Spyman

Density has no impact on the strenght of gravity, but distance has. The planets would attract each other or a spacecraft with the same strenght, but a person visiting the surfaces would feel a difference since with different densitys the planets would also have different radius.

Wouldn't that depend on the density of the planet ? The Moon has 1/80 the mass of Earth but you would weight 1/6 of your weight there. Uranus have ~16 times more mass than Earth but your weight there would only be ~90 percent of on Earth. http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/weight/index.html Some astronomers have speculated that it may have a rocky core like Earth, with a thin atmosphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb If OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb has the same average mean density as Earth, I calculate an increase in weight of 176 percent from Earth gravity. Of course higher mass would indicate higher density as well, (more gravity to compress matter), but we don't know the composition of it, so it's only one estimate... That would mean a human with the weight 80 kg on Earth would weight around 141 kg there ! I guess that would be "uncomfortable" but not totally impossible to overcome. Do you have rough estimates of the surface gravity by professionals when you say "too much" ? Anyway this is what I wanted to post, apperently there is a new way to detect small exoplanets: Imaging Earth-like exoplanets is a daunting challenge because the dim starlight that such relatively small worlds reflect is easily overpowered by the glare of their far larger, brighter parent stars. Now two astrophysicists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., have devised new techniques that can overcome this glare, enabling future space telescopes to snap pictures of Earth-like exoplanets up to 10 billion times fainter than the stars they orbit. http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070418_tech_wednesday.html EDIT: This thread is in "Politics" ???

Well, I think the main argument is that they would have to start from scratch and compete with organisms that have billions of years of evolution in advance or have to fight entropy when synthesizing their necessary building blocks. And would the atmosphere really be cleaner and better if filled with nanites instead of CO2 ? What will happen to people who accidentaly inhale some of the nanites ? Grey goo refers to a hypothetical end-of-the-world scenario involving molecular nanotechnology in which out-of-control self-replicating robots consume all living matter on Earth while building more of themselves (a scenario known as ecophagy). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo ( Sorry for going of topic of GW ! )

The radius of the planet's orbit is 7 million kilometers, ~0.047 astronomical units, one eighth the radius of Mercury's orbit. This small radius results in a year that is 3.5 Earth days long and an estimated surface temperature of about 1000 degrees Celsius or around 1800 degrees Fahrenheit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_209458_b HD209458b is separated from its star by only about 4 million miles (7 million kilometers)—about 100 times closer than Jupiter is to our Sun—and is so hot scientists think about it is losing about 10,000 tons of material every second as vented gas. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070410_water_exoplanet.html

Normal matter and antimatter both have positive mass, so by the rules of energy conservation I would not recommend to cross hydrogen with antihydrogen. Quite a powerful boom when the two moles annihilate each other... Annihilation is defined as "total destruction" or "complete obliteration" of an object having its root in the Latin nihil (nothing). A literal translation is "to make into nothing". In physics, the word is used to denote the process that occurs when a subatomic particle collides with its respective antiparticle. Since energy and momentum must be conserved, the particles are not actually made into nothing, but rather into new particles. Antiparticles have exactly opposite additive quantum numbers from particles, so the sums of all quantum numbers of the original pair are zero. Hence, any set of particles may be produced whose total quantum numbers are also zero as long as conservation of energy and conservation of momentum are obeyed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation In antimatter-matter collisions resulting in photon emission, the entire rest mass of the particles is converted to kinetic energy. The energy per unit mass is about 10 orders of magnitude greater than chemical energy, and about 2 orders of magnitude greater than nuclear energy that can be liberated today using nuclear fission or fusion. The reaction of 1 kg of antimatter with 1 kg of matter would produce 1.8×1017 J (180 petajoules) of energy (by the equation E=mc²). This is about 134 times as much energy as is obtained by nuclear fusion of the same mass of hydrogen (fusion of 1H to 4He produces about 7 MeV per nucleon, or 1.3×1015 J for 2 kg of hydrogen). This amount of energy would be released by burning 5.6 billion litres (1.5 billion US gallons) of gasoline (the combustion of one liter of gasoline in oxygen produces 3.2×107 J), or by detonating 43 million tonnes of TNT (at 4.2×106 J/kg). Not all of that energy can be utilized by any realistic technology, because as much as 50% of energy produced in reactions between nucleons and antinucleons is carried away by neutrinos, so, for all intents and purposes, it can be considered lost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system changes as the system evolves. Any particular conservation law is a mathematical identity to certain symmetry of a physical system. A partial listing of conservation laws that are said to be exact laws, or more precisely have never been shown to be violated: * Conservation of energy * Conservation of linear momentum * Conservation of angular momentum * Conservation of electric charge * Conservation of color charge * Conservation of probability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law

Check out Wikipedia => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

How do you measure the difference in energy between a relaxed and stretched rubber band or spring ? Mass is the property of a physical object that quantifies the amount of matter and energy it is equivalent to. In classical mechanics, there are three types of mass or properties called mass: Inertial mass is a measure of an object's resistance to changing its state of motion when a force is applied. An object with small inertial mass changes its motion more readily, and an object with large inertial mass does so less readily. Passive gravitational mass is a measure of the strength of an object's interaction with the gravitational field. Within the same gravitational field, an object with a smaller passive gravitational mass experiences a smaller force than an object with a larger passive gravitational mass. (This force is called the weight of the object. In informal usage, the word "weight" is often used synonymously(confused with) with "mass", because the strength of the gravitational field is roughly constant everywhere on the surface of the Earth. In physics, the two terms are distinct: an object will have a larger weight if it is placed in a stronger gravitational field, but its passive gravitational mass remains unchanged.) Active gravitational mass is a measure of the strength of the gravitational field due to a particular object. For example, the gravitational field that one experiences on the Moon is weaker than that of the Earth because the Moon has less active gravitational mass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass With light you need to consider the relativistic mass... a photon's momentum is a function of its energy; it is not analogous to the momentum in Newtonian mechanics. E=mc2 is only valid when the object is at rest. If the object is in motion, we have E2=(mc2)2+(pc)2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity

Stars converts matter to energy by nuclear fusion generated by the gravitational pressure. The nuclear reactions in the core determines how much mass is converted. You can use E=mc2 to calculate how much energy the Sun radiates out in space or to calculate how much mass is converted by estimating how much energy is radiated. The Sun is thought to be about 4.57 billion years and in 4-5 billion years it is supposed to enter a red giant phase when Helium fusion begins. The most important fusion process in nature is that which powers the stars. The net result is the fusion of four protons into one alpha particle, with the release of two positrons, two neutrinos (which changes two of the protons into neutrons), and energy, but several individual reactions are involved, depending on the mass of the star. For stars the size of the sun or smaller, the proton-proton chain dominates. In heavier stars, the CNO cycle is more important. Both types of processes are responsible for the creation of new elements as part of stellar nucleosynthesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion The Sun is about halfway through its main-sequence evolution, during which nuclear fusion reactions in its core fuse hydrogen into helium. Each second, more than 4 million tonnes of matter are converted into energy within the Sun's core, producing neutrinos and solar radiation. The Sun will spend a total of approximately 10 billion years as a main sequence star. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun After millions to billions of years, depending on the initial mass of the star, the continuous fusion of hydrogen into helium will cause a build-up of helium in the core. Larger and hotter stars produce helium more rapidly than cooler and less massive ones. The accumulation of helium produces a gradual increase in the rate of fusion, because the higher density of helium (compared to hydrogen) at a given temperature causes the core to contract, which increases its gravitational self-compression, thus requiring the core to achieve a higher temperature to remain at steady state than when the helium concentration was lower. Eventually, hydrogen is exhausted in the core, and without the outward pressure generated by the fusion of hydrogen to counteract the force of gravity, the core contracts until either electron degeneracy becomes sufficient to oppose gravity, or the core becomes hot enough (around 100 megakelvins) for helium fusion to begin. Which of these happens first depends upon the star's mass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution

The hexagon appears to have remained fixed with Saturn's rotation rate and axis since first glimpsed by Voyager 26 years ago. The actual rotation rate of Saturn is still uncertain. http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-release-details.cfm?newsID=735

I doubt that, the OP seems more interested in defending his poetic wording...

Yes, that was what the OP was asking of, but that is not what the discussion is about, is it ?

d = distance (Earth mean radius) = 6 372 797 m m1 = Earth mass = 5 973 600 000 000 000 000 000 000 kg G = Gravitational constant = 0.00 000 000 006 674 2 Nm2kg-2 m2 = Body mass = 100 kg Calculation of force at mean radius: [MATH]F = G* \frac{m1*m2}{d^2} = 0.00 000 000 006 674 2 \frac{ 5 973 600 000 000 000 000 000 000 * 100 }{ 6 372 797 ^ 2} = 981.7 N[/MATH] Calculation of Earth mass at 980 N: [MATH]m1 = \frac{F*d^2}{G*m2} = \frac{980*6 372 797 ^ 2}{0.00 000 000 006 674 2*100} = 5 963 305 080 930 271 792 874 052 kg[/MATH]

Is this thread about possible aliens or ways of communication between humans ?

I would also go for higher battery voltage, but there exist solutions for large power outputs from 12V. Here is one with 12.5 kW of output power: http://www.victronenergy.com/upload/documents/PIN012601000-D-cUS.pdf

A link to read for question 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit

First I need to point out that 58V x 160 Ah is 9kWh and 12V x 640 Ah is only 7.7 kWh. You are not going to get more duration out of the new configuration. Whitout the mains supply and with a load of 1.1kW the batteries will only last for 7 hours max, I would guess 5 hours. Second, if the converter uses more than the charger can support the batteries will eventually drain, even with the mains supply. The converter will at least use 12 VDC 92 A to support 110 VAC 10 A. Third, the charger can probably be rebuilt to an output of 12 V but not likely to 92 A, I would guess more than 100 A is needed if to be running continusly. You are going to need a new charger to be running continusly. Even with a different converter for 58 VDC to 110 VAC you will start to drain the batteries with a load of around 5-6 Amps with the old charger. What you need is a converter with a bypass system so it will only use power from the batteries when the mains supply is off, then a good car battery charger should be enough to recharge and keep the batteries fit for fight. (Or a converter with bypass for 58 VDC to 110 VAC and keep the old charger.) Link about UPS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninterruptible_power_supply

Start here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

I don't agree, if it's possible to entangle 400 particles so that their new state contains more information than the 400 particles had before, in fact to more information than all particles in the entire universe contains, then that state would also need so much more memory to simulate. If you where to build a computer for simulating the entire universe, where would you draw the limit ? ( X groups of X entangled particles or 1 group of all particles entangled ) What is the maximum level of entangled particles in the universe now ? (12 on Earth) Achieving an entangled state of 400 particles is not easy, but it's not obviously hopeless and the quantum computing industry has set its target at several thousand. They're up to about 12 at the moment but they're very optimistic that within our lifetime they will achieve at least this 400. (from the link previous posted) How much information is handled if all particles in the universe would be entangled ? Of course if the computer running the simulation is made to handle all the information even if all particles would be entangled, there would not be any problems whatever we do. But then the computer would be so powerful that there would not be any need for fast approximations. (And the entire human civilization would only be a very tiny speck inside it, less than 400 particles.)

You misunderstood what I meant by "limits"... My point was about computer memory, the system would need to store every state of every particle in the simulation somewhere. So if there are limits on memory storage and we start to create states which need much more memory than the total universe then we force the system to use more and more memory and eventually we might exceed the maximum limit. What happens when you run an application which will consume more and more memory ? Slower computer, strange errors, memory loss, blue screen of death ? (Virus like behaviour ?)

While "the exact nature of the superdense matter in the core is still not well understood", I think they are predicted to cool gradually to become denser than Black dwarfs similar to White dwarfs timeline. But there is also models of Quark stars and mixed models with neutron shells and quark cores. This core has no further source of energy, and so will gradually radiate away its energy and cool down. Eventually, over hundreds of billions of years, white dwarfs will cool to temperatures at which they are no longer visible. However, over the universe's lifetime to the present (about 13.7 billion years) even the oldest white dwarfs still radiate at temperatures of a few thousand kelvins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dwarfs A quark star or strange star is a hypothetical type of star composed of quark matter, or strange matter. These are ultra-dense phases of degenerate matter theorized to form inside particularly massive neutron stars. It is theorized that when the neutron-degenerate matter which makes up a neutron star is put under sufficient pressure due to the star's gravity, the individual neutrons break down into their constituent quarks, up quarks and down quarks. Some of these quarks may then become strange quarks and form strange matter. The star then becomes known as a "quark star" or "strange star", similar to a single gigantic hadron (but bound by gravity rather than the color force). Quark matter/strange matter is one candidate for the theoretical dark matter that is a feature of several cosmological theories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_star A neutron star has some of the properties of an atomic nucleus, including density, and being made of nucleons. In popular scientific writing, neutron stars are therefore sometimes described as giant nuclei. However, in other respects, neutron stars and atomic nuclei are quite different. In particular, a nucleus is held together by the strong force, while a neutron star is held together by gravity. It is generally more useful to consider such objects as stars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

So, if we are SIMs and the system has limits, what will happen when we build a few of these... System failure, shut down, strange physical anomalys, alerting the creators ? (EDIT: Maybe termination by some Virus protection software ?) Or will our grand children be playing GODs to the SIMs in their "Game Boys" ?

OK, then I "rest my case" and we leave our disagreements behind, just noting different opinions... Not much more for me to add, but I will give you one last thought to chew on. How big would a quantum computer with a memory bank consisting of 400 entangled electrons be ? If you take a system of only 400 particles, and it could be, say, 400 electrons, you can put those into a quantum state called an entangled state, which can be described by a certain string of numbers, and it turns out that you need so many numbers to describe that state that it would exhaust the capacity of the entire universe to store it. In other words, there's more information in that state than can be contained in the entire universe. Entanglement and the universe as a computer http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23941

Hmmm, now you got me stunned ! Granted I don't know what "tongue in cheek" is really meaning, foreigner and all. But I didn't actually think that you seriously proposed this as proof, so... Have I offended you in any way ??? If thats the case then I am truly sorry ! Or don't you want the discussion to be serious ???

Then maybe you can read my first post, in your first thread, in a new light now. Farsight have only started two "Time Explained" threads. If you count the other "Xxxxx Explained" threads then this is the fifth.

This will be a looong reply, so I will cut down the quotes and reorder them little. No misunderstanding, and I think we agree on that part. I think we agree on this also. Or we are allowed to discuss it but not to find out the truth. Or they do care but have made a flaw that eventually will let us find out. (Which will force them to terminate the simulation. ) Agreement on the options too. Yes, the flaws would show up... But how do we know/prove that they are flaws of reality and not flaws of our theories ? You meantion this yourself here: And another one, that "pops up" in my mind, is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle - the simulation don't calculate everything exactly until we force it to, with our measurements. Here you are assuming that we are in a reality simulation. If we are in a simulation we don't know what a real reality is, physics as we know it might be different, especially if we are in a game. If we are in a simulation then the size of the computer is larger than our universe. Then we are virtual and inside it, we don't know what a real reality is. The Universe from start to now could be only an eyeblink for them. Better simulation = more computing power -> less computers. Few "super" computers - propability of science simulation goes up, propability of us inside simulation goes down. Plenty "super" computers - propability of pleasure simulation goes up, propability of us inside goes up too. But what is the propability of massive amounts of "super" computers and their capacitivity ? What we would call a scientific reality simulation today might be much less than what they use as fast approximations in the future. If we are in a simulation our reality could be a fast approximation in the real world. On Earth, up to today, yes. In other environments, it could be different. And if we are SIMs in a "cheap" game, how solid would it be then ? But I can agree with a fairly solid assumption. So if our own development of computers would have stopped before windows, which world would spend the most CPU-cyckles on non-windows, (DOS), games ? Why would they spend resources to upgrade old programs to fit their new hardware or repair their old computers if they think it's "boring" ? In the far future computers might be a rarity for collectors, they might have something completely else rendering computers useless. If we are inside a pleasure simulation in one of a massive amount of computers which all have plenty of processing power then probably the most detailed would be the most popular, wether the details are necessary or not. And once more: from inside we don't know what "a very crude fast approximation algorithm" is on outside. As you may have noted I have changed the word "game" to "pleasure" which would also include movies, with good enough computers movies could also be simulated. (No players) And like mentioned before: The players might be in the game or not, even if they are in they might not be on Earth, and if on Earth we might not be able to tell. Individuality: More or less what I said: In my opinion, there is to many speculations here, which all greatly favors it to be a "game" with approximations of a real world. That doesn't meant that the speculations or the conclusion is wrong, but I don't agree with the reasoning. And you are still repeatedly pointing out that since there is no players this can not be a simulation, which you said was not your main argument. If we are in a simulation and we are more likely to be in a game simulation where it's more probably to be players and still there are no players, then your reasoning is proved wrong. To use the reasoning the other way around, to prove that we are not in a simulation, is not good enough. I think you would need a lot of very solid measurable physical proof and we are not able to measure anything real from inside of a simulation. I don't think it's possible to prove that we are in a real world and not in an simulation. It might be possible to prove that we are in a simulation, depending on the system, but it will be really hard. To prove the purpose of the simulation will be much much harder.