|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page | |
| Author | Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
 Darlan Flame    |
Posted - 2005.07.24 17:39:00 -
[391]
Well argued, though I still doubt the claim that any mineral in the plethera of human knowledge can possibly be as large as that and not snap under its own weight. This is a structure large enough to completely encompass a star. Stars, which are hundreds of times larger than anything else. Assuming every bit of mass from every solid planet in the solar system was used in an atempt to create a sphere around our sun, would all those minerals even begin to encompass the star? How many planets to a sphere like that? Hell, the last time all the matter that formed earth was close to each other like that, it compressed itself into earth. But you're telling me a structure large enough to encompass a FULL STAR, some of the hugest stellar bodies in exsistance, would act completely normal, just sitting there in the shape we wrought it in. Is there something about steel that makes it act diffrently than all the rest of the matter in the universe? In conclusion, there simply isn't a material in exsistance that could hold a mass as large as a solar system and not collapse in on itself in a hundred diffrent ways. "Snapping under its own weight" comes to mind, as well as "that much steel put together reaches critical mass and becomes a star itself". Has there ever been a solid planet in the history of time that has been as large as a normal star, much less large enough to encompass one? No, never, not once. But as you said way back in your first post, logistics are aside, and thus, I give you your super sun sphere of death. |
 Darlan Flame GoonFleet |
Posted - 2005.07.24 17:39:00 -
[392]
Well argued, though I still doubt the claim that any mineral in the plethera of human knowledge can possibly be as large as that and not snap under its own weight. This is a structure large enough to completely encompass a star. Stars, which are hundreds of times larger than anything else. Assuming every bit of mass from every solid planet in the solar system was used in an atempt to create a sphere around our sun, would all those minerals even begin to encompass the star? How many planets to a sphere like that? Hell, the last time all the matter that formed earth was close to each other like that, it compressed itself into earth. But you're telling me a structure large enough to encompass a FULL STAR, some of the hugest stellar bodies in exsistance, would act completely normal, just sitting there in the shape we wrought it in. Is there something about steel that makes it act diffrently than all the rest of the matter in the universe? In conclusion, there simply isn't a material in exsistance that could hold a mass as large as a solar system and not collapse in on itself in a hundred diffrent ways. "Snapping under its own weight" comes to mind, as well as "that much steel put together reaches critical mass and becomes a star itself". Has there ever been a solid planet in the history of time that has been as large as a normal star, much less large enough to encompass one? No, never, not once. But as you said way back in your first post, logistics are aside, and thus, I give you your super sun sphere of death. |
 terra helll |
Posted - 2005.07.24 17:56:00 -
[393] a Dyson Sphere would get wtfpwnd by the sun crusher it would fly though whatever armour it had like a hot knife to butter and then oh i dont know crush the sun like the name implys from starwars.com "Armed with the Sun Crusher, Kyp soared to Carida, the heart of the Imperial Academy. Kyp launched the Sun Crusher's resonance torpedoes into Carida's sun, triggering a chain reaction that would destroy the system." this xwing sized sun pwnzor could paste a ssd simply by flying in one side and out the other |
 terra helll |
Posted - 2005.07.24 17:56:00 -
[394] a Dyson Sphere would get wtfpwnd by the sun crusher it would fly though whatever armour it had like a hot knife to butter and then oh i dont know crush the sun like the name implys from starwars.com "Armed with the Sun Crusher, Kyp soared to Carida, the heart of the Imperial Academy. Kyp launched the Sun Crusher's resonance torpedoes into Carida's sun, triggering a chain reaction that would destroy the system." this xwing sized sun pwnzor could paste a ssd simply by flying in one side and out the other |
 Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.24 21:02:00 -
[395] 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 -
[396] 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 -
[397] 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 -
[398] 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 |
Zembla |
Posted - 2005.07.24 21:47:00 -
[399]
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.
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.
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.
It's the sun's pull that keeps us in orbit, not the reactonary force between the masses of the moon and the earth.
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 -
[400]
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.
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.
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.
It's the sun's pull that keeps us in orbit, not the reactonary force between the masses of the moon and the earth.
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> |
 fairimear |
Posted - 2005.07.24 21:54:00 -
[401] dyson sphere can't be counted as it's no ship. it's a instilation around a star.  (\_/) (O.o) (> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world Domination. |
 fairimear Gallente S.A.S Cruel Intentions |
Posted - 2005.07.24 21:54:00 -
[402] dyson sphere can't be counted as it's no ship. it's a instilation around a star. Makeing your npc hunters SS. |
Zembla |
Posted - 2005.07.24 22:22:00 -
[403] 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 -
[404] 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> |
 Darlan Flame |
Posted - 2005.07.24 23:12:00 -
[405]
You win. |
Darlan Flame GoonFleet |
Posted - 2005.07.24 23:12:00 -
[406]
You win. |
 Eonov |
Posted - 2005.07.24 23:29:00 -
[407] It has to be a "shadow" battleship from baylon5, organic so it heals its self, fighter launch capabilty, multi weapon capabilty, independant hyperspace drive (no gates needed) and a decloak insta lock capabilty, its main weaponary has the abilty to cut any other ship in its class in half... and it looks terrifying !! (and sounds). |
 Eonov Octavian Vanguard RAZOR Alliance |
Posted - 2005.07.24 23:29:00 -
[408] It has to be a "shadow" battleship from baylon5, organic so it heals its self, fighter launch capabilty, multi weapon capabilty, independant hyperspace drive (no gates needed) and a decloak insta lock capabilty, its main weaponary has the abilty to cut any other ship in its class in half... and it looks terrifying !! (and sounds). Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 kbs, ty - Cortes |
Arkaine |
Posted - 2005.07.25 01:03:00 -
[409] Edited by: Arkaine on 25/07/2005 01:03:44 A little late but I'm going to have to say the SDF-1. Favorite childhood cartoon. What can I say? |
 Arkaine Evolution Band of Brothers |
Posted - 2005.07.25 01:03:00 -
[410] Edited by: Arkaine on 25/07/2005 01:03:44 A little late but I'm going to have to say the SDF-1. Favorite childhood cartoon. What can I say? |
 Tekran |
Posted - 2005.07.25 02:14:00 -
[411] just want to steal an Infested Dominix from those drones.. or change the bonus and dronebay on the Vex enough to let it belch out 35 heavies in a horrifying deathswarm.. mmm.. deathswarm.. |
 Tekran Gallente |
Posted - 2005.07.25 02:14:00 -
[412] just want to steal an Infested Dominix from those drones.. or change the bonus and dronebay on the Vex enough to let it belch out 35 heavies in a horrifying deathswarm.. mmm.. deathswarm.. "I don't wear panties, for the record. Commando 4tw! ~ Abdalion" |
 Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.25 03:12:00 -
[413] 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 -
[414] 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 -
[415] 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 -
[416] 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 |
 Luric Vizjier |
Posted - 2005.07.25 04:50:00 -
[417] The Von Braun from System Shock 2, complete with SHODAN and horde of annelids. OR The Death Star. :) OR Shep's Guitar Ship from Interstella 5555 so I could own you to the beat of Daft Punk. OR The Halo from Halo. OR Perhaps an Orbital Frame from Zone of the Enders. Eve should get some mecha. I should make up my mind. :P ------------------------------------------------------------ |
 Luric Vizjier The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance |
Posted - 2005.07.25 04:50:00 -
[418] The Von Braun from System Shock 2, complete with SHODAN and horde of annelids. OR The Death Star. :) OR Shep's Guitar Ship from Interstella 5555 so I could own you to the beat of Daft Punk. OR The Halo from Halo. OR Perhaps an Orbital Frame from Zone of the Enders. Eve should get some mecha. I should make up my mind. :P ----------------------------------------------- |
 ghettosmurf |
Posted - 2005.07.25 05:31:00 -
[419] Minmatar shuttle with 1 laser and 1 missile launcher so I can take down the deathstar in the new 11/10 sansha complex. |
 ghettosmurf Minmatar The SMITE Brotherhood Curse Alliance |
Posted - 2005.07.25 05:31:00 -
[420] Minmatar shuttle with 1 laser and 1 missile launcher so I can take down the deathstar in the new 11/10 sansha complex. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page | |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page | |
Originally by: Vivus Mors| Copyright © 2006-2024, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,09s, ref 20241221/0621 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. |