:00 -
[2] Dyson Sphere... Titan? oh please, that's a rinky dink dinghy in comparison to a weaponised sphere that's multiple hundred thousand kilometers in diameter... power??? only a star! no need for capacitor limitations here, the real thing would be how much juice could it pump into a laser beam to fry a target on the other side of the galaxy... weapon fitting potential??? well... with the surface area of a sphere many hundreds of thousands of miles across, I'll let you all here conjure figures on just how many weapons you could fit... weapon bonuses??? we don't need no stinking bonuses, it would have omni-directional fire with tens of thousands of mounts of every weapon imagineable... who needs to fire fast or even accurately when the entire firing horizon is literally set ablaze with hellfire from a single volley not to mention it would have a gravitational wake able to disrupt entire solarsystems with ease, so anything "smaller than it" which is pretty much EVERYTHING would be buffeted to oblivion should it have the desire to even shrug in its general direction. ------------------------------------------------ UPDATED March 11 Formal request for improvements to industrialism |
 Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.18 13:37:00 -
[3]
fear the power of Spaceball 1! ------------------------------------------------- For the price of one can of Quafe cola a day, you can adopt an Ewok... Please... think of the Ewoks... |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.18 13:37:00 -
[4]
fear the power of Spaceball 1! ------------------------------------------------ UPDATED March 11 Formal request for improvements to industrialism |
 Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.19 14:33:00 -
[5]
actually, the Excelsior "transwarp drive" never worked, and true transwarp according to canon from Voyager (shudders at how terrible that series was) shows that achieving transwarp isn't good for the genes unless of course becoming a glorified salamander is your idea of fun  ------------------------------------------------- For the price of one can of Quafe cola a day, you can adopt an Ewok... Please... think of the Ewoks... |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.19 14:33:00 -
[6]
actually, the Excelsior "transwarp drive" never worked, and true transwarp according to canon from Voyager (shudders at how terrible that series was) shows that achieving transwarp isn't good for the genes unless of course becoming a glorified salamander is your idea of fun ------------------------------------------------ UPDATED March 11 Formal request for improvements to industrialism |
 Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.21 19:05:00 -
[7]
Transwarp trans-warp is defined as surpassing warp 9-range and achieving "warp 10" is beyond warp 9-range so indeed it too is what transwarp would be. All "trans warp" means is quite literaly "beyond warp", as "trans" means across or past, and warp means warp. The reason that ôwarp 10ö fried the genes of VoyagersÆ personnel is that it was of course poorly controlled (read as: basically uncontrolled) and the side effects resulted from it. The Borg have their technology behind the transwarp already figured out for them, all they had to do was assimilate it, so their ôsafety precautionsö came pre-developed. now even if Excelsior had worked, it wouldn't have even come close to Warp 10/Transwarp, and the speed capabilities of the entire Excelsior class are quite unimpressive as the Galaxy class easily outpaced them in every respect, and the movie's description (Start Trek 3) of it as "transwarp" is erroneous since it wasn't a determination of its speed capability and rather a keen way for the engine in the Excelsior to be described as a "next generation" warp engine superior to that of the Constitution class (i.e. the Enterprise). now the canon also goes on to show that the Enterprise-D with the help of "the traveler" was the first federation ship to achieve true transwarp, surpassing the Warp 10 barrier and scorching across space at an unheard of speed. Later, when "Reginald Barkley" was "gifted" with the immense knowledge of an alien civilization, he created a "trans warp" gate to which the Enterprise-D was nearly pulled through to some unknown location. That transwarp gate is quite akin to what the Borg use. so "technically" the first two "true" transwarp events for the Federation were linked to the Enterprise-D, Voyager's claim to fame is that it is the mothership to the "Cochrane" which was able to achieve warp-10+, and the speed apparently microwaved the genes of Captain Janeway and Ensign Paris. That speed is still defined as being a ôtrans warpö speed, and due to it obviously being unsafe without proper precautions taken, my original statement was correct. Since the Federation is still ironing out the kinks in Transwarp technology, indeed going at transwarp speeds is currently ôbad for the genesö ------------------------------------------------- For the price of one can of Quafe cola a day, you can adopt an Ewok... Please... think of the Ewoks... |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.21 19:05:00 -
[8]
Transwarp trans-warp is defined as surpassing warp 9-range and achieving "warp 10" is beyond warp 9-range so indeed it too is what transwarp would be. All "trans warp" means is quite literaly "beyond warp", as "trans" means across or past, and warp means warp. The reason that ôwarp 10ö fried the genes of VoyagersÆ personnel is that it was of course poorly controlled (read as: basically uncontrolled) and the side effects resulted from it. The Borg have their technology behind the transwarp already figured out for them, all they had to do was assimilate it, so their ôsafety precautionsö came pre-developed. now even if Excelsior had worked, it wouldn't have even come close to Warp 10/Transwarp, and the speed capabilities of the entire Excelsior class are quite unimpressive as the Galaxy class easily outpaced them in every respect, and the movie's description (Start Trek 3) of it as "transwarp" is erroneous since it wasn't a determination of its speed capability and rather a keen way for the engine in the Excelsior to be described as a "next generation" warp engine superior to that of the Constitution class (i.e. the Enterprise). now the canon also goes on to show that the Enterprise-D with the help of "the traveler" was the first federation ship to achieve true transwarp, surpassing the Warp 10 barrier and scorching across space at an unheard of speed. Later, when "Reginald Barkley" was "gifted" with the immense knowledge of an alien civilization, he created a "trans warp" gate to which the Enterprise-D was nearly pulled through to some unknown location. That transwarp gate is quite akin to what the Borg use. so "technically" the first two "true" transwarp events for the Federation were linked to the Enterprise-D, Voyager's claim to fame is that it is the mothership to the "Cochrane" which was able to achieve warp-10+, and the speed apparently microwaved the genes of Captain Janeway and Ensign Paris. That speed is still defined as being a ôtrans warpö speed, and due to it obviously being unsafe without proper precautions taken, my original statement was correct. Since the Federation is still ironing out the kinks in Transwarp technology, indeed going at transwarp speeds is currently ôbad for the genesö ------------------------------------------------ UPDATED March 11 Formal request for improvements to industrialism |
 Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.21 23:02:00 -
[9]
well, Quantum Slipstream is another area where things become sticky, as itÆs merely a means of ôpressingö a slipstream around the ship thatÆs more effective than the alternative multiple layers of ôwarp fieldö around the ship, 1 layer for each factor of warp speed. Trek Tech a means of Quantum Slipstream is ôbetterö than the current methods of pushing the warp factors harder (which according to the story were eventually limited except for emergencies to prevent subspace damage to the space being traveled through) and reaching into the sub-factors of warp 9à such as 9.975 being ôwide openö top speed for most of the fastest Federation shipsÆ capabilities. Quantum Slipstream provides a much more efficient subspace barrier between the ship and the space it is flying through at ludicrous speed. However the BorgÆs example of a transwarp answer as mentioned before was to effectively ôgateö their way across space. ItÆs sort of the idea of, going faster will take you less time to arrive, or if you simply make the destination effectively ôcloserö then the trip distance isnÆt as profound so effectively you get there faster. ItÆs sort of ôtrans warpö in multiple different flavors with different methods to get the same result. At the end of the day, Quantum Slipstream is actually only an extension of conventional warp drive speeds, itÆs questionable to how the chart should then look factoring in a more efficient and thus faster speed of warping when there is also an alternative means of effectively equal speed that circumvents ôdistance over timeö by making the distance effectively less so the time needed to cross it is thus less resulting in a ôdistance traveled in an amount of timeö result comparable to a speed, even if little if any speed was involvedà Once it gets to 8 and 9, the ôentryö afterward is debatable then as to whether to call it ôtranswarp Iö or ôwarp 10ö, and beyond that, further factors are again questionable as either ôtranswarp IIö or ôwarp 11ö. Since quantum slipstream is not conventional warp speed, and it is beyond the warp 9 to warp 10 barrier, itÆs technically correct to call it ôtranswarpö, but since it uses basically conventional warp with very un-conventional ôwarp fieldö technology, the hair may need to be split and possibly a separate chart for ôgenuineö transwarp that uses a non-slipstream methodology, and a second chart for ôslipstreamö factors of warp. Perhaps the slipstream warp factor chart would read, ôwarp 9, 10, 11, etcö, and the transwarp propulsion chart would read ôwarp 8, 9 : Transwarp I, Transwarp IIö ------------------------------------------------- For the price of one can of Quafe cola a day, you can adopt an Ewok... Please... think of the Ewoks... |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.21 23:02:00 -
[10]
well, Quantum Slipstream is another area where things become sticky, as itÆs merely a means of ôpressingö a slipstream around the ship thatÆs more effective than the alternative multiple layers of ôwarp fieldö around the ship, 1 layer for each factor of warp speed. Trek Tech a means of Quantum Slipstream is ôbetterö than the current methods of pushing the warp factors harder (which according to the story were eventually limited except for emergencies to prevent subspace damage to the space being traveled through) and reaching into the sub-factors of warp 9à such as 9.975 being ôwide openö top speed for most of the fastest Federation shipsÆ capabilities. Quantum Slipstream provides a much more efficient subspace barrier between the ship and the space it is flying through at ludicrous speed. However the BorgÆs example of a transwarp answer as mentioned before was to effectively ôgateö their way across space. ItÆs sort of the idea of, going faster will take you less time to arrive, or if you simply make the destination effectively ôcloserö then the trip distance isnÆt as profound so effectively you get there faster. ItÆs sort of ôtrans warpö in multiple different flavors with different methods to get the same result. At the end of the day, Quantum Slipstream is actually only an extension of conventional warp drive speeds, itÆs questionable to how the chart should then look factoring in a more efficient and thus faster speed of warping when there is also an alternative means of effectively equal speed that circumvents ôdistance over timeö by making the distance effectively less so the time needed to cross it is thus less resulting in a ôdistance traveled in an amount of timeö result comparable to a speed, even if little if any speed was involvedà Once it gets to 8 and 9, the ôentryö afterward is debatable then as to whether to call it ôtranswarp Iö or ôwarp 10ö, and beyond that, further factors are again questionable as either ôtranswarp IIö or ôwarp 11ö. Since quantum slipstream is not conventional warp speed, and it is beyond the warp 9 to warp 10 barrier, itÆs technically correct to call it ôtranswarpö, but since it uses basically conventional warp with very un-conventional ôwarp fieldö technology, the hair may need to be split and possibly a separate chart for ôgenuineö transwarp that uses a non-slipstream methodology, and a second chart for ôslipstreamö factors of warp. Perhaps the slipstream warp factor chart would read, ôwarp 9, 10, 11, etcö, and the transwarp propulsion chart would read ôwarp 8, 9 : Transwarp I, Transwarp IIö ------------------------------------------------ UPDATED March 11 Formal request for improvements to industrialism |
 Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.22 02:32:00 -
[11]
lol well, I didn't say I liked Voyager (to say I only despised it is far too weak a term to describe it properly) but sadly, it's canon. Just as much as many people would like to have had "Star Wars - George Lucas = Happy Fans" for Episode 1 and 2, sadly, it's not the case, and now we all have to live with the consequencesà If there is one thing we can count on though is inconsistency in Sci-Fi, so as long as Paramount is in it for the money (i.e. until space stops being dark) they will happily grind Star Trek into the ground one TV series at a time and with as many movies as there is celluloid to print them on. ItÆs only a matter of time till they step back and re-work their canon again to fit into a new set of rules they are writing as they go. ------------------------------------------------- For the price of one can of Quafe cola a day, you can adopt an Ewok... Please... think of the Ewoks... |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.22 02:32:00 -
[12]
lol well, I didn't say I liked Voyager (to say I only despised it is far too weak a term to describe it properly) but sadly, it's canon. Just as much as many people would like to have had "Star Wars - George Lucas = Happy Fans" for Episode 1 and 2, sadly, it's not the case, and now we all have to live with the consequencesà If there is one thing we can count on though is inconsistency in Sci-Fi, so as long as Paramount is in it for the money (i.e. until space stops being dark) they will happily grind Star Trek into the ground one TV series at a time and with as many movies as there is celluloid to print them on. ItÆs only a matter of time till they step back and re-work their canon again to fit into a new set of rules they are writing as they go. ------------------------------------------------ UPDATED March 11 Formal request for improvements to industrialism |
 Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.22 14:24:00 -
[13]
yup yup, that's the Valdor the Romulans launched in response to the Remans launching their Scimitar in ST: Nemesis. ------------------------------------------------- For the price of one can of Quafe cola a day, you can adopt an Ewok... Please... think of the Ewoks... |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.22 14:24:00 -
[14]
yup yup, that's the Valdor the Romulans launched in response to the Remans launching their Scimitar in ST: Nemesis. ------------------------------------------------ UPDATED March 11 Formal request for improvements to industrialism |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.24 01:19:00 -
[15] BAH! All of the above would be little more than an effort in ôfiringö for the Dyson Sphere to obliterateà Many hundreds of thousands of kilometers in diameter and powered by its own self contained star. While the logistics of one would be completely unfathomable, we are talking ôdream shipsö. As for locomotion? Well, being big isnÆt necessarily a detriment since it could have something akin to a jump drive to get about all it likes. The armament would easily be in the many orders of magnitude over any ship or its weapon systemsà The death star may be able to destroy a planet with its power, the Dyson Sphere could obliterate entire solar systems merely by passing too closely to them! lol As for how many weapons it could mount, well, if the Sphere is 300,000 Kilometers in diameter (150,000 km radius) it would have a surface area of 282,743,338,833 square-kilometersà in comparison, the Earth has a surface area round about 509,295,817 square-kilometersà so even a ôsmallö Dyson sphere of 300,000 km in diameter would have in the area of 550 TIMES as much area to place goodies of mass destruction upon as even the entirety of Earthà Rather than being limited like a death star with one super laserà why not have HUNDREDS lol More over, why waste time with such a PITTIFUL weapon when a Dyson sphere could easily support dozens or more weapons even far superior to the ôgalaxy gunö Galaxy Gun bigger IS better you see! :D lol All other craft would either be too small to do any significant damage so such an enormous structure, but even opponents like a Death Star wouldnÆt even be able to get within their own targeting radius without their own Roche limit being far surpassed possibly annihilating things like a death star by merely being near it, or the force of gravity wake would be such to either brush any foe aside like a toy. ------------------------------------------------- For the price of one can of Quafe cola a day, you can adopt an Ewok... Please... think of the Ewoks... |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.24 01:19:00 -
[16] BAH! All of the above would be little more than an effort in ôfiringö for the Dyson Sphere to obliterateà Many hundreds of thousands of kilometers in diameter and powered by its own self contained star. While the logistics of one would be completely unfathomable, we are talking ôdream shipsö. As for locomotion? Well, being big isnÆt necessarily a detriment since it could have something akin to a jump drive to get about all it likes. The armament would easily be in the many orders of magnitude over any ship or its weapon systemsà The death star may be able to destroy a planet with its power, the Dyson Sphere could obliterate entire solar systems merely by passing too closely to them! lol As for how many weapons it could mount, well, if the Sphere is 300,000 Kilometers in diameter (150,000 km radius) it would have a surface area of 282,743,338,833 square-kilometersà in comparison, the Earth has a surface area round about 509,295,817 square-kilometersà so even a ôsmallö Dyson sphere of 300,000 km in diameter would have in the area of 550 TIMES as much area to place goodies of mass destruction upon as even the entirety of Earthà Rather than being limited like a death star with one super laserà why not have HUNDREDS lol More over, why waste time with such a PITTIFUL weapon when a Dyson sphere could easily support dozens or more weapons even far superior to the ôgalaxy gunö Galaxy Gun bigger IS better you see! :D lol All other craft would either be too small to do any significant damage so such an enormous structure, but even opponents like a Death Star wouldnÆt even be able to get within their own targeting radius without their own Roche limit being far surpassed possibly annihilating things like a death star by merely being near it, or the force of gravity wake would be such to either brush any foe aside like a toy. ------------------------------------------------ UPDATED March 11 Formal request for improvements to industrialism |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.24 16:35:00 -
[17]
ummm, no... you see gravity doesn't work that way... your own gravity doesn't work that way, Relativity specifically eliminates that possibility, it is RELATIVE gravity and the wake there of that would obliterate any rinky dink ships or brush them aside like so much litter. The ultra-massive sphere being as big as some entire solar systems unto itself, versus a vessel even such as a death star is hardly the size of a small moonà well, IÆll let you figure on which one would be producing more gravity simply by virtue of being millions upon millions of times more massive. the sphere most certainly wouldn't collapse in on itself as there is nowhere near enough external force to over come such a massive structureÆs natural tensile strength, and itÆs own gravity would only lend strength to it keeping it together... the gravitational force of the star inside would be insignificant compared to the greater field of the sphere itself. the sphere (i.e. one of the strongest shapes known to exist) would perform better with force of constriction, and any impact from the outside would be dissipated across the shape of the sphere. as for the sphere's effect of gravity upon itself, it would be negligible as again the surface of the sphere would again divide any force among the greater whole, and to say that it would collapse in on itself is incorrect, as the same could be said for any super massive structure or planetoid, and they donÆt collapse in upon themselves. In fact, it is their own gravity that gives them the ability to stay in one piece, and gives them cohesive strength, not a weakness. ------------------------------------------------- For the price of one can of Quafe cola a day, you can adopt an Ewok... Please... think of the Ewoks... |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.24 16:35:00 -
[18]
ummm, no... you see gravity doesn't work that way... your own gravity doesn't work that way, Relativity specifically eliminates that possibility, it is RELATIVE gravity and the wake there of that would obliterate any rinky dink ships or brush them aside like so much litter. The ultra-massive sphere being as big as some entire solar systems unto itself, versus a vessel even such as a death star is hardly the size of a small moonà well, IÆll let you figure on which one would be producing more gravity simply by virtue of being millions upon millions of times more massive. the sphere most certainly wouldn't collapse in on itself as there is nowhere near enough external force to over come such a massive structureÆs natural tensile strength, and itÆs own gravity would only lend strength to it keeping it together... the gravitational force of the star inside would be insignificant compared to the greater field of the sphere itself. the sphere (i.e. one of the strongest shapes known to exist) would perform better with force of constriction, and any impact from the outside would be dissipated across the shape of the sphere. as for the sphere's effect of gravity upon itself, it would be negligible as again the surface of the sphere would again divide any force among the greater whole, and to say that it would collapse in on itself is incorrect, as the same could be said for any super massive structure or planetoid, and they donÆt collapse in upon themselves. In fact, it is their own gravity that gives them the ability to stay in one piece, and gives them cohesive strength, not a weakness. ------------------------------------------------ UPDATED March 11 Formal request for improvements to industrialism |
 Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.24 21:02:00 -
[19] lol well I make no claims as to the practicality of a Dyson Sphere, this entire discussion is about ôdream shipsö and in a dream, suspension of practicality is of course a must otherwise it wouldnÆt be a dream but rather a reality now wouldnÆt it? I do however insist that as Einstein very clearly proven, the Dyson SphereÆs own gravitation wouldnÆt make it collapse in upon itself. Relativity holds up VERY well under scrutiny I assure you. Also, saying "Snapping under its own weight" doesnÆt work out as such a thing in space is impossible, as there is no weight in space. Mass is still measurable and important, but even mass can only exert but ôso muchö force at a long distance, and when the already puny force of gravity (among the weakest forces in the universe mind you) has great difficulty exerting great force at great distance, and only at close distances can large bodies actually do great damage with gravity. More importantly, this is important to note, you say the last time that much matter was gathered it compressed into the earth itself? I donÆt know how to break this to you, but the Earth is little more than the garbage the Sun spewed out in its proto-star phases, and as the general mess that was earth circled for millions of years it somewhat scooped up the remaining matter around its orbit path and cohered into one spherical planet. It wasnÆt ôa timeö or even a result of the matter being ôso gravity intensiveö as itÆs relative gravity is microscopic, itÆs merely a side effect of a star vomiting excess material and it coming together slowly over time. Gravity is a VERY weak force and is only significant with colossal masses at close distances. Think about it, even the smallest child can quite easily over come gravity without even really exerting himself by merely standing up. ôThe strong force attracting two protons together is 10^40 (that means a 1 followed by 40 zeroes) times stronger than the force of gravity between themö Gravity you see, relativity is quite powerful but gravity is not, this also exposes just how miniscule the force of gravity is compared to even things like magnetism, and even someone blowing the wrapper off of a soda-straw is MANY TIMES more powerful than gravity if only for a short time. Now as for a ôcritical massö, you also completely ignore the physics behind such a thing, for a critical mass to be attained, it has to be in a central point, but there is no central point for the sphere, as it encompasses the central point which is the star that powers it. Also, per chance do you even know what the gravity effect of a SOLID sphere even 13,000 kilometers in diameter is??? About 1gà i.e. the same gravitational effect as earth since it is approximately that 13,000 kilometers in diameterà also do note, itÆs gravitational effect is diminished to nearly nothing out at the orbit of the moon, approximately 382,000 kilometers away. Only another body like the moon pulling back can even keep itself in orbit by pulling back on the earth itself so the two share their gravitation to hold each other, and the moonÆs shared-pull with Earth causes our tides among many other things. Now, on the moon, the gravity effect of earth is so insignificant that itÆs for all intents and purposes non-existent which is part of why the moonÆs own gravity posed on the astronauts who landed there being about 1/6th of that on earth. So seeing as the walls of the Dyson Sphere would be about this far apart (and that's for a small sphere), the gravitational effect of walls nowhere near 13,000km thick like the earth is would generate hardly a tiniest of fractions of even one earth G force, so cumulatively the gravity effect upon itself from the sphere wouldnÆt even be able to effect the other side of the sphere, thus it couldnÆt crush itself in because it couldnÆt effect the opposing sides enough to do anything to them. ------------------------------------------------- For the price of one can of Quafe cola a day, you can adopt an Ewok... Please... think of the Ewoks... |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.24 21:02:00 -
[20] lol well I make no claims as to the practicality of a Dyson Sphere, this entire discussion is about ôdream shipsö and in a dream, suspension of practicality is of course a must otherwise it wouldnÆt be a dream but rather a reality now wouldnÆt it? I do however insist that as Einstein very clearly proven, the Dyson SphereÆs own gravitation wouldnÆt make it collapse in upon itself. Relativity holds up VERY well under scrutiny I assure you. Also, saying "Snapping under its own weight" doesnÆt work out as such a thing in space is impossible, as there is no weight in space. Mass is still measurable and important, but even mass can only exert but ôso muchö force at a long distance, and when the already puny force of gravity (among the weakest forces in the universe mind you) has great difficulty exerting great force at great distance, and only at close distances can large bodies actually do great damage with gravity. More importantly, this is important to note, you say the last time that much matter was gathered it compressed into the earth itself? I donÆt know how to break this to you, but the Earth is little more than the garbage the Sun spewed out in its proto-star phases, and as the general mess that was earth circled for millions of years it somewhat scooped up the remaining matter around its orbit path and cohered into one spherical planet. It wasnÆt ôa timeö or even a result of the matter being ôso gravity intensiveö as itÆs relative gravity is microscopic, itÆs merely a side effect of a star vomiting excess material and it coming together slowly over time. Gravity is a VERY weak force and is only significant with colossal masses at close distances. Think about it, even the smallest child can quite easily over come gravity without even really exerting himself by merely standing up. ôThe strong force attracting two protons together is 10^40 (that means a 1 followed by 40 zeroes) times stronger than the force of gravity between themö Gravity you see, relativity is quite powerful but gravity is not, this also exposes just how miniscule the force of gravity is compared to even things like magnetism, and even someone blowing the wrapper off of a soda-straw is MANY TIMES more powerful than gravity if only for a short time. Now as for a ôcritical massö, you also completely ignore the physics behind such a thing, for a critical mass to be attained, it has to be in a central point, but there is no central point for the sphere, as it encompasses the central point which is the star that powers it. Also, per chance do you even know what the gravity effect of a SOLID sphere even 13,000 kilometers in diameter is??? About 1gà i.e. the same gravitational effect as earth since it is approximately that 13,000 kilometers in diameterà also do note, itÆs gravitational effect is diminished to nearly nothing out at the orbit of the moon, approximately 382,000 kilometers away. Only another body like the moon pulling back can even keep itself in orbit by pulling back on the earth itself so the two share their gravitation to hold each other, and the moonÆs shared-pull with Earth causes our tides among many other things. Now, on the moon, the gravity effect of earth is so insignificant that itÆs for all intents and purposes non-existent which is part of why the moonÆs own gravity posed on the astronauts who landed there being about 1/6th of that on earth. So seeing as the walls of the Dyson Sphere would be about this far apart (and that's for a small sphere), the gravitational effect of walls nowhere near 13,000km thick like the earth is would generate hardly a tiniest of fractions of even one earth G force, so cumulatively the gravity effect upon itself from the sphere wouldnÆt even be able to effect the other side of the sphere, thus it couldnÆt crush itself in because it couldnÆt effect the opposing sides enough to do anything to them. ------------------------------------------------ UPDATED March 11 Formal request for improvements to industrialism |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.24 21:08:00 -
[21] as for the sun crushr "going through" the dyson sphere's armor? I think not... Sun Crusher it's a tiny ship, and the Dyson Sphere's walls could EASILY be multiple miles thick... this isn't like flying into a gas giant here, this is a thick wall of solid and practically impenetrable hull. More over, just because the folks in the Starwars universe were incapable of blowing the rinky dink dinghy to bits doesnÆt mean the Dyson Sphere couldnÆt either crush it or simply capture ità Why bother trying to stop it when they could lock a tractor beam on it likely from across the solar system with how much power the dyson sphere has at its immediate disposal, and just forcibly tow the sun crusher in and force it into submission. ------------------------------------------------- For the price of one can of Quafe cola a day, you can adopt an Ewok... Please... think of the Ewoks... |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.24 21:08:00 -
[22] as for the sun crushr "going through" the dyson sphere's armor? I think not... Sun Crusher it's a tiny ship, and the Dyson Sphere's walls could EASILY be multiple miles thick... this isn't like flying into a gas giant here, this is a thick wall of solid and practically impenetrable hull. More over, just because the folks in the Starwars universe were incapable of blowing the rinky dink dinghy to bits doesnÆt mean the Dyson Sphere couldnÆt either crush it or simply capture ità Why bother trying to stop it when they could lock a tractor beam on it likely from across the solar system with how much power the dyson sphere has at its immediate disposal, and just forcibly tow the sun crusher in and force it into submission. ------------------------------------------------ UPDATED March 11 Formal request for improvements to industrialism |
 Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.25 03:12:00 -
[23] Umm Zembla, I am sorry to tell you this, but Gravity is indeed an incredibly weak force. Indeed gravity is in the order of less than one 10^36th to even one 10^40th as strong as the electro-magnetic forces. To get into the finest details why, I would have to go on a spiel about string theory and how ôbranesö are the in-vogue theory to explain just why gravity is so incredibly weak compared to practically any other force in quantum mechanics and even relativity. General Relativity Gravitation If and when the unifying theory between General Relativity and itÆs associated Universal Law of Gravitation are then properly analogized with Quantum Mechanics, then all the loose ends of the universe may well start to weave together for our physicists and thus explaining some of the things that currently donÆt seem to make sense but according to every measure we know of, the mathematics checks out. But given that Einstein went to his grave without ever coming near that goal, it may be yet on the horizon. there is indeed no ôweightö in space, as weight is a relative measure, which is precisely why ôweightö isnÆt used. Mass is a constant, weight is not. In fact, your weight can vary significantly merely by your location on earth, much less in space. Between standing on the peak of Everest or on the shores of the Dead Sea your weight can vary by quite a significant margin. ôI doubt that protons will attract each other :) This seriously depends on the distance as well. The Coulomb force is practically the exact same as the Gravitational force only with a different coefficient and with charge instead of matter making up the key values. At the atomic level magnetism outclasses gravity because of the minuscule weight of electrons, yet they have a huge charge (in comparisson).ö But you have to compare gravity at the atomic level to the most basic elements of electro-magnetism, and do pre-tell what is the most basic component of ôelectro-anythingö??? An Electron. Also, would you like to know what the ultimate example how just how superior even sub-atomic forces are to gravity??? On the morning of August 6th, 1945à the unquestionable measure of how VASTLY superior even a matter of 60kg of Uranium 235 of which only 0.7kg actually fissioned could unleash more than 13,000 kilotons of explosive force (55 Tera-Joules). Einstein himself actually hit the nail on the head, the amount of energy potential to yield from an atom was equal to its mass times the speed of light squaredà more commonly known as: E=mc^2 Also I believe you misread the passage about the protons, ôThe strong force attracting two protons together is 10^40 (that means a 1 followed by 40 zeroes) times stronger than the force of gravity between themö ôThe gravitational interaction of protons is approximately a factor 1036 weaker than the electromagnetic repulsionö Perhaps that passage from above site on gravitation would be more suitable. ôattractingö in physics doesnÆt necessarily mean they are coming closer together, ôattracting togetherö in this case simply means their strong forces exerting outward that would effect other subatomic particles are effecting upon one another, if one were an electron it would bring it closer, and another proton it would repulse, but both are actually referred to as ôattractionö in physics, and particularly quantum physics as it is the interaction of forces it is describing, not the resulting directional movement toward or away from eachother. ------------------------------------------------- For the price of one can of Quafe cola a day, you can adopt an Ewok... Please... think of the Ewoks... |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.25 03:12:00 -
[24] I encourage you to look into the physics of this, consider the electro magnet used in a scrap yard to pick up cars/trucks and suchà now that magnet has the capacity to support not only its own weight should be become ôstuckö to a ferrous metal structure or what have you, but it can also lift metal objects of tremendous weight and over come all of the earths exerted gravitation with considerable ease compared to the mechanical arm that has to support the weight behind the magnet. I assure you, the more you look into it the more you will find that gravity is an astoundingly weak force in comparison to other physical forces, and ESPECIALLY forces like electro-magnetism. Think about it like this, for all of the earthÆs strength of gravity, the chair you are sitting in, and the ground you walk on not only over come gravity with tremendous ease, but everything from the tiniest of bugs and even microbes to the largest of creatures can surpass the miniscule force of gravity exerted on them without significant effort at all. Larger bodies have slightly more trouble as they exert their own forces, but when two forces of tremendous difference in force exert upon each other, one is quite easily overshadowed and practically irrelevant in favor of the superior force. ôIt's the sun's pull that keeps us in orbit, not the reactonary force between the masses of the moon and the earth.ö Ok??? And where did I say otherwise??? I was talking about the forces between the earth and moon causing tides, which is a proven fact, I in no way suggested that causes our orbit of the sun. And again, toward the end of your post, you go into the practicalities of the Dyson Sphere, which is not in debate, weÆre not asking if this thing is ôeconomicalö or even ôlogicalö to use as a combat weapon, we are discussing ôdream shipsö, and as such, itÆs no-holds-barred and as such, the practicalities of any of these ships goes right out the window because itÆs a DREAM lol ôGravity doesn't distinguish between star, ship or whatever. It's all mass...ö well that is of course correct, but HOW the gravity is being exerted can indeed vary based on the mass in question and most especially, over distance the force exerted from gravity diminishes at a tremendous weight as itÆs force is divided by the total surface area of an ever increasing radius to for every single unit of ôstandard measureö you extend the radius that the gravity travels, you literally divide the strength of that gravity by 12.56 times. (Surface Area of a Sphere) so basically, the strength of the gravity at 2 kilometers is not even 1/12th that of the gravity at 1 kilometerà now, imagine the force reduction at 150,000 km??? (one 282,600,000,000th of what it would be at 1km) The physics behind the sphere is quite sound really as itÆs built well beyond the Roche limit of the star and the structure, so its destruction from its own mass and gravity or that of the star is simply not going to happen because itÆs simply not in a position where it would destroy itself. If it was built around a larger star perhaps, or if it was build much much smaller and thus closer to the star, then potentially it could but the star it surrounds and the structure itself are picked/designed with one another in mind. ------------------------------------------------- For the price of one can of Quafe cola a day, you can adopt an Ewok... Please... think of the Ewoks... |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.25 03:12:00 -
[25] Umm Zembla, I am sorry to tell you this, but Gravity is indeed an incredibly weak force. Indeed gravity is in the order of less than one 10^36th to even one 10^40th as strong as the electro-magnetic forces. To get into the finest details why, I would have to go on a spiel about string theory and how ôbranesö are the in-vogue theory to explain just why gravity is so incredibly weak compared to practically any other force in quantum mechanics and even relativity. General Relativity Gravitation If and when the unifying theory between General Relativity and itÆs associated Universal Law of Gravitation are then properly analogized with Quantum Mechanics, then all the loose ends of the universe may well start to weave together for our physicists and thus explaining some of the things that currently donÆt seem to make sense but according to every measure we know of, the mathematics checks out. But given that Einstein went to his grave without ever coming near that goal, it may be yet on the horizon. there is indeed no ôweightö in space, as weight is a relative measure, which is precisely why ôweightö isnÆt used. Mass is a constant, weight is not. In fact, your weight can vary significantly merely by your location on earth, much less in space. Between standing on the peak of Everest or on the shores of the Dead Sea your weight can vary by quite a significant margin. ôI doubt that protons will attract each other :) This seriously depends on the distance as well. The Coulomb force is practically the exact same as the Gravitational force only with a different coefficient and with charge instead of matter making up the key values. At the atomic level magnetism outclasses gravity because of the minuscule weight of electrons, yet they have a huge charge (in comparisson).ö But you have to compare gravity at the atomic level to the most basic elements of electro-magnetism, and do pre-tell what is the most basic component of ôelectro-anythingö??? An Electron. Also, would you like to know what the ultimate example how just how superior even sub-atomic forces are to gravity??? On the morning of August 6th, 1945à the unquestionable measure of how VASTLY superior even a matter of 60kg of Uranium 235 of which only 0.7kg actually fissioned could unleash more than 13,000 kilotons of explosive force (55 Tera-Joules). Einstein himself actually hit the nail on the head, the amount of energy potential to yield from an atom was equal to its mass times the speed of light squaredà more commonly known as: E=mc^2 Also I believe you misread the passage about the protons, ôThe strong force attracting two protons together is 10^40 (that means a 1 followed by 40 zeroes) times stronger than the force of gravity between themö ôThe gravitational interaction of protons is approximately a factor 1036 weaker than the electromagnetic repulsionö Perhaps that passage from above site on gravitation would be more suitable. ôattractingö in physics doesnÆt necessarily mean they are coming closer together, ôattracting togetherö in this case simply means their strong forces exerting outward that would effect other subatomic particles are effecting upon one another, if one were an electron it would bring it closer, and another proton it would repulse, but both are actually referred to as ôattractionö in physics, and particularly quantum physics as it is the interaction of forces it is describing, not the resulting directional movement toward or away from eachother. ------------------------------------------------ UPDATED March 11 Formal request for improvements to industrialism |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.25 03:12:00 -
[26] Edited by: Vivus Mors on 25/07/2005 03:14:39 I encourage you to look into the physics of this, and I assure you, the more you look into it the more you will find that gravity is an astoundingly weak force in comparison to other physical forces, and ESPECIALLY forces like electro-magnetism. Think about it like this, for all of the earthÆs strength of gravity, the chair you are sitting in, and the ground you walk on not only over come gravity with tremendous ease, but everything from the tiniest of bugs and even microbes to the largest of creatures can surpass the miniscule force of gravity exerted on them without significant effort at all. Larger bodies have slightly more trouble as they exert their own forces, but when two forces of tremendous difference in force exert upon each other, one is quite easily overshadowed and practically irrelevant in favor of the superior force. ôIt's the sun's pull that keeps us in orbit, not the reactonary force between the masses of the moon and the earth.ö Ok??? And where did I say otherwise??? I was talking about the forces between the earth and moon causing tides, which is a proven fact, I in no way suggested that causes our orbit of the sun. And again, toward the end of your post, you go into the practicalities of the Dyson Sphere, which is not in debate, weÆre not asking if this thing is ôeconomicalö or even ôlogicalö to use as a combat weapon, we are discussing ôdream shipsö, and as such, itÆs no-holds-barred and as such, the practicalities of any of these ships goes right out the window because itÆs a DREAM lol ôGravity doesn't distinguish between star, ship or whatever. It's all mass...ö well that is of course correct, but HOW the gravity is being exerted can indeed vary based on the mass in question and most especially, over distance the force exerted from gravity diminishes at a tremendous weight as itÆs force is divided by the total surface area of an ever increasing radius to for every single unit of ôstandard measureö you extend the radius that the gravity travels, you literally divide the strength of that gravity by 12.56 times. (Surface Area of a Sphere) so basically, the strength of the gravity at 2 kilometers is not even 1/12th that of the gravity at 1 kilometerà now, imagine the force reduction at 150,000 km??? (one 282,600,000,000th of what it would be at 1km) The physics behind the sphere is quite sound really as itÆs built well beyond the Roche limit of the star and the structure, so its destruction from its own mass and gravity or that of the star is simply not going to happen because itÆs simply not in a position where it would destroy itself. If it was built around a larger star perhaps, or if it was build much much smaller and thus closer to the star, then potentially it could but the star it surrounds and the structure itself are picked/designed with one another in mind. ------------------------------------------------ UPDATED March 11 Formal request for improvements to industrialism |
 Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.25 15:14:00 -
[27] The curious thing about all of this is that the case has already been proven with mathematics and word straight from Einstein himself, to which even modern physicists like Steven Hawking have not only proven, but put into application. Even the most simple of experiments can be performed to show how feeble the force of gravity isà STAND UPà there you go, earth for all of its majesty, for all of its mass, canÆt even exert enough force to keep you from having a few muscles flex and create MANY TIMES the force of gravity and simply stand you up. More still though is that on earth, the force of gravity is many times as strong as its exertion in space which is of course further and further away so the force of gravity gets weaker at a rate of 12.56 TIMES weaker for every one unit of standard measure further away you get from the earth. Where does space begin? By the time you even reach what is considered ôspaceö (between 50 and 75 miles above earth) and enter orbit, the force of gravity on earthÆs surface (1g) is chopped down to approximately between 1.12336E-55th to even as little as 3.7651E-83th of its force on earth. THIS is why people float even in orbit, because even 50 miles up gravity isnÆt even 1/1.12336E-55th of what it is here on earthà can you imagine 150,000 kilometers away? 300,000 kilometers away??? The force becomes so insignificant as to have effectively NO influence on people in orbit, which is why they float. Unless of course you want to suggest that NASA has had it wrong all the timeà Maybe being the one and only agency to land a man on another celestial body isnÆt quite enough credibility??? lol ôso, would you like to know what the ultimate example how just how superior even sub-atomic forces are to gravity??? You're comparing chemistry with physics here. I don't really see the relation between a bomb and gravity. I'm not talking about sub-atomic forces, or anything other. I'm talking about the forces we can experience in every day's life, and the forces that are the main obstacles for space-faring. Among those forces gravity is the one you need to take into accountance the most.ö Ehhh??? Ummm, no, I am not comparing chemistry to physics here, I am comparing the strong force of an atom bomb being fissioned (a property of physics) and unleashing more power in one detonation than 13,000 kilotons of TNT explosive(s). This is a physics here in all of its glory, in one instant 0.7kg of fissioned Uranium 235 unleashed so many times more force than gravity that to actually compare numbers would likely take up an entire post of zeroes to show just how much more powerful a MACRO SCALE atomic exertion of force can clearly be demonstrated as the VASTLY superior force to gravity. ôI'm an engineer and have studied these things in the past. It's not because I don't mention certain common knowledge that I'm not aware of it.ö ??? then why do you insist that weight is an attractive force, when it is nothing of the sort, it is a measure of a force (gravity) being exerted on something, but it has absolutely no ôattractive forceö value what so ever. Also, as gravityÆs value changes (more or less) the weight then changes as well, because ôweightö is relative to gravity. ------------------------------------------------- For the price of one can of Quafe cola a day, you can adopt an Ewok... Please... think of the Ewoks... |
 Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.25 15:14:00 -
[28] Edited by: Vivus Mors on 25/07/2005 15:21:37 Edited by: Vivus Mors on 25/07/2005 15:15:15 ôGravity has a lower magnitude, but because of its omnipresence it's one of the stronger binding forces.ö ôomnipresensceö ?!?!? LOL weÆre not talking about the almighty here, Gravity exerts in all directions, which could be called ôomni-directionalö, but it is not ôomnipresentö, and again, IÆll remind you that gravity is less than: 1 / 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th as strong as even the electromagnetic forces. ThatÆs one UNDECILLIONTH as strongà or, less than 1 trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth as strong!!! (and thatÆs only at 10^36th measurement, itÆs often accepted as being less than 10^40th as strong) Physicists have LONG since established how pitifully weak gravity is in comparison to other forces, and I assure you gravity VERY quickly takes a back seat to nearly any force, even the strength of a newborn baby is many times the strength of gravity, as the baby can extremely easily reach up its arms and kick against the pull of gravity with only the limitation of the childÆs weak muscles being a limiting factor rather than the miniscule exertion of gravity. ôNo, no, no. That's not what I meant. I meant that weight is an attrictive force experienced by you because of a force of a heavier mass near you. Weight is omnipresent, or rather, gravity is. Your weight won't vary significantly enough, believe me. Also, the easy with which gravity is overcome is the result of a species adapting to it's habitat. I mean, when we jump, it's not as if we can go ballistic or anything.ö I am very sorry, but weight is not ôomnipresentö otherwise Neil Armstrong wouldnÆt have been recorded very clearly as approximately 1/6th of his earth weight on the Moon. Weight it indeed relative (unless of course actually performing the test and Einstein got it all wrong even though they have been proven correct). Also, if weight is ôomnipresentö then perhaps you can explain how in space between the earth and the moon for instance (or even in orbit around the earth) the astronauts and cosmonauts float and have no measurable weightà this is because their weight is only relative to another ôbodyö exerting force on them (gravity) and that relative force of gravity on them can be perceived as ôweightö but weight is NOT an attractive force in any way, it is a measure of the amount of force gravity is exerting on your total mass. What is Mass? as you can see, as clearly documented there MASS is a constant, but mass is NOT weight and weight is NOT mass, mass is a measure of how much ôstuffö is inside the object, and more mass typically translates into more weight, BUT as the description clearly shows, weight is relative to location, so weight is again the effect of gravityÆs exertion on a mass, it is NOT however a mass measure unto itself, and itÆs a measure of the REACTION to an attractive force (gravity) and it is NOT an attractive force unto itself. ôBut you have to compare gravity at the atomic level to the most basic elements of electro-magnetism, and do pre-tell what is the most basic component of ôelectro-anythingö??? No, you don't. Gravity at the atomic level indeed has little influence, same as gravity won't really influence the path of light. However, at the macroscopic scale (where gravity has free play) electro-magnetic forces have no effect/influence.ö Actually, Yes, you doà Gravity even on the macro-scale is tremendously weak compared to even a refrigerator magnet! Think about it, the magnet can hold its own weight with ease against gravity, and support much more weight than its own before gravity can begin to parallel the forces, and thatÆs with a weakly charged magnet ------------------------------------------------- For the price of one can of Quafe cola a day, you can adopt an Ewok... Please... think of the Ewoks... |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.25 15:14:00 -
[29] Edited by: Vivus Mors on 25/07/2005 15:21:37 Edited by: Vivus Mors on 25/07/2005 15:15:15 ôGravity has a lower magnitude, but because of its omnipresence it's one of the stronger binding forces.ö ôomnipresensceö ?!?!? LOL weÆre not talking about the almighty here, Gravity exerts in all directions, which could be called ôomni-directionalö, but it is not ôomnipresentö, and again, IÆll remind you that gravity is less than: 1 / 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th as strong as even the electromagnetic forces. ThatÆs one UNDECILLIONTH as strongà or, less than 1 trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth as strong!!! (and thatÆs only at 10^36th measurement, itÆs often accepted as being less than 10^40th as strong) Physicists have LONG since established how pitifully weak gravity is in comparison to other forces, and I assure you gravity VERY quickly takes a back seat to nearly any force, even the strength of a newborn baby is many times the strength of gravity, as the baby can extremely easily reach up its arms and kick against the pull of gravity with only the limitation of the childÆs weak muscles being a limiting factor rather than the miniscule exertion of gravity. ôNo, no, no. That's not what I meant. I meant that weight is an attrictive force experienced by you because of a force of a heavier mass near you. Weight is omnipresent, or rather, gravity is. Your weight won't vary significantly enough, believe me. Also, the easy with which gravity is overcome is the result of a species adapting to it's habitat. I mean, when we jump, it's not as if we can go ballistic or anything.ö I am very sorry, but weight is not ôomnipresentö otherwise Neil Armstrong wouldnÆt have been recorded very clearly as approximately 1/6th of his earth weight on the Moon. Weight it indeed relative (unless of course actually performing the test and Einstein got it all wrong even though they have been proven correct). Also, if weight is ôomnipresentö then perhaps you can explain how in space between the earth and the moon for instance (or even in orbit around the earth) the astronauts and cosmonauts float and have no measurable weightà this is because their weight is only relative to another ôbodyö exerting force on them (gravity) and that relative force of gravity on them can be perceived as ôweightö but weight is NOT an attractive force in any way, it is a measure of the amount of force gravity is exerting on your total mass. What is Mass? as you can see, as clearly documented there MASS is a constant, but mass is NOT weight and weight is NOT mass, mass is a measure of how much ôstuffö is inside the object, and more mass typically translates into more weight, BUT as the description clearly shows, weight is relative to location, so weight is again the effect of gravityÆs exertion on a mass, it is NOT however a mass measure unto itself, and itÆs a measure of the REACTION to an attractive force (gravity) and it is NOT an attractive force unto itself. ôBut you have to compare gravity at the atomic level to the most basic elements of electro-magnetism, and do pre-tell what is the most basic component of ôelectro-anythingö??? No, you don't. Gravity at the atomic level indeed has little influence, same as gravity won't really influence the path of light. However, at the macroscopic scale (where gravity has free play) electro-magnetic forces have no effect/influence.ö Actually, Yes, you doà Gravity even on the macro-scale is tremendously weak compared to even a refrigerator magnet! Think about it, the magnet can hold its own weight with ease against gravity, and support much more weight than its own before gravity can begin to parallel the forces, and thatÆs with a weakly charged magnet ------------------------------------------------ UPDATED March 11 Formal request for improvements to industrialism |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.25 15:14:00 -
[30] The curious thing about all of this is that the case has already been proven with mathematics and word straight from Einstein himself, to which even modern physicists like Steven Hawking have not only proven, but put into application. Even the most simple of experiments can be performed to show how feeble the force of gravity isà STAND UPà there you go, earth for all of its majesty, for all of its mass, canÆt even exert enough force to keep you from having a few muscles flex and create MANY TIMES the force of gravity and simply stand you up. More still though is that on earth, the force of gravity is many times as strong as its exertion in space which is of course further and further away so the force of gravity gets weaker at a rate of 12.56 TIMES weaker for every one unit of standard measure further away you get from the earth. Where does space begin? By the time you even reach what is considered ôspaceö (between 50 and 75 miles above earth) and enter orbit, the force of gravity on earthÆs surface (1g) is chopped down to approximately between 1.12336E-55th to even as little as 3.7651E-83th of its force on earth. THIS is why people float even in orbit, because even 50 miles up gravity isnÆt even 1/1.12336E-55th of what it is here on earthà can you imagine 150,000 kilometers away? 300,000 kilometers away??? The force becomes so insignificant as to have effectively NO influence on people in orbit, which is why they float. Unless of course you want to suggest that NASA has had it wrong all the timeà Maybe being the one and only agency to land a man on another celestial body isnÆt quite enough credibility??? lol ôso, would you like to know what the ultimate example how just how superior even sub-atomic forces are to gravity??? You're comparing chemistry with physics here. I don't really see the relation between a bomb and gravity. I'm not talking about sub-atomic forces, or anything other. I'm talking about the forces we can experience in every day's life, and the forces that are the main obstacles for space-faring. Among those forces gravity is the one you need to take into accountance the most.ö Ehhh??? Ummm, no, I am not comparing chemistry to physics here, I am comparing the strong force of an atom bomb being fissioned (a property of physics) and unleashing more power in one detonation than 13,000 kilotons of TNT explosive(s). This is a physics here in all of its glory, in one instant 0.7kg of fissioned Uranium 235 unleashed so many times more force than gravity that to actually compare numbers would likely take up an entire post of zeroes to show just how much more powerful a MACRO SCALE atomic exertion of force can clearly be demonstrated as the VASTLY superior force to gravity. ôI'm an engineer and have studied these things in the past. It's not because I don't mention certain common knowledge that I'm not aware of it.ö ??? then why do you insist that weight is an attractive force, when it is nothing of the sort, it is a measure of a force (gravity) being exerted on something, but it has absolutely no ôattractive forceö value what so ever. Also, as gravityÆs value changes (more or less) the weight then changes as well, because ôweightö is relative to gravity. ------------------------------------------------ UPDATED March 11 Formal request for improvements to industrialism |
 Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.25 17:43:00 -
[31]
LOL!!! Well you may think what you will, but Einstein, Steven Hawking, and physics in general doesnÆt agree with youà Now, given that the mathematics and even what has been actually observed in action says exactly contrary to your statement, you wish to suggest that all of the above are incorrect??? You say magnetism (electro or otherwise) isnÆt effective on the planetary scale??? Have you ever used a compass??? Did you know that the Aurora Borealis is specifically cause by the magnetic field of planets??? Oh, and would you mind telling me which of these forces exerts itself to greater effect from earth further out in space and even out to/past the moonÆs orbit, is it earthÆs gravity or its magnetic field??? The magnetic field of earth is still easily observed out past even the moon and even well past 300,000km away from earth, as was observed by the Apollo space program and recorded as such, where as the gravity effect of earth out at the distance of the moonÆs orbit is infinitesimal. By the time gravity gets out that far, the already feeble power of it is reduced by a factor of 0.000000265392781316348 (i.e. the power of gravity is about 2 TEN-MILLIONTHS that of the 1g experienced on earth at such a distance). So your arguments on how gravity supposedly isnÆt "puny" are blatantly futile, so give it up. lol Not only does Physics say very clearly how weak gravity is, but even the mathematics and the physicists themselves universally agree that gravity is a weak force in the universe compared to practically any other significant force. By merely typing this post, I have surpassed all the gravity the earth has to offer hundreds of times with every single key press even my weakest finger exerts many times what earthÆs gravity could ever hope to unleash. The button pressing alone is FAR FAR beyond what gravity can exert on them, otherwise the buttons would always be in the down position now wouldnÆt they??? But it takes the ôcolossalö strength of a PINKY to tap down the shift key??? I am HIGHLY unimpressed with how supposedly powerful gravity is, yet when I put a piece of ferrous metal on an electro-magnet I can EASILY make it hold so forcefully that no man on the planet could possibly pull it free, and it could exert many hundreds if not thousands of times the force that earthÆs puny gravity ever could. ------------------------------------------------- For the price of one can of Quafe cola a day, you can adopt an Ewok... Please... think of the Ewoks... |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.25 17:43:00 -
[32]
LOL!!! Well you may think what you will, but Einstein, Steven Hawking, and physics in general doesnÆt agree with youà Now, given that the mathematics and even what has been actually observed in action says exactly contrary to your statement, you wish to suggest that all of the above are incorrect??? You say magnetism (electro or otherwise) isnÆt effective on the planetary scale??? Have you ever used a compass??? Did you know that the Aurora Borealis is specifically cause by the magnetic field of planets??? Oh, and would you mind telling me which of these forces exerts itself to greater effect from earth further out in space and even out to/past the moonÆs orbit, is it earthÆs gravity or its magnetic field??? The magnetic field of earth is still easily observed out past even the moon and even well past 300,000km away from earth, as was observed by the Apollo space program and recorded as such, where as the gravity effect of earth out at the distance of the moonÆs orbit is infinitesimal. By the time gravity gets out that far, the already feeble power of it is reduced by a factor of 0.000000265392781316348 (i.e. the power of gravity is about 2 TEN-MILLIONTHS that of the 1g experienced on earth at such a distance). So your arguments on how gravity supposedly isnÆt "puny" are blatantly futile, so give it up. lol Not only does Physics say very clearly how weak gravity is, but even the mathematics and the physicists themselves universally agree that gravity is a weak force in the universe compared to practically any other significant force. By merely typing this post, I have surpassed all the gravity the earth has to offer hundreds of times with every single key press even my weakest finger exerts many times what earthÆs gravity could ever hope to unleash. The button pressing alone is FAR FAR beyond what gravity can exert on them, otherwise the buttons would always be in the down position now wouldnÆt they??? But it takes the ôcolossalö strength of a PINKY to tap down the shift key??? I am HIGHLY unimpressed with how supposedly powerful gravity is, yet when I put a piece of ferrous metal on an electro-magnet I can EASILY make it hold so forcefully that no man on the planet could possibly pull it free, and it could exert many hundreds if not thousands of times the force that earthÆs puny gravity ever could. ------------------------------------------------ UPDATED March 11 Formal request for improvements to industrialism |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.25 20:24:00 -
[33] ôGuvante is rightö actually, Einstein and Steven Hawking take top honors here, and they disagree with you and Guvante quite clearly. If you and Guvante would like to propose your own theories of universal gravitation and general relativity however, IÆm sure weÆd all be more than happy to consider your counter to the established position on the matter. (which by the way has been proven already) ôGravity is an attractive force. Gravity has never been known to repell... or do you sometimes float upwards in the morning?ö I never said otherwise, however what is in question is that you said: ôI meant that weight is an attrictive force experienced by you because of a force of a heavier mass near you.ö Weight, and how ôheavyö you happen to be somewhere has absolutely NO attractive force of any kind. ôweightö is not a attracting force, end of story. GRAVITY as I have said and the physics clearly defines is an attractive force, but gravity is NOT weight, weight is a RELATIVE measure of the effect of gravity on your MASS. But apparently ôGravity has never been known to repellö you also donÆt understand that massive objects moving through space exert force on the objects around them. Gravity has a side effect of while smaller objects may be drawn toward the larger, it also has to contend with the angle of movement in relation to each other, and if the angle of approach between the two objects is too oblique, the gravity pulling it in ends up pulling it toward the object, and as the larger object continues to move and the angle is too oblique, the smaller object can literally be pulled across the orbit arc and then hurled to the side by the inertia the object builds from the exertion of force the gravity causes. This is how every single one of the Apollo space craft reached the moon, it was impractical to load enough fuel to ôpowerö their way the whole trip, so the orbiter simply circled the earth several times building up speed and then sharpened the angle so much as to use gravity itself as a slingshot to hurl themselves toward the moon with nothing by the power GRAVITY could exert to THROW them away. Indeed gravity is an ôattractiveö force, but it doesnÆt always mean itÆs going to draw you in, professing your profound knowledge of physics, it would seem you would already know thatà ôBTW, it's a chemical property that Uranium or Plutonium bombarded with neutrons will split. Physics deals with matter in an abstract manner, never says which substance exactly flies through space, leaves the chemical properties of the mass/charge to the imagination as they are irrelevant to most physical issues (apart from batteries etc etc).ö WHAT?!?!? LOL I donÆt know who told you that, but they need to take another look into what fission is. Would you mind telling the class what field of science Niels Bohr was in? (early creator of Quantum Physics) Perhaps James Chadwick? (discovered the neutron) Or perhaps the creator of the theory that led directly to the theory and eventual creation of an atomic bomb, E=mc^2, without which the atomic bomb and even ôhisö letter to FDR may not have allowed the American development of the Manhattan Project??? ôHeö was Albert Einestein Albert Einestein, and he was known for: (a) Chemistry (b) Physics (c) Crazy hair (d) Answers B & C First off, physics is intimately linked to matter and deals with it VERY literally. Otherwise physics would only ever deal with ôforcesö which have no physical essence which is why they are a force and not matter. Physics indeed approaches matter VERY literally, and has to take into account the properties of matter to properly take into account how a force may interact with it. Also, ôchemicalö properties are a direct result of physical interactions, and the resulting effects are physics. So by extension, chemistry is merely a branch of physics and the quantum components of it. ------------------------------------------------- For the price of one can of Quafe cola a day, you can adopt an Ewok... Please... think of the Ewoks... |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.25 20:24:00 -
[34] For instance, Uranium 235 fissioning is VERY MUCH a matter for physics to measure and determine the amount of energy it can unleash (E=mc^2). Quantum Physics revolves entirely around MATTER and how it performs at the sub atomic level. The PHYSICAL property of super-heavy atoms to crumble or fission when bombarded with neutrons releases tremendous amounts of energy as well as unleashing more neutrons from the split atoms (3 neutrons per every atom of Uranium 235 fissioned) and the more neutrons released the more additional atoms of U235 are hit by those additional neutrons and themselves split. This is PHYSICS, and the energy they release is PHYSICS, and the resulting force of that energy being released and its colossal potential for devastating power. You may ôbelieveö that gravity is a comparably strong force, but compared to even weak magnetism, gravity is less than 1 trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth as strong. The mathematics shows it. Einstein proved it with his universally accepted formula of Universal Gravitation. The entire physics community accepts and can separately prove it in their own way. ------------------------------------------------- For the price of one can of Quafe cola a day, you can adopt an Ewok... Please... think of the Ewoks... |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.25 20:24:00 -
[35] ôGuvante is rightö actually, Einstein and Steven Hawking take top honors here, and they disagree with you and Guvante quite clearly. If you and Guvante would like to propose your own theories of universal gravitation and general relativity however, IÆm sure weÆd all be more than happy to consider your counter to the established position on the matter. (which by the way has been proven already) ôGravity is an attractive force. Gravity has never been known to repell... or do you sometimes float upwards in the morning?ö I never said otherwise, however what is in question is that you said: ôI meant that weight is an attrictive force experienced by you because of a force of a heavier mass near you.ö Weight, and how ôheavyö you happen to be somewhere has absolutely NO attractive force of any kind. ôweightö is not a attracting force, end of story. GRAVITY as I have said and the physics clearly defines is an attractive force, but gravity is NOT weight, weight is a RELATIVE measure of the effect of gravity on your MASS. But apparently ôGravity has never been known to repellö you also donÆt understand that massive objects moving through space exert force on the objects around them. Gravity has a side effect of while smaller objects may be drawn toward the larger, it also has to contend with the angle of movement in relation to each other, and if the angle of approach between the two objects is too oblique, the gravity pulling it in ends up pulling it toward the object, and as the larger object continues to move and the angle is too oblique, the smaller object can literally be pulled across the orbit arc and then hurled to the side by the inertia the object builds from the exertion of force the gravity causes. This is how every single one of the Apollo space craft reached the moon, it was impractical to load enough fuel to ôpowerö their way the whole trip, so the orbiter simply circled the earth several times building up speed and then sharpened the angle so much as to use gravity itself as a slingshot to hurl themselves toward the moon with nothing by the power GRAVITY could exert to THROW them away. Indeed gravity is an ôattractiveö force, but it doesnÆt always mean itÆs going to draw you in, professing your profound knowledge of physics, it would seem you would already know thatà ôBTW, it's a chemical property that Uranium or Plutonium bombarded with neutrons will split. Physics deals with matter in an abstract manner, never says which substance exactly flies through space, leaves the chemical properties of the mass/charge to the imagination as they are irrelevant to most physical issues (apart from batteries etc etc).ö WHAT?!?!? LOL I donÆt know who told you that, but they need to take another look into what fission is. Would you mind telling the class what field of science Niels Bohr was in? (early creator of Quantum Physics) Perhaps James Chadwick? (discovered the neutron) Or perhaps the creator of the theory that led directly to the theory and eventual creation of an atomic bomb, E=mc^2, without which the atomic bomb and even ôhisö letter to FDR may not have allowed the American development of the Manhattan Project??? ôHeö was Albert Einestein Albert Einestein, and he was known for: (a) Chemistry (b) Physics (c) Crazy hair (d) Answers B & C First off, physics is intimately linked to matter and deals with it VERY literally. Otherwise physics would only ever deal with ôforcesö which have no physical essence which is why they are a force and not matter. Physics indeed approaches matter VERY literally, and has to take into account the properties of matter to properly take into account how a force may interact with it. Also, ôchemicalö properties are a direct result of physical interactions, and the resulting effects are physics. So by extension, chemistry is merely a branch of physics and the quantum components of it. ------------------------------------------------ UPDATED March 11 Formal request for improvements to industrialism |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.25 20:24:00 -
[36] For instance, Uranium 235 fissioning is VERY MUCH a matter for physics to measure and determine the amount of energy it can unleash (E=mc^2). Quantum Physics revolves entirely around MATTER and how it performs at the sub atomic level. The PHYSICAL property of super-heavy atoms to crumble or fission when bombarded with neutrons releases tremendous amounts of energy as well as unleashing more neutrons from the split atoms (3 neutrons per every atom of Uranium 235 fissioned) and the more neutrons released the more additional atoms of U235 are hit by those additional neutrons and themselves split. This is PHYSICS, and the energy they release is PHYSICS, and the resulting force of that energy being released and its colossal potential for devastating power. You may ôbelieveö that gravity is a comparably strong force, but compared to even weak magnetism, gravity is less than 1 trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth as strong. The mathematics shows it. Einstein proved it with his universally accepted formula of Universal Gravitation. The entire physics community accepts and can separately prove it in their own way. ------------------------------------------------ UPDATED March 11 Formal request for improvements to industrialism |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.25 21:23:00 -
[37]
LOL yeah, me too, but we all know that's REALLY a dream ship ------------------------------------------------- For the price of one can of Quafe cola a day, you can adopt an Ewok... Please... think of the Ewoks... |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.25 21:23:00 -
[38]
LOL yeah, me too, but we all know that's REALLY a dream ship ------------------------------------------------ UPDATED March 11 Formal request for improvements to industrialism |
Originally by: Kinsy
| Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,48s, ref 20250620/0613 EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP. bitcoin: 1CHRiBBArqpw5Yz7x5KS2RRtN5ubEn5gF |
| COPYRIGHT NOTICE EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website. |