Science Help

[Diamond187]

I'm just posting this to let everyone know that I have a strong science background and should anybody need help with Science up to a 2nd year College level in Physics, Chemistry and Math and a first year level in Bio, I'm your man. I'm thinking to major in quantum theory and such, so any relativistic paradoxes and thoughts on quantization are welcomed for the sake of discussion as well.

[JOYA]

What does gravity mean? :-k

J/K. :lol:

[Diamond187]

Hehe, the really funny part, is you don't know what you're getting into. Classic theory says it's just a field of force which pulls masses to other masses whereas general relativity says that gravity is actually a distortion in space-time which bends the path of objects towards other masses. The general relativity idea gets REALLY complicated. Plus, nobody actually knows how gravity works in the first place, though we assume it operates at the speed of light.

[kevinok]

Oh no bad memorys from physics last year are coming back. I got into so many debates with the teacher on this topic.

[JOYA]

Hehe, the really funny part, is you don't know what you're getting into. Classic theory says it's just a field of force which pulls masses to other masses whereas general relativity says that gravity is actually a distortion in space-time which bends the path of objects towards other masses. The general relativity idea gets REALLY complicated. Plus, nobody actually knows how gravity works in the first place, though we assume it operates at the speed of light.

*nods head and smiles*

[Diamond187]

Hehe, well this is the place to start the debates all over again.

[JOYA]

Hehe, well this is the place to start the debates all over again.

*silence* I don't hear any debates. :lol:

[Diamond187]

Meh, I guess not enough ppl know enough about super high speeds to bring anything up with me, but, again, any science questions are welcomed. If I can't give you a straight answer, I'll at least give a direction to try.

[Namhet]

I'm not getting involved in this, but hoo boy, this might get pretty heavy :D

[Afterburner]

The classic explanation of general relativity is this:

Suppose the universe is this big sheet pulled taut at both ends. (Look it up at dictionary.com if you don't know what taut means).

If you drop a large marble in there representing the Sun, the sheet will curve down, thereby drawing other marbles toward it.

The larger it is, the stronger the pull and the wider the range.

[jason]

Hm.. now for a 12 year old view on gravity: i think it works by the earth's rotation and thye um.. ozne layer and the sun weighs it down sorta it creates a field of heat and when it hits the ozone layer it turns into um.. invisible weight that is spread evenly across the earth

[kevinok]

WOW I am just going to act like a didn't hear that Jason. On the other hand that is a very intresting way of putting it Afterburner.

[Diamond187]

Yeah, that's MUCH clearer than the geodesic disk, spatial distortion talk I got.

[Vagrant]

I've heard that before Afterburner, and it does make a lot of sense. But what if we could just tear that little center of the blanket, and then we got a black hole. ;-)

[Diamond187]

Hehe, more like dropping something heavy enough to drag the blanket down to the floor. A tear might be like some kind of wormhole leading to alternate dimensions and... wait, I'm taking this too far, aren't I...

[kevinok]

And then when it folds you get worm holes.

[Afterburner]

Well, wormholes are only theoretical.

And yes, a tear would be a black hole, because if you drop something really heavy then it would tear it, just like a black hole is unbelievably dense.

[Vagrant]

I doubt wormholes would work on the example, but yes, something heavy enough would cause a black hole.

[Diamond187]

Well, I know this is a moot point, but a tear doesn't exactly work as an analogy for a black hole, cuz a tear has no attractive force to it. Sure, anything that lands on the tear is sucked in, but unless you're right on the tear, nothing happens.

[ToKillAnATTICUS]

Unless.. The tear happens at the Center of the universe, like as the super massive black holes do :) right?! I saw it on discovery channel... And anyways...

Diamond187 just wondering, What are your views on the super string theory, I've being reading about it on the net, and supposedly it's the "Theory Of Every Thing" as Einstein Called it(Or some one important)..

[Afterburner]

I shouldn't say tear. Imagine a tiny needle pushing down. It bends it further and further down, and eventually has a long deep infinitely long hole.

[kevinok]

Well, I know this is a moot point, but a tear doesn't exactly work as an analogy for a black hole, cuz a tear has no attractive force to it. Sure, anything that lands on the tear is sucked in, but unless you're right on the tear, nothing happens.


This also doesn't work for a few other reason, one space is 3d not 2d. Second tears like that grow larger all the time so at one point everything will be sucked in.

[Diamond187]

I'm not that familiar with the super-string theory, I think I've heard of it tho, just brush over it for me and see if I remember anything about it.

[Afterburner]

it says all matter is made of tiny vibrating strings.

[skicks]

im good with science and math but if i need any help ill ask u ... chances r,r that im not goin to need help , but ill keep u in mind

[theryman]

The classic explanation of general relativity is this:

Suppose the universe is this big sheet pulled taut at both ends. (Look it up at dictionary.com if you don't know what taut means).

If you drop a large marble in there representing the Sun, the sheet will curve down, thereby drawing other marbles toward it.

The larger it is, the stronger the pull and the wider the range.


Exactly. Its like a big cushion. Everything in orbit is sloooooooowly getting pulled toward what they are orbiting. That is why sattelites fall. *sarcasm* so someday, the moon is gonna crush us all * sarcasm*

[Liokae]

It will, actually, but not for the reason you're assuming. In a frictionless envrionment, objects can fall continuosly as long as the move fast enough horizontally. That's why objects in orbit are in what is called free-fall. However, because even in space there is the occasional bit of matter, there is a tiny amount of friction, and given an infinite amount of time, the moon's orbit *would* decay and crash into the Earth.

[The First]

Thus the decaying orbit NASA programs for it's probes.

[Diamond187]

That would be a ridiculously small amount of friction. It's probly negligible for NASA satellites.

[Afterburner]

It will, actually, but not for the reason you're assuming. In a frictionless envrionment, objects can fall continuosly as long as the move fast enough horizontally. That's why objects in orbit are in what is called free-fall. However, because even in space there is the occasional bit of matter, there is a tiny amount of friction, and given an infinite amount of time, the moon's orbit *would* decay and crash into the Earth.

Unless you count dark matter and incredibly infinitesimal and negiligible atoms, there is NO friction in space.

[Liokae]

It will, actually, but not for the reason you're assuming. In a frictionless envrionment, objects can fall continuosly as long as the move fast enough horizontally. That's why objects in orbit are in what is called free-fall. However, because even in space there is the occasional bit of matter, there is a tiny amount of friction, and given an infinite amount of time, the moon's orbit *would* decay and crash into the Earth.

Unless you count dark matter and incredibly infinitesimal and negiligible atoms, there is NO friction in space.

Given an infinite amount of time, no amount of matter is negligible.

Granted, the sun will go nova long, long before Luna's orbit decays, so it's really a moot point anyways.

[Vagrant]

Liokae, it will actually crash sooner. I think it's orbits have been calculated, and it will crash sooner than the nova. Came from the Earth, returned to the Earth.

The theory the scientists are trying to use by bending space and time is like folding the blanket and jumping from one side to another.

[Liokae]

Liokae, it will actually crash sooner. I think it's orbits have been calculated, and it will crash sooner than the nova. Came from the Earth, returned to the Earth.

Really? Hadn't heard that. What is the timeframe for its decay, then?

[Afterburner]

Whatever it is, it's sooooooo long we have billions of other things to worry about.

[Liokae]

To worry about, certainly. I'm just asking for curiosity's sake. :)

[Afterburner]

worry about proton decay then :)

[HungryMonkey]

Lets worry about something that will hit in less than um, a millinea!? like that asteriod in 800 and something years. Think we could stop it?

[Vagrant]

We could stop the asteroid, but I doubt the moon.

[kevinok]

Um it really depends on how big, how fast, and the make up of it.

[Diamond187]

Umm, I think in 800 years, we could stop quite a large asteroid with relative ease...

[HungryMonkey]

It would have to be more a push then any thing else, explosions are poiyless in space.

[Diamond187]

Explosions have every effect in space that they do on Earth, they are just much more quiet.

[Afterburner]

we'll just nuke it out...IF we see it first.

[The First]

Nuke it and then you have lots of small rocks that will hit the earth. True, they may burn up in the atmosphere, but it's still not a pleasant thought. And to pulverize the moon or an asteroid with that size, you'd need quite a powerful nuke, one who's shockwave would without doubt hit the earth. No, explosions ar ebest used to change an objects path.

[Liokae]

Explosions involving shaped charges, certainly. We'd want something closer to a rocket engine than a bomb.

[Diamond187]

Also, well placed explosives, while not powerful enough to destroy the object could be strong enough to alter the path of the object significantly.

[kevinok]

I say we would most likely try to move it.

[Liokae]

Brilliant contribution, stating the idea that we've been expanding on for the past several posts. Hint, Kevin: Posts are supposed to *add* something to a topic. Like bitter cynicism.

[Advanced]

Cool i am really going to need you this year in my chemistry and math classes they keep getting harder and harder. ALso my Phyicis class 2 im in Chem AP Calc AP and Physics Acc. :(

:arrow: Advanced :roll:

[kevinok]

Okay well if it is magnetic. Then I think we might do somethings with magnets. Or we would some how attach rockets to it and turn it.

[Vagrant]

Personally, by that time, I think we'll have energy weapons, with which we could pulverize the asteroid.

[Diamond187]

LOL, in 800 years, yeah, I should hope so. That's 400 years after Star Trek is supposed to take place.

[kevinok]

YAY I am a trekie.

[Afterburner]

Cool i am really going to need you this year in my chemistry and math classes they keep getting harder and harder. ALso my Phyicis class 2 im in Chem AP Calc AP and Physics Acc.

Hmph. I have to take AP Calculus, AP History 2, AP Biology, AP Chemistry, AND AP English, AND I'm still a junior.

[Liokae]

Quiet down, afterburner. AP Calculus BC, AP Computer Science 2, AP Physics, AP English IV, AP Statistics, AP Economics, and AP Governement. Along with that I've already taken everything you had last year with more APs besides it.

[Afterburner]

PWNED...wait...I got pwned...

Well, I am 3 years younger than you, and those are ALL the AP classes my school offers.

[Fiz]

Hey Diamond, I'm right up your alley bro! We could have some great debates! 4th year Computational Physics at the University of Alberta.

[Diamond187]

Well, you're probly a little over my head, but I'm sure I can come up with something.

[Fiz]

No, I think we're about the same. I'm just now entering the calculus world of physics...up until now I've only done regular physics courses and a few astronomy courses...Mostly I've taken computing science courses so far.

Whatever extra knowledge I have about physics is purely through my own interest. :)

[Fiz]

Two points to add to this discussion, and feel free to contest my opinions if you disagree:

(1) The Sun will not go nova. Its not massive enough.

(2) If the moon's orbit does decay given an infinite amount of time (like Liokae said), it actually would not collide with the Earth. The reason for this is something called the Roche Limit. The Roche Limit is the distance from a planet where the tidal forces are large enough to break another gravitational body into pieces. In the Earth's case, this limit is 16 072 km (or just under 10 000 miles), which is 24 times closer to the Earth than the Moon is.

If you give the moon an infinite amount of time to decay its orbit, even if it does decay to the point where the Roche Limit exists, the Earth would tear the moon into little pieces and we would then have rings around our planet like the outer planets do. This is how the rings of Saturn and Neptune were formed. Dead moons that strayed too close to the planet.

Lemme ask you this then...if satellites are within the Roche Limit, how come they stay together? I'll give 5 X-Cash to whoever can answer this. :)

[Piccokuh]

the satellite will stay together if the satellite's structure is strong enough to resist the titdal forces. Or some such.

[Fiz]

Nnnnope...you're kinda on the right track though!

[Diamond187]

My guess is that the satellites are much too small to be affected by that, since the chunks the moon would break into would still be much larger than a satellite. I can't give a more precise answer than that cuz I've never looked into that stuff, but that's my guess.

[Fiz]

Nope, it doesn't have anything to do with the size of the object, but good thought!

I'll give you guys the answer when I get home from classes today.

[Fiz]

Oops, forgot all about this... :)

The answer to the question of why satellites don't break up into little pieces even though they are well within the Earth's Roche Limit is because they are held together by chemical bonds, whereas the moon is held together by its own gravity.

Nothing composed of chemical bonds will be affected by the Roche Limit, otherwise we wouldn't be able to survive here on Earth.

[Diamond187]

Oh yeah, seems logical, since electrical bonds would be way stronger than any gravitational bonds.

[HungryMonkey]

I have a simple question, what is an atomic number? I forget. Easily.

[Fiz]

Its simply the number of protons found in an atom's nucleus.

[HungryMonkey]

I knew that, um, I was trying to see if you did!