Jump to content

[Tycho?]

Senior Members
  • Posts

    1192
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by [Tycho?]

  1. I can add a few comments, other things I dont know too much about. But ignore jackson33, he has no idea what he is talking about. I dont think time "stops" at the event horizon. Time dilation is related (in some way) to the strength of the gravitational field. The event horizon is just the limit where light can't quite escape. But gravity there is still finite, and so when talking about time dilation effects, I dont think the event horizon is different from anywhere else (except the singularity of course). As another note, Hawking radiation will not cause most black holes to evaporate. It does mean that black holes radiate energy, but the cosmic microwave background radiation alone is enough to counteract this, so a steller black hole will not have a net loss of mass. But for the meat of your point though, I dont think I can help you. Ive heard descriptions similar to yours and I'm none too sure what to make of them. Martin might be able to help you here, although I havn't seen him around for a while.
  2. If this technology were actually cheap, easy and clean then NASA would be all over for its use in spacetravel. NASA is always looking for new tech, and this would be extremely useful to them.
  3. [Tycho?]

    Why gravitons?

    When you post, please take a moment to read over what you wrote to make sure it makes sense.
  4. Here's the thing. If he was right, and cheap clean fusion was indeed this easy....... where the hell is it? Why has nobody built one? Why is NASA not all over this? Why are scientists around the world not shouting with joy that someone figured it out? I remain highly skpetical, I doubt this will come through.
  5. Is english not your native language? You make very strange gramatical mistakes in your posts, it makes me think I am not understanding you. If a meteor burns up in the atmosphere, the mass is not lost. Most of it will fall to the earth (as dust, not as acid rain). A tiny amount will remain in the atmosphere. Either way, no mass is "lost". It all contributes to the mass of the earth.
  6. I can see why whats-his-face got irritated. Light is a particle. Light is a wave. If you say one of these statements is incorrect, you are wrong, period. In his "pissed off today" post, I saw no errors in physics.
  7. 21 grams lost by people who die? ....what? The mass couldn't possibly be lost. If it were converted into energy it would be like a fusion bomb going off. Even if you got the number wrong, how can any mass just be lost?
  8. What in the world are you talking about? I never said anything stays in the atmosphere.
  9. Woah, why sinusodal? I rather doubt the mass of the earth would change periodically. I think it would be hard to just make up a non-linear function for the growth of the earth in very early days. You'd have to know a fair amount about how planets actually formed to be able to estimate these things. I dont know if anyone has such details on the early formation of the earth.
  10. I was looking for a Science Fiction forum though, a place to discuss science fiction concepts (the science behind sci-fi sorta thing). I stumbled into here, and saw the physics section, and decided to stay.
  11. Thanks for seeing the mistake. I thought 1.5% seemed big, but I didn't get around to checking the numbers (or checking the math).
  12. It doesn't matter if it burns up or not, its still adding mass to the earth. And are you saying you think the extinction of the dinosaurs had something to do with a change in earth's gravity?
  13. Quick calculation: Assume the earth has been adding 200 tons of mass every day, for say 200 000 000 years. This is a mass of 1.46x10^16 kg. This amount wouldn't affect the radius of the earth by a large amount, so we will take that to be constant. This results in 0.15m/s^2 difference back 200 million years ago. Current acceleration due to gravity at sea level is 9.8m/s^2, so thats a change of about 1.5%. Which is pretty large actually. I'm going to go look up some numbers on how much mass the earth gains to see if this number is actually accurate.
  14. Are you an idiot, or just being a troll?
  15. Social Entropy -- its one of the Penny Arcade subforums. Notoriously rough, although its mellowed out a ton in recent years. Just general conversation and joke making for the most part. Not for serious discussion. Debate and Discourse --another Penny Arcade subforum, for on-topic conversation. Ministry of Free Thought -- a subforum of Macaddict, a macintosh computer magazine. Its for discussion politics, religion and other things like that. Only 15 people regularly post there at one time, but I've been a member since I was 14, and I still like it. Totse forums --- a hive of stupidity for the most part, I spend most of my time there ripping into people who make things up about science.
  16. Revered really isn't the right word. He's famous, mostly because of his medical condition and the popular books that he has written. As physicists go he is important, but probably not as important as you would think. There are plenty of influential physicists who arn't known in the mainstream at all.
  17. Probably not much. http://www.wikipedia.com
  18. Yeah, if something is hot enough to be emiting x-rays its safe to say its a plasma.
  19. Uhhh no. Nobel prizes are given out years after the initial work was done, so time can be taken to properly verify it. His prize for the photoelectric effect came in 1921, 16 years after he wrote the paper. Any prize he got for GR would have been in the 30s or 40s.
  20. I always wondered about this as well, charge seemed like an odd property for a black hole to have.
  21. There are a few disadvantages to a system like that. 1) You have two things to reload. Ammo, and propellant. Two is more akward than a single contained package. 2) Your gun, even with not ammo in it, is now quite explosive.
  22. I dont think you know what you are talking about. That first point, about the external forces being equivilant to inertia and mass, or something. Can you back this up numerically? A property of intertia is that an object resists change in motion, but just because something resists a change in motion certainly does not insure that it is intertia. You'll need some equations here to back you up. I dont follow your analogy with these pulling teams, and increasing the matter/force on the earth, or whatever you are talking about. You'll need to make this explanation far more technical, or go straight to equations.
  23. How is the earth held at a central point? And how does this provide earth with an intertia? Mass does not have an apostraphe in it. How is the magnitude of the force the matter/energy relationship of the earth to the rest of the universe? What does matter/energy relationship mean? How does this mean mass? While this is probably true, why does it follow from the previous statement? Gravitational force has a fixed limit? What does this mean, what sort of limit?
×
×
  • 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.