My favorite subject, science. Ask all your questions here, feel free to hypothesize, but please stay on topic. I encourage all the smart people at Ichigo's to answer them, as... well I'm not always an Einstien...
I've got a good topic starter: Black holes. Ask away.

If they exist why hasen't the whole universe been sucked in?

1. the universe is so immencely, ginormusly, xbox sized large that black holes dont hve the time to enuglf everything. our galaxy is 70000 light years across. that means light takes 70000 years to go from one end to the other. theres over 150000 light years between galaxies. thes over a billion or so galaxies. a normal black hole is like 50 - 1000 the gravity of the sun. for a normal black hole to suck in/combine with other black holes and eat every particle of matter in the universe, it would take like a couple billion quintillion years (a real number!) but thats unlikely, since the laws of physics will degrade after a couple billion billion years. thats what i heard. http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns - go to it.

The laws of physics should only degrade in extreme cases. ie: black holes, up to 10^-35 seconds after the big bang, supernovea, ect...

depends if the universe collapses on itself or not.

if you take a particle accelerator and blast it at a wall, would the particle break others thus causing a huge explosion?

if matter can neither create itself or destroy, it simply changes, and if the universe is constantly expanding what would happen if there were no matter left for it to expand

in space, there is said to be nothing, but rockets and spacecraft use engines to fire their way around, how can this be if it has nothing to push off of

how does the brain store memories?

is it true that a feeling such as love comes from the inner conscious?

our brain is constantly firing electronic pulses at each other to work, does this mean it is possible to increase this energy rate and become static shock xD

fact:
- the theory that we use only 10% of our brain is incorrect, at the current moment we are using only a percentage of our brain, but as different activities are done we use separate parts of the brain, over the course of a day or so we use our whole brain

particle accelerators can't have walls in their paths...well, some can, but the beam of hadrons or leptons would just beam through, not affecting muc, depending on the eV.
I read Jay Ingram's "Theater of the Mind" but the brain is still very mysterious, not many people could tell you how it works entirely.
The space craft thing... I suppose its just Newtonian really...

if matter can neither create itself or destroy, it simply changes, and if the universe is constantly expanding what would happen if there were no matter left for it to expand

When they say "expand" I do believe (Correct me if I'm wrong) they mean it's simply getting bigger, there's nothing being added to it, things are just moving farther apart.

in space, there is said to be nothing, but rockets and spacecraft use engines to fire their way around, how can this be if it has nothing to push off of

The rockets "push off" of the particles that are ejected, so by conservation of momentum, the rockets move opposite the direction of the particles. One way you could demonstrate this is by getting on an ice rink with a heavy ball, then tossing the ball. The ball will go forward, and you should go backward. (Then the ball will go careening into someone else and you'll probably get banned from the ice rink, but hey, all in the name of science...)


our brain is constantly firing electronic pulses at each other to work, does this mean it is possible to increase this energy rate and become static shock xD

I always thought the result of "increasing the energy rate" was a migraine headache?


if matter can neither create itself or destroy, it simply changes, and if the universe is constantly expanding what would happen if there were no matter left for it to expand
Expansion has to do with space (i.e., the dimension), not matter. You don't need additional matter in order to expand. Imagine throwing two marbles in opposite directions in space. The universe consisting of you and the two marbles will keep expanding, but the amount of mass will remain constant. It's kinda like how the mess in a room can expand indefinitely even if you never add more stuff to the mess :P


Now I want to ask a question: explain this o_O
http://www.ams.org/notices/199505/saari-2.pdf

If they exist why hasen't the whole universe been sucked in?

Because black holes aren't cosmic vacuum cleaners like most people seem to think. You only get "sucked in" if you get too close. A black hole was once a star, and it's mass and thus it's gravitational pull didn't change after it became a black hole, just the volume changed from something super massive to something super tiny. if the distance from the centre of the star to it's surface had been 20.000 KM and gravity=1 there, then with the black hole formed from that star the gravity at 20.000 KM from the centre of the black hole will still be one. So if the star didn't attract stuff that was floating around it, the black whole won't either. It'll only attract stuff that'll come within it's gravitational pull.

If the sun suddenly turned into a black hole for instance, the Earth and other planets would keep floating around it in their current orbits.

What is the speed of light in Miles Per Hour?

signed.

as for the expansion of the universe, the galaxies themselve don't drift apart, it's just that space itself between those galaxies expands.

as for memory storage, its a general assumption that its stored chemically as well as stored by the neural net's configuration. so when u learn a new ability, your neural net in a specific reagion of ur brain changes, as well as the chemicals in specic parts of the brain change so you can use and access new info and ability. not sure about this though.

the speed of light = 670 616 629 miles per hour (i went to my google bar and entered "speed of light in miles per hour")

you can google/wiki all of this stuff. good disscussion topics though XD

oh btw Ripple_in_Eternity, about the energy of photons we talked about in the other thread, I found out that it only depends on the frequency of the wave and the planck constant (h=6.620693*10^-34 Js, this means the energy of one photon is unimaginable low), the overall energy of the wave doesn't matter, raising it would only lead to an increased number of photons. :O

Right, so basicaly, photons and other particles with tiny amounts of mass tend to display wave properties, electrons are a good example: they don't go in circles like grade 10 science would like you to believe, in the quantum world they are basically everywhere in thier orbits at once, which can be very odd shapes, one shell is a dicone. Electrons are somewhere around 1/1680 the mass of a proton(if i recall) and acts much more like a wave than a particle. The quantum world is hard to imagine sometimes...

about the quantum, is there any word on how that cat is doing?

I only have one word for this thread: Antigravitanium.

And I have a fun problem for this thread. Consider the following:

A 50.0-g sample of a conducting material is all that is available. The resistivity of the material is measured to be 11x10^-8 Ω*m, and the density is 7.86 g/cm^3. The material is to be shaped into a wire that has a total resistance of 1.5 Ω. (a) What length is required? (b) What must be the diameter of the wire?

If you can solve this, you have just earned a bunch of cool points from me!

And I have a fun problem for this thread. Consider the following:

A 50.0-g sample of a conducting material is all that is available. The resistivity of the material is measured to be 11x10^-8 Ω*m, and the density is 7.86 g/cm^3. The material is to be shaped into a wire that has a total resistance of 1.5 Ω. (a) What length is required? (b) What must be the diameter of the wire?

If you can solve this, you have just earned a bunch of cool points from me!ohgawdtehmathsohnoes

(a) 1.5 Ω / 11x10^-8 Ω*m = 7.33333333 × 10^-8 m

(b) Volume of a Cylinder: pi x radius^2 × length

Volume of Cylinder = (50.0) g / (7.86 g/cm^3) = 6.36132316 cm^3 = 6.36132316x10^-6 m^3

length = 7.33333333 × 10^-8 m

radius^2 = Volume of Cylinder / (pi x length)

Get it? If you don't I can explaithulhu fhtagn, Cthulhu fhtagn! Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

ahh disgusting physics. As if you don't have enough of it from school.

Get it? If you don't I can explaithulhu fhtagn, Cthulhu fhtagn! Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

touched by his noodly appendages.. BOW BEFORE YOUR GOD!!! CTHULU!!!! FYULGAHM!!!! CTHULUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!

Keep the spam for General chat.

sorry. getting back on toppic, the cat reference was about this theoretical experement to put a cat in a box with deadly gas. you cant onpent he box becasue it will change the outcome of the experement, but you ont know its its dead or alive since you cant look in it.

yep, in this thought experiment the cat is dead and alive at the same time. A superposition so to speak.

If you like physics so much, will you do my physics homework if I scan it and post it?

And isn't Physics part of Science anyway?

that stuff is weird, eh! aww man how does the quantum entanglement work??? when that technology picks up, it gonna be the next internet, better then sliced bread, bigger then the weel. i know what it does, i just want to know in a rudimentary way, how it does it...

(quantum entangleent is when two particles react to each other no matter how far apart they are, instantly)

How come when you shock something when it is dead it moves?

Because the electricity will cause the muscles to act.

I know one major rule in quantum mechanics: You can observe something without changing it, an if observed, you cannot know for certain both the velocity and position of a particle. This has everything to do with how we observe things like that, we need to send "probe" particle to hit it theen be measured. Entanglement is somewhat of a way around this, but isnt 100% effective. This is basicaly the same thing as the cat in the box, and entanglement is kind of the equivilent of making the box out of glass... my opinion. In reality, quantum entanglement is the use of some extra probe particles.

last i read they sent a bit per second of information across half a meter by quantum entanglement. morse code might be faster, but its a remarkable acheivement. just think about the applications when the technology is made more practical and perfected... *mind being boggled*

I have no idea how that would work, but if perfected, it would mean cellphones the size of grains of sand, 1000Tb/square inch hard drives and many more unholy acheivements of science that I would love to see...

ohgawdtehmathsohnoes

(a) 1.5 Ω / 11x10^-8 Ω*m = 7.33333333 × 10^-8 m

(b) Volume of a Cylinder: pi x radius^2 × length

Volume of Cylinder = (50.0) g / (7.86 g/cm^3) = 6.36132316 cm^3 = 6.36132316x10^-6 m^3

length = 7.33333333 × 10^-8 m

radius^2 = Volume of Cylinder / (pi x length)

Get it? If you don't I can explaithulhu fhtagn, Cthulhu fhtagn! Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

Ummm.... not even close.... keep trying! :lol:

cellphones the size of a grain of sand? it would be a b!tch to drop that at the beach... and how would it be unholy? its not like were taking these acheivements from SATAN!!!!!

lets keep the religion away from the science and vice versa ok?

anyways, (puts on flame retardent coat)

any opinion on that space elevator?

Unholy is just my favorite discriptive word... but I agree totaly about separating religion and science, they have nothing to do with eachother.
Space elevator...hmm, like the competitions they showed on the discovery channel or the idea of one?

I think the idea of a space elevator is kind of stupid. Sure it would be easier to move things to and from space, but the cost to maintain it would probably be not worth it. Plus, it is aesthetically unappealing. It would be like turning the world into a giant Tootsie Pop, except it would take many likes to get to the center of it and once you got there, you would not like what it is filled with!

well i sure you will like to be able to put stuff in orbit a couple thousand dollars (for maintenance, its a frikkin band of carbon nanotubes. it needs about as much maintenance as a slede hammer in a warehouse.) instead of the usual COUPLE HUNDRED MILLION PER FLIGHT. wth does a tootsy pop have to do with a space elevator? its a meter wide by a milimeter thick. beyond a couple hundrerd mile ITS INVISIBLE. its in the equator in the midle of the ocean. i dont think the fish would give a flying rat's @$$ about a platform with a band sticking out of it.

I guess what I am trying to say is that it is plausable to happen, but it will be a project that would take the back burner to other projects, such as the manned trip to mars, planned for around the year 2030 - I think. It would probably at least take that long to get the propper funding, and get all the little details hammered out.

true, but the methods look pretty straight forward... lauch a space shuttle and unroll the band from orbit, and attach it to the base platform. then make a upper platform to provide centrifugal (is the written right?) force when lifting things from earth to orbit. voila.

and trips to mars would be actually easy using a space elevator. one would use the centrifugal force to slinshot an unnmanned craft to mars. once in orbit, it could deploy a space elevator and then you coul sling manned crafts between mars and earth and vice versa, easily and with low cost.

True, true, but I must correct you on your use of centrifugal force. It can not exist. In order for a force to be applied, an object must act on it, be it physically or by a field. There is no force pushing it out of a circle, only a force that pushes it into the circle, thus the term centripital force. Centripital force means a force from outside is forceing an object into a circular path. One of Newton's Laws states that an object will continue in a straigh path forever unless acted on by an outside force.

Just something to throw in there.... ^_^

all right its centripital but its still the same outcome, you are using an imbalaced orbit to slingshot matter.

I don't quite get the concept of this space elevator thing you're talking about (using an imbalanced orbit for an elevator seems... very wrong), but at least I can say that a trip to mars is basically impossible for now, since the radiation would kill the astronauts ._.

Ummm.... not even close.... keep trying! :lol:I can't be bothered. Either you're as lazy as I am, or you need to listen to the teacher more.

Okay, thanks Angelic.
How can you send sound waves to a reciver?

I don't quite get the concept of this space elevator thing you're talking about (using an imbalanced orbit for an elevator seems... very wrong), but at least I can say that a trip to mars is basically impossible for now, since the radiation would kill the astronauts ._.

well the principle is that a base on the ocean (because it works best on he equater) has a ultra long strip of carbon nanotubes that extends from the base to another base above geostationnairy orbit. now what happens is that the centripital force from the orbit (since its over the geostationnary orbit altitude) pulls on the carbon nanotube band, keepin it straight so things can be lifted from earth to the space base and then deployed at low cost.

I can't be bothered. Either you're as lazy as I am, or you need to listen to the teacher more.

Well, just in case you were wondering...

(A) The volume of the wire is : Vol = 50g / 7.86 g/cm^3 = 6.36cm^3

We also know that:
Volume = AL, or A = Vol / L = 6.36E-6 m^3 / L

From the definition of resistance, we find: R = pL / A becomes 1.5Ω = (11E^-8 Ω*m) L / A, or L / A = 1.36E^7 m^-1

Solve those two equations at the same time to find: L = 9.3m and A = 6.83E^-7 m^2

(B ) From the area of the wire, we cand findits diameter to be d = 9.3E^-4 m

It was as simple as that! :lol:

well the principle is that a base on the ocean (because it works best on he equater) has a ultra long strip of carbon nanotubes that extends from the base to another base above geostationnairy orbit. now what happens is that the centripital force from the orbit (since its over the geostationnary orbit altitude) pulls on the carbon nanotube band, keepin it straight so things can be lifted from earth to the space base and then deployed at low cost.
yes, I thought it was something like that, but placing the other base ABOVE geostationary orbit doesn't make much sense to me. It should be placed IN geostationary orbit otherwise the base would move faster/slower than the earth.
I guess it would look funny though, watching the nanotube wrapping around the world. :heh: Or maybe I misunderstood the concept? Correct me if I'm wrong please ._.

if its in stationnary orbit, the weight and rotation speed would be equal, so if you were on the earth an you pulled on the elevator, it would be slack and useless since it would pull on the station till the orbit was messed up so much the whole station would fall to the earth. if its above geostationnary orbit, its rotating too fast for the weight, hence the centripital force pulls the elevator taunt, making lifting from earth to orbit possible, without the whole thing crashing down to earth.

ok... I guess I kinda get what you mean now, but there is still a mistake in your argumentation :unsure:

if its in stationnary orbit, the weight and rotation speed would be equal
1. what do you mean with the weight is equal?
2. the thing about the rotation speed is not quite right ._.
the base in space would move faster than the earth rotates since, in a stationary orbit, the base would always fly high over pretty much the same spot on earth. Which means it's time of circulation is 24h, the same as the earth's rotation, but the radius, the distance to the middle of the earth is bigger, thus it's velocity higher.

A space elevator would consist of a cable attached to Earth's surface, reaching into space. By attaching a counterweight at the end (or by further extending the cable for the same purpose), centrifugal force ensures that the cable remains stretched taut, countering the gravitational pull on the lower sections, thus allowing the elevator to remain in geostationary orbit. Once beyond the gravitational midpoint, carriage would be accelerated further by the planet's rotation. Diagram not to scale.

from wikipedia.

Ok, I want to know how much people here know about stars. Spill it, if you wiki it, the God have mercy on you for what I will do.

a star is this huge sphere of mostly hydrogen. at the center, the things own gravity causes lots of pressure, and it causes to hydrogen atoms to fuse, making a helium atom. this fusion makes a whole lotta heat and energy. our suns surface temperature is in the thousands while the center is in the millions. the suns corona, (so ive heard) is a layer above the surface, and its supposibly in the millions of degrees as well. (in kelvin). stars can emit anything from radio waves to gamma rays. thats all i know.... going to BED.

Stars also are in a different phase state that all matter on Earth, called Plasma, and exist far longer than anything physically feasible in our realm of thought, ie billions of years. Our sun is also a star, for the few that don't already know. They do not twinkle, and vary in size greatly--from 250 Terrameters to 1.6 Petametres and beyond. There are far more stars in the universe than what is visible in our milky way galaxy,

That's about all.

This is my comment for both this thread and "what would happen if the Sun exploded as supernova" thread. Just this thread is more general. :)


as far as i know if the sun was about to explode as a supernova, we would foreknow that some time before from the main factors. (the star becomes unstable, emits its matter in large quantities and such, sorry i dont know exactly how long it takes, but certainly 100-1000 years, maybe more).

but this shouldnt happen. only massive stars tend to explode as supernovas. this is what happens: their core's temperature reaches 5*10^9 degrees (kelvin or celsius, doesnt matter in this case) thus it (the core collapses). outher layers in which nuclear reactions still happen, rapidly hears up to about 300*10^6 degrees. due to these changes the star explodes. after the explosion there leaves a gigantic cloud of expanding gases to all directions, and in its center leaves a relatively small neutronic star or a pulsar. (if the star was really massive (i mean really), its core may explode inwards, thus the black hole is born).

the Sun's case: when the star (of the size of the Sun) is about to use all its hydrogen reserves up, its helium in its core reapidly contracts and heats up once more. the core and hydrogen layer around it heat up and burn, while the outer layers starts to expand and cool down. the star becomes a red giant. finally it uses all its nuclear energy resourses, and collapses to a small dense white dwarf.

a side note: those temperatures as 5*10^9 degrees doesnt mean some particluar insane heat, they represent the velocity of atomic particles.

a side note: those temperatures as 5*10^9 degrees doesnt mean some particluar insane heat, they represent the velocity of atomic particles.

Then that isn't heat... unless youre talking about the vibration intensity, in which case it is heat... either way that sentance is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Then that isn't heat... unless youre talking about the vibration intensity, in which case it is heat... either way that sentance is wrong, wrong, wrong.

what's wrong with the sentence? it's not an idea i made up, i read it in a book i'm learning from.
What i wanted to say that the temperatures we are talking about (5 billion degrees, 9 billion degrees, 12 million degrees whatever) is not a kind of "heat" we can understand. Those temperatures i mentioned cant be understood as imaginable heat, it's all about the energy.

That's a little different from what you said before... anyhow, new question: What do you think a black hole is made of?

Well isn't it supposed to be the densest matter in the known universe because it contains all the matter of a star in a very small area?

That's the most commonly accepted theory, the gravity is so heavy that even light can't escape it and time gets bend.

What do you think a black hole is made of?
That's... a strange question, lol. I'd say it's just a cosmic object with a huge mass and a very small volume, hence it's extremely dense.
We can't tell exactly "What it's made of" because we'd need to have a unified theory of quantumgravitation, which we don't :P
It's impossible to describe a black whole with normal quantum mechanics because it's gravity is too big, neither can we use general relativity because a black hole it's too small. :/

mabe we will make advancements in that when the new particle accelerator starts up, since it will create a miniscule black hole. we will be able to study lots of things.

Did you guys hear this past week about the guy who make a nuclear fusion reactor in his basement!? Wow... makes you wonder what your neighbors are up to. :shifty:

Isn't that news from two weeks ago?

someone did? o_O any details? :O
@shade: we don't know that it will creat microscopic black holes yet, although it's a possibility, since the LHC creates a whole lot more energy than all previous accelerators. It would be great :) I hope they manage to prove the existence of the Graviton with the LHC :unsure:

Did you guys hear this past week about the guy who make a nuclear fusion reactor in his basement!? Wow... makes you wonder what your neighbors are up to. :shifty:

a -FUSION- reactor in his basement? thats 50-100 years beyond anything we have these days. i dont know how reliable the sources is, but id be much more inclined to beleive the news if it said FISSION.

(fusion is when to atoms are fuzed together to create energy. this happens within a thermonuclear bomb (hydrogen bomb), or within the sun. fission is when atoms are split apart to create energy. this happens within neuclear reactors and atomic bombs.)(h-bombs are simply a-bombs with deuterium-tritium in the center of the normal bomb, so when the normal a-bomb gos off, the pressure at detonation is enough to force the atoms together creating a thermonuclear explosion.)

please provide sources and clear up this situation.

thanks for your time!

Yup...fusion...I believe you are think of COLD fusion....

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/22/amateur_fusion_project/

Yup...fusion...I believe you are think of COLD fusion....

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/22/amateur_fusion_project/

...what?

i are not think of cold fusion. I was thinking of a sustainable fusion reactor that can output more energy then it requires to make it function in the first place. scientist already fused atoms in labs, but nobody has come up with a sustained fusion. actual fusion reactors are way beyound our current level of technology. the title of the article is misguiding, since a reactor implies the output of energy to be greater then the original input, which is DEFINATELY NOT the case with our teenager in his basement.

cold fusion is a bit of a myth, unless you can chemically induce fusion in a sustained fashion, while keeping everything under a couple dozen million degrees celcious.

actual advancements in fusion reactors are with those huge doughnut shaped devices that use electromagnetic forces to manipulate matter in a plasmatic state into creating fusion. europe has poured about *50 billion* in creating a stable fusion reactor in the next 50 or so years.

Why does the moon slowly gets further away from the Earth,and why?

because of the tides :think: I don't have much time to answer right now, but there's a good website explaining this phenomenon: -> Here (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/astronomy/q0262.shtml)
I hope this'll help you =)

Because black holes aren't cosmic vacuum cleaners like most people seem to think. You only get "sucked in" if you get too close. A black hole was once a star, and it's mass and thus it's gravitational pull didn't change after it became a black hole, just the volume changed from something super massive to something super tiny. if the distance from the centre of the star to it's surface had been 20.000 KM and gravity=1 there, then with the black hole formed from that star the gravity at 20.000 KM from the centre of the black hole will still be one. So if the star didn't attract stuff that was floating around it, the black whole won't either. It'll only attract stuff that'll come within it's gravitational pull.

If the sun suddenly turned into a black hole for instance, the Earth and other planets would keep floating around it in their current orbits.

....
OBJECTION!!!

I submit this evidence, which seems to contradict your previous testimony. YOU'RE A LIAR! YOU MURDERED THAT STAR, DIDN'T YOU!?!?!
(Phoenix Wright, lol.)

But seriously, I just found this on Yahoo:

----------------------------
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A giant black hole displaying horrifying table manners has been caught in the act of guzzling a star in a galaxy 4 billion light-years away, scientists using an orbiting
NASA telescope said on Tuesday.


For the past two years, scientists have monitored the dramatic events as the star, residing in a galaxy in the Bootes constellation, was ripped apart by the black hole.
---------------------------
Also, if a black holes gravity is only as strong as the star's that it came from, then how come stars don't emit light and heat, instead of eating them as black holes do? Oo
I was under the impression that what you said was correct Angelic, and I still don't see why it shouldn't be. But it seems to me that black-holes *do* indeed eat far away objects (4 billion lightyears seems pretty damn far to me.)

Comments anyone? Can anyone explain how this happens? Because now I'm confused again. XD

Edit: Also, here's a link to that article, in case anyone is interested:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061206/sc_nm/blackhole_dc

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/41/untitledsu0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

i suck at explaining, but i hope youll all get this.

on a black hole, there is an imaginary sphere called the event horizon, everything in it is doomed to be sucked it. often, the event horizon is smaller in diameter than the original star, meaning most stars dont have one above thier surface.

....
OBJECTION!!!

I submit this evidence, which seems to contradict your previous testimony. YOU'RE A LIAR! YOU MURDERED THAT STAR, DIDN'T YOU!?!?!
(Phoenix Wright, lol.)

But seriously, I just found this on Yahoo:

----------------------------
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A giant black hole displaying horrifying table manners has been caught in the act of guzzling a star in a galaxy 4 billion light-years away, scientists using an orbiting
NASA telescope said on Tuesday.


For the past two years, scientists have monitored the dramatic events as the star, residing in a galaxy in the Bootes constellation, was ripped apart by the black hole.
---------------------------
Also, if a black holes gravity is only as strong as the star's that it came from, then how come stars don't emit light and heat, instead of eating them as black holes do? Oo
I was under the impression that what you said was correct Angelic, and I still don't see why it shouldn't be. But it seems to me that black-holes *do* indeed eat far away objects (4 billion lightyears seems pretty damn far to me.)

Comments anyone? Can anyone explain how this happens? Because now I'm confused again. XD

Edit: Also, here's a link to that article, in case anyone is interested:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061206/sc_nm/blackhole_dc

I think you misunderstood this, the article says that the galaxy in which the black hole sucks in that star is 4 billion light-years, it's not like that star is 4 billion light-years away from the black hole ;) (also this is a very common phenomenon, dunno why they talk like it's the first time they've ever seen this)


Also, if a black holes gravity is only as strong as the star's that it came from, then how come stars don't emit light and heat, instead of eating them as black holes do? Oo

not all black holes have the same mass as a star (those are called IMBH, intermediate mass black holes and still have a mass over a hundret times greater than our sun), there are also super massive black holes which have over a billion sun masses (they form the center of most galaxies).
Stars have a much larger volume than black holes, thus the gravitational pull on the surface is not as strong as the gravitational pull in the event horizon of a black hole. =)


on a black hole, there is an imaginary sphere called the event horizon, everything in it is doomed to be sucked it. often, the event horizon is smaller in diameter than the original star, meaning most stars dont have one above thier surface.
I don't think a normal star even as an event horizon. :o

Alright, my turn, space travel, is it possible?

it sure is. people are in space right now, probably doing experiments in the space station. for interstellar travel, i beleive that ew wont be going fater then light any time soon.

instead i beleive that according to one of the scientist, we will be able to travel 10 ligh years in less then 80 days. without actually going faster then light speed. yep thats right.

his theory is that a rotating ring device that can produce a magnetic feild in the order of 80-160 or so teslas will make a ship enter another dimention where the laws of phisics are different, and the universe is more compact. without actually going faster, a spacecraft would be able to travel to mars in a few hours, inatead of 6 months, amd to another star in a few months, instead of many years.

That's the most insane thing I've everd read, I like it. 80-160 teslas... thats an insane amount of magnitism to be made continuously... enough to do some damage I would assume to everything in the area. My favorite idea so far: either ion drive, laser sails, or maybe nuclear bomb thrusts. Anti matter engines arent possible until the "subatomic catalytic engine" idea I thought of is a reality.

That's the most insane thing I've everd read, I like it. 80-160 teslas... thats an insane amount of magnitism to be made continuously... enough to do some damage I would assume to everything in the area. My favorite idea so far: either ion drive, laser sails, or maybe nuclear bomb thrusts. Anti matter engines arent possible until the "subatomic catalytic engine" idea I thought of is a reality.

its mean to be used in space, far away from earth. the cockpit will probably have to be sheilded with at least a couple meters of farady cage upon farady cage. sorry, i correct myself, its 25 teslas to escape gravity feilds of objects, and breif 80 tesla pulses (by the way, 25 tesla is 500000 times eaths magnetic feild)

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/quantum-world/mg18925331.200-take-a-leap-into-hyperspace.html

heres my source, even though its said it could take off from land on earth, i doubt they would do that, since a powerful enough magnetic feild WILL f**k you up. (the electromanetic feild can mess up you brain and nerves. normally it takes a EM feild too massive to inflic such a damage, but in this case, LOL. also it would obliterate half the continent's electronic hardware, and at that power, even most sheiled electronics would fail.

i still think their gonna make a space elevator, hoist that spaceraft and slingshot it away from earth, then use the engine to go to places.

my problem wit any normal drive is that its still too slow, for any kind of travel that is not INTERPLANETAIRY. its fine to go to mars and stiff, but if you want to see alpha centauri, or orion's belt, ur gonna need more then rockets and sails.

Theoretically, one could use higher dimensions to "warp" from one spot to another, but I have no idea how the mechanics of that would work. I seriously did have an idea for a subatomic catalytic converter that basically would turn matter into energy without losing mass aside from a beam of either protons or electrons. It would put out some type of particle, but the actual engine would remain at the exact same mass. Maybe I'm crazy, who knows?

I think all we need to do is to reverse the polarity.

(Then we plug in 1.21 jigowatts of juice.)

I didn't think matter to energy conversion worked with living matter... atleast not very well...

Theoretically, one could use higher dimensions to "warp" from one spot to another, but I have no idea how the mechanics of that would work. I seriously did have an idea for a subatomic catalytic converter that basically would turn matter into energy without losing mass aside from a beam of either protons or electrons. It would put out some type of particle, but the actual engine would remain at the exact same mass. Maybe I'm crazy, who knows?

turning matter into energy has a list of problems. first, it will tke massive amounts of energy to do that in the first place. second since e=mc^2, the amount of energy releaced by the conversion will be ginormous. think a couple dozen h-bombs going off at once. after that, you gotta contain it, have it in the proper order, send it to the destination, then turn it back into matter in the reverse order it was first picked apart from.

for the hyperspace drive, they want to test the principal with this device. http://zpinch.sandia.gov/

his theory is that a rotating ring device that can produce a magnetic feild in the order of 80-160 or so teslas will make a ship enter another dimention where the laws of phisics are different, and the universe is more compact. without actually going faster, a spacecraft would be able to travel to mars in a few hours, inatead of 6 months, amd to another star in a few months, instead of many years.
Signed. This IS insane ._. For comparison the magnets of the LHC (large hadron collider, the newest accelerator) only manage to produce 9 tesla and it would pretty much kill anyone inside. And what kind of theory is this? I think this "scientist" watched too much Star Trek...

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...yperspace.html

the people wouldnt be inside the rings, LOL, and i CORRECTED MYSELF, its 25 tesla, pulsed 80 tesla (breifly.) READ THE POSTS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_(unit)

"strongest non-pulsed magnet = 100 teslas." i rest my case.

Yes, I think the ring idea may work, but we must all first find a way to keep the person within... A PERSON I might say, you know, in piece?

faraday cages...FARADAY CAGES!!! its electromagnetic sheilding(simply put, its a mesh of copper that absorbs electromagnetic radiation. its used in recordin studios and stuff to stop interferrence and get a cleaner sound). for this case, depending on how effective the cage is, and how many there are, it should be safe.

heheheh, Note to Self: it SHOULD work. I'll remember that

hey im not conviced either, im just hopeful.

will make a ship enter another dimention where the laws of phisics are different
I'm not conviced either, lol. And I neither have much hope for it. -_-

It all seems too much like Contact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_%28film%29) to me.

Oops, I forgot to come back to this thread! :lol:
Anyway, thanks to the people who answered my black hole question, I was wondering about that. :3
Also, this whole giant magnet-to-travel-faster-idea sounds great to me. I think they should go for it. XP
And who cares if it sounds like contact? Everything is fiction until someone dares to step up and make it into reality. ;)

It all seems too much like Contact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_%28film%29) to me.

contact was based on the theory of creating a wormhole between two places, and probably using a series of (mabe) already existant wormholes to travel. although there is a certain asthetic similarity, the device in contact is many rings, when the scientist's concept consists on only one. also, the scientist's theory is based on the interaction between magnetic feilds and gravity, to enter a different dimention of space (and who, knows, mabe time).

contact was a good movie. (i want to read the book!!!!)

Ok, I've got a good one: Zero point energy. If you haven't heard of it, go home, this is for the big boys(and girls...whatever). Are there any ideas at all on how to harness it?

thats the enrgy that occurs at the plank scale right? (are you a stargate atlantis fan?) im not sure how to harness it... personally i think there are more available sources of energy that are more within our reach.

im hoping for a good ol fusion reactor within 50 or so years ^^

I've never seen Stargate or any of it's affiliates. I think sustainable fusion won't have to wait 50 years, 20 or so is my guess.
On an unrelated note, have you heard about that new way of collecting energy from Hydrogen by making it go to an energy level below it's ground state?

no, but it would be interesting to know ^^

I love stargate SO much! :P We should...use the new particle accelerator when it's finished (the EU one).

@deathrader : particle accelerators do not create wormholes.

they do create, in theory, nanoscopic black holes that evaporate in milliseconds.

but you knew that. righ? (omfg i love both stargate series!!! im waiting for the next atlantis episode....)

related science question -

can you use van der walls forces to repulse two objects as a means of creating a low friction environment?

gekos use van der walls forces in their paws to stick to stuff. now can the opposite be done?

it would be useful to bearings and joints that are subjected to high pressures and temperatures witch renders useless normal lubricants.

can it be done?

I like how you think outside the box, shade. I have absolutely no idea how such a force could be reversed though... I always thought it was similar to a surface tension phenomenon.

the way the gecko uses van der wall's, as i was shown on Découverte (this old discovery channel like show, french lol) is a matter that for some reason, has an imbalance in its electron cloud. the electron cloud of the individual atoms seem to syncronusly arrange themselves so that more electrons are on one side then on the other, creating a electromagnetic attraction between the two matters. although this works on any substance, its much like a magnet sticking to a peice of steel. (IMO)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force

now since this works with stickyness, cant it work with repultion? it would be great in high-tention/temperature environments as well as high-precision situations becase of the near-frictionless environment of the two substances never actually touching each other.

its worth a thought.

The Van Der Waals Force.. it's basically a force of attraction, I don't see a way to reverse it, not the force itself, maybe one can change the environment to reverse the effect on the involved materials, no idea how though ^^'

Edit: hm, plus the Van Der Waals force is really weak and only posseses a very very limited range, I figure the good old "large scale" (couldn't think of a better wording..) electro-magnetic repultion works better as a means of creating low friction environments, even though it's hard to control them

it may be a weak force, but the combined effect can be most remarkable. take geckoes for example. they can stick to glass with only one finger. not only that, but it has been reported that a new method may yeld a type pf tape that has over 200 times the sticky power then the organic stuff.

"The van der Waals' forces is the force to which the gecko's climbing ability is attributed.[1] A gecko can hang on a glass surface using only one toe. Efforts continue to create a synthetic "gecko tape" that exploits this knowledge. So far, research has produced some promising results - early research yielded an adhesive tape [1] product, which only obtains a fraction of the forces measured from the natural material, and new research [2] has yielded a discovery that purports 200 times the adhesive forces of the natural material.

Researchers at Stanford University recently developed a gecko-like robot which uses synthetic setae to climb walls [3]."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals%27_forces

seeing as how much a geko weighs compared to how little erea is needed to support it, i think that even the natural thing is quite powerful, not to mention the new sinthetic stuff.

i dont think its a weak meaningless force to look over and dismiss. the thing with electromagnect repultion to induce a low friction emfironment is that it can result in lots of EM interference and wave garbage that could be bad for sensitive instruments.

If it was 0 degrees (celsius) yesterday, and today it's twice as cold... how do you measure that? :S

By converting to Kelvin (taking the Celsius temperature and adding 273 degrees) then going back to Celsius (subrtact 273 from Kelvin value).

Makes sense, thanks!

Ok, this has been driving me crazy. I read something about a plausible(Deemed plausible by Steven Hawking) method of time travel using a four dimentional construct known as Misner space. Thing is, after I read it, I couldn't find the whole article again. Does anyone know anything about it or other plausible forms of time travel?

i havent heard about Misner space, but time travel is "possible". from what ive read its just not what we think it is. the way i understand the article, matter with quantum properties can travel and exist pretty freely in and out of the normal time-space. the thing is when the matter goes back in time, as it exists as both wave and particle, the effects of that particle and that wave are cancelled out by itself, as the wave going backwards is cancelled out by the equal opposite of itself. so "technically", if one could have quantum properties and go backwards, either one would not notice or one would only be able to observe, like watching a movie, as one's actions are immidiatly reversed. i think this has to do with retrocausality, the postulation that actions in the present can affect the past. here are the article previews, including a picture and an article on some other form of time travel, this time, more according to the hyperspace travel in my previous post. (going in aother dimention where the laws are different hence going faster and all)

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2552/25521601.jpg
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/quantum-world/mg19125710.900-whats-done-is-done-or-is-it.html
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/dn7535-no-paradox-for-time-travellers.html
(also intersting) http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19025521.600-at-last-a-way-to-test-time-travel.html

on a different note, its been stated that quantum entanglement can be acheived with a simple semiconducting chip. im at the epitome of bliss. i want my q-entanglement cell phone, thats iff we can devellop a simple emmiter/receiver device using entanglement. article - http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/quantum-world/mg18925344.900-einsteins-spooky-action-on-a-chip.html

tl;dr 7|-|15 15 |_|845 F|_|<|<1|\|G 4|/\|350|\/|3!!!!11111!1110|\|3!!!!!111!313\/3|\|!! (translation -too long, didnt read, this is highly exiting)

Back to the black hole topic, if one were somehow able to see the inside of a black hole, what is inside of the funnel?? If it takes things in, does it just hold them inside?

Once something comes into contact with the infinitely dence matter of a black hole, the "stuff" "destuffifies". If you followed all that science talk, that means the matter of it just becomes something science can't describe. Also, the inside of a black hole probably wouldn't look like anything special, seeing as how no light can escape it's event horizon.

Back to the black hole topic, if one were somehow able to see the inside of a black hole, what is inside of the funnel?? If it takes things in, does it just hold them inside?
yeah, as Ripple_in_Eternity said you couldn't describe what you "see", since space-time as we know it is destroyed inside a black whole. Imagine a tear in the space-time fabric created by the immense gravity, were the laws of physics as we know them have no meaning at all (that goes for the Theory of Relativity... I'm not yet very familiar with the Super String Theory interpretation of Black Holes)

I read some article that stated that the String Theory is useless, had not benefit humanity, had made no improvements to our lives. Seriously, all the talk about space-time, would there actually be a use for the knowledge of what happens in black holes? Can it be classified as useless science?

Well, if you ever want to get off this rock and find a way to have a sustainable future, we need science. There is no such thing as "useless" science. Do you know where the television came from? A "useless" thing called a cathode ray. Every discovery, no matter ho insignificant it seems, could lead to something to bring in a new era of science.

Though this is not the article I read, it sort of run along the same line.
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/articles/061002crat_atlarge

But the fact is that String theory is not proven. And the worst thing is people use this unproven theory to explain about black holes. Okay, I don't see the point here how string theory would be useful seriously. So we know there are black holes and the its entropy.. then? How will it lead to sustainable future? Cathode ray is something that can be seen and proven, at least. And then there is bad science, like DDT.

Wouldn't black holes tear you apart if you went through one?

^No, going through a black hole warps you into a different, lesser universe. The wonders less wondrous! The hotties less hot! The food less filling! The black holes less black! The people less intelligent! I personally came through about 5 black holes to get to this universe, which is how I know these things. :rolleyes:

Just remember, if you go through too many black holes, you eventually get to the "Un-warp" universe. Essentially, the black holes there have been diminished from their true form so many times, that they're no longer black; they're white. Going through a white hole is not recommended however, as you will "un-warp," basically getting sent to back to the last universe you'd come from. Kind of redundant! My advice to you is to go through just enough black holes that you're slightly more awesome than everyone else in the universe you end up in; then you can get rich off of everyone else's stupidity without standing out too much. ;)

Heheheh XD

Umm...ignoring HopelessComposer, yes, the gravity of a black hole (plus gravity's affect on time) would theoretically stretch you into an infinitely thin piece of what might look like spaghetti (a process appropriately deemed "spaghettification" by some scientists).

Humankind always wanted to know how the world works, if you're not interested I guess you could deem all fundamental research useless. Even though the string theory might be wrong, it still provided many new cognitions about science on the way of developing it. The article you posted is somewhat twisting the truth:
The beginning of this chase marked the end of what had been three-quarters of a century of progress.
In fact, string theory is the only theory about the very small, very heavy things, that still makes progress, since (and this is the important thing!)
all the quantum theories of fields beside the gravitational field are already fully developed. So ofcourse there is no further progress. o_O
I really dislike articles which already tell you what you should believe, instead of giving you informations and let yourself decide whether it's truth or not...
But taking aside my personal preferences.
First the string theory is the apocalypse of science:

physics is stuck in a paradigm doomed to barrenness.
And later in the article:

His string-theoretic investigations have led to stunning advances in pure mathematics, especially in the abstract study of knots.

Um...what was your point again (no offense, I just really had a hard time understanding what you were trying to prove in your arguments)?

As for the idea of something being unproven, it's true that String Theory has not been "proven," but most of science IS based on theory. Now usually, this theory is based on some kind of evidence. There IS in fact evidence for String Theory. I'm not saying I think it's true or false, but I think that some of the discussion here seems dogmatic.

Um...what was your point again (no offense, I just really had a hard time understanding what you were trying to prove in your arguments)?Did you read the article that meim linked to in his post?

Umm...ignoring HopelessComposer
What the hell!? YOU ignoring ME?!?!?! DO YOU KNOW WHAT UNIVERSE I'M FROM!?!?! XD

Also:

Did you read the article that meim linked to in his post?

He probably did. I did too, and the article seemed heavily biased. Even that article conceded that String Theory was helping "pure mathematics" as it called it. I'm not a physicist, so I'm not really qualified to decide whether or not Sting Theory is BS, but I'd venture to say that it must have *some* merits at least. Still, it is probably getting more research than it deserves. When everyone is so focused on one train of thought, how can anything new come about?

And...

Um...what was your point again (no offense, I just really had a hard time understanding what you were trying to prove in your arguments)?

He's saying String Theory may be wrong, but it has it's place in science. If physicists constantly gave up on things just because they weren't producing fast results, we wouldn't get very far. Who cares if String Theory hasn't been proven in thirty years? What is thirty years when one is trying to find an equation to explain the entire universe?

What universe ARE you from O.o?

This one. I'm not five universes above all of you. Why did you make me say it?!!? ;___;

Hahah XD

brobably read too much isaac asimoz or something

Thanks for the explanation HopelessComposer :) Am I really that hard to understand? lol.. :think:
But to bring up a new topic here (and it's really a hot topic... literally):

I'm sure you've all heard of the ICPP (intergovernmental panel on climatic change)-Report and the consequences. Now here's the question.
Should we really spend millions or even billions trying to develop a sustainable fusion reactor? Or should we rather use the money to build new power plants which use renewable energy sources?
I mean, it could take decades to develop a working fusion reactor, whereas the climatic change is imminent and calls for drastic measures.

I think we should spend a lot unsustainable fusion reaction. It's reliable source of power that would be clean.

I heard there was a drastic measure was thought up by scientists. There are thinking about using moon dust to scatter sunlight, as moon dust is the right size to scatter sunlight. It would give us a bit of time until we can get our energy needs met.

Sounds phony to me.

As for climate change...I'm somewhat of a skeptic about global warming, and its not just because I'm too lazy to do anything about it. I have done research that has come up with surprising results that point away from global warming. Maybe global warming is a natural trend, anyway, if it does exist.


BTW, Matt, we should definitely get more hydroelectric power plants and more solar power, but maybe we should spend money on both that AND fusion reactors. Also, we need to reduce the amount of power that oil companies have so that better fuel sources can be used in motor vehicles.

it's from the top scientists.

Although we are a global hotstreak great now, carbon emissions are over twice as high as theive ever been in the history or the entire earth, going back millions of years and global temperatures follow carbon emissions closely.

do your research properly instead of posting skeptical politically fed media.

I suggest you read these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19325905.300-keep-earth-cool-with-moon-dust.html

I did my research properly thank you very much. I never said the world WASN'T getting warmer, and I never said it wasn't caused by co2, but I find that there is WAY too much dogma going around about global warming.




do your research properly instead of posting skeptical politically fed media.



Ditto. You should know that I went straight to the scientific data. I didn't just believe everything people told me.

mabe a couple degrees dont seem like much but the effects are frikking real man, the top scentists predicted that there would be a large chance that 10-20% of the animal species could be at risk of extinction.

not to mention that this might result in an ice age.

id rather prepare for the worst then cross my arms and say "meh, it wont happen. mabe."

the data - the facts, have been racking up for over 20 years. theyve been verified by many third parties and make no mistake, we are in trouble.

brobably read too much isaac asimoz or something

Me? I used to love Asimov when I was younger; I haven't really read anything of his in almost ten years though, sadly. X3


Thanks for the explanation HopelessComposer
Haha, no problem. And I think we should go ahead and develop a fusion reactor. Wouldn't we pretty much never run out of energy if we did so? The planet can wait a few more years! I think we should raise the standards for fuel efficiency of cars and such until then though, among anything else we can think of.


As for climate change...I'm somewhat of a skeptic about global warming
I agree, I somehow doubt it's as big a problem as it's made out to be - nothing ever is. Then again, I've done no real research on it, which I'd have to do before making a "real" decision about it.

It's no wonder that you don't believe it's a big problem deathraider, for there's so much politically animated propaganda in the US (please don't be offended, I just don't agree with the repuplicans' way of arguing, since they don't have one.... I guess they'd still be burning witches somewhere if it wasn't for the rest of the world) and to be frank, I'd rather believe in science than in Bush. If you read the ICPP report it should be clear that there IS global warning and that it IS man-made (at least any reasonable person would have to admit it in consideration of the overwhelming facts). Though unfortunately the big countries like the US and China do not want to "hurt" their economy by caring for good 'ol nature. Anyway the consequences will be cataclysmal.

@HopelessComposer: you should take a look at the facts, they're very illuminating :/ it's always best to make up your own opinion rather than to rely on others to tell you the truth. ^^

Hohohoho! I am SOOOOOOOOOOO SOOOOOOOOOOOO not a republican! (I'm not necessarily a democrat, either, though). I think we SHOULD reduce co2 emissions as much as possible. Did you not read my original post about what I thought we should do?



@HopelessComposer: you should take a look at the facts, they're very illuminating :/ it's always best to make up your own opinion rather than to rely on others to tell you the truth. ^^

Look, I'm just going off of the research that I've done about things like the asphalt effect, the trend of co2 increase compared to any warming trends, the melting trends in the antarctic, etc. I have a right to be skeptical, and it doesn't stop me from wanting to protect the environment just as much as you guys.

Hohohoho! I am SOOOOOOOOOOO SOOOOOOOOOOOO not a republican! (I'm not necessarily a democrat, either, though). I think we SHOULD reduce co2 emissions as much as possible. Did you not read my original post about what I thought we should do?
Glad to hear ^_^ And yes I read your post, we definitely have to do something about the CO2 emission, it is after all one of the deciding factors... a first step would be to reduce the CO2 emission of cars. Of course we should invest more in renawble energy as well :heh: And I too think a working fusion reactor would be a neat thing to have XD Hey you guys even have deserts in the US, lol. Best places to use solar power! ;x


EDIT:

I think we should spend a lot unsustainable fusion reaction. It's reliable source of power that would be clean.
What'cha mean Shade? We need sustainable fusion reactors, unsustainable fusion reactor would be, well, a waste of money :o

i typoed, sorry :/

*sustainable fusion reaction.

europe is spending 10 billion or so on the fusion reactor. its.. not really enough.

@HopelessComposer: you should take a look at the facts, they're very illuminating :/
I'm sure they are; the only reason I haven't looked at them yet is because I'm not really in any position right now to make any changes to the situation anyway. When I need to go voting or whatever, I'll be sure I'm well informed. I'm not one to take things to be true because of word of mouth...49.99999999999...% of all people have below average intelligence right? XD


it's always best to make up your own opinion rather than to rely on others to tell you the truth. ^^

Haha, of course! I'd consider myself an idiot if I too didn't believe this to be true! :heh:
But like I said, I really don't *need* an opinion on this particular issue at the moment, hence my current opinion's weightlessness. Believe me, as soon as I need to make a decision on something, I do nice objective research on the subject; if I didn't I'd just be remaking other people's decisions, instead of formulating my own, right? ;)

not really. normally, one would take all the information and base their opinion by weighing the facts.

formulation an opinion out of thin air is just uneducated speculatin that affects credibility.

But like I said, I really don't *need* an opinion on this particular issue at the moment, hence my current opinion's weightlessness.

That's true shade :) and you can do something HopelessComposer, not everything is decided by politics. One could walk or use a bike instead of a car for short distances etc. even closing windows when you leave the room and switching of the light helps. ^_^

^Oh, I'm sorry. I was unclear in my original post. I already *am* enviromentally friendly in small ways like you mentioned. I just meant that I'd educate myself more when doing something bigger. Voting and such...

imagine if evreybody did that. it would have a remarkable impact.

@ deathraider - if you concider your opinion weightless, WHY ARE YOU POSTING???

imagine if evreybody did that. it would have a remarkable impact.

With my uneducated view of the subject, I'd agree with you. Before I went out campaigning for people to do this, supporting politicians who agree with this view, or even becoming a politician myself who agrees with this view, I'd obviously do extensive research on the subject. Which has been the point of my last few posts; my opinion may be viable enough for idle chatter and such right now, but I'd consider it inadequate for deciding any lengthy course of action. :3

Also, Deathraider was quoting *me* Shade, in response to what you had said earlier. Go back to the last page and you should get it. X3

oh i see, thanks for clearing that out, my bad.

i got a cool topic of discussion - free will. (now lets keep religion out of this)

i think that we both have it and we both dont, at the very same time. if we speculate that every time we make a decision, our universe spits into two and they go their different ways. picture this, i can choose to take a walk or sit here. at that point, the two universes branched off, so i both took a walk and kept sitting here. therefore all our actions are both random and predicted, depending on what universe you are on.

(did i explain this in a coherent manner?)

i think what i really mean by "universes" is actually just something along the lines of quantum superimposition, like schrodinger's cat, but with realities.

oh i see, thanks for clearing that out, my bad.

i got a cool topic of discussion - free will. (now lets keep religion out of this)

i think that we both have it and we both dont, at the very same time. if we speculate that every time we make a decision, our universe spits into two and they go their different ways. picture this, i can choose to take a walk or sit here. at that point, the two universes branched off, so i both took a walk and kept sitting here. therefore all our actions are both random and predicted, depending on what universe you are on.

(did i explain this in a coherent manner?)

i think what i really mean by "universes" is actually just something along the lines of quantum superimposition, like schrodinger's cat, but with realities.

Wow, that related to everything I've done this week. Firstly, I found a shirt online that has "Shrodinger's cat is dead." on the front and "Shrodinger's cat is not dead." on the other. I found it hilarious!

Secondly, the part about the universe splitting in two at every decision was the focus of a short story I'm writing. The tagline could be "What if everytime there was a life or death decision, the universe split in two?" then the story is about a guy who has to go to the other universe he created to see a girl he saved/didn't save if you get my drift.

i think it can even go down to getting up at 7am or at 7:03am, or look looking right or looking left, when daydreaming.

the only difference is that the split universe will be "closer" when the decision is small, and the life and death things will make it branch off majorly.

the only difference is that the split universe will be "closer" when the decision is small, and the life and death things will make it branch off majorly.
Not necessarily...

okay well maybe not necessarily, but you get what I'm trying to say right?

I have something to say on this, but my brain is too tired to decide what it is...so I'll update tomorrow. The gist of what I think I'm going to say is that I don't think the universe splits whenever we make a decision...doesn't seem to make sense for some reason...hmmm.....shouldn't universes only split only when 50/50 chances occur...or something? I'm so tired. Excuse my rambling. I'll make sense tomorrow I promise. XD

I think it makes sense because even for a schrodinger's cat, there could be more than two possibilities, like the cat could become sick, but not die, yet be healthy, and die, existing in three states at once.

Chance doesn't really exist. When flipping a coin, even though it seems random , the result is simply a play with inertia, air friction, and a pack of other forces that could be predicted accurately, if one had the right instruments.even with random computer programs, it might be possible for one to predict accurately if one had a quantum computer or so.

What really happens, in my mind, is that all the possibilities diverge and happen at once.

I think it makes sense because even for a schrodinger's cat, there could be more than two possibilities, like the cat could become sick, but not die, yet be healthy, and die, existing in three states at once.

Chance doesn't really exist. When flipping a coin, even though it seems random , the result is simply a play with inertia, air friction, and a pack of other forces that could be predicted accurately, if one had the right instruments.even with random computer programs, it might be possible for one to predict accurately if one had a quantum computer or so.

What really happens, in my mind, is that all the possibilities diverge and happen at once.

Ok, yes, good. That's actually basically what I was planning on saying today. XD

Computer's cannot make completely random actions. They use something called a pseudo-random engine, which does just what it sounds like. There is no such thing as pure randomness. Perhaps that means free will is also out of the question? I got a cool idea from the movie K-pax: what if the universe was repetitive? Meaning that it goes Big Bang->specific events-> Big Crunch->repeat from step 1. that would mean that everything that has ever happened will happen again and again for infinity, a universe of time apart. I could go into depth more, but it makes my head hurt trying to picture it.

Perhaps that means free will is also out of the question?
I tried saying that in the Religion thread once, but it didn't go so well. ;__;

I got a cool idea from the movie K-pax: what if the universe was repetitive? Meaning that it goes Big Bang->specific events-> Big Crunch->repeat from step 1. that would mean that everything that has ever happened will happen again and again for infinity, a universe of time apart. I could go into depth more, but it makes my head hurt trying to picture it.

I've had that same idea, but I couldn't decide if it could work or not. I'd go more in depth too, but it'd take a lot of typing and thinking. XD

I figure it would only work if the Big Crunch brought everything into the EXACT same position that it was prior to the Big Bang...so to speak... That makes one HELL of a pickup line! "You and I were once the same theoretical point particle, would you like to get that close again?"

...no.

never use that with a girl.

just...don't.

I figure it would only work if the Big Crunch brought everything into the EXACT same position that it was prior to the Big Bang...so to speak... That makes one HELL of a pickup line! "You and I were once the same theoretical point particle, would you like to get that close again?"

Exactly. :3

When flipping a coin, even though it seems random , the result is simply a play with inertia, air friction, and a pack of other forces that could be predicted accurately, if one had the right instruments.even with random computer programs, it might be possible for one to predict accurately if one had a quantum computer or so.

My poket calculator and some time would be enough actually.. ._. No need for a quantum computer here x_x You just need to know the exact amount of force applied to the coin, its weight and the point of attack of the force, since we know the amount of friction an object which moves through air produces and the gravitational pull on the surface. But whatever XD

...no.

never use that with a girl.

just...don't.
I... agree, lol.

the quantum computer was in the case of the randomness program for the computer, and i said "if one had the right instrument" as in a barometer and whatever.

ok, sorry if I misinterpreted what you said, your wording was a bit hard to understand in this context...

The theory of Big Crunch was gave up, wasn't it ?

Well, the universe is still expanding, as of right now. I'm not sure what the general opinion on the big crunch is though...

Nope, it wasn't given up, as long as the big bang theory hasn't been given up. I think having a big crunch would be better than not having one, because if we don't have one, the universe would just keep on expanding and expanding, and eventually there wouldn't be any particles left to fuse, and there would just be a whole bunch of dead matter in space. If there was a big crunch the matter in the universe could be renewed (since the matter would very probably experience another big bang shortly after the crunch).

If there was a big crunch the matter in the universe could be renewed (since the matter would very probably experience another big bang shortly after the crunch).

That's a very good point. ^_^

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node220.html --> Hmm OK. But we don't know the dark matter.

I disagree your theory. If in the worst case, the big crunch happens, the new big bang will begin exactly as the first.

In all cases, we'll die before we know :)

If in the worst case, the big crunch happens, the new big bang will begin exactly as the first.

Why is this the worst case? I'd rather that happened than that the universe just becomes dead when it runs out of energy.

If the big bang begins *exactly* as the first, then the universe would basically repeat itself, like a rewound movie. Just one more reason to make sure to live the best life you can; you may live it over and over again till the end of time! :heh:

It's too bad we'll never find out...

^Yeah. ;__;

they say the first human to live 1000 years old has already been born. makes you think, eh?

So...theoretically, what would be the opposite of a black whole (don't just name it, describe its properties)?

its already theorized, on the "other side" of a black hole there would exist a white hole, a matter-spewing entity. its on new scientist, go read about it.

hm? that would violate the energy conservation law. And how would you define the "other side" anyway n_n

check it with the leading scientists. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18625062.500-the-word-white-holes.html

well, I did not subscribe the newscientist, so I can't read the complete article. It still sounds like complete gibberish to me. :unsure:
I thought Hawking relinquished the idea that wormholes like this might exist.

Who says it has to spew matter? That seems completely wrong to me...

Maybe the opposite of a black hole would be a hole created in some way by an anti-matter concentration, and it would cause time to warp in the opposite way that a black hole would, and so something would move infinitely fast away from it (or maybe towards it, who knows?). Maybe you would be compressed instead of stretched out when approaching (or maybe going away from) it.

Who says it has to spew matter? That seems completely wrong to me...
signed. :) I'm generally not too fond of highly speculative discussions, but anyway. A black-hole that consists of anti-matter.. is of course possible in theory, in reality though, it would be annihilated by normal matter in an instance. It wouldn't even begin to exist, because it would be annihilated before it had enough mass.
I only heard about those postulated time warp etc etc effects going nuts with antimatter, so I can't really say anything about those. But can someone explain me, why antimatter would behave differently from normal matter? Wouldn't a local inversion of the flow of time, result in... err, utter chaos? Or did you mean that only the relativistic aspects are inversed and not the direction of the flow of time itself? :x

Edit: oh I forgot to post on this topic ->
The theory of Big Crunch was given up, wasn't it ?
Modern scientists believe that our universe has exactly the critical density, between Big Crunch and a way too fast expansion.
This is pretty much proven.. or at least the probability that a Big Crunch will take place is very very slim.

Edit: pretty stupid what I said.. of course, the flow of time can't be inversed

I don't think it's possible to invert the flow of time, but the effects on time would be inverted.

... what? Do you mean the relativistic effect?

Yes! Like, it would be like what Einstein theorized would happen as you approached the speed of light, except the speed would actually be the effect in this case instead of the cause. So it's the exact opposite of the effect that a black whole has on time: when one approaches the event horizon, time continues to become slower and slower, until to the outside observer it would not be moving at all.

Hm, like I said I'm not really knowledgeable in this field.. How comes that antimatter could cause this? As far as I know, the only difference between matter and antimatter is the electrical charge (proton = 1e, antiproton = -1e). :think:

Edit: ok, this question is prolly beyond the scope of this thread xD

I haven't really studied antimatter either, I only know the basics. If your definition is true, though, wouldn't that mean that an electron is an antiproton?

Nope, antiproton would be the mass of a proton with a negative charge. An antielectron or positron has the mass of an electron with a positive charge. Antimatter consists of just that: same mass, opposite charge.

Hmmm, I guess I need to brush up on my stuff then.

Nope, antiproton would be the mass of a proton with a negative charge. An antielectron or positron has the mass of an electron with a positive charge. Antimatter consists of just that: same mass, opposite charge.
In science why would this be important? Like what experiments could you do with antiprotons? Sorry but this cought my eye.

Everything is important to science. Like those posters in the 90's: "Knowledge is Power!~!!~!" XD

I understand that but still how is antiprotons important?

::shrug::
They help us understand the universe. Even if they don't serve a practical purpose yet (I'm not sure they do), we still need to know about them to advance the scientific fields as a whole.

::shrug::
They help us understand the universe. Even if they don't serve a practical purpose yet (I'm not sure they do), we still need to know about them to advance the scientific fields as a whole.

Okay:unsure:
In your opinion why do you think atoms are importaint and what do they serve?

In science why would this be important? Like what experiments could you do with antiprotons? Sorry but this cought my eye.

To me that made you sound like the kid in math class that always asks "When are we ever going to use this?" Well, the truth is that all science has a purpose somewhere along the line and that that kid fails math.

Atoms are important because without it there won't be any matter. There won't be even you. Weird how someone would ask such a question. Though I disagree that all science is useful. After all, science is not always 100% right, there are always research that seem to disprove a previous finding.

there are always research that seem to disprove a previous finding.
....which is why all science is useful; if you don't get anything wrong, you can't get anything right either, because you're obviously not trying enough new things. XP

Thats why their is so many arguments because one minute your discover something new and you think it is right.Then another comes around and proves that your wrong.
www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm

Do you guys believe in Gravitons? That is that besides electrons and protons there are gravitons. the gravitonic theory poses that gravity is the outcome of unbalances in gravitons between two masses. That explains why the earth revolves around the sun and such because the sun has more mass therefore it has more gravitons

I think it's a definite possibility. It makes more sense to me than parts of Einstein's models.

After all, science is not always 100% right, there are always research that seem to disprove a previous finding.
Science is NEVER 100% right, because science is based on falsification and not validation. We can only prove that something is wrong, not that it is RIGHT (as in the very meaning of "right").

Do you guys believe in Gravitons? That is that besides electrons and protons there are gravitons. the gravitonic theory poses that gravity is the outcome of unbalances in gravitons between two masses.
I believe that is very likely that they exist.
For further explanation: There is the electromagnetic force as well as the weak and the strong force in science (weak force = the force that causes the radioactive decay; strong force = the force that keeps the protons and neutrons together in the the atoms). All of these forces have carrier particles, which controle the interaction of particles, the electromagnetic force has the photons, the weak force the bosons, the strong force the gluons. All these interactions are controled by particles which already have been proven to exist. So why should the gravity, which is also an interaction (of masses), be different?

EDIT: "I think it's a definite possibility. It makes more sense to me than parts of Einstein's models." What part do you mean deathraider? ^^

I mean about the bending of space-time by matter to create gravity.

I guess those two viewpoints are just 2 aspects of the same thing :shrug:

...strong force = the force that keeps the protons and neutrons together in the the atoms). All of these forces have carrier particles, which controle the interaction of particles, the strong force [has] the gluons...

What an appropriate name!

What an appropriate name!
Indeed! ^^ The force that keeps the atomic core together is enormous. If you compared, the strong force to gravity.. the strong force would be 10^38 times stronger. ._. That's the reason why nuclear fission creates so much more energy than burning, for instance, oil. Burning oil only changes the "outside" of the atom, but nuclear fission effects the core, therefore the enormous energy that keeps it together.

I know!

I thought about bringing up the topic of the big bang here (see religion thread)
and arguments why it's the best explanation we have thus far. It'd would be great if people could ask questions about it... I'm not so sure where to start this topic and how much most of you know. :)
The basic concept is: Everything (and I mean everything, even space and time) started with the big bang. The universe was very small, dense and hot. It expended and still does. etc etc.
Ask away!

This would probably be the best place to talk about it. :3
I'll just ask this:
I know we have no way of proving where all the matter of the universe popped out from, but has any group even done any research on/made any guesses on why our universe suddenly stopped being a black pit infinite oblivion and you know...because full of matter? We have a good theory as to why the universe is expanding and such...but has anyone made any serious guesses as to why the universe...uhm... is?
Obviously we have no way of even coming close to proving something like that right now, but I thought I'd read something about why the universe started once...someone hypothesized that matter had to pop up out of nowhere every once in awhile or something like that. Does anyone know anything more about the subject? I'm curious. O:

The universe doesn't like being empty. :3

In that article I read...I think the person writing was also using our universe springing into existence for no reason as evidence for there being multiple/infinite universes. I think that'd also be worth talking about, since infinite universes would basically mean we're all going to be reincarnated/are already reincarnated infinite times right? That kind of ties into the religion thread too.

Hopeless, I'm not sure the idea of reincarnation applies, as the universes would be existing parallel to each other. Thus you and your however many...other...yous...would be existing at the same time. I have an article about it, but apparently there's only so many ways that you can arrange matter. So eventually, those arrangements start to repeat. It was a special edition of "Scientific American" so like i said, I'll have to dig it up and read through it.

Jah Jah. It wouldn't be reincarnation per se' obviously. You know what I meant though. :3

This would probably be the best place to talk about it. :3
I'll just ask this:
I know we have no way of proving where all the matter of the universe popped out from, but has any group even done any research on/made any guesses on why our universe suddenly stopped being a black pit infinite oblivion and you know...because full of matter? We have a good theory as to why the universe is expanding and such...but has anyone made any serious guesses as to why the universe...uhm... is?
Obviously we have no way of even coming close to proving something like
that right now, but I thought I'd read something about why the universe started once...someone hypothesized that matter had to pop up out of nowhere every once in awhile or something like that. Does anyone know anything more about the subject? I'm curious. O:

The universe doesn't like being empty. :3

duh! don't go around asking this question!! :P what happened before the big bang is not really part of physics, and there is no way of answering this... we only can observe what's "inside" the universe.
Kant said that it sucks to be able to phrase questions, which we know are impossible to answer. And i agree, lol.

Your question, "why is there not nothing?", is rather a topic of natural philosophy.
But anyway, some say the universe was perfectly symmetric and homogeneous in the "begining" (whatever that may be) and a fluctuation in this symmetry caused everything to collapse (the big bang).
Errr, lemme think how to explain this....
The forces in science are symmetric, the gravitation, the weak and strong force, the electromagnetic force etc.
Imagine a lake without any waves streching as far as you can see (and disregard the sky). Everything is the same wherever you look. Now you throw a rock in this lake and you see circular waves spreading. You move in the middle of this circle and wherever you look, you see the same again. It's still symmetric, but on a lower dimensional level. Now you throw another stone in the water and move between the centres of the sources of the wave, you've lost the orbital symmetry, but still have mirror symmetry.
Scientists are rather sure that all the main forces of the universe (gravity, electromagnetic force etc) were once all the same (the waveless lake).
A "unified" force. And in the process I described with the lake analogy, they split in different forces, when the universe gradually got colder (this is already proven to be true for all forces beside the gravitational force)

Some scientists say we couldn't describe the beginning or even what's prior to the big bang, because we only know the complex laws of nature as they're now, post-big bang.

Your question, "why is there not nothing?", is rather a topic of natural philosophy.
But anyway, some say the universe was perfectly symmetric and homogeneous in the "begining" (whatever that may be) and a fluctuation in this symmetry caused everything to collapse (the big bang).
Errr, lemme think how to explain this....
The forces in science are symmetric, the gravitation, the weak and strong force, the electromagnetic force etc.
Imagine a lake without any waves streching as far as you can see (and disregard the sky). Everything is the same wherever you look. Now you throw a rock in this lake and you see circular waves spreading. You move in the middle of this circle and wherever you look, you see the same again. It's still symmetric, but on a lower dimensional level. Now you throw another stone in the water and move between the centres of the sources of the wave, you've lost the orbital symmetry, but still have mirror symmetry.
Scientists are rather sure that all the main forces of the universe (gravity, electromagnetic force etc) were once all the same (the waveless lake).
A "unified" force. And in the process I described with the lake analogy, they split in different forces, when the universe gradually got colder (this is already proven to be true for all forces beside the gravitational force)


So then...that'd make God some a**hole who threw a rock into a perfectly nice lake, starting wars, pestilence, murder, and chaos where perfect balance once resided!? (Heheheheh, just kidding religious people. ;) )

And thanks for that little bit of information Matt, it was very interesting to read. :)


Some scientists say we couldn't describe the beginning or even what's prior to the big bang, because we only know the complex laws of nature as they're now, post-big bang.
Psh, pessimists. Why are they even scientists if that's their attitude? ;)

Edited for my retarded spelling of "threw." Of course, Matt has it quoted for truthery, so I'm not really helping myself much here. XD

So then...that'd make God some a**hole who threw a rock into a perfectly nice lake, starting wars, pestilence, murder, and chaos where perfect balance once resided!? (Heheheheh, just kidding religious people.)
Haha, a rough, but somewhat funny analogy :heh: Though a perfectly balanced universe would be pretty damn boring.

Edited for my retarded spelling of "threw." Of course, Matt has it quoted for truthery, so I'm not really helping myself much here.
sheesh, I've let down my guard :o

there's a song from one of my favorite band and it goes something like this..

"science has failed to recognize the single most potent element of human existence letting the rage let go to the unfolding it's faith" <--something like that i may be wrong in some words..

for me i feel the same...

@ p-chan:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a16/RedPharmacist/2007-01-15--sciencevsfaith.png

Any questions?

Yeah, let's try to keep religion and faith out of this discussion; the two don't seem to get along very well with science and physics. I like the picture by the way.

Here's some older(but still relevant)movies on string theory. Most think string theory is one of the closest things we have to a theory of everything. It can also have the side effect of making your head explode... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program_d.html

hmm, those videos are too... popular scientific? :heh: Kind of annoying imo xD The book is pretty interesting though. I recommend reading it, rather than watching those videos.

Since cellular phones produce around the same frequencies as a microwave, why wouldn't they change it to a different frequency that could be less "harmfull"?

:O I think cell phones use radio frequencies and not microwaves. As for your question, I think it's only possible to transmit data in the radio range, because they have to be produced by electrical currents in the antenna. Changing the frequence below radio range would make it hard to transmit data at an acceptable speed. ^^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_frequency

Wrong: Microwaves are electromagnetic waves; therefore it is considered a radio wave.

my, my.... not all electromagnetic waves are considered radio waves oO
They are classified into different categories: electrical energy, radio, microwave, infrared, the visible region we perceive as light, ultraviolet, X-rays and gamma rays. Microwaves barely scratch the ultra high frequency mobile phones use.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/84/Electromagnetic_spectrum.JPG/800px-Electromagnetic_spectrum.JPG

Wrong: Microwaves are electromagnetic waves; therefore it is considered a radio wave.
Heh, I love when people state things so confidently, only to be proven wrong themselves seconds later.
I'm not going to lie; I lol'd!

my, my.... not all electromagnetic waves are considered radio waves oO
They are classified into different categories: electrical energy, radio, microwave, infrared, the visible region we perceive as light, ultraviolet, X-rays and gamma rays. Microwaves barely scratch the ultra high frequency mobile phones use.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/84/Electromagnetic_spectrum.JPG/800px-Electromagnetic_spectrum.JPG

Ahh I see I see.

for Cell Phones vs Microwaves: I've researched and found out that most cell phones send out 800 - 1800 mhz in wave frequency, and microwaves operate at 300-300000 mhz. Since cell phones are within that range, couldnt they also be considered as devices that emit microwaves?

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL I'M TALKING ABOUT! NOBODY LISTEN TO MY ADVICE PERTAINING TO CELLPHONES! XD

They use microwaves, most definitely. Microwaves are faster and give better resolution than radio waves, and only the high-amplitude plus higher frequency waves should be harmful to you (i.e. microwaves emitted by cell phones are much lower in both areas than microwaves emitted from a microwave oven).

LONG radio waves are basically like AM waves (on your AM radio, you know?), which basically means that those are the lowest resolution. however, they can be more easily transmitted to a place within a certain radius. Short radio waves are more like FM. Microwaves are a bit more focused (ie shorter wavelength), and therefore a bit more directional, but they offer higher resolution/faster transmissions.

"Ultra-high" frequencies usually are harmful, but usually "ultra-high" is in reference to x-rays or gamma rays, which can damage you on the cellular or even atomic level.

edit: this is what I remember from my physics class.

Heheh, I knew I had no idea what I was talking about. Good thing I put disclaimers all over my last post. :shifty:

XD

They use microwaves, most definitely. Microwaves are faster and give better resolution than radio waves
Cell phones use a frequence range where the microwave range and the radio wave range overlap.
(Nice compromise, ain't it?) :)

Wiki:
Microwaves are electromagnetic waves with wavelengths longer than those of terahertz (THz) frequencies, but relatively short for radio waves. Microwaves have wavelengths approximately in the range of 30 cm (frequency = 1 GHz) to 1 mm (300 GHz).
The range of mobile phones (according to wiki) 300–3000 MHz/1 m – 100 mm.
That'd mean two thirds of the range mobile phones use is not part of the microwave range.

Hmmm, if you say so. I was mostly going off of what my physics teacher told me.

I'm not 100% sure either, it's just what I found out about it on wiki :think:

EDIT: Don't wanna double post so...


<@Terror> "It's easy to forget what a sin is in the middle of a battlefield."
<@cky> opposite over hypotenuse
<@cky> dipshit

hahaha... nice one :3

this is science/physics related:

ive always wondered if the double impact principle had any basis in real life. used by sanosuke and anji in rurouni kenshin, the techinique, regardless of how completely humanly impossible it is, is as follows - the user hits twice in extremely quick succession,, the second blow hitting the target before the initial impact energy of the first hit dissipated. the desired effect is basically the disintegration of the target.

from what i can see, the second impact should hit faster then the speed of sound in the impact space that matter, since energy would propagate through the matter at that speed. that would be absurdly fast, in say wood or stone, since sound travels through those matters in speeds exceeding 20 000 feet per second. in theory, if the target space is 1/4th of a foot, and the speed of the soundwave in the matter is around 20 000 feet per second, you would have to hit twice within 0.00008 second to achieve the desired effect.

id still want to know if the desired effect would be as spectacular as shown in fiction.

i want to try it out with mechanical devices. im thinking of a cylinder with a weight on one end, and within the cylinder is a steel sphere. the combined weight of the cylinder and the weight is equal to the sphere. you mount the cylinder on a handle, much like a hammer, and swing it on a target.(the whole cylinder/weight/sphere would weight about a kilo, and the handle would be very long, as to increase speed at impact) the weight impacts the target, then the steel sphere hits the back of the weight, and in turn, the weight hits the target a second time within a short span of time. depending on the setup, i hope to get cool results.

as a control experiment, i will perform the same thing but with a solid cylinder that is equal to the weight of the other cylinder/weight/sphere. with the same dimensions and the same speed at impact, i hope to get different results.

the only difference between the two experiments will be that the control experiment will hit once with 1 kilo, and the other will hit twice with 0.5 kilos.

so, brainy browsers of ichigo, what do you think?

so, brainy browsers of ichigo, what do you think?
I think you'd better youtube that shit!
Here's to hoping something disintegrates. ;)

That's actually quite interesting. Absurdly psychotic, but still interesting. Having something break the sound barrier with 3 inches to accelerate from rest... I believe you'll need more than steel parts. I'm talking about intense heat and possibly magnetism.

Having something break the sound barrier with 3 inches to accelerate from rest...

eh?

please refrase that, im afraid im not following.

/diagram

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/3876/fghghdfhjfjfgjfgmr9.jpg

(ps, this will be done with safety measures and all, as flying concrete/rock tends to be hazardous.)

,, the second blow hitting the target before the initial impact energy of the first hit dissipated. the desired effect is basically the disintegration of the target.
Hm, I agree with Ripple_in_Eternity, it will be quite hard to achive on a purely mechanical basis. But maybe I misunderstood your concept.

ignore the image, i reworked it in religion class. bahahahahhaa:sweat:

now with the speed of sound in concrete being around 15000ft/s, and the gap between the sphere and the head of the "hammer" being 5cm, you would have to swing the hammer at about 31 meters per second or 111.6 kilometers per hour. it can be done. at that speed i could use a ramp, firing the thing at the concrete like a gun. car towed maybe. a weak wire would be used so it breaks when the thing hits the target.

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/6242041-4oOBO6/6242041.PDF (source for speed of sound in the concrete. page 14)

POSSIBLE APPLICATIONS - large demolitions without explosives, that kinda thing. ground excavation or something.

Hubble Space Telescope celebrates it's 17th birthday!
They released really awesome pics of the Carina Nebula.

http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/screen/heic0707a.jpg

There is a 500mb version where you zoom, pan and scan to your heart's content: You can find it here!!! (http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/html/zoomable/heic0707a.html)

http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/2007/hst_carina_eta.jpg

The very great article about this can be found on http://www.badastronomy.com/ (http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/24/hubbles-17th-chaos-birth-and-near-death/)

Isn't our universe beautiful? When you look at pictures like the "hubble deep field" you notice just how BIG the universe is..!

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/skyimage_1944_29968231

You can find more Hubble here: The Hubble Heritage Project (http://heritage.stsci.edu/)

Very nice. ^_^

Poor hubble...

Perhaps I misunderstood the concept entirely, but it still sounds painfully difficult.

i revised it some more. ill just weld a steel tube with a ball bearing in it (tube weighting 500 grams, ball bearing weighting 500 grams, ball heaving 5 cm of space between the ends of the tube) into a pneumatic piston. ill clock the pressure and the release valve for something along the lines of 150 kilometers per hour. and ill make a detachable head to see what the difference is with the 1 kilo solid tube, as control.

say hello the the new jackhammer.

Microwaves are faster and give better resolution than radio waves,....

All electromagnetic waves move at the same speed. The speed of light. :) I think you meant bandwidth.

I am not a mechanical eng, but I don't think 1lb = 2 x 0.5lb strikes. Simply because of shear strength of the material is going to affect the outcome.


MOD EDIT: Don't double post

wow there's a lot of smart individuals on ichigo's forum. Sorry I cannot contribute to the discussion of black holes; however, anyone want to talk about "human reproductive cloning"? I recently did a paper on the topic and this topic intrigued me into learning more. The discussion is not limited to only reproductive cloning but also DNA and therapeutic cloning.

wow there's a lot of smart individuals on ichigo's forum. Sorry I cannot contribute to the discussion of black holes; however, anyone want to talk about "human reproductive cloning"? I recently did a paper on the topic and this topic intrigued me into learning more. The discussion is not limited to only reproductive cloning but also DNA and therapeutic cloning.
I'm not really an expert on the field, but here's at least my personal opinion :P
I think human reproductive cloning is pretty useless and stupid. For example, if your 2 year old child dies and you want to have it back... cloning seems to be a very stupid way. It's really a disgrace and insult to the dead child to "take a substitute that looks like the original". You can lie to yourself as long as you want, it won't bring your child back. It's quite freaky when you think about it.

As for therapeutic cloning :D Go for it! We might be able to cure blindness etc one day! And go for the stem cell research! :)

I'm not really an expert on the field, but here's at least my personal opinion :P
I think human reproductive cloning is pretty useless and stupid. For example, if your 2 year old child dies and you want to have it back... cloning seems to be a very stupid way. It's really a disgrace and insult to the dead child to "take a substitute that looks like the original". You can lie to yourself as long as you want, it won't bring your child back. It's quite freaky when you think about it.

As for therapeutic cloning :D Go for it! We might be able to cure blindness etc one day! And go for the stem cell research! :)

HM.. your opinion is shared by many, but the example you give is somewhat poorly developed. I know this for a fact because my professor told me the same thing when I tried to use a similar example LOL. And yea i totally agree with you on the therapeutic cloning and stem cells. But that can also raise an ethical issue for some people because the term "life" can vary depending on individuals. Some believe that life begins at conception, others believe after birth. Embryos that are cloned can be discarded due to many reasons. Scientists may believe that some embryos might not survive during the process and other embryos just die after some period of time.

NEW TOPIC!
AND ONE QUESTION FOR ALL THE ASTRONOMERS OUT THERE.. I'm currently looking for a telescope to buy but I was wondering when you look through the telescope, does it come out in color or just black and white? sorry for the dumb question guys but please forgive me. I'm curious about learning more about the constellations and nebulaes. Another thing... can anyone give me some advice as to what kind of telescope might be best for beginners?

HM.. your opinion is shared by many, but the example you give is somewhat poorly developed. I know this for a fact because my professor told me the same thing when I tried to use a similar example LOL.
It may be poorly developed, cause I never really thought about the topic. :unsure:
Anyway, care to point out why it is so poorly developed? Just pointing out it is, doesn't really help anyone. It at the very least doesn't widen my horizon ;)

NEW TOPIC!
AND ONE QUESTION FOR ALL THE ASTRONOMERS OUT THERE.. I'm currently looking for a telescope to buy but I was wondering when you look through the telescope, does it come out in color or just black and white? sorry for the dumb question guys but please forgive me.
It comes out in colour (I was wondering about this myself a while ago, but when you think about it, there's no physical reason why it should not! It's just magnifying the picture :3).
Though you may be confused because the big observatories have to add colour to the pictures in a way. Lemme try to explain.
Detectors of telescopes in such observatories, detect where the photons(light) come from and send an equivalent electric impulse to the computer. Thus it's either: "There is a photon" or "There isn't", the detector doesn't know the wave-length of one single incoming photon. In that meaning it is black and white. They use different filters (red/blue etc), to only allow the photons of a certain wave-length to pass through, and later use the data gained with the various filters to reassemble the picture in the computer (in real colour).
But as we're using the human eye here and not a photo detector, it's all in colour from the beginning. :)

I'm curious about learning more about the constellations and nebulaes. Another thing... can anyone give me some advice as to what kind of telescope might be best for beginners?
To get a good view on deep-sky objects like nebulae you might have to go to a "light-free" zone, it's hard to get a good view on those near cities.
As for advice concerning telescope... I'd need that myself! I'm thinking about buying one too, you'd probably best go to an astronomy shop and get your advice there. They should know what they're talking about. :think:

thanks Matt for the whole telescope problem I was having lol. As for the issue about why your idea is poorly developed is because first of all, you cannot assume that their will be scenarios like the example you gave. The example you gave does falls under a common fallacy called the "slippery slope". This is when one gives a "what if" example and cannot really back it up. There are a lot of what if's in this world. For example, I used an example on my paper discussing how major corporations such as McDonalds or Nike could fund scientists into making clones and using them for labor purposes. This is also a slippery slope fallacy because who is to say that these corporations would even do such an inhumane thing. Although it MAY be possible but not probable. And also if reproductive cloning were possible, I believe there would be some form of enforcement that would hold it down such as certain laws being created where cloning is not an option.

I believe there would be some form of enforcement that would hold it down such as certain laws being created where cloning is not an option.

Or laws suppressing the cloned under the argument that clones aren't really natural humans, such as making them into labor slaves. In my opinion, it is the same idea as the Matrix parody, where humans are finally great enough to create life as smart as themselves.

My argument is that you can't really say that they aren't humans. If something humans create, (by birth or cloning or anything,) has a mind, and feelings of its own, does anyone have the right to say that any clones are "a substitute that looks like the original."? Let's say a child did die at the age of do. Imagine all of the things that baby goes through in their short life. Now, a new baby that looks exactly like that one. The family moves, a grandpa dies and that baby never hears that voice, a strange neighbor moves in and the family has to deal with noises and whatnot. Any small change could alter that toddler's mind, and change the way they grow up. Unless the first baby and the second baby went through the exact same things in their short lives, is it fine to say that that second one is a fake, and is just going to be a lie?

What if you woke up one day and found out that there was another you living out there? What if you were the clone? I would hope that you know you still are yourself, because the events in your life have made you different than everyone else in the world, even if you have the same brain as someone else.

Ok, so this wasn't exactly related to science due to my introspective points, but I had to say it. I'm sorry Matt, but what you said in your first cloning post mad me angry. Feel free to contradict. :)

All electromagnetic waves move at the same speed. The speed of light. :) I think you meant bandwidth.

I am not a mechanical eng, but I don't think 1lb = 2 x 0.5lb strikes. Simply because of shear strength of the material is going to affect the outcome.


MOD EDIT: Don't double post

Oh oops. I really did know that, and I meant higher frequency.:heh:

thanks Matt for the whole telescope problem I was having lol.
You're welcome ;)


As for the issue about why your idea is poorly developed is because first of all, you cannot assume that their will be scenarios like the example you gave.

Actually I can.

The example you gave does falls under a common fallacy called the "slippery slope". This is when one gives a "what if" example and cannot really back it up.

I don't think my example is a slippery slope fallacy, it may indicate a undesirable consequence, but this consequence is, unfortunately, a very very likely one. Some poeple will want to do what I've said.
I've read several newspaper articles about people who paid a gen tech concern to clone their dead pets etc. If this technology really becomes established, this is going to be a problem. I'm sure it will. Maybe my example was a bit radical, but it's essentially the same problem with pets, isn't it?

There are a lot of what if's in this world. For example, I used an example on my paper discussing how major corporations such as McDonalds or Nike could fund scientists into making clones and using them for labor purposes. This is also a slippery slope fallacy because who is to say that these corporations would even do such an inhumane thing. Although it MAY be possible but not probable.
That example is quite on a different scale, lol :heh: And so is it's probability.
Also cloned humans have the same rights as "normal" humans, aka human rights. As long as something is human, the human rights apply.

And also if reproductive cloning were possible, I believe there would be some form of enforcement that would hold it down such as certain laws being created where cloning is not an option.
I'm sure there would, but I had to use the negative example for human reproductive cloning. ;) Can you think of a positive one? The whole concept is too utterly useless.


I'm sorry Matt, but what you said in your first cloning post mad me angry. Feel free to contradict.
I don't really see what might have made you angry, but it's probably a misunderstanding. You say that clones have the same rights as "normal" humans. I completely agree with you! Humans are humans, it's not about how they came to this world.
What I find morally wrong is, to use my previous radical example with the parents and the dead child, when that clone would be treated like the child that died before. Because it is a new individual and not "just" a substitute for the old one (I hope you get what I mean). The same goes for pets, even though they may look the same, the clone has a different, individual consciousness and deserves to be treated such an individual.

Anyway... :topic:? I think so, lol

the only possible application for human reprductive cloning would be human engeneering. making a super human. theraputic cloning is still more logical to enhance humans though.

the only possible application for human reprductive cloning would be human engeneering. making a super human. theraputic cloning is still more logical to enhance humans though.
I don't think it would still be called "cloning", when you change the DNA ;)

well you could make may copies of the modified human

I don't think that makes sense :/

why? you take a normal human, modify him, then make copies.

I've had ideas about making an army of genetically modified human clones. Find some genes for synthesizing vitamins, throw in some extra adrenaline production, increase production of neurotransmitters, increase metabolism, increase muscular potential, and you have yourself the most bad-ass soldier ever.

what about having synthesised kevlar fibers in the guy's skin? "woven" the right way he could be flexible while being bulletproof.

for the muscles he should be engeneered to be dense, not big. ultra dense muscles can be stronger then huge muscles.

and on another note, he doesnt have to be a super soldier. he could be engeneered to be a scientist, with a more advanced brain.

TOPIC CHANGE!!!!!!!!

getting old is sooooo last week.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/39

I'm doing a project on worm holes right now. Even though they are theoretical, do you know anything about them? Some help with them would be great. Especially the physics behind the theory. It's really confusing.

It's better when you ask more tangible questions, when there's something you don't understand, tell us what it is you don't understand. Maybe we can help you that way :) Have you checked wiki already?

simply put a wormhole is a theoretical hole in space time that leads to another point in space time. this would allow faster then light travel, although you are not actually going faster then light. you are simply going through a hole in space and popping up somewhere else as if space was a folded magazine and you poked a hole through both pages to get from one end to the other. just like in Even Horizon (movie). about the aforementioned movie, its a brutal fiction/horror, that i watched when i was young and it scarred me the shit out of my frikking bowels. see it if you are above 18, and if any of you get mentally raped, i warned you. by the way it probably doesn't look like a hole, since space is in 3D. it probably looks like a 3D hole, if you can wrap that idea around your brain.

on another note,
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/39 GETTING OLD IS SOOOO LAST WEEK!!!