Stupid Science Questions

[GTA3Rockstar]

 

What would happen if we do a big hole that goes all straight the earth and the core and we throw something in the big hole? would it get stuck in the middle of the earth or what??

lol We think alike but I edited my posted 4 minutes before you posted.

[Rocketkiller]

What would happen if we do a big hole that goes all straight the earth and the core and we throw something in the big hole? would it get stuck in the middle of the earth or what??

After some time yes, gravity pulls stuff to the centre of mass, so it'll stop as close to the centre as possible. But if it's travelling fast enough it'll first go back and forth as the force of gravity fights the kinetic energy of the object.

[The Unvirginiser]

What would happen if you set off thousands of nuclear bombs in the artic circle? Would the ice just melt and water instantly evaporate? Or would a giant tidal wave consume most of the Northern hemesphere

[Saget]

What would happen if you set off thousands of nuclear bombs in the artic circle? Would the ice just melt and water instantly evaporate? Or would a giant tidal wave consume most of the Northern hemesphere

More like the last option, I guess.

 

@Rocketkiller: so if we just stand there floating in the middle of the earth, does that means the gravity there is 0?

[nlitement]

What would happen if you set off thousands of nuclear bombs in the artic circle? Would the ice just melt and water instantly evaporate? Or would a giant tidal wave consume most of the Northern hemesphere

More like the last option, I guess.

 

@Rocketkiller: so if we just stand there floating in the middle of the earth, does that means the gravity there is 0?

Yes lul the vectors cancel each other out.

 

I'm more interested knowing if you can get out of there.

[HolyGrenadeFrenzy]

 

Well, the thing that got me thinking about a sonic boom underwater was not actually thinking about a vehicle, but a ballistic projectile fired into the water.  If anyone has ever seen the episodes of MythBusters where they fire rifles with super-sonic muzzle velocities into water, then you would have seen them conclude that any super-sonic projectile will break up when it enters the water.  Now, some would say that's irrelevant because they're talking about a projectile that's already going super-sonic speed in air entering the denser liquid water, but I've seen in one instances where they fired one underwater, and it still had the same effect.

 

So, I was wondering if the same things that lead to a sonic boom in the air lead to bullet fragmentation in the water.  It seems to make sense that it would based on what I've seen here, but maybe not because the same velocity required to achieve these super-sonic speeds in water seems to be much higher than it would be in air.

 

In any case, I had never even thought about what surpassing the sound barrier underwater would entail as compared with air in the first place, but I'm not sure it has anything at all to do with the initial idea anymore.  I suppose the obvious answer would be that a bullet projectile doesn't have the right structure to travel through water at that speed, but it's still not easy to imagine what surpasing that barrier underwater would be like compared with in air.

 

I kind of imagined some kind of enormous pressure increase in the water since sound waves travel through it so much better.  I mean, in my mind, the idea of a submarine breaking the sound barrier would like, fluctuate the pressure an atmosphere or more and damage the sub itself.

OK......I will attempt to explain this as best I can in terms that are understandable.

 

Water has some unique properties which is why certain this happen with it that do not happen with other substances. One thing about water is it has increased pressure at depth because of the water above the point and the additional mass above yet it is also super resilent to compressing......In other words, water does not compress even under pressure, for the most part this is true and only in the last decade has anyone prooven that at super depths of the ocean water compresses a tiny bit on the molecular scale. Unlike most other substances water doesn't even shrink when it freezes, it expands instead.

 

This noncompression of water is also what makes steam so powerful and it is also what makes high velocity impacts similar to hitting a solid surface.

 

So, water has the potential of great pressure and by not compressing has even greater pressure potential than most substances. This is also why plasma formation and such are easier with water. The use of water in Rail Gun tech has also demonstrated some interesting things about these facination properties.

 

I believe there are a few "experts" on this topic that are members on this very GTAForum. I know one myself yet I do not know if he visits at all and although he is a member, he is mostly a lurker I believe.

Edited June 4, 2008 by HolyGrenadeFrenzy

[Dimrain47]

What would happen if the earth slices in 2 parts??

 

And if 2 planets crash??

[Picolini]

And if 2 planets crash??

Something similar to this...

 

 

 

 

@Sags, well if it were just a projectile, ie a bullet, which is probably the best shape to do so, then it would probably cause a huge shockwave and keep going until it ran out of energy, as usual. Like I mentioned it would cause lots of heat at 3,000mph+, so it's hard to just imagine the results when the resulting heat is factored in. The problem with most tests is they probably had the object in a air/vacuum chamber and shot it into water, which is what ripped it apart. Either that, or the intense acceleration caused it to be ripped apart from the dense water already surrounding it.

 

What would be the best option is make an extremely strong and light (carbon fiber maybe?) projectile with a rocket in the back, and send it flying. the best bet would probably be in stages, like a main rocket to get up to a high speed, that breaks off, next one, and possibly a third or more stages so the final projectile is light enough to keep traveling after hitting the barrier. Again, the effects are hard to imagine. Would be something to seem, I'm sure!

 

[HolyGrenadeFrenzy]

@Sags, well if it were just a projectile, ie a bullet, which is probably the best shape to do so, then it would probably cause a huge shockwave and keep going until it ran out of energy, as usual. Like I mentioned it would cause lots of heat at 3,000mph+, so it's hard to just imagine the results when the resulting heat is factored in. The problem with most tests is they probably had the object in a air/vacuum chamber and shot it into water, which is what ripped it apart. Either that, or the intense acceleration caused it to be ripped apart from the dense water already surrounding it.

 

What would be the best option is make an extremely strong and light (carbon fiber maybe?) projectile with a rocket in the back, and send it flying. the best bet would probably be in stages, like a main rocket to get up to a high speed, that breaks off, next one, and possibly a third or more stages so the final projectile is light enough to keep traveling after hitting the barrier. Again, the effects are hard to imagine. Would be something to seem, I'm sure!

I do agree with you and this just throws out some more things for such considerations.

 

Tempurature is a very important factor, I agree.

 

Especially, when the temp change is so immidiate and the the surface impact on the water which means that you have four dramatic changes on the bullet all at once. There are other factors to consider including the properties of the projectile including shape, velocity, trajectory, angle and then you have the material statics of the projectile to consider which will vary with each type of round and the properties of said projectile.

 

Tempurature change Factors

 

Pressure change factors

 

Compression Factor

 

Other substance factors

 

Other projectile factors

 

In truth the effects of Entropy in the temp change and the velocity are enough to cause the fragmentation yet the water surface properties can not be ignored nor the lack of compression of water either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Struff Bunstridge]

Jesus f*ck, Picolini, that was epic. I wonder what the impact would feel like on the other side of the planet?

[matt11504]

tell me this

why is it that cats have the so called "9 lives" but the microwave takes all 9?

[FizzleRizzle]

What would happen if two blackholes were to collide? Would they engulf eachother and become an even larger one, or just eat away at one another?

[Icarus]

 

...now if you were to break the speed of light (or even approach it), you would (theoretically) get younger. But that's a whole different story.

I have to correct this part because it's wrong and a common pitfall in relativity.

 

If you're travelling at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, you will not get younger; however, time will slow down in your frame of reference. For example, say two brothers who are twins live on Earth; one decides to go on a rocket that travels at, say, 0.90c for about 20 years measured in Earth's frame. The twin on the Earth will have aged by 20 years, but the twin on the rocket, from his frame of reference, will have only aged a fraction of 20 years.

 

So yeah, you will not get younger; you still age, but not as fast as you would in the Earth's frame of reference.

 

Also, theoretically, you cannot surpass the speed of light, otherwise your gamma factor from relativity goes to infinity and time comes to a complete halt.

 

I never understood how this could be. I always thought you would be the same age becaus.... Well take this example. Say you're driving from L.A. to Denver. It would be about 15 hours but if someone flew from L.A. to Denver they could get there in about 2.5 hours. Now, the people who flew there would be just as old as the people driving but they just arrived at their distination quicker. Put people in who are traveling fast as light. They would get there in a blink of an eye. It seems it would be the same affect as the flyers to the drivers but its now the light travelers with the flyers. How could they be aging slower? Or could we all be wrong and we age faster? Thinking about my example about arriving faster, sounds like something plausible.

The main difference there is the amount of time involved.

 

Like you said, to drive from Denver to LA would be about 15 hours, whereas if you were to fly (roughly 1000 km/h), it would take about 2.5 hours. You are not travelling at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, so the whole thing about aging would not come up (on the plane, you would age slower, but the difference would be so incredibly small it would not matter). However, when I took a Modern Physics course in my first term this year, we were talking about the Concorde. When doing some calculations, we found out that measuring the time of flight in the Earth's frame and that of the Concorde had a difference of 19.1 ns (roughly) travelling from London to Toronto at 2,500 km/h. Basically, what we found out is that the passengers on the Concorde travelled 19.1 ns into the future. It's hard to wrap your head around, but a cool result nonetheless. Again, it's only a fraction of a second, so not really noticeable.

 

To get any noticeable effects in relativity, you need to be travelling for long periods of time.

 

As for why people age slower and stuff, I'm not fully up-to-date on my general relativity and stuff. If you want a better answer, PM K^2 - he's doing his Ph.D. in physics, so he would know much more.

[Edmachine]

I don't know if this is scientific, but what is the opposite of opposite? I can't imagine what could it be.

[Ronnyboy]

I don't know if this is scientific, but what is the opposite of opposite? I can't imagine what could it be.

like?

[stef_92]

My question is little confusing. So, why the scientist believe som much that there was something like "the big explosion" whitch made the begining of the universe? If this is true what was before it? And why generally there had to be "something".

[TheJonesy]

 

I don't know if this is scientific, but what is the opposite of opposite? I can't imagine what could it be.

Exactly what you started with.

 

 

@ The "Faster Than Light"/Relativety discussion- I'm confused how aging has to deal with speed. Just because you get somewhere faster doesn't mean you are younger.

[nabo45]

You travel back in time, and kill your dad before you were born. Now what happens? If he dies, you won't be alive and will probably disapper. But if you dissaper, who will be there to kill your dad?

 

Now what happens?

[TheJonesy]

You travel back in time, and kill your dad before you were born. Now what happens? If he dies, you won't be alive and will probably disapper. But if you dissaper, who will be there to kill your dad?

 

Now what happens?

You would still exist, but a new timeline would be created. You probably wouldn't be able to return to where you came from. It probably wouldn't affect you since you're already skipping around through time and space. But this is only my opinion...

[Struff Bunstridge]

I don't know if this is scientific, but what is the opposite of opposite? I can't imagine what could it be.

Exactly what you started with.

 

 

@ The "Faster Than Light"/Relativety discussion- I'm confused how aging has to deal with speed. Just because you get somewhere faster doesn't mean you are younger.

It's to do with how time passes differently as you approach the speed of light. It's why space exploration hinges on the possibility of faster-than-light travel, as it's the only way we can get anywhere within a decent amount of time. If you've ever seen warp speed on Star Trek, it's that sudden jump (I think).

[TheJonesy]

I don't know if this is scientific, but what is the opposite of opposite? I can't imagine what could it be.

Exactly what you started with.

 

 

@ The "Faster Than Light"/Relativety discussion- I'm confused how aging has to deal with speed. Just because you get somewhere faster doesn't mean you are younger.

It's to do with how time passes differently as you approach the speed of light. It's why space exploration hinges on the possibility of faster-than-light travel, as it's the only way we can get anywhere within a decent amount of time. If you've ever seen warp speed on Star Trek, it's that sudden jump (I think).

Maybe I comfusing myself with the fact that this must occur on a much larger scale to see a difference...

[Crokey]

What would happen if two blackholes were to collide? Would they engulf eachother and become an even larger one, or just eat away at one another?

Well, there is a couple of factors to take into consideration, the first is that black hole is an impacted star, so therefore doesn't move (in a local sense not a galactic sense, as the Milky Way rotates much like a solar system does), the second thing to take into account, is that the black holes would have varying densities and power relating to their sizes. So if a black-hole with a stronger magnitude was to collide with a smaller black hole then the chances are that the smaller one would be swallowed up by the larger one and the power would be added. If they were to be of the exact same size (which would be unlikely, due to the rarity of black holes themselves), then one of three options could apply. First they would simply merge into one another and make a singular larger black hole, second they could potentially explode due to the sheer power of the singularity within the black hole, thirdly they could potentially cease to exist as if they are the exact same size then the harmonics of each of the black holes then the event would then cancel each other out, much like music frequencies can cancel each other out.

 

 

My question is little confusing. So, why the scientist believe som much that there was something like "the big explosion" whitch made the begining of the universe? If this is true what was before it? And why generally there had to be "something".

 

There is a lot of scientific proof that the theory of the Big Bang is very possible, as there is signs that the universe is expanding outwards and this suggests that it came from a singular point, hence the big bang. One theory even ties in with what I've said above about Black Holes in that the universe was created by the collision of two black holes caused such a big explosion that the force of the explosion and the pure energy and matter that was stored within the black holes could have created the universe as we know it.

 

As for what was there before it and what the universe has exploded into, I'm as stumped as the next man. If you want to read up on it, there are several books by Steven Hawkins on the subject, it's actually an interesting read from what I can gather.

[manofpeace]

I saw a show on the Science Channel about the universe and the big bang, and how it's expanding to where after some trillions of years it will be a big void of nothingness, and particles won't exist any longer. At one point they said the life could be powerful and smart enough to concentrate all th energy they've gathered at a single point, and open a rift, starting a new universe. Sounds plausible, and scary, if you think about it. Ironically, they said that after all the stuff has faded, it would take trillions of years to make a simple thought, because everything has slowed down. Pretty fun stuff, the universe and all.

[Alick]

 

You travel back in time, and kill your dad before you were born. Now what happens? If he dies, you won't be alive and will probably disapper. But if you dissaper, who will be there to kill your dad?

 

Now what happens?

That question sounds like The Terminators storyline.

 

On Topic: I've always wondered in a parrallel universe, is everything really opposite to here? Or is it something completely different? Also what the hell is inside a blackhole? For all we know it's heaven in that thing.

[doesntcheatGTA]

...now if you were to break the speed of light (or even approach it), you would (theoretically) get younger. But that's a whole different story.

I have to correct this part because it's wrong and a common pitfall in relativity.

 

If you're travelling at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, you will not get younger; however, time will slow down in your frame of reference. For example, say two brothers who are twins live on Earth; one decides to go on a rocket that travels at, say, 0.90c for about 20 years measured in Earth's frame. The twin on the Earth will have aged by 20 years, but the twin on the rocket, from his frame of reference, will have only aged a fraction of 20 years.

 

So yeah, you will not get younger; you still age, but not as fast as you would in the Earth's frame of reference.

 

Also, theoretically, you cannot surpass the speed of light, otherwise your gamma factor from relativity goes to infinity and time comes to a complete halt.

That's why its relative... you get younger relative to Earth's point of view.

[Crokey]

You travel back in time, and kill your dad before you were born. Now what happens? If he dies, you won't be alive and will probably disapper. But if you dissaper, who will be there to kill your dad?

 

Now what happens?

That question sounds like The Terminators storyline.

 

On Topic: I've always wondered in a parrallel universe, is everything really opposite to here? Or is it something completely different? Also what the hell is inside a blackhole? For all we know it's heaven in that thing.

@Nabo: That's what they call a paradox, but there is theories that you couldn't do that because you wouldn't exist to go back in time to do that in the first place, in fact the past could be seen as unmovable and unreachable since anything you do there would effect the present and therefore the pasts future which doesn't exist yet for those in the past so if the future doesn't exist for those in the past then how can you exist in a future that doesn't exist? Simple answer is you can't

 

As for the quotee's post: If there were Parallel Universes then things might not necessarily be the opposite of what they are here, as there will be multiple Parallel Universes in which if things were opposite then that would only mean 2 Parallel Universes as you can only be opposite once in this context. The term Parallel Universes refers to Universes that are parallel in time but not in space so the chances of finding a Parallel Universe could be very slim unless we discover how move in space.

 

As for Black Holes, as I mentioned above Black Holes are imploded dead stars which have a gravitational mass so great that light can't escape it's gravitational pull, at the centre of a black hole it is believed to contain what they call a quantum singularity in which all matter that has been drawn into the Black Hole will cease to exist in time and space, this in itself is quite a conundrum because this will mean that a Black Hole will indeed completely eradicate energy which is strange as energy isn't lost only converted into another form. Unless the energy is then stored in such a great degree that it will either grow to such a degree that it will eradicate all life and existence in the universe or the energy stored will be so great that it will explode and form what they call a White Hole in which it spews the matter back out. If those theories aren't enough, then there is also the possibility as mentioned above in that Black Holes instead of moving and colliding with each other will grow to such an extent that they will collide as a matter of course and create another Big Bang

[Mike Tequeli]

You travel back in time, and kill your dad before you were born. Now what happens? If he dies, you won't be alive and will probably disapper. But if you dissaper, who will be there to kill your dad?

 

Now what happens?

That question sounds like The Terminators storyline.

 

On Topic: I've always wondered in a parrallel universe, is everything really opposite to here? Or is it something completely different? Also what the hell is inside a blackhole? For all we know it's heaven in that thing.

@Nabo: That's what they call a paradox, but there is theories that you couldn't do that because you wouldn't exist to go back in time to do that in the first place, in fact the past could be seen as unmovable and unreachable since anything you do there would effect the present and therefore the pasts future which doesn't exist yet for those in the past so if the future doesn't exist for those in the past then how can you exist in a future that doesn't exist? Simple answer is you can't

 

As for the quotee's post: If there were Parallel Universes then things might not necessarily be the opposite of what they are here, as there will be multiple Parallel Universes in which if things were opposite then that would only mean 2 Parallel Universes as you can only be opposite once in this context. The term Parallel Universes refers to Universes that are parallel in time but not in space so the chances of finding a Parallel Universe could be very slim unless we discover how move in space.

 

As for Black Holes, as I mentioned above Black Holes are imploded dead stars which have a gravitational mass so great that light can't escape it's gravitational pull, at the centre of a black hole it is believed to contain what they call a quantum singularity in which all matter that has been drawn into the Black Hole will cease to exist in time and space, this in itself is quite a conundrum because this will mean that a Black Hole will indeed completely eradicate energy which is strange as energy isn't lost only converted into another form. Unless the energy is then stored in such a great degree that it will either grow to such a degree that it will eradicate all life and existence in the universe or the energy stored will be so great that it will explode and form what they call a White Hole in which it spews the matter back out. If those theories aren't enough, then there is also the possibility as mentioned above in that Black Holes instead of moving and colliding with each other will grow to such an extent that they will collide as a matter of course and create another Big Bang

Black holes cannot disappear without giving off some form of energy. Or at least I'm pretty sure of it. If a black hole was destroyed without giving off anything, that would essentially mean that the matter was completely and utterly obliterated, never to return or exist again. Which aside from being unsettling is also impossible. They have made some developments that black holes might actually emit some form of scrambled data, but in all honesty most scientists apply estimations based on physics to predict what black holes do, no one actually knows.

[Struff Bunstridge]

My favourite theory says that every time anybody makes any kind of decision, time branches off and a parallel universe is formed. This means that the number of parallel universes is so close to infinite as to make no difference. I am personally responsible for hundreds of thousands being formed in the time it's taken me to write this post, with deletions and alterations to this text, the cigarette I lit, the sip of beer I took, not diving headfirst through my front room window etc etc. In a parallel universe somewhere, I don't finish this post, as I decide to take my own life before hitting Add Reply. In another, a convoluted series of events determined by the choices of others leads to a grand piano falling through the roof of my house. I could decide to jump in the air, break my ankle, and meet someone in hospital who leaves everything to me in his will before he dies.

 

I love this sh*t.

[jersiq]

 

I don't know if this is scientific, but what is the opposite of opposite? I can't imagine what could it be.

Exactly what you started with.

Not necessarily true in mathematics:

Consider an inverse of a function which is in turn operated by the function (an opposite of the opposite)

*note to simplify f(in) in my proof means the inverse of f

Naive set theory shows:

f: X -> Y

let B be a subset of Y

f[f(in) (B)] is a subset of B

 

Claim 1

 

let: y be an element of f(f(in)(B))	Show: y is an element of B
-	-there exists an x which is an element of f(in) such that y=f(x)

 

--hence f(x) is a subset of BThis is trivial. However in any subset proof, there are two steps:

 

Claim 2

 

let: b be an element of B	show: b is an element of f(f(in)(B)
-	-there is an x which is a member of f(in)(B) such that b=f(x)

The italicized part is the sticky one. In order to prove this we have to allow the function to be surjective (onto)

 

And of course this isn't complete without a counter-example given a non-surjective function x^2.

 

consider, f:Reals to the Reals

 

f(x) = x^2

B is a subset of the co-domain (the reals)

B is the set: {-1,2,4}

f(in)(B) = {+ or - square root of 2 AND + or - 2}*

now f[f(in) (B)] = {2,4} as we just square the elements of our range from f(in)

As you can see the set B is not equal to the set f[f(in) (B)]

 

*the inverse of a squaring function is the square root. The square root of -1 is imaginary, and not within the domain of discourse

 

 

 

 

 

 

[matt11504]

since my old question was ignored, i ask 2 more.

1. why does Donkey Kong wear a tie?

2. where do babies come from?