|
Post by TidusandYuna1983 on Jun 15, 2018 7:44:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by TidusandYuna1983 on Jun 19, 2018 2:30:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by TidusandYuna1983 on Jun 20, 2018 23:55:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by TidusandYuna1983 on Jun 23, 2018 3:58:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by endorbr on Jun 26, 2018 14:35:12 GMT
Now meld those transforming wheels with that independent suspension and put that into civilian vehicles and I think we've got a winner.
|
|
|
Post by TidusandYuna1983 on Jul 13, 2018 3:06:24 GMT
Astrophysics professor explains what the Martian does right and wrong in it's attempts to be scientifically accurate.
He also spoke a lot about Star Wars , and while it's obvious Star Wars is meant to be science fantasy rather than full-on Sci Fi, he mentioned little things that most Sci Fi does wrong, such as showing star ships colliding into objects at the speed of light without getting destroyed.
|
|
|
Post by Uesugi-dono on Jul 17, 2018 16:57:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by endorbr on Jul 17, 2018 17:37:59 GMT
They're really having to to distill this down to the most basic definition of "moon" a bit here. "They’re tiny, some barely a mile across, and they are tracing all kinds of weird paths around the giant world." Yes, those are still technically natural orbiting satellites of a planet, but how much natural space junk might there be orbiting a planet like Jupiter? For comparison, Saturn has an entire system of rings. We don't label each particle of it as a moon. Jupiter itself has rings, just not as impressive as those around Saturn. I mean end of day, cool story but not particularly surprising that there is crap floating around the gas giant that we haven't been able to identify all of with our current resources.
|
|
|
Post by TidusandYuna1983 on Jul 18, 2018 1:22:03 GMT
They're really having to to distill this down to the most basic definition of "moon" a bit here. "They’re tiny, some barely a mile across, and they are tracing all kinds of weird paths around the giant world." Yes, those are still technically natural orbiting satellites of a planet, but how much natural space junk might there be orbiting a planet like Jupiter? For comparison, Saturn has an entire system of rings. We don't label each particle of it as a moon. Jupiter itself has rings, just not as impressive as those around Saturn. I mean end of day, cool story but not particularly surprising that there is crap floating around the gas giant that we haven't been able to identify all of with our current resources. It's an interesting question,how big does an object need to be for it to be a moon? Saturn's rings are referred to as ''moonlets'' , since some of them are only a few hundred meters across. It was like that with planets for a while, until Pluto got demoted after a clear definition of what a planet is was made. Before then, we could have said the solar system has thousands of planets, since there's other pieces of cosmic debris bigger than Pluto that were never listed as planets.
|
|
|
Post by TidusandYuna1983 on Aug 15, 2018 6:47:15 GMT
Multiple universes or a simulated universe?
There's indications there's more than one universe. Such as the way plants use quantum superposition to harvest energy with near 100% efficiency. Another is because particles behave like waves after they're observed, but before we observe them, they behave just like particles. The waves represent a timeline/universe that cancels out other timelines/possibilities. That's how how quantum superposition works.
Einstein said nothing can accelerate faster than light. But there are entities which can travel faster than light , not by moving, but either by space around them being distorted, or through quantum processes such as quantum theory stating particles have a possibility of appearing anywhere in the universe(even instantly travelling to the other side of the universe), or through quantum entanglement, which is when 2 interconnected particles must always spin in opposite directions, and therefore communicate many times the speed of light.
However, since information isn't supposed to be able to travel faster than light, because it violates causality (if there is no universal speed limit, information, time and space would be infinite and communicate with each other instantly) one explanation for this problem is the universe is a simulation. That way , contradicting fundamentals such as general relativity, and quantum mechanics can co-exist, and it would be an explanation as to why gravity was able to shape the universe , despite the forces of entropy being much stronger than gravity, and as to why entropy is increasing over time, and eventually will lead to no new stars being born. It's like this universe wasn't meant to exist in the way that it does because so many contradicting and low probability events constantly continue to occur.
|
|
|
Post by Uesugi-dono on Aug 15, 2018 15:55:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by TidusandYuna1983 on Aug 25, 2018 20:49:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by TidusandYuna1983 on Aug 26, 2018 5:27:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by TidusandYuna1983 on Aug 30, 2018 12:51:14 GMT
A common misconception is that Einstein said ''nothing can travel faster than light'' , when Einstein actually said ''nothing with mass can accelerate faster than light''. We know the universe is expanding faster than light, because space has no mass, which means parts of the universe are moving away from other parts of the universe at faster than light without accelerating faster than light. Same goes for how quantum particles can randomly appear anywhere, which means they can instanty transport to the other side of the universe without actually accelerating through space faster than light.
Tachyons are particles which are theorized to exist, and it's believed they always travel faster than light, because they are fields with imaginary mass , hence they don't provide localized excitations , which means they have to always travel faster than light, because the less energy they have, the faster they go. If they were travelling faster than light, in theory they would go backwards in time, since according to relativity, the faster you travel, time slows down, until it stops when you reach the speed of light.
Normal mass accelerating through space requires energy, the faster it travels, the more energy is required, until at the speed of light the amount of energy required to accelerate any faster requires more energy than what the universe can produce.
|
|
|
Post by Uesugi-dono on Aug 30, 2018 22:45:14 GMT
A common misconception is that Einstein said ''nothing can travel faster than light'' , when Einstein actually said ''nothing with mass can accelerate faster than light''. We know the universe is expanding faster than light, because space has no mass, which means parts of the universe are moving away from other parts of the universe at faster than light without accelerating faster than light. Same goes for how quantum particles can randomly appear anywhere, which means they can instanty transport to the other side of the universe without actually accelerating through space faster than light. Tachyons are particles which are theorized to exist, and it's believed they always travel faster than light, because they are fields with imaginary mass , hence they don't provide localized excitations , which means they have to always travel faster than light, because the less energy they have, the faster they go. If they were travelling faster than light, in theory they would go backwards in time, since according to relativity, the faster you travel, time slows down, until it stops when you reach the speed of light. Normal mass accelerating through space requires energy, the faster it travels, the more energy is required, until at the speed of light the amount of energy required to accelerate any faster requires more energy than what the universe can produce. "We know the universe is expanding faster than light, because space has no mass, which means parts of the universe are moving away from other parts of the universe at faster than light without accelerating faster than light." Pssh, it cannot be shown that it is moving faster than light.. it is moving before light. Shit even if light catches up, or is even caught up, we cannot see the nothing that space is expanding into. Theoretical stuff like this makes my head hurt.
|
|