EVE Search - Dream Ship


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Zembla	Posted - 2005.07.18 23:19:00 - [1] Why the Nostalgia for Infinity of course. A ship from the space trilogy of Alastair Reynolds. Good books, and a nice ship :) More scientifically justified than most things in sci-fi :) <Z> Spread the Z
Zembla Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2005.07.18 23:19:00 - [2] Why the Nostalgia for Infinity of course. A ship from the space trilogy of Alastair Reynolds. Good books, and a nice ship :) More scientifically justified than most things in sci-fi :) <Z>
Zembla	Posted - 2005.07.24 21:47:00 - [3] Originally by: Vivus Mors 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. [...] actually do great damage with gravity. There's no weight in space? What kind of school taught you things like that? Weight - albeit often misused - still exists, the gravitational pull experienced in space is what defines the weight of an object. In space in fact many forces are toned down, but gravity isn't. Gravity is one of the larger (if not the largest) force to take into accountance when flying through space. Gravity isn't among the weakest forces of the universe either it's got the same inverse-square dependance on range as the magnetical force you claim is much stronger. Quote: 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. True, but there are other forces interacting on the kid as well. And as you say, gravity is the bigger one of these forces. Also, it is very important to make a distinction between contact forces and distant forces. Quote: 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 I 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). This electrical force is the thing that keeps atoms neutral in charge, ions have magnetical interactions, but two atoms do not have magnetical intereactions on the same basis. So as soon as you're outside of the atomic level you'll find most (if not all) objects to be charge neutral, yet they can contain much mass, so outside of the atomic level you'll notice that gravity is the limiting force, the binding force. Quote: 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. It's the sun's pull that keeps us in orbit, not the reactonary force between the masses of the moon and the earth. Quote: 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 Could you rephrase that one please? --- If the Dyson Sphere (first time I hear of this), was indeed really a star it could be torn apart if coming too close to another star (that other star would be torn apart too). It's impractical for large heavy objects to traverse space because of the tidal forces. Gravity (Fg = (G * m1 * m2)/(r^2)) on large objects causes tidal forces. Because gravity is very dependant on the range to the other mass the gravitational forces experienced by a point on one side (closer to the other mass) are much bigger than the forces on the other side. This difference in pull can tear spaceships (and probably even planets apart). In macroscopic physics it is common to describe objects by their mass-centre, but when a large object comes to close to another mass density, volume and other potential irregularities come into play. <Z> Spread the Z
Zembla Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2005.07.24 21:47:00 - [4] Originally by: Vivus Mors 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. [...] actually do great damage with gravity. There's no weight in space? What kind of school taught you things like that? Weight - albeit often misused - still exists, the gravitational pull experienced in space is what defines the weight of an object. In space in fact many forces are toned down, but gravity isn't. Gravity is one of the larger (if not the largest) force to take into accountance when flying through space. Gravity isn't among the weakest forces of the universe either it's got the same inverse-square dependance on range as the magnetical force you claim is much stronger. Quote: 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. True, but there are other forces interacting on the kid as well. And as you say, gravity is the bigger one of these forces. Also, it is very important to make a distinction between contact forces and distant forces. Quote: 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 I 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). This electrical force is the thing that keeps atoms neutral in charge, ions have magnetical interactions, but two atoms do not have magnetical intereactions on the same basis. So as soon as you're outside of the atomic level you'll find most (if not all) objects to be charge neutral, yet they can contain much mass, so outside of the atomic level you'll notice that gravity is the limiting force, the binding force. Quote: 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. It's the sun's pull that keeps us in orbit, not the reactonary force between the masses of the moon and the earth. Quote: 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 Could you rephrase that one please? --- If the Dyson Sphere (first time I hear of this), was indeed really a star it could be torn apart if coming too close to another star (that other star would be torn apart too). It's impractical for large heavy objects to traverse space because of the tidal forces. Gravity (Fg = (G * m1 * m2)/(r^2)) on large objects causes tidal forces. Because gravity is very dependant on the range to the other mass the gravitational forces experienced by a point on one side (closer to the other mass) are much bigger than the forces on the other side. This difference in pull can tear spaceships (and probably even planets apart). In macroscopic physics it is common to describe objects by their mass-centre, but when a large object comes to close to another mass density, volume and other potential irregularities come into play. <Z>
Zembla	Posted - 2005.07.24 22:22:00 - [5] Gravity doesn't distinguish between star, ship or whatever. It's all mass... As for stars collapsing on itself... aaactually... if a star gets old enough, and the fusion elements become heavy enough it can explode (supernova) which would leave behind a neutron star (goes around it's axis about once every second). A pinhead of matter from a neutron star is alleged to "weigh" thousands of even millions of metric tonnes. A neutron star can arguable be called a collapsed star... <Z> Spread the Z
Zembla Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2005.07.24 22:22:00 - [6] Gravity doesn't distinguish between star, ship or whatever. It's all mass... As for stars collapsing on itself... aaactually... if a star gets old enough, and the fusion elements become heavy enough it can explode (supernova) which would leave behind a neutron star (goes around it's axis about once every second). A pinhead of matter from a neutron star is alleged to "weigh" thousands of even millions of metric tonnes. A neutron star can arguable be called a collapsed star... <Z>
Zembla	Posted - 2005.07.25 10:01:00 - [7] Originally by: Vivus Mors 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. Gravity has a lower magnitude, but because of its omnipresence it's one of the stronger binding forces. Quote: 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. 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. The string theory is interesting indeed, but they can't start testing it before another 5 years. I haven't really looked into yet either. Quote: 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. No, 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. Quote: 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??? 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. Quote: so, 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. I'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. No need to point out to me that the basic electro-magnetic element is an electron... which in fact isn't even 100% correct. Chemical reactions and most subatomic reactions can result in enormous ammounts of energy being released from a relatively small mass-interaction. On the other hand, gravity's influence can release enormous ammounts of energy as well. But, I understand where you're coming from, I guess I was just nitpicking (another result of having to study those things in school, makes you picky :)) Anyway, don't want to derail this thread or flame or anything. I stick with the Nostalgia for Infinity though :) <Z> Spread the Z
Zembla Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2005.07.25 10:01:00 - [8] Originally by: Vivus Mors 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. Gravity has a lower magnitude, but because of its omnipresence it's one of the stronger binding forces. Quote: 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. 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. The string theory is interesting indeed, but they can't start testing it before another 5 years. I haven't really looked into yet either. Quote: 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. No, 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. Quote: 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??? 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. Quote: so, 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. I'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. No need to point out to me that the basic electro-magnetic element is an electron... which in fact isn't even 100% correct. Chemical reactions and most subatomic reactions can result in enormous ammounts of energy being released from a relatively small mass-interaction. On the other hand, gravity's influence can release enormous ammounts of energy as well. But, I understand where you're coming from, I guess I was just nitpicking (another result of having to study those things in school, makes you picky :)) Anyway, don't want to derail this thread or flame or anything. I stick with the Nostalgia for Infinity though :) <Z>
Zembla	Posted - 2005.07.25 19:24:00 - [9] Guvante is right. What I'm trying to say is that on earth, in computers etc, other forces may have a bigger influence. But, because of the same inverse square range dependance and because celestial bodies are charge neutral electromagnetism plays no role when look at the macroscopic scale. Have you ever heard of space billiard? Then tell me again how unimportant gravity is. I've heard arguments like yours 1000 times before, and they're correct as long as they've been placed in the right context, which you don't. If your arguments would apply regardless of context I'm sure my professors wouldn't have taught me things differently. Gravity is an attractive force. Gravity has never been known to repell... or do you sometimes float upwards in the morning? Do not be fooled, it's not because at speeds close the escape velocity astronauts experience little or no gravity, or because the pull of gravity decreases that it's such a weak force. In fact, there still has to be proven (mathematically) that there are forces you need to look at closer when travelling through space. And I'm talking about natural forces. BTW, 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). <Z> Spread the Z
Zembla Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2005.07.25 19:24:00 - [10] Guvante is right. What I'm trying to say is that on earth, in computers etc, other forces may have a bigger influence. But, because of the same inverse square range dependance and because celestial bodies are charge neutral electromagnetism plays no role when look at the macroscopic scale. Have you ever heard of space billiard? Then tell me again how unimportant gravity is. I've heard arguments like yours 1000 times before, and they're correct as long as they've been placed in the right context, which you don't. If your arguments would apply regardless of context I'm sure my professors wouldn't have taught me things differently. Gravity is an attractive force. Gravity has never been known to repell... or do you sometimes float upwards in the morning? Do not be fooled, it's not because at speeds close the escape velocity astronauts experience little or no gravity, or because the pull of gravity decreases that it's such a weak force. In fact, there still has to be proven (mathematically) that there are forces you need to look at closer when travelling through space. And I'm talking about natural forces. BTW, 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). <Z>

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.