|
| 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) |
 Phoenicia    |
Posted - 2005.07.25 06:18:00 -
[421] NSEA Protector II Complete with red & blue particle cannons. "Never give up, never surrender!" ---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--- |
 Phoenicia Eidolon Exploration and Exploitation |
Posted - 2005.07.25 06:18:00 -
[422] NSEA Protector II Complete with red & blue particle cannons. "Never give up, never surrender!" |
 Aragis Starlancer |
Posted - 2005.07.25 06:23:00 -
[423] ok enough of these dreams you know the ships you dream cannot be created in the world of eve  but if there is a little chance to modify our glorious ships that will be a very nice like if we cancel the lowslots and increase the number of highslots or the opposite,that is a ship i dreamed of and they(gods of the universe) can do that i am right people |
 Aragis Starlancer |
Posted - 2005.07.25 06:23:00 -
[424] ok enough of these dreams you know the ships you dream cannot be created in the world of eve but if there is a little chance to modify our glorious ships that will be a very nice like if we cancel the lowslots and increase the number of highslots or the opposite,that is a ship i dreamed of and they(gods of the universe) can do that i am right people |
 Zembla |
Posted - 2005.07.25 10:01:00 -
[425]
Gravity has a lower magnitude, but because of its omnipresence it's one of the stronger binding forces.
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.
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.
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.
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 -
[426]
Gravity has a lower magnitude, but because of its omnipresence it's one of the stronger binding forces.
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.
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.
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.
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> |
 Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.25 15:14:00 -
[427] 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 -
[428] 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 -
[429] 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 -
[430] 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 |
 Guvante |
Posted - 2005.07.25 16:22:00 -
[431] A discussion on force types in the middle of a dream ship thread, nice derailing there  BTW, it is important to not that the only non-graitational force observed on a planar scale is gravity, well except for the magnetic belt that surrounds our planet... Please do not try and compare the strong force and gravity at the distance of an AU or more, considering the only instance of the strong forced observed is within the nucleaus of a single atom, comparing that distance to an AU would require a few more than 40 0's worth of magnitude The problem with electromagnetics on that scale is that matter on a planetary scale is general electrostatically neurtal (Not postive or negative) so electromagnetic forces do not play a part So your arguments on how "punny" gravity is are blatently futile, so give it up  I do wonder how a sphere could be made to encompass a star though, as the amount of energy that a star puts out would be enough to melt any material I have ever heard of Back on topic, I think that the Detalius (sp) from Stargate Atlantis is pretty cool, what with teleporting several megaton nuclear devices into the center of its oppisition  While in eve I think I would go for the Moros looks pretty cool from my n00b eyes, I like the idea of 3 XL guns and 35 assorted drones as my fire power (Or 35 Harvesting drones to put even a Large Barge to shame in mining potential  PS: Yes I love smiles |
 Guvante Aliastra |
Posted - 2005.07.25 16:22:00 -
[432] A discussion on force types in the middle of a dream ship thread, nice derailing there BTW, it is important to not that the only non-graitational force observed on a planar scale is gravity, well except for the magnetic belt that surrounds our planet... Please do not try and compare the strong force and gravity at the distance of an AU or more, considering the only instance of the strong forced observed is within the nucleaus of a single atom, comparing that distance to an AU would require a few more than 40 0's worth of magnitude The problem with electromagnetics on that scale is that matter on a planetary scale is general electrostatically neurtal (Not postive or negative) so electromagnetic forces do not play a part So your arguments on how "punny" gravity is are blatently futile, so give it up I do wonder how a sphere could be made to encompass a star though, as the amount of energy that a star puts out would be enough to melt any material I have ever heard of Back on topic, I think that the Detalius (sp) from Stargate Atlantis is pretty cool, what with teleporting several megaton nuclear devices into the center of its oppisition While in eve I think I would go for the Moros looks pretty cool from my n00b eyes, I like the idea of 3 XL guns and 35 assorted drones as my fire power (Or 35 Harvesting drones to put even a Large Barge to shame in mining potential PS: Yes I love smiles |
 O'knar |
Posted - 2005.07.25 16:35:00 -
[433] wow, i didn't expect this to break down to a physics discussion. |
 O'knar Grettistak |
Posted - 2005.07.25 16:35:00 -
[434] wow, i didn't expect this to break down to a physics discussion. |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.25 17:43:00 -
[435]
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 -
[436]
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 |
Shan'Talasha Mea'Questa |
Posted - 2005.07.25 18:21:00 -
[437]
In that case... go bigger, try a Magog Worldship from the serie Andromeda. |
 Shan'Talasha Mea'Questa The Perfect Harvesting Experience |
Posted - 2005.07.25 18:21:00 -
[438]
In that case... go bigger, try a Magog Worldship from the serie Andromeda.
|
 Marruni |
Posted - 2005.07.25 19:23:00 -
[439] I present to you, the Wild 7 Faction Cruiser W I L D 7 FACTION CRUISER The BPO is in Research so be patient, it is fitted with 3 Railguns. 250MM T2 125MM T2 135MM T2 ( Not out yet ) Along with nice rims and a afterburner. Best Regards Marruni |
 Marruni Wild 7 |
Posted - 2005.07.25 19:23:00 -
[440] I present to you, the Wild 7 Faction Cruiser W I L D 7 FACTION CRUISER The BPO is in Research so be patient, it is fitted with 3 Railguns. 250MM T2 125MM T2 135MM T2 ( Not out yet ) Along with nice rims and a afterburner. Best Regards Marruni |
Zembla |
Posted - 2005.07.25 19:24:00 -
[441] 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 -
[442] 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> |
 Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.25 20:24:00 -
[443] 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 -
[444] 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 -
[445] 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 -
[446] 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 |
Ronin Woman |
Posted - 2005.07.25 21:03:00 -
[447] My dream ship is one that - never gets stuck in any system - ever. |
 Ronin Woman |
Posted - 2005.07.25 21:03:00 -
[448] My dream ship is one that - never gets stuck in any system - ever. |
Vivus Mors |
Posted - 2005.07.25 21:23:00 -
[449]
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 -
[450]
LOL yeah, me too, but we all know that's REALLY a dream ship ------------------------------------------------ UPDATED March 11 Formal request for improvements to industrialism |
| 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 © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,61s, ref 20250621/1614 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. |