I don't promise to be right, but I will do my best to answer any physics related questions.
09-07-2012 11:33 PM
#1
| |
| |
09-07-2012 11:36 PM
#2
| |
How does one accidentally a coca cola? | |
09-07-2012 11:38 PM
#3
| |
Pretty sure I could find a video. | |
| |
09-07-2012 11:40 PM
#4
| |
Also is there an alternate universe in which I am currently banging Alison Brie? | |
09-07-2012 11:45 PM
#5
| |
09-07-2012 11:57 PM
#6
| |
Physics answer: Not my problem. | |
09-08-2012 12:15 AM
#7
| |
Which tool has yielded the greatest amount of physics related discovery? | |
| |
09-08-2012 12:26 AM
#8
| |
How would you describe what finding the Higgs Boson means to a 3rd grader? | |
09-08-2012 12:40 AM
#9
| |
One answer: pen/pencil/chalk/scribe | |
09-08-2012 12:45 AM
#10
| |
09-08-2012 12:49 AM
#11
| |
First you find something, then you try to figure out what it is. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 09-08-2012 at 12:55 AM. | |
09-08-2012 12:57 AM
#12
| |
What shape is the universe? | |
| |
09-08-2012 01:46 AM
#13
| |
3rd grade version, 2nd attempt. | |
09-08-2012 01:56 AM
#14
| |
Definition: the universe is anything which has been observed by humanity, and anything which can be realistically observed by humanity in the future. | |
09-08-2012 02:13 AM
#15
| |
![]() ![]()
|
was nikola tesla legit |
09-08-2012 02:26 AM
#16
| |
He was a brilliant scientist. He was no good at making friends. There is some speculation that he had Asperger Syndrome, due to his extremes in both of these. | |
09-08-2012 02:59 AM
#17
| |
![]() ![]()
|
some people think tesla was the greatest inventor of all time, and i have no idea how much of the stuff is just myth. what did he truly invent, and what, if anything, did he find that modern physics hasn't (im sure that's just part of the myth though)? |
09-08-2012 03:01 AM
#18
| |
Explain the theoretical basis for time travel. | |
| |
09-08-2012 03:03 AM
#19
| |
09-08-2012 03:04 AM
#20
| |
Are we inside a black hole? | |
| |
09-08-2012 03:05 AM
#21
| |
09-08-2012 03:05 AM
#22
| |
Neil Degrasse Tyson: Great scientist? Or Greatest Scientist? | |
09-08-2012 03:10 AM
#23
| |
![]() ![]()
| |
09-08-2012 03:10 AM
#24
| |
![]() ![]()
| |
09-08-2012 03:47 AM
#25
| |
Time isnt even a thing! There is no time! NO TIME FOR ANYONE | |
09-08-2012 04:21 AM
#26
| |
09-08-2012 04:52 AM
#27
| |
is it possible for the seemingly stable laws of physics that guide our universe to change over time? do the laws that we observe today differ from the laws that existed 1 billion years ago? 10 billion? 1 hour after the big bang? | |
09-08-2012 09:24 AM
#28
| |
Incorrect. In theory, it's pretty easy to travel into the future. Going back in time is quite probably impossible, but forwards... it's just a matter of moving very fast. | |
| |
09-08-2012 11:03 AM
#29
| |
The important thing to remember is that the flow of time is relative. If you start with 2 perfectly synchronized clocks and hold one of them still, while the other one is moved through some path, and then brought back together with the first clock, they will not necessarily be synchronized anymore. Clocks in different gravitational fields will tick at different rates. Clocks moving at different speeds will tick at different rates. This sounds like total BS to the uninitiated, but it is solid physics. In fact, GPS and many other technologies would not work if not for the implementation of this knowledge. | |
09-08-2012 11:10 AM
#30
| |
Physics answer: could be | |
09-08-2012 11:13 AM
#31
| |
He's my favorite ambassador to science. I must confess that I haven't read any of his publications, so I can not judge his scientific credentials. My guess is that he's a great scientist. | |
09-08-2012 11:25 AM
#32
| |
I want to know what the general belief is of what's on the other side of the universe as it expands out. I can't seem to picture nothing, as nothing like we have in space is something. So what is the something our universe is expanding into as it becomes the universe, what is the part that is shrinking? | |
09-08-2012 11:27 AM
#33
| |
I'm sorry. I was fall-over tired and I'm coming down with a cold, so my patience was at it's thinnest. I did realize that I phoned that one in, as I stated in a later post. Sorry if I let you down. | |
09-08-2012 11:28 AM
#34
| |
| |
Last edited by OngBonga; 09-08-2012 at 11:38 AM. | |
09-08-2012 11:45 AM
#35
| |
Depends what you mean. If the laws of physics don't adequately describe the observed universe, then they are updated. Unlike some institutions, when a statement made by physics is disproved, it is discarded. | |
09-08-2012 12:21 PM
#36
| |
How'd I do? | |
09-08-2012 12:30 PM
#37
| |
Anything which can not be observed is outside the purview of physics. | |
09-08-2012 01:25 PM
#38
| |
Again, I can not speculate on what might be inside a black hole, there is simply no data. There is strong reason to believe that no data will ever be available. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 09-09-2012 at 11:43 AM. | |
09-08-2012 03:56 PM
#39
| |
Yeah man you did good, you didn't fall into my trap, you considered time dilation. tbh I knew you would! I didn't know the answer, I just knew it was less than 2 years. It would take 2 years to an observer in Earth, though it would take an extra year for me to tell them I got there, so 3 years after I leave, they get a message telling them I got there in 1 year 9 months lol. Time is fucking weird, I really don't understand it but it deeply interests me! | |
| |
09-08-2012 04:10 PM
#40
| |
![]() ![]()
|
Nyet. When the "time travel" question remotely resembles the scifi version i.e non-quantum matter traveling through time outside of the speed of light rule, it is impossible. |
09-08-2012 04:33 PM
#41
| |
Is there a question in there? | |
09-08-2012 04:56 PM
#42
| |
wuf, jack asked... | |
| |
09-08-2012 04:59 PM
#43
| |
Although another argument, of course, is that if you do indeed travel very fast, you're not travelling into the future, you're just experiencing your now at a different rate to everyone you left behind. When you arrive in the future, it's still your present, it's only the future from point of view of those you left behind. | |
| |
09-08-2012 05:00 PM
#44
| |
| |
| |
09-08-2012 05:39 PM
#45
| |
What? No. Why would it mean that? The surface atoms are still bonded in 3-space. I don't know if they carry stress optimally or not, though. | |
09-08-2012 05:44 PM
#46
| |
I just wanted you to describe diamond structure and cleavage planes. | |
| |
09-08-2012 05:52 PM
#47
| |
I couldn't do so on either topic without spending a day doing research. Which you could just as easily do yourself. I spent very little time studying crystals and solids, except to shoot x-rays and other radiation at them and measure the angle of displacement of the beam and it's attenuation at various angles. | |
09-08-2012 06:06 PM
#48
| |
what did you think of the movie primer? i've been obsessing about it and it still mindfucks me trying to figure everything out. and if you haven't seen it, wtfbbq dl that shit now. | |
09-08-2012 06:09 PM
#49
| |
Haven't seen it. I just added it to my netflix queue, top slot. I'll get back to you. | |
09-08-2012 06:12 PM
#50
| |
![]() ![]()
|
Every time I see the "time travel" phrase, it seems to be along the Doc and Marty lines, not the orbit the Earth really fast then come back and find people are old line. |
09-08-2012 06:36 PM
#51
| |
What the... ? | |
09-08-2012 06:53 PM
#52
| |
![]() ![]()
|
As to how dirty space is, I don't know; as to how fast something with significant mass can get to the speed of light, I don't know; but at close enough speeds, the spaceship will hit something even small, and the amount of energy generated in the collision will destroy the ship |
09-08-2012 06:59 PM
#53
| |
That would be one very poorly designed ship. It's like saying a car will explode if it drives over 30 mph because it could hit a tree. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 09-09-2012 at 11:49 AM. | |
09-10-2012 12:55 PM
#54
| |
09-10-2012 01:44 PM
#55
| |
What would happen if a glass of water is suddenly, inexplicably, half-empty? | |
09-11-2012 08:33 PM
#56
| |
In your Time Travel answers you forgot to mention that if anyone did actually achieve the necessary speed and break through the light barrier, | |
09-11-2012 09:26 PM
#57
| |
Um. No. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 09-11-2012 at 09:30 PM. | |
09-11-2012 09:42 PM
#58
| |
| |
Last edited by chemist; 09-11-2012 at 09:45 PM. | |
09-11-2012 10:03 PM
#59
| |
The reason for saying "speed of light in vacuum" and not just "speed of light" is because light travels slower as it passes through materials based on the material's index of refraction, a material property. For example, light travels more slowly through glass than through empty space. | |
09-12-2012 04:22 PM
#60
| |
If you are travelling at greater than the speed of light and you turn your headlights on, will they work? | |
| |
09-12-2012 05:06 PM
#61
| |
I wish I could answer this, but as previously stated, any question which concerns something that has never been observed is fit for a philosophical or religious discussion. Physics can not add anything to those conversations. | |
09-12-2012 07:00 PM
#62
| |
If two light particles are on a direct colliding course, are they relatively (to each other) moving at 2x the speed of light? | |
09-12-2012 07:01 PM
#63
| |
I like the theoretical question about the headlights working, | |
Last edited by chemist; 09-12-2012 at 07:12 PM. | |
09-12-2012 07:31 PM
#64
| |
A farmer is having problems with his chickens. They are all suddenly getting very sick and he doesn't know what is wrong with them. | |
09-12-2012 08:40 PM
#65
| |
This is dipping your toe into the realm beyond physics. I can only answer this in terms of taking a limit of 2 objects approaching each other at a velocity that approaches the speed of light (others may do better). | |
09-12-2012 09:04 PM
#66
| |
Can you explain, in simple terms, how orbit works and how it is stable? | |
09-12-2012 09:04 PM
#67
| |
If you are traveling under the speed of light (by even the slightest infinitesimal amount, then there is a clear answer. The speed of light in vacuum is constant in all inertial reference frames. Therefore, your headlights look normal to you. | |
09-12-2012 10:23 PM
#68
| |
According to this view of gravitation (Newton's), it is the inertial force, or momentum of the Earth tending to move in a straight line, and leave orbit. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 09-12-2012 at 10:27 PM. | |
09-13-2012 05:34 AM
#69
| |
Thanks a lot for explaining this, I find it extremely interesting. | |
09-13-2012 11:47 AM
#70
| |
I am going to speak of orbits in terms of the 2 body problem. The fundamental assumption is that the 2 bodies in question have masses that are "far greater" than any other masses "nearby". This is a simplifying assumption for the sake of example. | |
09-15-2012 12:05 AM
#71
| |
An orbit is moving forward fast enough that you miss as you fall toward the Earth. If you're orbiting the earth at an altitude you would consider in space, you're in free fall like a skydiver; but you've got so much forward velocity and no air to hold you back that the Earth moves out of the way below you. | |
| |
09-15-2012 12:14 AM
#72
| |
Also, the Sun didn't catch the Earth. The Earth and Sun formed together. A whole cloud of stuff started rotating a long time ago and it evolved under a set of known-ish laws to form what you see today. One of those laws is the conservation of rotational momentum. Your rotational momentum is your velocity, by your mass, by how far you are from the center of mass in 3-space. The total rotational momentum of the cloud of stray stuff way back which formed our solar system is equal to the total rotation momentum of the solar system today. That includes all comets, asteroids, planets, etc which originated with us, even if some of it had been flung off. This includes all the momentum being used to move those Voyager spacecraft out of our solar system. | |
Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 09-15-2012 at 12:21 AM. | |
09-15-2012 03:36 AM
#73
| |
That's all quite intuitive. What isn't however, is that wouldn't even a slight change in velocity, even the tiniest bit of acceleration or deceleration cause the planet to either get loose or crash? How come this doesn't happen? What creates this universal (ha!) tendency for all objects to just play nice and circle each other at exactly the right speed? | |
| |
09-16-2012 12:23 PM
#74
| |
This whole post is a valid view of orbits. It falls into the realm of the "orbits are the result of forces" descriptions. This is NOT the only theory, or even the most accurate. It is adequate, but putting it out there like it is the stone cold nuts of explanations might be misleading for some. | |
09-16-2012 02:02 PM
#75
| |
Most accelerations would only result in a different shape of orbit (a change in the eccentricity of the ellipse), and a different orbital period. Only when 2 bodies are moving near their escape velocity and some interaction accelerates them to or above the escape velocity would they break orbit. Anything which reduces the relative speed would result in another "stable" orbit, or a collision. | |