MigL

While you could model the combined behavior of a large number of people in the same manner that Statistical Thermodynamics does with particles, you would not get valid results. Particles interact with each other in a specified way, all the time; people, on the other hand, interact in totally unpredictable ways. You could, for example, have a lot of computing power dedicated to analysing the voting habits of very small demographics, and then doing the equivalent of finite element analysis to obtain the combined outcome. But then, one person goes crazy and shoots the president...

I don't do LaTex either Pavel, so bear with me... Take a ball and throw it up in the air with speed v. It will reach a certain height h, at which point all its kinetic energy has been swapped for gravitational potential and its speed is zero. It then falls back down and again swaps potential for kinetic, such that, if we disregard air resistance, it would land with the same speed. Now take that same ball and throw it with speed v+x, it will now reach higher, say h+y, at which point its speed is zero. Note that now both balls are at rest compared to the planet, but the second ball is higher in the gravitational potential well than the one we first considered. And what happens ? As the second ball swaps its higher potential for higher kinetic, the impact speed is now v+x. The conclusion we would reach is that a body, starting from rest, at a higher gravitational potential than another, will impact the ground with a higher speed than the other ( disregarding air resistance, of course ) The throw, or orbit, of a ball. easily and correctly scales to planetary distances ( that's why its called universal gravitation ), so this result also applies to planetary bodies. Note however, that if a body has an initial speed towards the other body, but is not on a radial trajectory, the 'sling-shot' effect will boost it to above escape speed ( in a different direction ).

If you take a gram of something and compress it to within its Swartzchild radius, it will be a microscopic black hole. If you take a ton of something and similarily compress it, it will also be a ( slightly bigger ) micro black hole. If you compress a star ten times the size of our sun, it will be a black hole. None of these masses are infinite !

Oh I don't think you hate it. I think it comes naturally to you.

You're right. Back in the 70s, when discrete logic was used ( 74Sxxxx series ), any complex digital circuit would have been very heavy ( and large ). But with the advent of the microprocessor and other large scale integration, more integration meant more performance/weight and performance/price, in accordance with Moore's law. It was only in the middle to late 90s that ICs started running into heat and/or switching speed issues ( one drives the other ).

Very interesting wiki article Airbrush.

Correct me if I'm wrong Marc, but all I know about effective mass is from a 4th yr course in solid state physics, and if I remember correctly it is simply the 'apparent' mass of the electron as it moves through a semiconductor under the influence of various fields and other particles. The effective mass is, then, related to the material ( and its properties ) that its moving through. In effect it is a simplification of the problem, where the change to effective mass allows us to disregard the material and its properties in our calculations.

I haven't gone back and read previous pages, but you and Robbity aren't arguing the same thing Pavel. Robbity has clearly asked about terminal velocity at impact, while you're arguing orbital speeds. Your calculated escape velocities at different radii ( different depths in the gravitational well ) clearly show the point he was making. Or, I came in halfway through a conversation, haven't a clue what you guys were actually discussing and should keep my nose out of it.

Once a given mass is compressed inside a specific radius we ( and by we, I mean people who have actually done the calculations ) know of no force ( yes, not even magnetic repulsion ) that can resist the gravitational collapse. Whether the collapse goes all the way to a dimensionless point or not, is still unknown, for now. At the radius of the event horizon, not even light ( or any kind of EM radiation/massless particles ) moves fast enough to achieve escape velocity.

There is no evidence of proton decay ( yet ).

I would say the biggest driver for miniaturization of electronics was not payload reduction ( just to be contrary swansont ), but rather power draw and switching speed.

I get the impression there's more to this story than that, John. Sure the law is 100 % asinine, but the impression I get from the wording... "Patel delivered what she said was a stillborn fetus" is that the authorities may believe ( or even, have proof ) that the fetus was alive when she disposed of it in the dumpster. That would be the reason for the charges she was convicted of. But you bring up an interesting question... Assuming you are correct, that because of the law and societal pressures, she felt she had no other choice than to commit these acts of feticide and child neglect, how much of the blame can be placed on society ( who morally judge and make the laws ) and how much is personal responsibility. Keep in mind we don't have all the details, she was an adult, not a teenager, and her life was in no danger whatsoever

In the cold light of morning, 1-2 yrs does seem a little ambitious. Solely because there would be pressure from other countries against the program. But in a case of impending war ( do or die situation ) all of the mentioned countries have the resources, knowledge and technology to do so, if they need to. France was conducting nuclear research in the thirties ( and even much earlier if you consider that the Curies were French ). They set up Nuclear agencies and conducted research, but the go-ahead to go all out and build the French nuclear deterrent didn't happen until deGaulle came back to power at the time of the Algerian problems of 1958. Britain and France decided they needed nukes during the cold war, but I suspect they were still a little apprehensive about German intensions too, so soon after the war. Germany, even though they probably could have developed a nuclear deterrence by the 60s, realized that all those tactical nuclear weapons would be dropped on German soil, against the massive advancing Warsaw Pact armored divisions pouring through the Fulda gap. And IIRC my own country Canada, is the world's largest producer of medical radio-isotopes ( at Chalk River ) which are typically enriched in the range of 20-50 % ( going by memory ), and if they were to switch to Uranium enrichment, even 50 % would yield a 'crude' bomb. You would certainly need a better compression method than the tube with two half critical masses, or a two stage process with Lithium-6 Deuteride assist as used in the sandwich type, early Soviet thermonuclear bomb, before they got their hands on Teller and Ulam's research or the lost J. A. Wheeler papers ( I don't even know if that's a true story ). And although a nice stroll down history lane ( thank you ) , I'm afraid we've gone off-topic...

Point is .. They pay you for putting up with this woman. Its a lot easier than digging ditches, isn't it ? I hope they're paying her a lot more for putting up with your attitude.

Sorry, edited my post while you replied.

The latest enrichment methods, such as Separation of Isotopes by Laser Excitation ( SILEX ), faster and more efficient than centrifuging was developed in AUSTRALIA ! Germany and Italy bought F-104G fighter/bombers for low-level delivery of tactical nuclear weapons supplied by the US. NATO's NBMR-3 competition required the ability to deliver tactical nuclear weapons at low level from a VTOL aircraft. Did these pilots have to go to the nearest US Air Base to pickup their nuke before take-off ? France hadn't even rebuilt its infrastructure by 1955, never mind an atomic bomb. From deGaulle's go-ahead to actually build a bomb, to the first test, took only a couple of yrs.

You don't need centrifuges for gas diffusion enrichment. Two of those countries mentioned, Germany and Italy, actually had American supplied nuclear weapons. They didn't even need blueprints ! The fact remains, they do not want or need nuclear weapons, although they could easily have them. ( how long did it take France to develop its own nuclear weapons when it opted out of NATO ??? ) Why does the leadership of Iran think they do ? From iNow's post, it doesn't seem like the well educated, younger population of Iran need, or want them.

Its not that secret anymore. And you certainly don't need Cray supercomputers anymore to model the implosion for a thermonuclear device. But we're not even discussing thermonuclear fusion bombs ( although the early Soviet 'sandwich' type would be easiest ). A simple fission bomb requires either enriched Uranium, which doesn't necessarily need a reactor, or Plutonium, which does. Any of the countries mentioned have the know-how and technology to enrich Uranium or build a reactor. The blueprints for the bomb itself are available online.

Although I can't agree with the charge against her, I am appalled at the indifference she displays by disposing of the stillborn fetus in the dumpster behind the family's restaurant. Its too bad you can't at least slap uncaring, stupid people upside the head.

Really, you don't think Australia could have a working atomic bomb in a year ( or two ) because they have no nuclear reactors ? What nuclear reactors did America have in Oak Ridge or Los Alamos ? They have the know-how and the technology. Some of the other countries mentioned ( Canada, Italy, Germany, etc ) have the reactors also. There's a few people on this very forum who have the know-how ( but not the technology ). It is noteworthy that although the Shah Reza Pahlavi was imposed on his people, despised by the majority and ultimately deposed and exiled, he was the one who initiated the changes and secularism which helped Iran become more 'modern' than neighboring countries. And as bad as he was, Saddam Hussein did the same for Iraq.

And if I recall correctly Clinton made a similar arrangement with North Korea in exchange for aid. It was subsequently discovered that NK had gone ahead with their enrichment program. So another round of international discussions ensued and another deal was reached. But in the end NK was just extorting aid from the West and they got their nukes. If Iran wants nuclear weapons, it will get them and there isn't much we can do about it. Attacking them or their program will only justify their 'need' for such a program. Only a change in their leadership will bring about the trust needed by them and us ( the international community ) to NOT need nukes. Does anyone doubt for a moment that countries like Germany, Japan, Canada, Italy, Australia, etc., could not have nukes in less than a year if they wanted ? They choose not to have them because they trust the US to 'go to bat' for them in case of problems. Iran doesn't trust anyone and their leadership isn't trusted by anyone.

Stars only fuse elements up to iron ( #26 ). The minute ( in comparison ) amounts of heavier elements are not created in an energy releasing reaction, but energy must be supplied by a supernova explosion. All elements heavier than iron were created by the supernova explosion of some long dead giant, 1st gen , hot, blue star which 'lived fast and died young'. The shock wave of this dead star probably also started the compression which resulted in the formation of our solar system from the resultant mixture of heavier elements ( stardust ) and spiral arm hydrogen. There are islands of ( relative ) stability at atomic numbers higher than 120. I doubt these could be 'naturally' produced.

Problems led to the solutions which result in advancement. War provides a lot of problems.

There are life forms on our own planet that don't live in 'earth-like' conditions. Life has evolved around sulfide vents, under the pressure of 20000 ft of water, in the absence of light and oxygen. This is certainly not earth-like, but it is on earth. A variant of this lives in the hot, sulfide/CO2 rich atmospheres in volcanic cones. What would result in a million yrs, if we seeded the atmosphere of Venus with these micro-organisms ? There are even micro-organisms living in the high radiation waters of nuclear reactors. As Jeff Goldbloom's character said in Jurassic Park... "life will find a way" But some of The Devine Fool's claims are just that, divinely foolish .

If you consider a spiral galaxy, it keeps its shape for billions of yrs, and an orbit takes only several million yrs. If there was no dark matter, and the orbit was Keplerian, the galaxy would 'wind-up', and lose its spiral shape in a couple of orbits. It doesn't matter if its past, present or future, or even retrograde motion for that matter. As long as a galaxy keeps its spiral shape, there must be hidden mass involved in a particular arrangement.