Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by alt_f13

  1. I think your experiment might sound a little more credible if you didn't use made up words to describe how it works.
  2. Wow. Something like that happenned to me when I was about 10 y/o, and it didn't fully heal for many weaks! I'm bookmarking this thread, just in case I need to duplicate your Wolverine style healing abilities. How do the scars look? What's the best way of preventing scars in this type of situation?
  3. If humans, the age of our sun and our exponentially growing advances in technology are anything to go by, I'd say a trillion years is a bit long to go without an almost all-powerful species that has its fingers in every corner of the universe, including Earth. Then again, maybe the believers are right... Either that, or the aliens adopted the Prime Directive.
  4. Personally, I would find it hard to believe that things could re-happen just the way they have, merely because the scale on which the seemingly random quantum disturbances happened is so much larger than the scale at which they happen now. I guess it comes down to if you believe in fate. "Is it possible that there are no coincidences?" -Mel, Signs
  5. This is tough. To me it seems like objectm could only get information about objectM up to a distance of ct/2 into it. If this were true, mass M cannot be calculated for an object that has a length of >ct/2, because the energy will have already passed further down the line. I have a gut feeling this isn't the whole picture though, so let's use two new objects for another situation. If we have objectL strike objectl, objectl having a length of ct/2, and objectl with a negligable length for the time being, a compression wave is formulated for the entirety of t, and since objectl is so small, it has all of t to transmit its energy. ObjectL, however, has exactly one pass of a wave from the beginning of the collision to the end to transmit its energy. The problem is this. If you launch a spring at a wall, you'll observe a wave that continues to move from one end of the spring to the other, even after collision takes place. If this type of thing is happenning during a collision between objectl and objectL, wouldn't it take many passes of a wave moving at c to transmit the energy from objectl to objectL and vice versa? The wave, for example, may only be transmitting p/2 for each pass. So even if objectL is below ct, even ct/2, and even ct/300,000,000 (!) there are probably waves (or even just one part of the original compression wave, as I could be wrong about there being more than one wave in a collision scenario) of small magnitudes not reaching objectl. It looks like the amount of energy being transmitted is a function of the length of the smaller object, objectl, versus t of the collision, and all the momentum not transmitted in both objects remains within the objects, possibly reducing the end velocities of the objects, as the momentum is not fully transmitted. That remaining energy would be negligable in almost all measurable collisions. Does this make sense? It sounds like a collision that is less than 100% elastic, where the resulting velocities aren't quite representative of an obvious p=mv scenario.
  6. Even so, the cells immediately around a cell that *should* pick up a black scan line don't. You can see the ghosting effect I was referring to when you close your eyes while looking at a bright point of light. The point remains for a while, burned into your vision. I was wondering if that was the same mechanism that causes you to blur scans together into a single, fluid image. While on the subject of eyes, how is it that putting pressure on the eyeball produces "light," such as when getting hit in the eye with a ball.
  7. As long as there's a McDonalds or Kin's Farm Market handy...
  8. I understand all of that, but how is it that the centre of the eye produces a continuous image? Is this done in the eye or the brain? It sounds like a mechanism of the eye. How is it then that the cones retain the frequency information? Some sort of resonance within the cells? Because the rods are meant to pick up the change in intensity so well, I take it that the cones aren't merely picking up color from the screen between scans, as the intensity would be either negligably low, or nonexistant.
  9. Yes! Nice paraphrase, too. The other scenario would be a continuous force attempting to rotate the mass M object around the axis that follows its >ct length. The idea is the same, so let's not continue with the rotation scenario; its purpose was to better explain what I was trying to get accross to anyone who didn't understand the first scenario. The way I see it, the conditions of this scenario aren't that different from the average collision, because in neither situation does the event take place in zero time, so there has to be a fairly simple formula that gives either t, based on v, M and m, or gives M based on t, m and v. [edit] I guess t would be the same, but would the inertial mass M then be infinate? That's the part I don't understand. Will the large object ever move, assuming the energy isn't lost as heat before it is realised by the entire object, or if a constant force is applied to the large object? Can we calculate the mass of the large object knowing the force that was applied to it in an elastic collision?[/edit]
  10. Touché. Unfortunately it was a detail I could have changed to make the scenario possible.
  11. Heh, you always answer the least pertinent question. Any idea about the others?
  12. Why? What about a pole that is 75 000 000 000 m long? You think that is impossible? A spacship spitting the pole out while making it as it moves in a strait line with negligable gravitational forces acting apon it should be able to do it. In this case it would still take 3 or so minutes for the other end of the pole to start rotating. How do you take into account the fact that much of the mass has no bearing on the immediate part of the pole, until the far end of the pole feeds back that it is rotating? I want to know if there is a way to factor that amount of time into it. Or to reverse the question, is it possible to measure the mass of a pole that is longer than a light minute, by measuring how hard it is to rotate? (not that it matters how long it is, but a light minute would produce a perceptible difference, whereas in a metre long pole, the time it takes for the force to be felt throughout the pole would be negligable)
  13. So rods are more sensitive to light, right? Does your brain make up for that by ghosting the part of the image you receive from the center of the eye into subsequent...frames? I ask because I can see black lines and waves in my CRT monitor and TV out of the corner of my eye, but not when I'm looking at them dead on.
  14. Highschool physics does it all the time with 100 percent efficiency scenarios. Anyway, I don't believe the following violates any laws, and is my main point anyway. I just want to know if I got it right or not. And if not, where I went wrong. A super-dense object that could possibly exist would be hard to move, as you have to initiate a compression wave in a material that really resists it. In this case you have to influence alot of matter in one go, compared to something that was not so dense. This is really hard to visualise, I know, because it sounds obvious... (duh, the object has mass, so it's hard to push) What I am saying is that the denser an object is the more of it is acted upon at the same time when a force is applied... therefor, the closer an object gets to infinately dense, the closer the force being distributed through it gets to the speed of light. Sound moves faster in denser materials, right? What I'm asking is if the reason that sound moves faster in dense materials is the same reason that dense materials have more inertia, because more matter moves/time?
  15. Awesome, that was my point! Sorry, I'm finding it really hard to explain what I mean, so I'm forced to use examples, and hope someone can extrapolate what I mean. Erg...
  16. 1) If you had a lightyear-long pole made of some sort of exotic, super-strong material that would not bend under any circumstances, would it be impossible to move due to the fact that the far end would have to react faster than the amount of time it would take for the information from you to reach it? 2)Would a voluminous material strong enough to hold its shape perfectly be impossible, or would it be impossible to move? 3)Would something strong enough to hold its shape perfectly have to be infinate in density? 4.1)Singularities can move. Is this because they are infinately small in volume? 4.2)Something with volume and infinate density would be infinate in mass, and impossible to move, correct? 5) Is the mechanism that causes matter that is moving at near to light-speed hard to accellerate further the same mechanism that causes more momentum in dense masses compared to less dense masses? 6) Is 5) due/related to the fact that denser objects hold their shape better than objects of less density? If 5) and 6) are true, could someone show me the formulae that compare them?
  17. Two reasons: No original research: Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. Verifiability: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. I bet if you find articles on the web about SFN (as long as they are reputable... and not yours...) and you cite them, the SFN article will not be deleted. Personally, I think the SFN article reads like a search engine description. It needs some proofreading too.
  18. Do you mean sexually transmitted diseases, or diseases that might have more of an impact on one sex than the other? Genetic diseases may be passed down through the family line; diseases, which, due to certain genes passed on from parent to child, are more likely to be contracted by someone with those genes, or are themselves abnormalities that may be passed on from parent to child. An example of a sex-related disease would be breast cancer, which is much more likely to pop up in a woman. A sex-specific disease would be something like cervical cancer, which a man can't get at all. You can look them all up on wikipedia.org.
  19. You could arbitrarily pick a reference somewhere out in space to use as your central zero negative reference point if you wanted... but it is still in motion compared to almost everything else in the universe, therefor, that point of reference would be no more valid than anything else in the universe. You, sunspot, illustrated this in your runner post, as has been mentioned. It's just that there is no point in space that falls outside of this. Every point in space has relative motion to something else, everyone understands that. So what could possibly make any one point more special that any other point?
  20. Coder, scripter, copy-paster? ...Power user?
  21. It is... you have 10 minutes to remove this thread... Or I shall smite thee, just as I have smited many a banana which has come before... conveniently, with a non-slip surface, point at the top for ease of entry, just the right shape for the human mouth, and contents that don't squirt in your face. Hmm... that came out gayer than I would have liked.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.