PureZC's Science and Astronomy Class
#106
Posted 10 October 2008 - 03:09 PM
#107
Posted 11 October 2008 - 05:27 PM
#109
Posted 11 October 2008 - 10:49 PM
I'm realizing now, though (sorry to change the subject), that the sun must have an atmosphere. If it burns through gases like hydrogen, their separation would cause them to rise, and bond again. And then bonded they would fall again and fall into the fire. So there must be SOME atmosphere.
#111
Posted 14 October 2008 - 01:23 AM
Scientists call things they don't understand "dark." Here is "Dark Flow," another astronomical mystery for you to think about. Wheeeee!
#112
Posted 16 October 2008 - 07:51 PM
It isn't impossible for something to go faster than light, it is only impossible for something to accelerate to the speed of light and beyond. So if something is created going faster than light, then it it is going faster than light and you can't really argue. Also, the speed of light isn't constant.
[post not directed specifically at Siguy]
Sorry to grave dig, but I just wanted to point out that general relativity says that speeds past the speed of light are impossible, because we already travel through spacetime at the speed of light. So, I don't think you can accelerate even to the speed of light. The faster an object is moving, the more energy it has. E=mc^2, the more energy something has, the more massive it is. The more massive something is, the more energy it takes to increase it's speed through space at an exponential rate (or some rapidly growing rate.) At 99+% the speed of light the amount of energy starts increasing insanely fast. If your knowledgeable in math it's basically like concave exponential curve with a horizontal asymptote at the speed of light (I'm relating amount of energy needed to push faster (x) to speed through space f(x).) So, I'm pretty sure that only things that start at the speed light can go that fast.
Just wanted to clear this up.
Side note, I feel that it's a good thing for everyone to understand general relativity. It drastically changed the way I view the universe, after studying it over the summer, though I already had an understanding of curved space, the relativity part of it was intense.
#113
Posted 17 October 2008 - 10:20 AM
#114
Posted 17 October 2008 - 04:49 PM
Also the pendulum in your signature. You say time is A? Are you sure it isn't acceleration since V is velocity? Or I don't understand it? It's amusing to watch.
Edited by Red Phazon, 17 October 2008 - 04:53 PM.
#115
Posted 17 October 2008 - 08:41 PM
Also, the pendulum's just a play on words that I came up with-it's not supposed to make sense
#116
Posted 18 October 2008 - 12:09 AM
but hrm...yeah, the north and south poles, as they aren't "poles" per say, don't have a circumference. They are points, and as my geometry teacher would say, they are infinitely small.
#117
Posted 28 September 2009 - 05:13 PM
I have one thing to say about it.
Duh!
That is all.
#118
Posted 28 September 2009 - 05:20 PM
Back on topic, water on the moon would be quite beneficial to future colonization...but of course it would have to be drinkable by human standards. I forgot which planet/moon had ice on it, but wasn't it composed of methane...?
#119
Posted 02 October 2009 - 03:27 PM
Scientists should send a case of Aquafina to Mars.
Edited by jerome, 02 October 2009 - 03:30 PM.
#120
Posted 14 October 2009 - 11:36 AM
Anyone here into the propaganda that they call 2012?
Any beliefs or ideas on the subject?
I know what they say scientifically, but I want to know what you all think.
Tell me yours and I'll tell you mine.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


