questionposter

CHANGES in a gravitational field take time, but for reasons I don't understand completely, swan said that a static situation like, doesn't take time? Happens instantaneously? Like, how much time does it take to be able to be in a gravitational field? Because in relativity, if your in a static gravitational field, and the situation is "static", then the correlation between the gravitational fields is I guess instantaneous or is just established by a correlation, but in QM that situation actually requires force carrier particles to travel distance over time, and this simply sitting in a gravitational field is not an instantaneous or undefined action like in GR since particles would need to travel distance over time in order for it to happen.

Why would anyone think quantum mechanics isn't derived from logic? Granted, the actual paths of particles themselves don't follow conjunctions, they just "appear".

Mean orbital velocity of Jupiter+ mean orbital velocity of Mars Er actually before I had meant to say that because the orbital speed of the asteroid is in between those two and thus I could extrapolate the average amount of time it would take for it to orbit the sun, but apparently it just says 1199.647 days, and to find how many seconds that is, we do 1199.647*24 because 24 hours, then times 60 because 60 minutes in an hour, then times another 60 because 60 seconds in a minute, and we get about 1.03*10^8 seconds. Now lets try and find the average velocity to calculate the force. For acceleration, (v2-v1)/(t2-t1) (19.88km/s-0km/s)/(1.03*10^8s-0s)= approximately 1.93^-7km/s/s Then we multiply that by the mass to see how much force it carries if left fully intact 2.5*10^16kg * 0000000193*10^-7km/s/s = approximately 4.82*10^9N of force. Look ok so far? Now all we need to do is divide that number in half to see what happens in the situations that the energy is split evenly as well as a way to convert Newtons to units of heat and then we need to find out how much heat is taken to raise the temperature of the atmosphere of the Earth exactly 1 degree C or F to see how much half the asteroid's energy would raise the atmosphere, and then for the fragments we'd need to pick some kind of number that they are fragmented in to carry half the remaining force. If we divide the force by two, I would say we divide the mass by two, so after the first half of the asteroid is gone, we have 9km of asteroid divided into x pieces. I suppose we can also look and see what happens if all the energy is converted into units of hear and see how much it raises the atmosphere's temperature. For conversion of energy, I know that the force through friction converts some kinetic energy into thermal energy, but all I can remember is that kelvin is equal to some degrees newton, and all that really means to me at this point is that the symbol for Celsius or Fahrenheit is the Coefficient of Newtons in degrees Newtons. Perhaps there might be another way though, like perhaps we can use momentum to calculate how much thermal energy have of it's energy would release. The number of meteoroids in a meteor shower various greatly, but seem to often fall in the realm of 15-50 pieces per hour, although most of the things in a meteor shower are pieces of dust. http://meteorshowers...or_showers.html I didn't notice if it said on that website, but in all the meteor showers I've heard of, I've heard them lasting at least a day. For some reason I can't find any credible links saying how long meteor showers last, just wiki and yahoo answers.

Wait what? It doesn't matter if you accept it, it is what it is, and there's proof of its existence...

The evidence is that this happens on a smaller scale. I don't think anyone wants to test this with Earth. Did you even read the wood analogy? http://science.howst...question486.htm Unless you want me to prove its possible for an asteroid to transfer both Newtons and thermal energy? Also, I'm not doing rigorous mathematics for some forum, I'll try and look up some basic things, but if it works on a smaller scale, based on our currently knowledge, a larger meteor should have the same principal, and there's no reason for it to not. There's also the evidence in history. Also again, the wood analogy? Do you honestly think its possible for 10000 pebbles 4-5 at a time tossed by someone will destroy a large wooden board? Also, semantics are important in this. You keep saying fragments like they are all one thing, but not only are they separate objects, but they obviously come in different sizes. What if the fragments are 20000km large? Don't you think that's a pretty big difference than 1 foot? And don't you think 1 foot is a big difference between 1cm? Let's use gaspara as a reference http://en.wikipedia....wiki/951_Gaspra mass: 2.5*10^16kg velocity of gaspara: http://www.brighthub...cles/64710.aspx 951 Gaspra: With an average orbital velocity of 19.88 kilometers per second, Gaspra orbits in the main asteroid belt. It was the first asteroid to have been closely approached by the Galileo spacecraft on October 29 1991. If we say the speed stays constant, the acceleration won't change, but since it had to have gained energy to go at that speed, I guess we can say it starts at 0/km/s then goes to 19km/s, but, no idea how long it would have taken for that to happen. When the solar system was forming? No, it would have gained speed in a faster amount of time, it's probably been traveling around that speed since, The orbital velocities of jupiter and mars http://nssdc.gsfc.na...t/marsfact.html http://nssdc.gsfc.na...upiterfact.html The orbital velocity of the asteroid is between those two. Since the asteroid probably orbited the sun to get to its speed that it currently has now, but more likely only did a half orbit before flying off, we can use the average time it takes between both mars and jupiter to orbit the sun divided by two as a sort of auxillary reference for how much time it took the asteroid to orbit the sun and gain its acceleration. I'm done for now, I'll get back to this later.

I don't know exactly how more CO2 would create friction, but wind is caused from a difference in air pressures. For the most part, CO2 tries to be homogeneous throughout the atmosphere, and when two air masses of different densities past by each other, as far as I know there isn't that much heat generated by friction, but rather swirls and eddies and thunderstorms. A lot of the times airs are treated as ideal gases which don't have really any electro-magnetic attraction, just elastic collisions, and for the most part this is how it works in many terrestrial circumstances.

I repeated at least a couple times that the environment would become more harsh, however, an equal deflection for energy of both the atmosphere and land in the form of both kelvins and newtons of a 10km might split the difference enough for many parts of the world to not be completely destroyed. If it did somehow have enough kelvin to heat up the Earth and cause it to go into a cool even though that's also based off the location of the continents, much of the tropical region could easily still be very habitable. However, if there's warming, there's large floods due to the rise in the ocean level from the melting ice, in which case civilizations aren't destroyed, just pushed together more. I'm not saying its easy or that there won't be consequences, which is somehow what you got from me repeatedly stating how various things would have various negative consequences. I even mentioned that the Earth could cool to a great extend specifically. It won't be as if nothing happened, the environment would just be more hostile in some way, if the meteor is properly fragmented and deflecting it didn't work. A 10km meteor with our current technology to not only reduce its speed, but to break it up into pieces of a relative size might be the answer for a 10km meteor. For something much bigger, anyone can say is if it's intact, it will shatter the crust, and if not, it will heat up the atmosphere too much, perhaps even past the dinosaur era, but for something that large, it would be much more detectable, and thus we would have more room to use every nuke on it. In fact, even in a dinosaur era where the average temperature was 68 degrees Fahrenheit and the tropical regions were on average 120 degrees Fahrenheit, life was thriving. Not that global warming isn't bad for some species, but it actually does take a lot to wipe out a technologically advanced civilization of over 7 billion people. For something larger than 10km, then what your saying with the bunkers would probably be more helpful, and staying underground for a large amount of time would probably be a good option, although those shelteres were meant for nuclear wars in the event that most of the Earth was engulfed in hydrogen bombs with nuclear fallout occupying much of the atmosphere. Anything up to 10km I would say we can deal with in such away that modern civilization would not be mostly destroyed. Past that, probably more around the 16+ km, we would have to definitely start over if we survived. Anything past probably 30km with our currently technology that did hit Earth, assuming we didn't use any nukes or bombs on it, would just wipe everything out, and the entire cycle of life in general may have to start over with bacterium. The asteroid at the KT even was very likely a fully intact meteor which concentrated all its force in one spot to not only severely damage local crust, but throw debris in the air to block out the sun and kill many plants. I have another question for you: If I shoot a wooden board with a bullet, and throw 10000 pebbles at another board, which board do you think is more or less fully intact? If the energy was equivalent in both situations, only one board would be fully intact. Heat is only a problem if there's too much of it, and Newtons are only a problem if they are concentrated, thus we reduce heat by having more energy transferred in the form of Newtons, and from there we have the Newtons simply not be concentrated in the one spot as to not be as much of a problem. A gradual spread of Newtons of the force contained in a large meteor using vector space would simply change Earth's orbit a little bit, or sort of knock it backwards. Although I suppose if the meteor hits us in the opposite direction we are going, that reduces our speed, which means it easier to get closer to the sun or would at least lower our potential energy relative to the sun which would translate to being closer, but hopefully, the Earth carries a lot more force than a meteor as to not make that the case. Also, I've been thinking more about it, and the impact would be different if the meteor hit land rather than the ocean. If the meteor hit in the middle of a large Ocean like the pacific, it would cause a massive tidal wave that would probably just sink the coastlines, but at least that energy would be transferred that way rather than a majority too Earth's crust or atmosphere. So there actually could be a greater benefit to having it land intact, depending on where it would land. I at least hope by this point you don't think that I think there would be no consequences for a 10km asteroid.

If both sides of a disagreement never used the military, there would be no war. However, sometimes the other side does want to go to war, and so the known way to actually counter that is with weapons. It would be great if there was just some EM pulse to disable all weapons, until then, we just have to work with what we have. Sometimes soldiers abuse civilians, and I would also think that's a problem and shouldn't even be a part of the war.

Regardless of however many nodal surfaces a wave has, the wave's existence extends to or at least approaches infinity, so in both instances the actual area of the wave is infinite or at least indefinite.

That's basically my first post in different words. Could you elaborate as to explain how in GR why if we consider the mass of the sun to be constant, and we are presently in it's gravitational field, while the sun is already in ours if we consider Earth's to be constant, why the interaction isn't instantaneous if there are no changes? If you think about, if you have an indentation in a net, the ball doesn't need to keep forming it, it just forms that indentation once and then as long as that ball is there the field is just "there".

I think what it means is that the coordinates are not dependent on each other. You don't need to have height to have length, you don't need t to have w, etc.

So I understand that any "change" in a gravitational field could only happen at the speed of light, but in GR, there's no force carrier particles that travel at a finite speed, so does that technically means an interaction between two objects in each other's fields is analogously instantaneous?

I guess that makes more sense, but what about in the case of something like this? http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/12/image-of-the-day-a-dark-matter-halo-.html Or is that purely because the galaxies are colliding?

Could you possibly be referring to spin?

So, if a mutation is your that skin color is #ffcf91 as opposed to the normal #f4c282, your more or less likely to survive? How does hair color effect your fitness? Not every mutation is particularly useful or not useful for something.

I think with quantum mechanics, "direction" eventually loses physical meaning.

Technically you can go backwards in time with math, but that doesn't happen in reality, time always just keeps moving forward, except maybe at the event horizon of a black hole to an outside observer.

Well why does there happen to be a concentration in a halo around the galaxy?

Dude, you don't even have any proof I'm wrong. What do you think happens with sunlight? Sure, 1 second may not be as much as a meteor, but over even a day its a ton of energy, but its distributed in such away that it doesn't destroy everything, If we can do that with a 10km meteor, things will end up being mostly alright. Probably a more hostile environment, but at least many things wouldn't be completely destroyed. Well in that case it's probably around 10km, in which case try to reduce it's speed, then fragment it into not too big or too small of pieces. If we reduce its speed that will reduce the amount of force it has anyway. Your not learning anything, your stuck in this mindset of everything you previously thought has to be the absolute truth. However, I learned different methods just by exploring this topic that only fragmenting a giant meteor into only very small pieces that would completely vaporize in the atmosphere like I had previously believed won't necessarily work. Instead, what would logically work which you have nothing to disprove with is that the pieces have to be the right size as to almost evenly distribute their energy through both friction and Newtons so that no particular part, whether its the atmosphere, ocean or land, get's completely destroyed. Dalton's theory of an atom wasn't completely wrong, and you don't just throw it in the trash, you build off of it. If you think there's an "in-between" option, then the philosophy does. Have you seen any birds lately? Ostriches are pretty large...Man, 18 foot alligator in Australia? That's pretty big. Many things still survived. Not ideally, but enough to get to where we are now. I never would have guessed... That implies that the meteor has to be more or less completely intact or in one piece in order to do that. And as history has shown, even a fully intact asteroid doesn't destroy every species. The best thing probably would be to go underground like how many mammals did, and use geothermal energy, whether the meteor is fragmented or not. I think that's what the book "The City of Ember" was based on. Just to make sure, are you imagining that if its fragmented, it all hits the Earth at once and in one spot? Because that wouldn't happen, the fragments would spread out over some considerable distance and if you look at meteor showers, the fragments would rain down over the period of probably between an hour and a day.

It seems like your always one or two posts behind in your thinking. In my last post I stated if they were broken up into pieces that also weren't too small, then they wouldn't release "all" their energy into the atmosphere via friction, but also to the ground in the form of Newtons as well, but not enough of a concentration of Newtons in any particular spot to actually shatter the crust, but the energy added still might change the rotation or orbit a little bit as well as destroy many homes. Also, an Earth "killer" or a "severe biosphere damager"? Because obviously something that would be an "Earth killer" would just destroy the Earth in which case it would probably be the size of mercury or larger. Now that I think about it though, even when that happened before, the Earth still survived and gained a moon. And then, even when there was a meteor that severely damaged the biosphere, life still survived, twice. In short, if there is a killer meteor but not one that would actually just destroy the entire Earth but rather just severely damage the biosphere, break it up into pieces that aren't too small nor too big. The atmosphere will heat up probably a good amount and the force might push Earth in a slightly different direction, but the Earth's crusts won't be shattered and the oceans won't boil away. Siddhartha was right all along, there is in fact a middle path. Also, you can't really prove we would necessarily go extinct either, because obviously other animals survived the last huge meteor.

Why would the ability to form planets make it's gravity "unusually" high? The article said dark matter can could clump up.

How could you fit infinity in your head? It seems a little too large to do that... We can't really say for sure whether space is finite or infinite at this point.

No, the issue is that people can't be afraid to explore and grow. I'm pretty sure religion is a large reason why many people aren't just going around and killing people and stealing everything. Perhaps in modern times more people are realizing they can function morally without a religion to follow, but there's still many people who think otherwise.

It doesn't really "shrink", the number of nodal surfaces just increases.

Quantum mechanics doesn't disprove the science they discovered, but rather their personal philosophy.