10-29-2014 04:03 PM
#376
| |
10-29-2014 04:12 PM
#377
| |
Too lazy to read 4 pages of this thread to see if it's addressed, sorry. | |
10-29-2014 04:28 PM
#378
| |
Thanks mojo! This thread is awesome. | |
| |
10-29-2014 04:33 PM
#379
| |
I heard that before, too, but I don't think it's actually true. | |
10-29-2014 11:42 PM
#380
| |
This post is about pressure in a gas. It is not about liquid pressure; the particles in a liquid are already touching, and the collisions are minimal. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 10-29-2014 at 11:47 PM. | |
10-30-2014 02:24 PM
#381
| |
| |
| |
10-30-2014 02:28 PM
#382
| |
I now understand that weight causes pressure, as does temperature, as does anything else that applies a force. Is this correct? | |
| |
10-30-2014 02:36 PM
#383
| |
You're welcome. | |
10-30-2014 03:04 PM
#384
| |
I never studied phsyics or chemistry in any detail at school, which is a huge shame because it interests me so much. So my understanding of physics is pretty much thanks to intuition and internet, which means it's heavily flawed and limited. But I'd still bet it's a better grasp than most uneducated folk. I would love to study phsyics properly. | |
| |
10-30-2014 03:41 PM
#385
| |
Yes, I think you have it. There are more ways to describe pressure (e.g. particle density may be a factor), but everything you said jives well with me. | |
10-30-2014 04:01 PM
#386
| |
11-01-2014 12:34 PM
#387
| |
| |
| |
11-01-2014 02:41 PM
#388
| |
I re-watched the first couple lectures of the 8.01 course. I have to warn you that no matter how exciting I claimed it is, it's still a physics lecture... and not very exciting, really. I'd wager that if you're not studying what he's saying it's downright boring. | |
11-02-2014 08:51 AM
#389
| |
You didn't miss anything at school. | |
Last edited by chemist; 11-02-2014 at 08:55 AM. | |
11-02-2014 10:18 AM
#390
| |
TL;DR | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 11-02-2014 at 10:38 AM. | |
11-02-2014 11:14 AM
#391
| |
You're throwing me softballs, now. | |
11-02-2014 04:41 PM
#392
| |
Last edited by chemist; 11-02-2014 at 04:56 PM. | |
11-02-2014 05:04 PM
#393
| |
You have no idea how much it pleases my ego to see ong and bong form important parts of equations. | |
| |
11-03-2014 06:13 PM
#394
| |
Why is the value that mass and energy are relative to one another related to the speed of light? This is not a coincidence, surely? Does it not imply that not only are matter and energy different aspects of the same thing, but also different aspects of space and time too? | |
| |
11-03-2014 06:15 PM
#395
| |
If that doesn't make any sense, maybe it's clearer to ask... why c squared? | |
| |
11-04-2014 12:55 PM
#396
| |
Damn, that's a good one. | |
11-04-2014 02:17 PM
#397
| |
So wait, a photon traveling head on with another photon is only going at a rate of c from the perspective of the other photon? What the fuck? | |
11-04-2014 02:50 PM
#398
| |
Anything moving at the speed of light experiences infinite time dilation. That means that clocks don't tick. | |
11-04-2014 03:08 PM
#399
| |
ROFL, my brain sucks. | |
11-04-2014 03:20 PM
#400
| |
I feel kind of like what we perceive as space time is like a 2d plane and massless particles are infinitesimal tips of a cones that pierce our plane from some higher dimension. | |
11-04-2014 03:20 PM
#401
| |
| |
| |
11-04-2014 03:33 PM
#402
| |
@Renton: No worries about needing a refresher on this stuff. It's so against intuition that I'd think less of anyone who just accepts it as fact w/o question. I respect a sense of skepticism when someone tells you something that is at odds with what you observe. This is the core of science, after all. | |
11-04-2014 03:46 PM
#403
| |
No worries. I think it's a thought experiment at best anyway, I mean who the hell can experimentally confirm how a photon views the universe? | |
| |
11-04-2014 05:14 PM
#404
| |
Thanks for the name drop on Michel van Biezen... I'm looking at his youtube page now. I haven't clicked a vid yet, but it looks like it's right up my alley. | |
11-04-2014 06:24 PM
#405
| |
Spooky, I was asking myself the same thing yesterday. | |
11-04-2014 06:53 PM
#406
| |
The reason Einstein's equation is important to atomic bombs or nuclear power funnily enough is the C, because the resulting energy releases at the speed of light. | |
11-04-2014 07:35 PM
#407
| |
There is nothing special about the Earth in terms of physics. F = ma is true everywhere (everywhere we've looked, at least). | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 11-04-2014 at 08:07 PM. | |
11-04-2014 07:51 PM
#408
| |
"Somehow the popular notion took hold long ago that Einstein's theory of relativity, in particular his famous equation E = mc2, plays some essential role in the theory of fission. Albert Einstein had a part in alerting the United States government to the possibility of building an atomic bomb, but his theory of relativity is not required in discussing fission. The theory of fission is what physicists call a non-relativistic theory, meaning that relativistic effects are too small to affect the dynamics of the fission process significantly." | |
11-05-2014 08:11 PM
#409
| |
Well spotted I had conveniently ignored that speed is measured in m/s and acceleration is measured in m/s^2 not (m/s)^2. | |
11-05-2014 10:27 PM
#410
| |
This is by far the best response I've found. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 11-05-2014 at 10:32 PM. | |
12-07-2014 11:09 PM
#411
| |
Can you vaporize a water droplet by shooting it with a laser? Not really, no. | |
12-08-2014 03:42 AM
#412
| |
For humans trying to achieve flight, why hasnt the "big bird wings, and flap em really fast" approach worked? With enough physics and the proper bird wings, why cant I literally "make like a bird" and fly over to my friend's house? | |
12-08-2014 06:25 AM
#413
| |
| |
12-08-2014 12:19 PM
#414
| |
Basically, it's more energetically efficient to spin a propeller in a circle, generating a constant thrust, than it is to swing a long, heavy beam back and forth (creating thrust in pulses). However, biologically, there is no such thing as an axle. So biology uses what it can, but it can't make wheels, or propellers, that only spin in one direction and never bind. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 12-08-2014 at 12:27 PM. | |
12-08-2014 12:37 PM
#415
| |
This is not all that helpful as pertains to the splash question, but if you ride it through to the end, it's worth the chuckle. | |
12-18-2014 06:06 PM
#416
| |
does our solar system have an end? or a place in space where a ship could not travel any further due to magnetic fields? | |
| |
12-18-2014 06:26 PM
#417
| |
|
Not a monkey, but lots of physicists have had bad answers to these in the past IMO because the answers aren't just from a series of calculations. |
12-18-2014 06:57 PM
#418
| |
Many. Here's 2: | |
12-18-2014 07:19 PM
#419
| |
Physicists like good, solid predictions. We don't care about calculations except when they help to predict a result. If a cartoon provides an accurate prediction, we'll use a cartoon. | |
12-18-2014 07:37 PM
#420
| |
|
I just find myself scratching my head at concepts like Fermi Paradox. I don't think it's a paradox at all yet it appears to be one if there are only a handful of considerations. |
12-18-2014 11:23 PM
#421
| |
It seems like a very strong conclusion based on highly speculative and incomplete information. | |
12-18-2014 11:28 PM
#422
| |
|
alien virtual reality would be far superior to actual reality. aint nobody sending out no seeds |
12-19-2014 10:46 AM
#423
| |
This sounds like another case of "i don't know" to "It must be" with no steps in between. | |
12-19-2014 11:06 AM
#424
| |
Is it possible? Speaking purely hypothetically, yes, it is possible - or at least conceivable. | |
12-19-2014 11:49 AM
#425
| |
I've watched a bunch of Lewin vids per your recommendation ITT. After like 8 lectures, I'm spellbound by this guy. Then I find out he's a pariah at MIT because of sexual harassment. I dunno if its just the men's right activist / cynic in me coming out but this guy's character seems unindictable to me. I tried looking up the details of the scandal and they don't seem to exist on the internet. Do you know anything about it? | |
12-19-2014 12:12 PM
#426
| |
This is the first I've heard of it. | |
12-19-2014 02:02 PM
#427
| |
Meh man given what rad-fem cesspools higher education circles in America have become, I think I need more than an official MIT statement to be convinced. | |
12-19-2014 02:21 PM
#428
| |
The articles read like it was all email-based, and that the women who were sexually harassed were college students (adults). | |
12-19-2014 02:58 PM
#429
| |
|
Recommend me a Lewin video |
12-19-2014 03:44 PM
#430
| |
1st off: Schroedinger's Cat is BS. It is a pathetically flawed attempt to provide a macroscopic example of a microscopic phenomenon. Also, it is needlessly murderous of a cat. | |
12-19-2014 04:01 PM
#431
| |
On the Size of Black Holes | |
| |
12-19-2014 04:20 PM
#432
| |
Yeah. I giggled to myself at the end when it kept booming and booming to get to 20 billion. | |
12-19-2014 04:22 PM
#433
| |
|
yet still nothing compared to the mass of my biceps |
12-19-2014 04:33 PM
#434
| |
Jupiter is pacman. That's the answer to the meaning of life. | |
| |
12-19-2014 04:57 PM
#435
| |
Jupiter's awesome. The Hydrogen atmosphere is so dense that it conducts like a metal. | |
12-19-2014 05:03 PM
#436
| |
I always wondered if you could, in theory, travel through Jupiter. I guess the ultimate conclusion I reach is that the immense pressures means the idea of a gas in the conventional sense is redundant, that even if it's technically a gas, it's going to behave like a solid. We can turn a gas into a liquid and keep it like that using a thin layer of metal to contain the pressure. I can't even begin to imagine what the gravity and pressure forces inside Jupiter can do. | |
| |
12-19-2014 05:32 PM
#437
| |
| |
12-19-2014 05:48 PM
#438
| |
Apparently, there are more potential chess positions than there are atoms in the known universe. | |
| |
12-19-2014 06:06 PM
#439
| |
| |
12-19-2014 06:13 PM
#440
| |
Well according to a quick search there's 10^120 different possible chess positions, compared to 10^79 atoms in the universe. I have no idea how they calculate the latter. | |
| |
12-19-2014 06:18 PM
#441
| |
Not according to Sean Carrol. He says it's a consequence of spacetime being spacially flat. | |
12-19-2014 06:34 PM
#442
| |
lolwat. | |
12-19-2014 07:00 PM
#443
| |
|
first unit is molecules, not grams |
Last edited by wufwugy; 12-19-2014 at 07:03 PM. | |
12-19-2014 07:04 PM
#444
| |
The difference between 10^23 and 10^81 is truly immense. | |
| |
12-19-2014 07:11 PM
#445
| |
Just to give you an idea of how immense 10^81 is, it's 12 times bigger than 10^23 CUBED, so it's 12*(10^23)*(10^23)*(10^23). | |
| |
12-19-2014 07:13 PM
#446
| |
In fact it's even bigger than that. Much bigger. My brain is melting just trying to figure out how to calculate the relative sizes, let alone trying to envisage the number itself. | |
| |
12-19-2014 07:14 PM
#447
| |
| |
12-19-2014 07:14 PM
#448
| |
|
i really hope you guys figured out the ego thing is a joke by now |
12-19-2014 07:15 PM
#449
| |
The fact there's 10^120 potential chess positions is... I don't fucking know what it is. What comes after mind boggling? | |
| |
12-19-2014 07:19 PM
#450
| |
|
i guess i cant comprehend the exponential |