/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1799292]

Couple of things /sci/entists

1(space elevator). What prevents a geo-synch satellite from simply running down a line to the surface, and then sending stuff up that line?

2("anti" gravity, and UFO propulsion) From what I've read it appears that when particles in cyclotrons are being accelerated past certain points they stop gaining speed and begin increasing in mass. If this is the case, could we simply* hit particles with ass-tons of charge and increase their mass to the point where local objects are more drawn to them than towards the earth?

2.5(in regards to the above) The seemingly "impossible" movements of UFOs changing direction at the drop of a hat causes problems with inertia right? Well, my question is what would happen if a strong gravity field was created next to a moving object? Is the problem of inertial forces from the motion of an object, or from the internal strain of changing direction?
When you slam into a wall, the front of you slows down quicker than the back, and so you get compressed into a squishy mess. But if your motion stopped uniformly, would this prevent the problem?

Thanks in the form of sci-art

[Anonymous No.1799304]

[Anonymous No.1799308]

With regards to 1, it's entirely possible. We just need a strong enough cable, and people in lab coats are working on it as we speak.

I still think the space blimp is cooler, though.

[Anonymous No.1799314]

>>1799304

Fuckin' saved.

[Anonymous No.1799326]

>>1799308
Is there an immediate need for the nano-tube stuff? What prevents the use of simple twine for a proof of concept?

[Anonymous No.1799343]

[Anonymous No.1799359]

[Anomynous No.1799371]

>>1799326
The twine would break under its own weight. With a space elevator you're talking tens of thousands of kilometers of length.

[Anonymous No.1799375]

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1799377]

>>1799326

Well, its the only thing light enough to actually extend that high and has sufficient tensile strength to remain, well, tensile. Without breaking into tiny bits of Carbon.

[Anonymous No.1799404]

>>1799371
>>1799377
Ah, thanks for that.

Any insights on the others? I'm really interesting in 2.5 (more in the principle of inertia and uniform force, than the ufo mumbojumbo)

[Anomynous No.1799428]

>>1799404
For 2: the particles have relative mass because of their speed. You can't just add mass to a particle.

2.5: The strain of acceleration is due to the uneven application of the force involved. If you could generate a uniform gravity field to accelerate something, the occupants would 'fall' into the gravity well at the same speed as the ship, experiencing no relative force.

[Anonymous No.1799429]

[Anonymous No.1799431]

>>1799292
1) Only decent question
Running down/up the line would probably destablize the orbit of the object as its total mass would decrease/increase.

2) Objects do not gain "mass" as they go faster. That is a common misconecption. That is some really really old physics, that doenst work really well. It makes more sens just to define a mass of a partciel that doenst change, and instead the momentum changes due to relativistic effects. NO MASS CHANGE!

2.5) Too much bullshit, I didnt even read it all

[Anonymous No.1799444]

[Adrian !wf/oOO.fjg No.1799447]

>>1799431
what do you mean bullshit? the answer to 2.5 is as >>1799428 said, if all the particles experience the same force the object wont experience any problems

[Anonymous No.1799461]

answering 1)

The problem i see with space elevators is the top of the space elevator is moving much faster than the bottom of it. To maintain structural stability, you need to accelerate the elevator vertically but also horizontally in the direction of the earth's rotation. If you do the math, you're using the same amount of energy as if you were just blasting off the surface. Also, space elevators can only be on the earth's equator.

[Anonymous No.1799481]

[Anonymous No.1799482]

1) the second you apply a large load, and therefore, torque, you will send it out of its proper orbit. you need to have a constant way to adjust for a large amount of force moving both up AND down at the same time. Currently, Geosynchronous satellites have no means to produce such forces to keep itself stabilized, so therefore is out of the question.
you'd need a custom build satellite like base with extended amounts of fuel in order to keep it balanced enough to get basic life support up for humans, otherwise a craft made specifically for the task of housing humans, but with more fuel to help keep it stabilized until it can manage liquids being brought up through a heated pipe, lest they freeze.

2) your logic is laughable, you suggesting that we increase the mass of an object, thus increasing its gravitational pull, to try and have it be more attracted to a distant body than to the one located closest to it?
EVERYTHING is affected by gravity, if you just increase the mass of said object, you risk destabalizing nearby bodies, let alone destabilization of the earth. simple physics my dear wattson.
and to gather such energy is ludicrous on all but the smallest of objects.

2.5)
gravity does not simply materialize from nowhere, the creation of gravitational forces that you say materialize from nowhere cannot be created by any means we understand.
Your theories on stopping suddenly do have merit, but would our minds be able to handle the sudden cessation of all motion?
particularily, would the subatomic structures we consist of be able to take a force so strong as this without breaking?
who knows. certainly not I.

hope ive at least made myself sound somewhat smart, enjoy your reading, heh.

[Anonymous No.1799484]

>>1799431
so you're saying that "m0 / sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2)" no longer proves that it is impossible to accelerate to the speed of light?

[Anonymous No.1799493]

>>1799484
No one uses that formula anymore. YOU ARE USING VERY VERY OLD OUTDATED PHYSICS! No one teaches shit anymore!

[Anonymous No.1799496]

[Anonymous No.1799510]

>>1799447
>what do you mean bullshit?

You start off by talking about UFO's.

>strong gravity field was created next to a moving object

>inertial forces

WTF are you 10? inertial forces? Real physicst dont use such sloppy concepts. Newtonian Mech? LMAO. You should use Relativistic Lagrangian/Hamiltonian Dynamics for such a system.

>But if your motion stopped uniformly, would this prevent the problem?

Of course

[Anonymous No.1799535]

>>1799482
>more attracted to a distant body than to the one located closest to it
I meant for the accelerating agent to be the local object. Increase the mass of a particle which draws the vessel towards it (technically towards each other).

>>1799428
applying a charge was meant to be the driving force in accelerating the particle(presumably spinning in a small circle). However, it sounds like the increase in mass isn't quite how I had first expected.

[Anonymous No.1799571]

>>1799510
To be sure, I am not, >>1799447
The UFO device is just for convenience in conveying the idea.

>Real physicst dont
Sorry for not being a physicist.

[Adrian !wf/oOO.fjg No.1799574]

>>1799535
well, I guess you could increase the mass by increasing the temperature of the object. but it would need to be increased by a shitload. if I remember correctly 1kJ increases mass by about 10^-15kg

[Anonymous No.1799604]

for 2, we'd all get crushed if we were around it.

[Anonymous No.1799612]

>>1799574
A question on that. What, conceptually, would be happening to increase the temperature of a single particle?

[Anonymous No.1799626]

[Adrian !wf/oOO.fjg No.1799631]

>>1799612
the kinetic energy would be higher at higher temperatures. in other words if a particle is traveling faster its temperature goes up and its mass goes up.

so actual we are just back at "make things go fast and things get heavier" that most people seem reluctant to except

[Anonymous No.1799671]

[Anonymous No.1799710]

>>1799631
WOW I HAVENT READ SO MUCH FAGGOTRY IN A WHILE!

Temperature is not defined for a single particle. Temperature is not a fundemental property of a particle. Temperature is a property of a volume, it is a statsicical meausre based of kinetic energy.

If you started talking about temperature of a particle to any physicist he would laugh at your face.

HA HA HA