HolyGrenadeFrenzy Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 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... Yes, the scale of it is massive compared to the usual measurement of time. Light moves at roughly 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum. Compared to this speed the rest of the universe is moving very slowly. Some of the equipement from Einstein' famous experiments are in the following photo. The evidense seems conclusive and the theory of relativity is no longer a theory and it is now recognized as The Law of Relativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doesntcheatGTA Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 Can we just say 3.0X10^8 m/sec for the speed of light? I have never seen the speed of light © written out every number like in the post above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Picolini Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 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? A scientist/group of scientists have already simulated that. The description I originally read about it was something like: "As the black holes near each other they start feeling the effect of each others gravity. This causes them to spin around each other. As they get closer they eventually touch, and at such great speed and forces they would bounce off of each other until the inward pull is so great they merge into a new singularity." That's just going by memory though. In the video the colored waves represent powerful gravitational forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTA3Rockstar Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 This video is cool. I got it from the related video of Pico's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HolyGrenadeFrenzy Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 Can we just say 3.0X10^8 m/sec for the speed of light? I have never seen the speed of light © written out every number like in the post above. Sure yet if you continue to study it in college you will eventually be expected to have it memorized. The propogation of radiation can be written out in any mathmatically correct manner you wish and c is just fine with me as well. It isn't like I clicked and pasted it or anything.....I could have just stated 186,000 miles per second as well but what is the fun in that? Besides, taking a good look at it seems to make sense since figuring out how far that is in the amount of time that is in question. Most people are rather familar with how far a meter is and that brings it into perspective on a physical level with them when attempting to phantom it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTA3Rockstar Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 Or if you're american it's 670,616,629 mph. Holy sh*t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doesntcheatGTA Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 Can we just say 3.0X10^8 m/sec for the speed of light? I have never seen the speed of light © written out every number like in the post above. Sure yet if you continue to study it in college you will eventually be expected to have it memorized. The propogation of radiation can be written out in any mathmatically correct manner you wish and c is just fine with me as well. It isn't like I clicked and pasted it or anything.....I could have just stated 186,000 miles per second as well but what is the fun in that? Besides, taking a good look at it seems to make sense since figuring out how far that is in the amount of time that is in question. Most people are rather familar with how far a meter is and that brings it into perspective on a physical level with them when attempting to phantom it. At the collegiate level, you won't have sh*tloads of numbers...scientific notation is typically used to express c in physics classes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Picolini Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 It isn't like I clicked and pasted it or anything.....I could have just stated 186,000 miles per second as well but what is the fun in that? I go by 186,000 mps myself, as it's easy to remember. Then converting is just knowing the factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HolyGrenadeFrenzy Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 Or if you're american it's 670,616,629 mph. Holy sh*t. And to put that into perspective. The earth has a circumference of approximately 24,900 miles. More precisely the circumference of the earth at the equator is 24,902 mi / 40,076 km. That is like about 8 revolutions per second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doesntcheatGTA Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 In the scientific world, m/s is the universal unit for measurement of speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HolyGrenadeFrenzy Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 What you end up doing at the collegiate level depends on what your professor demands of you. Knowing every type of expression of c is not above some of them. That is just dependant on whom you have over you while getting your Higher Education. Also the m/s comment is true yet what is your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doesntcheatGTA Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 What you end up doing at the collegiate level depends on what your professor demands of you. Knowing every type of expression of c is not above some of them. That is just dependant on whom you have over you while getting your Higher Education. Also the m/s comment is true yet what is your point? My point is: There is no point to know it in any other unit of measurement for c unless some brainless professor wants you to memorize it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HolyGrenadeFrenzy Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 What you end up doing at the collegiate level depends on what your professor demands of you. Knowing every type of expression of c is not above some of them. That is just dependant on whom you have over you while getting your Higher Education. Also the m/s comment is true yet what is your point? My point is: There is no point to know it in any other unit of measurement for c unless some brainless professor wants you to memorize it. AHa....Those who can not do, teach, you know? Yet the excercise makes for a nice paradigm shift when the study of such things are underway. I can see there being purpose in it. (although I do see the frustration and wonder of the futility of doing the exercise as well) The usefulness depends on the student and not the instructor. What one is taught is equal to ones fitness to learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doesntcheatGTA Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 What you end up doing at the collegiate level depends on what your professor demands of you. Knowing every type of expression of c is not above some of them. That is just dependant on whom you have over you while getting your Higher Education. Also the m/s comment is true yet what is your point? My point is: There is no point to know it in any other unit of measurement for c unless some brainless professor wants you to memorize it. AHa....Those who can not do, teach, you know? Yet the excercise makes for a nice paradigm shift when the study of such things are underway. I can see there being purpose in it. (although I do see the frustration and wonder of the futility of doing the exercise as well) The usefulness depends on the student and not the instructor. What one is taught is equal to ones fitness to learn. I believe you will be put on my respect list here, soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HolyGrenadeFrenzy Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 (edited) This is the Stupid Science question thread. Any more stupid science questions? In general the only stupid science question is the one you have that you don't ask. Here, just in case some people need a brain change. Edited June 5, 2008 by HolyGrenadeFrenzy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHXC Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 A question, if you will... How 'strong' is Gravity? Shortly after the impact of the meteorite, the video says that a load of the earths crust flew up into space and then fell back down the earth. Now gravity is only so-strong, so how did gravity pull the earths crust back down to earth? Why didnt the pieces that went into space just float away? Also, Why are planets round? Why not oval, or more square? Yes I went to school. No I didnt pay attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HolyGrenadeFrenzy Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 (edited) A question, if you will... How 'strong' is Gravity? Shortly after the impact of the meteorite, the video says that a load of the earths crust flew up into space and then fell back down the earth. Now gravity is only so-strong, so how did gravity pull the earths crust back down to earth? Why didnt the pieces that went into space just float away? Also, Why are planets round? Why not oval, or more square? Yes I went to school. No I didnt pay attention. I could really get into it but there is a better way. Mass and Weight Before we get into the subject of gravity and how it acts, it's important to understand the difference between weight and mass. We often use the terms "mass" and "weight" interchangeably in our daily speech, but to an astronomer or a physicist they are completely different things. The mass of a body is a measure of how much matter it contains. An object with mass has a quality called inertia. If you shake an object like a stone in your hand, you would notice that it takes a push to get it moving, and another push to stop it again. If the stone is at rest, it wants to remain at rest. Once you've got it moving, it wants to stay moving. This quality or "sluggishness" of matter is its inertia. Mass is a measure of how much inertia an object displays. Weight is an entirely different thing. Every object in the universe with mass attracts every other object with mass. The amount of attraction depends on the size of the masses and how far apart they are. For everyday-sized objects, this gravitational pull is vanishingly small, but the pull between a very large object, like the Earth, and another object, like you, can be easily measured. How? All you have to do is stand on a scale! Scales measure the force of attraction between you and the Earth. This force of attraction between you and the Earth (or any other planet) is called your weight. If you are in a spaceship far between the stars and you put a scale underneath you, the scale would read zero. Your weight is zero. You are weightless. There is an anvil floating next to you. It's also weightless. Are you or the anvil mass-less? Absolutely not. If you grabbed the anvil and tried to shake it, you would have to push it to get it going and pull it to get it to stop. It still has inertia, and hence mass, yet it has no weight. See the difference? The Relationship Between Gravity and Mass and Distance As stated above, your weight is a measure of the pull of gravity between you and the body you are standing on. This force of gravity depends on a few things. First, it depends on your mass and the mass of the planet you are standing on. If you double your mass, gravity pulls on you twice as hard. If the planet you are standing on is twice as massive, gravity also pulls on you twice as hard. On the other hand, the farther you are from the center of the planet, the weaker the pull between the planet and your body. The force gets weaker quite rapidly. If you double your distance from the planet, the force is one-fourth. If you triple your separation, the force drops to one-ninth. Ten times the distance, one-hundredth the force. See the pattern? The force drops off with the square of the distance. If we put this into an equation it would look like this: The two "M's" on top are your mass and the planet's mass. The "r" below is the distance from the center of the planet. The masses are in the numerator because the force gets bigger if they get bigger. The distance is in the denominator because the force gets smaller when the distance gets bigger. Note that the force never becomes zero no matter how far you travel. Perhaps this was the inspiration for the poem by Francis Thompson: All things by immortal power near or far to each other hiddenly linked are. That thou cans't not stir a flower without troubling a star. This equation, first derived by Sir Isaac Newton, tells us a lot. For instance, you may suspect that because Jupiter is 318 times as massive as the Earth, you should weigh 318 times what you weigh at home. This would be true if Jupiter was the same size as the Earth. But, Jupiter is 11 times the radius of the Earth, so you are 11 times further from the center. This reduces the pull by a factor of 112 resulting in about 2.53 times the pull of Earth on you. Standing on a neutron star makes you unimaginably weighty. Not only is the star very massive to start with (about the same as the Sun), but it is also incredibly small (about the size of San Francisco), so you are very close to the center and r is a very small number. Small numbers in the denominator of a fraction lead to very large results! There are also some other fun things about Mass, Gravity and Distance on the site this is quoted from. There are many useful links on the page as well. Here it is>> Your weight on other worlds That site is useful as a many similar to it when calculating such things for real or hypothetical study. So is this site if you want another plug into information for study on gravity and the like in some unusual ways. Gravity of a Torus Edited June 5, 2008 by HolyGrenadeFrenzy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayden Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 Consider this: Dog = Good Milk = Good Therefore, dog = milk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icarus Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 Consider this: Dog = Good Milk = Good Therefore, dog = milk. Too vague from a scientific perspective. For example: Physics = hard (for some) Penis = hard (when erect) Therefore, Physics = Penis. As you can see, that makes no sense, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guybrush Threepwood Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 Physics = hard (for some)Penis = hard (when erect) Therefore, Physics = Penis. As you can see, that makes no sense, really. What if I have a hard-on for science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icarus Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 Physics = hard (for some)Penis = hard (when erect) Therefore, Physics = Penis. As you can see, that makes no sense, really. What if I have a hard-on for science? It seems you have made a good point. Touché. I don't think you'll find too many people with a hard-on for physics, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guybrush Threepwood Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 It seems you have made a good point. Touché. I don't think you'll find too many people with a hard-on for physics, though. Maybe the science matter, and its motion, as well as space and time (thank you wikipedia) really turns me on. Or maybe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack_Knife Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 But this is only my opinion... Best thing I've ever heard in a scientific discussion. "You can play faster than Al Di Meola and do it with only one pinky, but if you're not listening to what is going on around you, you might as well just shut up" isn't your croth suppose to be erecting when you have an orgasm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtal256 Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 Ok, i want to know if it is possible to break Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into C and O using electrolysis (or some method using electricity). Because if it can then why don't countries reduce CO2 emissions by simply splitting it into carbon and oxygen. The oxygen can be put back into the air and the carbon can either be stored (i.e. underground, like they are planning on doing with CO2) or reacted with hydrogen and stuff to create organic compounds like polymers and all the stuff that they currently make from crude oil (whether that can be done or not is another question). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Tequeli Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 Ok, i want to know if it is possible to break Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into C and O using electrolysis (or some method using electricity). Because if it can then why don't countries reduce CO2 emissions by simply splitting it into carbon and oxygen. The oxygen can be put back into the air and the carbon can either be stored (i.e. underground, like they are planning on doing with CO2) or reacted with hydrogen and stuff to create organic compounds like polymers and all the stuff that they currently make from crude oil (whether that can be done or not is another question). To my knowledge I believe that removing pollutants from the atmosphere isn't impossible but we don't have the technology to do it. It would be incredibly difficult to split every CO2 molecule into carbon and oxygen. But if anybody knows anything else please contribute because I'd like to know how doable this is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3niX Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 Well... I know that during a thunderstorm the lightning can separate molecules in the air which then reform as acid-rain. But thats like 20000V. So theoretically it is pretty possible. However, you cant forget that those molecules will try to gain their balance and reform into a new substance. Oxygen likes to react with other elements. Kinda like a horny bastard that humps everything. The most efficient way to get pure oxygen from carbon dioxide is with radiation I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crokey Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 Ok, i want to know if it is possible to break Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into C and O using electrolysis (or some method using electricity). Because if it can then why don't countries reduce CO2 emissions by simply splitting it into carbon and oxygen. The oxygen can be put back into the air and the carbon can either be stored (i.e. underground, like they are planning on doing with CO2) or reacted with hydrogen and stuff to create organic compounds like polymers and all the stuff that they currently make from crude oil (whether that can be done or not is another question). To my knowledge I believe that removing pollutants from the atmosphere isn't impossible but we don't have the technology to do it. It would be incredibly difficult to split every CO2 molecule into carbon and oxygen. But if anybody knows anything else please contribute because I'd like to know how doable this is. I was going to mention about all this Global Warming crap shouldn't be in a topic about Science, but then I remembered 'Stupid' is in the title. Besides, we need CO2 in the atmosphere as part of the air that we breathe and for the plants to 'breathe' as well. So if anyone bullsh*ts about Global Warming, then just tell them we're feeding the plants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Picolini Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 (edited) Well... I know that during a thunderstorm the lightning can separate molecules in the air which then reform as acid-rain. But thats like 20000V. So theoretically it is pretty possible. However, you cant forget that those molecules will try to gain their balance and reform into a new substance. Oxygen likes to react with other elements. Kinda like a horny bastard that humps everything. The most efficient way to get pure oxygen from carbon dioxide is with radiation I suppose. Actually lightening is on average anywhere from 10-20million volts Never really thought of splitting CO2... would shut up all those ass clowns making the stupid ass CAFE laws if we could do that, that's for sure. But my guess is it's probably take a lot of power to do so. Edited June 5, 2008 by Picolini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3niX Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 Well... Oh sorry, I meant to say it heats the air to 20000 degrees (celsius) but my thoughts went another path I guess... And youre correct about the amount of volts. And as I said earlier ... the problem isnt splitting it... its keeping it split. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheJonesy Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 But this is only my opinion... Best thing I've ever heard in a scientific discussion. Yeah, it's called an insurance policy for scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now