/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6921614

Because observations don't reflect that the planet is spinning extremely fast, and 2 a very fast spinning globe doesn't look all that much like Jupiter anyway. Like, Jupiter the actual planet isn't uniform in banding/ coloring along its axis.

How high are you?

best thread evar

Maybe saturn?

>>6921668

What exactly would happen if a 1kg object was placed onto Jupiter? I doubt it would sink.

I can imagine that one could even sail on Jupiter.

>>6921697
> you could probably fuck on it too

>>6921697
It would sink. Jupiter doesn't really have a "surface" to put anything on, and it's still just gas; it doesn't get especially dense until very deep down.

>>6921704
The surface is still extremely dense relative to gasses under most other conditions, I often think of it as a viscous ocean.

A 1kg ball would sink, but a 1cm disk would float.

>>6921697
Depends how big the object is. A balloon filled with 1kg of helium would float on Earth's atmosphere, and a 1kg atom would sink through Earth's solid surface

>>6921614
>spin a globe fast enough it ends up looking like Jupiter
you pulled this out Uranus

>>6921721
Indeed. Density is what matters, not mass. So theoretically a ship with enough relative buoyancy could sail upon the surface of Jupiter, it would just need to be filled with hydrogen or something of the like.

>>6921721
>1kg atom
What?

>>6921777
You know, like an atom with a mass of 1kg. Molar mass of 6.02E23kg/mol. In other words, some element that is way too hella dense to exist naturally.

...actually, now that I think about it, that's probably dense enough to be a black hole. Can anyone confirm? I don't remember the math and I'm tired as fuck.

>>6921782
I know there's a physical limit to density, and I think that supasses it. I don't know much about it, though, so I could easily be wrong

>>6921787
Every time I see "black hole" it's been accompanied by "infinite density," so I don't think there's a limit to density. I was just wondering what the threshold was for something becoming a black hole. Given the insane density of this theoretical atom, I would imagine it has a rather small Schwarzschild radius, though if it's as small as an atomic nucleus I'm not sure.

>>6921792
How does infinite density even work?

>>6921787
I think he meant it more as an example of an extremely dense object to highlight that size is as important as mass here. Control your autism.

>>6921794
By assuming that all space is infinitely sub-divisible. If we take that fact for granted, there will always be empty space to fill by breaking the particles up smaller and increasing the packing efficiency, so to speak. Of course this all falls down if we acknowledge that there is such a thing as a smallest possible unit of matter.

>>6921794
Wish I could tell you. Someone more intelligent may be able to, but as far as I know, physics starts to break down once infinite density is reached. A singularity kind of fucks up everything and can potentially break the laws of nature, but since they only exist within black holes, none of their bullshit makes it out to the rest of the universe.

...oh, you just meant the density part? Any amount of matter packed within an infinitesmally small volume has infinite density. generally seen as something dense enough to crush itself within its own gravity.

>>6921801
I know a great deal of classical physics more than modern physics, so I must ask how that's possible. Doesn't gravity necessitate two distinct bodies to have such an effect?

>>6921808
Well, it seems to not be so. I'm assuming you mean "bodies" as "particles," because bodies with gravity can easily influence their own shape with their gravity (hence why everything with enough gravity is roughly spherical). So, does gravity require more than one particle to have an effect? Once again, I cannot say for sure as we don't quite know "what" gravity consists of, so we can't be sure of its intrinsic effects on things such as isolated particles. However, as far as my understanding of the subject goes, a singularity maintains itself under its own gravity, which is infinitely strong within itself because of its infinitesimally small radius and the inverse square law for the force of gravity and whatnot.

>>6921816
Hold on, but black holes don't have infinitesmally small radii, do they? They grow with absorption of mass...

>>6921820
Their event horizon grows, but we presume the "core," being the singularity, is still infinitely dense and small (hence SINGULARity). But yes in a way, the "visible" part of the black hole does grow because its gravitational strength increases. So its AoE increases, but its functional radius should remain the same. Does that make sense?

Keep in mind, I'm not an expert so I may misspeak at any time. Take everything I say with some healthy skepticism.

>>6921782
the Schwartzchild radius for 1 kg is about 1.5E-27 m. the radius of a carbon atom is 7E-11 m. It's way not small enough. The radius of a carbon atom nucleus radius isn't small enough (2.1E-15 m.)
The kind of order you would need is either a large mass (above a few micrograms) and an infitesimal radius, or about 1,000,000,000,000 kg (1.5E-15 m schwartzchild radius) crunched down to the radius of a carbon atom's nucleus.
Wikipedia and Wolfram Alpha everybody.

>>6921894
Nice science you have there. Only question I still have is, what would the radius of said theoretical element me? I would imagine 1kg per atom is too massive for there to be nucleons, so I'm just wondering "out loud" what this kind of particle would look like.

Sorry, I like theoreticals.

>>6921913
No need to be sorry. It's interesting stuff. However, I don't really know where to begin with a question like that. You could try to calculate the mass of an atom of uranium, if it was made out of top/bottom quarks instead of up/down. Something tells me that really wouldn't cut it though. I think the only problem you would run into would be how stupidly short-lived it would be, because of how strong and electromagnetic forces work in the nucleus. Gravity shouldn't be an issue, since it's still so weak compared to those other forces, even at 1 kg. Try finding out its electron/neutron degeneracy pressure if you would make an atom sized neutron star instead of an atom sized black hole. I doubt it would be close to enough, though.

Nice thread OP. The people taking it seriously, also funny.

>>6921713
>the surface
>i often think of it as

you have no fucking idea what you are talking about, anon

>using induction outside of math

>>6921674
why is that?

>>6922055
One hypothesis, developed at Oxford University, is that the hexagon forms where there is a steep latitudinal gradient in the speed of the atmospheric winds in Saturn's atmosphere.

Similar regular shapes were created in the laboratory when a circular tank of liquid was rotated at different speeds at its centre and periphery. The most common shape was six sided, but shapes from two to eight sided were also produced.

The shapes form in an area of turbulent flow between the two different rotating fluid bodies with dissimilar speeds. A number of stable vortices of similar size form on the slower (south) side of the fluid boundary and these interact with each other to space themselves out evenly around the perimeter.

The presence of the vortices influences the boundary to move northward where each is present and this gives rise to the polygon effect. Polygons do not form at wind boundaries unless the speed differential and viscosity parameters are within certain margins and so are not present at other likely places, such as Saturn's South pole or the poles of Jupiter.

>>6922014
But that's wrong Anon.

>>6922120
>two sided shape

>>6923224
Maybe like an ellipsoidal American-football-esque shape? That seems unlikely though, probably just a typo.

10/10 we don't