/sci/ - Science & Math

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTvgnYGu9bg

>>1316238
>implying thats not complete bullstit

>>1316238
or is it the neutrons that collapse into the electrons and protons?

>>1316267

I like you..

That Earth is the only planet in the solar system were you can have a complete solar eclipse

>>1316282
I'm pretty sure that the martian moons can cast an eclipse.

What happens if a neutron star made of lava collides with a neutron star made of ice?

>>1316288

Aren't nearly large enough for a complete solar eclipse. One of them looks like little more then a star from mars.

>>1316288

only partially. The moons on mars are smaller so they cant completely obscure it.

>>1316294
if you opened your mind it would help you think. what if all of the planets moons aligned in a manner to cast this shadow

>>1316302

There are 2 moons of mars, even combined they aren't enough to completely block out the sun, and I'm not sure they're even in the same orbital plane.

theres other planets than mars what about them

>>1316306
the obital plane is irrelevant, its like an electron cloud in the sense that it could be anywhere, just some places are more likely that others

yo quick question, why are all planets in the same plane relatively

>>1316324
Accretion disk.

>>1316313

Earth, mercury and venus are the only ones that could be between mars and the sun, in the event that all 4 planets aligned, and the the two moons aligned, I'm still pretty sure it wouldnt be enough for a total eclipse, and that's something that would only occur once in several hundred million years anyways.

I mean, look how large mars/venus look from earth at night, pretty fucking small compared to the sun, and one of mars' moons looks about that size.

>>1316318

Not at all irrelevant, what are you smoking? If they are in entirely different planes, they won't be able to align to produce an added effect.

>>1316324
b/c a spinning object creates more gravity along the axis its spinning in

>>1316342
You didn't know that Phobos was in a p-orbital?

>>1316324

A much better question, and I don't really have a satisfactory answer, so I might have to look it up, but as >>1316332 pointed out, clumpings of matter tend to orbit about the midsection. Look at any of the ring systems in our solar system (saturn, jupiter). There's some reason, but I'll have to look it up.

>>1316342
if there on the same plane, wouldnt they either collide or just one would cast a shadow on the other which would create the same effect as just having the bigger one there?

>>1316351
look at >>1316343

>>1316346

Not at all would they collide, they could have different radii (or be far enough apart in there orbits that their mutual force of gravity wouldn't draw them together, remember, all object in orbit orbit at the same speed if they have the same radius of orbit). Also, I really meant a similar plane, you would want them to be like 35 and 36, close enough to both be in the sun, but not so much that one eclipses the other (then it would effectively do nothing having both)

>>1316353
how that does logically remotely wtf answer the question

>>1316350

I thought it was a hybridized p-d orbital.

>>1316380
no its has to be in an excited state

>>1316382
b/c the sun is spinning along the same axis that all the planets are revolving around it at. you think that thats just a coincidence. now look at what i said here>>1316343

>>1316377
what if they had the same speed but different mass? would that change the radii?

>>1316343

This is wrong, googling got me the answer quickly, with multiple sources giving the same logical answer.

The answer has to do with conservation of angular momentum in a collapsing system. and will give you this website for a slightly more detailed answer.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/astronomy/q0247.shtml

It really makes sense, and gravity isn't stronger due to a body rotating, that just makes no sense.

>>1316417
yeah but they dont have to be in the same plane for this to be true. also, >>1316343 doesnt how to answer the question with relevant facts

>>1316406

No, the speed of orbit is dependent only on radius of orbit and the mass of the central object. This is assuming that the orbiting object is much less massive then the object it's orbiting, because all systems actually rotate about their collective center of mass, and then reduced masses matter.

But usually you can just approximate that one object, is orbiting the other, since usually the masses are so different.

With this approximation its trivial to show why speed depends only on radius.

It's pretty trivial to derive why if you assume newtonian mechanics and a circular orbit.

>>1316434
OH SH- someone graduated from high school unlike the rest of these fags

Even if you are going 0.999999c, if you can't see anything else relative to you, you will think you are stationary, and if you see a beam of light, it will appear to be going at c.

>>1316434
ahh, this is b/c gravity exerts a force per mass, right? and when you said velocity is dependant on radii and mass of the central object, did you mean the gravitational force? cus just the mass wouldnt make any sense

>>1316350
the fuck r u smoking

>>1316434
i think you mean to say that the radius depends on the velocity and the gravitational attraction between the two objects. it wouldnt make any sense if it depended on only one of the bodies of mass. remember, everything is relative

>>1316443
why'd you bring that up

>>1316427

Nah, it makes sense. Think about it this way. When you start with a cloud with some initial angular momentum its all about some axis. This is the same axis the sun and planets are now moving about.

Gravity pulls everything in, so they start speeding up to conserve momentum, a disk about the axis is the best balance between gravity and conservation of angular momentum, because if a planet moves in some other orbital plane, it will have a different axis for it's angular momentum (which of course will have some component along the primary axis, and then a different component perpendicular).

Now of course you do have some components like this (Pluto is off the plane), but on the whole, most of the matter falls into the disk about the initial axis.

>>1316467
>Things to tell people when you get high that will blow their mind 100% of the time.

something wrong with trying to stay on topic?

>>1316237
Quｉｔ_attacｋing_ＡＮｄ_cＬｏWNInG Wｗｗ.ＡnoＮ_ｘ_ｘ_X
Ｘ_x Ｘ TＡLK.ｓＥ ＤｉrEＣＴｌy_BrＯ_(rＥmoVe_AlL x)
uzmrml krfzinpa s pi s fmvbpopdklvfeei

>>1316475
lol i completely forgot that that was the topic. okay well then what is it about neutron stars? i doubt the electrons and protons turn into neutrons. thats not even possible.

the density of a black whole is like if we were to take the earth, and shrink it to the size of my left nut

>>1316498
Density of a black hole is infinite

>>1316465
gravitational force has nothing to do with it, its the gravitational acceleration but ima stop cause i think im being trolled

>>1316444

Well, gravity is dependent on the mass of the central object, which is why it I didn't say gravity, because the gravity field around the object is determined entirely by the objects' mass.

The reason the second object's mass doesn't matter, is because the force required to keep it in orbit, and the gravitational force exerted on this object, both depend linearly on this objects mass, so you can think of the smaller mass term as cancelling out.

>>1316465

Mass of the central object (big M), radius, and velocity are all related, without anything else. A teapot orbiting around the sun in the same orbit as the earth, will have to move at the same speed the earth is moving. Mass of the orbiting object does not matter (unless it gets to a significant % of the central object, and you can't consider it one orbiting the other, like a binary star system or something).

>>1316502
>>1316502
what if I happen to be Lance armstrong?
in that case it is

>>1316502
if its infinite then why doesnt it suck everything in from everywhere? b/c if its infinite it should have an infinite gravitational force.
>>1316503
isn't it the same thing basicly?

>>1316503

This is basically right, if you just take GM/r^2 (leaving out one mass) you get the gravitational field, measured in acceleration. That is, any object of any mass will experience the same acceleration in that field. Since we're dealing with centripetal motion , that means we have acceleration, caused by the gravitational field.

>>1316501
*facepalm
I'm too lazy to find the proper diagram, but electron + proton +antineutrino=PROFIT (neutron)

>>1316514
>>1316514
>>1316514
the force is only infinite at the singularity.
its basically what happens when you narrow the radius to 0. by singularity, they mean a 0 dimentional point

>>1316514

No, because you wrongly concluded that both masses count. The reason it's different is because any object of any mass experiences the same acceleration at a given distance from another body.

>>1316538
are you sure? assume that nothing is orbiting anything. and what if you had two suns a million km away from each other and then you had earth and a sun a million km away from each other. wouldnt the two suns collide first since they are both exerting gravitational force on the other? wouldnt this imply that acceleration is different based on the masses of both bodies?

>>1316539
>0 dimentional point
what does that mean?

>>1316514
Force has nothing to do with density, only with mass. A black hole is infinitely dense because it has 0 dimensions, not because it has infinite mass, in fact, black holes do indeed have finite mass.

>>1316563
No height length or width

ｑuＩＴ_AｔｔAcKｉng ａnｄ_ｃLoWNｉng ｗｗW.ａnｏN_X_X_x
Ｘ Ｘ_ｘ ＴＡlk.ＳE ＤｉRＥｃTＬy_Bｒo (RｅmＯｖｅ ａll_Ｘ)
gkul rxtf mrzcq nhws keucmwurkp rhrql

>>1316443

this is bothering me.

why would the beam still appear to move at c?

I feel like the answer is trivial, but it doesn't make sense to me

>>1316561
>Force has nothing to do with density, only with mass
i thought strength of gravity was calculated by something something mass divided by something something volume? if you had a giant loaf of bread the same mass as the sun but with a much larger volume (as bread is not dense at all) would that mean that they have the same gravity strength? serious question

>>1316563
A 0 dimensional point is a mathematical concept and cannot be perceived by the human mind physically.

>>1316580
yes it can... its just a location. you wouldn't be able to see it anyway.

>>1316583
>>1316583
because the faster you travel, the more time seems to slow down for you. I always think about it like infinity. no matter how high you can get, infinity-finite=infinity

>>1316579
If not troll, then gravity is (MmG)/(R^2)
Has nothing to do with volume, only the inverse square of the distance from the center of mass.

Yes the bread and the sun would have the same net gravitational field strength, but the bread would be more spread out so you would get gravitational pulls from all different directions.

With a black hole, the gravitational strength is solely dependant on the mass. The density is infinite because some unit of mass (could be 10^-300 grams) is concentrated at a point of 0 volume.

>>1316604
There is actually a little lie in here.
Einstein's theory of gravity (the best we've got so far) predicts that all forms of energy, including mass, make a gravity as well. Even gravity itself! (curved space time has potential energy)

So a black hole's gravity comes from its mass, its gravity, and any other form of energy it possesses.

>>1316583
>>1316595
yes time slows down, but it doesnt slow down for you from your point of view. it slows down for you from everyone elses point of view. so if you went past earth and managed to somehow see how fast people were doing things it would look like their all super fast, and so light would also look super fast, to be exact it would look like its going at c.

>>1316557
>>1316557
you both have it mixed up.
things accelerate invariant of their mass with respect to the center of mass of the system.
In the case of the planet and sun, the acceleration of the sun is basically nothing, so the center of mass is at the sun. if you have two sun's, then that's different, because the center of mass is in the middle. we call that a binary system http://www.oglethorpe.edu/faculty/~m_rulison/astronomy/chap%2017/Images/binary_star_orbit.gif

QＵｉｔ ＡtTaＣｋing_ａNd_CｌoWnｉｎｇ ｗWw.ａnOn ｘ x x
x Ｘ_Ｘ taＬK.Ｓｅ_DirECTlY_ｂｒo_(rEＭoＶｅ ａlＬ_X)
mt i dun e i zyhz i z gsxz voahc

>>1316502
how do you know this?

source

>>1316583
It's all part of the cosmic conspiracy. Read a popular book about einstein's relativity and its all explained.

>>1316614
same same.
time ticks slower for you with respect to the "stationary" place. so that's why light seems to travel at c. Infact I'm pretty sure Eistein got this idea from the lorenz transformations of time and space

>>1316617
if gravity created gravity, wouldnt that gravity create more gravity, and so on... but i guess it would create less gravity the second time, third time, fourth time, etc. is that how it is?

>>1316620
I've read a few books on gravity including the pretty popular "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking. It's a pretty good book

>>1316620
>>1316620
because that's why they call it a singularity.
google that word

>>1316635
its the exact same thing. einstein just took it one step further and explained the equations with words and what it meant

>>1316637
Yeah it asymptotes if you want to think about it mathematically, but if the source of gravity is passed a certain mass, then it can become a runaway process. Black holes for example do this. That's how they stay in existence without actually being made of anything except spinning space-time and gravity

>>1316237

QuiT_ａｔtａＣkiＮｇ ａNd CｌｏｗNIＮg_wｗW.ANoＮ_x X_X
X_X x ＴaｌK.ＳＥ dＩｒEＣｔLY bＲO_(Reｍoｖｅ_Ａll_x)
qh u m tqxbt ghxhncynu p aoa mhmn ncijzh cv

>>1316617
>>1316617
not true within relativity. in relativity gravity isn't even a force... when we "accelerate" with gravity, we are actually moving straight on a geodesic of spacetime.

In the gravitron model, the P.E. is due to the gravity bond between particles, i.e. the back and forth of gravitons. these due have energy, but think about it... if they have .00001% of the total, then the added gravity is going to approach 0, so you are not actually adding anything infinite

>>1316650
black holes are just energy confined, or rather mostly confined at a single point. the momentum is due to gravity bending space time. We know it is not only space, because it has charge as well

>>1316639
a black hole does not have to be a singularity to exist.. it must only have a very large amount of mass in a compact space. a large density

even if it were a singularity, it would have a finite amount of mass and act the same as if it were a metre long. there is no way to prove it has no dimensions. you are probably confused because physicists like to pretend things are points to make calculations easier.

>>1316583
i dont think the beam would appear to be moving at c because you dont perceive it as being stationary. secondly if your traveling a c, it is percieved as instant (instant teleportation had to throw that in) however it is not instant. traveling at .99999999c would be a small fration of time. however theres theres this theory that when an object is traveling at the speed of light, the other object appears to be moving at the speed of light since its instant (f physics).
i think at the speed of light another light beam would appear to be instantly approaching you and passing you.

>>1316635
time feels faster at c, in fact it feels like there was no time at all at c

>>1316672
What the hell are you talking about...

>>1316672
nothing with mass can move at c.
that is the fundamental property that holds it all together and for good reason

>>1316675
>>1316675
No black holes only have 3 properties.
charge, mass, and angular momentum
nothing else. it would not be a black hole if it were not a singularity.

QuＩt AtTａｃkｉnＧ ANd_ＣｌOＷｎＩNG ＷｗW.AＮＯn ｘ Ｘ Ｘ
x Ｘ_x ｔＡLＫ.SE DＩrEcTｌＹ_ＢRｏ (rｅＭOＶe_ALL Ｘ)
osonlspy uve jmel dkppza vogrovpd w j n x x

Time FEELS the same no matter how fast you are going...it only changes relative to someone who is not moving as quickly (or moving more quickly than you are). You would only notice the difference if you did round trip (going much faster through space than them) and saw the same person again and they were older than they should be...

>>1316682
time would feel exactly the same at c, or 0.999c or 0.4c or 0.00001c. one of the main postulates of einstein's theory of special relativity is that their is no correct frame of reference. time and space would feel the same no matter how fast you are moving.

what will be different is how you feel time compared to other people. if you were to see other people, they would be moving very slowly. if you were at c, they wouldn't be moving at all. if you were to exceed it, they would start moving backwards. but neither of you would feel 'real' time, you would just be in different frames of reference.

>>1316675
whether its size is infinitesimal or not (i think it is) doesnt matter. the relative gravity is the same, its when you enter inside the radius of the sun that collapsed that gravity enters that all encompassing state. as r approaches zero gravity approaches infinity.

>>1316675
Are you sure?

I always though a black hole by definition was a region of space-time that possesses gravity but is not actually made of matter.

travelling at c probably is possible, just not with our current understanding of the universe. c is the next speed limit we must surpass, just like people thought travelling on the first train was too fast and would kill you

ＱuiＴ_ａｔｔＡｃｋIＮｇ Ａnd cＬoＷｎＩnG_WwW.ＡｎＯＮ_X_X_Ｘ
X ｘ_X Talk.Ｓｅ_dＩｒECＴLy_ＢRｏ_(RＥＭOｖe Ａll x)
jaryxxjvq m rockwy sbsviidvbhcqwjn amqtv cnqx e

>>1316702
wrong

speaking of black holes, what about the information paradox??? I don't understand why "complete information about a physical system at one point in time should determine its state at any other time" if we have the Uncertainty principal mixed with the fact that our world is random, it has no hidden values

>>1316705
just b/c einstein said it doesnt make it true

>>1316702
>>1316702
matter cannot go through space at c.
but it can beat c. if c's path is curved enough

>>1316711
no, but because the equations and experiments do, that means its true

>>1316699
has a physics professor ever told you that lights speed is instantaneous, the measured distance of someone traveling near the speed of light is measured to be shorter because of this. if you skipped honors physics in hs its understandable not to know this but watch out cause its on the SAT2

>>1316705
If tachyons exist, and we could somehow transform all the particles in our bodies to tachyons and back again then maybe just maybe!

Haha oh wow

>>1316706
>>1316706
>>1316706
Can someone plz answer my question, I saw it on the Morgan freeman program on Discovery

>>1316712
as einstein said, you cant accelerate to the speed of light so you definitely cant accelerate to a speed faster than it. the speed has to be reached instantaneously. it would take an infinite amount of time to accelerate to the speed of light. think of .99999!=1 when there is an infinite amount of sigfigs

>>1316716

Well, not quite - it really means that no one has been able to disprove it. Does not make it absolutely true, just means it is the best we have right now - which is not too shabby...

>>1316711
alot of einsteins theories are being proven with mathematics, not so much experiments. it shows he was ahead of his time

>>1316716
If there's anything the last century has taught us philosophically, it's that everything can be proven wrong.

Only time and experiment will tell.

>>1316731
math is absolute, theres no disproving it. unless your dividing by zero in which case any thing is possible (the asymptote)

>>1316741
>>1316741
I think the wave function of QM already sort of disproves that notion. a particle at one point in time can pop into existence at any other location, it doesn't travel there, it just appears. there is a small but non zero chance that the proton in one of my hair cells will appear on the moon in two seconds

>>1316741
when 2+2=4 then we can talk

>>1316745
2.49 can be rounded to an integer, 2.
2.49 + 2.49 = 4.98
Round the whole thing
2 + 2 = 5

>>1316743
>>1316743
Math is absolute...the way they are applied is different. if we find tomorrow about some 5th force that adds yet another coeficient to p=ymv then it could change everything

>>1316747
What notion are you talking about and how did anything I say have to do with QM?

Srsly u guys... is information conserved in a system???
I thought the uncertainty princ. showed everything to have a degree of randomness. aka you can never predict the future

>>1316743

Math is absolute within itself, yep, but if it being used to hypothesize about the unknown then all it can offer is a description and predictions about that unknown based on what we currently know. It does not mean those predictions are necessarily correct...it simply provides a convenient framework of logic with which to describe our physical universe (and hypothesize about it).

>>1316728
i wasnt talking about accelerating mass to c. think outside the box. maybe one day we will be able to transform matter into something else. something that can travel at c.

>>1316237

QＵiT attＡcKiNｇ_Aｎｄ_ｃlＯWｎIＮｇ_wｗW.ａＮｏｎ_ｘ x_Ｘ
X Ｘ X ｔａＬK.SＥ_ＤｉｒEＣＴLY Bｒo_(ＲＥｍＯVｅ ＡｌＬ ｘ)
xy zbjl c lutinromzie bnm ijsii ezmmntwhr gf f

yo just finished high school and none of my professors were able to answer this question for me. when a photon is approaching a black whole, wouldnt it accelerate, yeah theres the whole momentum thing of a photon, but gravity is able to accelerate light from when it perpendicular to cause it to curve. when i asked a got some answer like the relative speed of an object compared to light is the speed of light but this doesnt answer my question.

>>1316768

I like it. Matter can be transformed in to energy, however a great deal of information is lost n the process. If we could capture the information somehow, then somehow utilise that information while transforming energy back into matter...won't happen in my lifetime, but nice to dream, huh?

>>1316777
also the perpendicular force of gravity would give the photon a perpendicular velocity should have no effect on the other velocity but when you solve for the net velocity its greater. how is it that this perpendicular force is having effect in a parallel mammer. i dont get it!

>>1316777
>>1316777
me too /b/ro!!!
no the photon would red shift with respect to us

>>1316777
eh I'm not really sure. I think the path of the photon would be a curved geodesic due to the presence of gravity, but the speed of the photon wouldn't change. Either that, or the energy of the photon would lower, making it have a longer wavelength. I think thats called gravitational red shift.

>>1316788
>>1316788
what? the gravity curves the geodesic itself, not the objects path along the deodesic

>>1316768
>>1316768
like energy???
cause that definitely can travel at c

>>1316768
as in light, which we can already do

>>1316791
turning humans into light would probably kill them though, so i wouldnt wanna do that

>>1316787
it does alot of things with respect to us. i wanna know why it doesnt accelerate. i just looked up red shift and it sounds like the illusion the like is accelerating

>>1316790
I'm not really sure what you mean. Gravity curves space-time. So the geodesic (the shortest distance between two points) would be a curve in 3 dimensional space.

>>1316806
I think instead of moving at a different speed relative to us (since c is a constant from all frames of reference), it red shifts.

>>1316808
>>1316808
yeah I guess its semantics. sorry. damn interesting convo tho

>>1316818
better than a lot of the crap we get here

Rigel has already gone supernova
unstable gravity waves
superluminal

If you have three particles, one is steady and the other two move away from it in opposite directions with 0.6c each, they have a relative speed to each other of 1.2c.

This proves Einstein wrong.

>>1316999
information cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

Unless gravity can then that would be a huge breakthrough and FTL would be possible (if the inertia could be dampened then it could even been sooner than later.)

>>1319330
and yet gravity can OH SH-