Baby Astronaut

What's gonna be lost in the conversion? PMs Sigs Friends Quark, Lepton, Molecule, etc labels Rep comments Indent tags* Smileys Member Profiles YouTube embeds Thread subscriptions Hide** mooey's forums Whatever * like so **[hide]for example[/hide] Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedEdit to the above: place a question mark after each item on the list. Just basically wanna check in advance, to know what to back up here (for example PMs) and some just plain curiosity.

Whoops, I did mean to say anti-gravitons producing effects of anti gravity. Something odd, how couldn't being their own anti-particle end up destroying the boson?

I meant: would anti-gravity produce effects of anti gravity? I'm not quite sure if that's what your answer referenced. As for the original existence of anti-matter, do you know if that was possibly created by the anit-Higgs boson?

So if gravitons were to exist their antiparticles would perhaps be anti-gravity? Or the anti-Higgs boson would be the producer of anti-matter? Nice, thanks. I shall check it out.

Great find, Spyman. That means the black hole's definitely still gonna appear black. However, the part about excessive redshift (blackshift?) opens up a new implication: theoretically, it should be possible, that if for some reason the universe were everywhere full of *blackshifted* light we'd be totally unaware of it.

Wouldn't planck be the natural limit to infinite subdivisions? Isn't that 100 men working 10 hours?

Actually science is just now around the corner to explaining love, once it's pinpointed the elusive Huggs boson.

A lot of things make sense now, ajb. Jeez, I was thinking of the constructions as real entities one can actually physically inspect given the right tools. Question is, how can you tell it's only a mathematical construction when you encounter a scientific description or concept? Is there a list or database to check somewhere to see what's real (physical/observed) or mathematical?

That's a really great example. I'll definitely be using it to explain frames. New space is being created everywhere in the universe, meaning objects that are distant will be even further away by tomorrow, next day, etc. So if you add up all the new space between us and a distant galaxy, then the more further away the galaxy, the faster it's going to recede from us. After a while, the speed it recedes becomes greater than the speed of light. Also, to viewers from that galaxy we'd be receding at faster than light. But galaxies closer to us don't recede because our combined local gravity is stronger than the expansion.

Would anti-bosons exist too? (anti-force carriers?) For gravity, I can't see how the gravity waves ever caught up to objects that were receding faster-than-light due to expansion. Also, please clarify how electromagnetism would've slowed distant objects.

1. Does anti-matter have gravity? 2. If the universe expanded faster than light at its very beginning, then what caused all the stuff within it to slow down enough for any light to reach us from other sources?

@Spyman: perhaps you can edit those pics smaller and only enlarged when clicked, or a mod do it. Then your post is also easier to read. No, they function as descried. But maybe they're not black due to the relativistic images of objects frozen (eternally) on their way in.

Sure. But my question was... ...near the other side of an event horizon....wouldn't that have even less of it or anything/particles than the emptiest regions of intergalactic space? Not empty, but less full than the emptiest regions of deep intergalactic space. For example, let's place the black hole in the most empty regions of intergalactic space. Not much would be rushing in then, giving it a chance to have even less stuff near the horizon -- compared to the other neighboring space around the black hole.

Let's think. Supposedly, you'll never detect a black hole visually. It doesn't let anything -- including light -- escape. So all we'd see is a black patch of space. Yet also, if an object were to fall towards a black hole, we'd perceive it as eternally "frozen" on its journey due to relativity. Therefore, shouldn't a black hole appear as a messy, cluttered ball in space? Due to the accumulated multitudes of cosmic debris that should be "frozen" on all the edges of a black hole.

Clarify please?

Yes. Exactly. And so probably, from within the black hole, the light can't move towards the event horizon again. I'm guessing from within a black hole, nothing can escape its event horizon or move towards it. Once inside the event horizon, anywhere within it, nothing can escape from its position to move towards the event horizon. So logically, it'd seem just inside the event horizon would potentially be clear of "debris" and/or light. Because once something passes any distance towards the black hole's center, it's physically impossible for that something to ever move in the opposite direction -- according to the known laws of physics.

Light is everywhere, it's said. But what about near the other side of an event horizon....wouldn't that have even less of it or anything/particles than the emptiest regions of intergalactic space?

If space is really discreet, what's between each "packet" -- nothingness? A lack of space? However...it could be all those (otherwise) empty areas would get filled in by random other discreet stuff, made 100% snug along their borders, so we'd never find a sliver of an empty place in the universe. So basically in other words....space might not be continuous, yet the universe might be: existing as a seamless collage of discreet everythings. Who knows. Unless of course, I'm entirely wrong about the (discreet space) concept's meaning or use in the first place. Though it seems not exactly a foregone conclusion that space is discreet, according to what Martin had said a few years back.

Does that mean any irrational number doesn't change type regardless of what base you use? Is there any example where the quality of a number (or its smoothness of use in an equation) changes when switched to a different base?

I had wondered if looking for Pi in a different base other than "10" would produce finite or repeating decimals. So using the formula circumference/diameter I started with the normal base 10, as a control, putting 23.12/7.36 into the WolframAlpha engine, of course getting 3.14..... (infinitely non-repeating as usual). And then I changed it from base 10, entering "23.12/7.36 in base 5". I also tried it with all other bases from 1-20, also 100, and a few in between. Oddly, every single result had the numbers repeating after only less than fifteen digits. Cap'n Refsmmat advised me just input "pi in base (anything)" to see what happens. And of course doing that returned it back to the familiar infinite non-repeating progression again. However, there's one reasonable possibility I'd like to eliminate before accepting the results. When you enter "Pi in base ___" into the Wolfram engine, does it make the conversion to "base ___" from the already known non-repeating Pi number (located within its database), or does it attempt to calculate Pi from scratch with each different base number you enter? If they calculate from a non-repeating Pi already written in their database, of course it would give non-repeating numbers in any base you calculate for. So might anyone shed expert light on the matter?

Anyone know how to phrase the search terms in Google for converting a "base 10" number into a different base number? I already visited several online converters yet they're only good for computing whole numbers, but I'm looking to convert decimal numbers as well. Google usually solves math problems you enter, but here it only returns websites that have converters. So either I did it wrong or Google doesn't convert base numbers -- even though I put in only whole numbers.

Just thought of something. In a different universe that consists of anti-matter, its scientists probably would label ours anti-matter. i.e. viewing theirs as "normal". Did you notice that article was categorized under "Health News"?

What do you think? http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20100518/sc_space/whyweexistmatterwinsbattleoverantimatter The seemingly inescapable fact that matter and antimatter particles destroy each other on contact has long puzzled physicists wondering how life, the universe or anything else can exist at all. But new results from a particle accelerator experiment suggest that matter does seem to win in the end. The experiment has shown a small — but significant — 1 percent difference between the amount of matter and antimatter produced, which could hint at how our matter-dominated existence came about. ........ "Many of us felt goose bumps when we saw the result," said Stefan Soldner-Rembold, a particle physicist at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom. "We knew we were seeing something beyond what we have seen before and beyond what current theories can explain."

Besides gases and thermonuclear reactions, does the sun ever have fire on it? A related question: if the Earth's atmosphere didn't have oxygen -- say it was a mixture composed solely of hydrogen, nitrogen, and other gases -- can a normal fire still be lit if there were enough hydrogen in our atmosphere? I'm thinking since either oxygen or hydrogen alone is flammable and/or can be highly explosive, it stands to reason you can produce a flame with either. Therefore on the sun also, I must wonder if the hydrogen that's not yet fusing -- the part of it nearer the surface -- would burst into flame due to the heat generated by the already fusing hydrogen occurring nearer to the center.

Maybe the Cap has access to the paper through the university, and if so I'd like to have a glance at it as well. Also, since the paper's nearly fourteen years old, some better/updated info likely exists by now. Abstract In this review of the scientific literature on the relationship between vegetable and fruit consumption and risk of cancer, results from 206 human epidemiologic studies and 22 animal studies are summarized. The evidence for a protective effect of greater vegetable and fruit consumption is consistent for cancers of the stomach, esophagus, lung, oral cavity and pharynx, endometrium, pancreas, and colon. The types of vegetables or fruit that most often appear to be protective against cancer are raw vegetables, followed by allium vegetables, carrots, green vegetables, cruciferous vegetables, and tomatoes. Substances present in vegetables and fruit that may help protect against cancer, and their mechanisms, are also briefly reviewed; these include dithiolthiones, isothiocyanates, indole-3-carbinol, allium compounds, isoflavones, protease inhibitors, saponins, phytosterols, inositol hexaphosphate, vitamin C, Image -limonene, lutein, folic acid, beta carotene, lycopene, selenium, vitamin E, flavonoids, and dietary fiber.