Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - optimisticcynic

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 51
1
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: relativity and black holes
« on: December 22, 2011, 12:13:12 PM »
So the other day I had a random thought that I think is has not been asked on this forum before.
so the faster you go the denser you get according to relativity.( you gain mass but your length shrinks) so if you are going fast enough shouldn't you collapse into a black hole? and since it is all relative isn't there a reference frame where we all collapse into a black hole? does anyone know how relativity deals with this? I am probably missing something obvious...

It would depend on what you are trying to move so quickly. The only known objects dense enough to collapse into singularities are stars. There is no reference frame where we all collapse into singularities, I think you are defining reference frame incorrectly.

The only time relativistic mass truly becomes a problem is when the object you are moving approaches the speed of light (rather than reach the speed of light, all energy it receives will simply make it more massive, rather than increase its velocity.). This means something would have to be giving you an infinite amount of energy that exponentially increases as it gives it to you. Therefore, say we are actually moving momentously fast, but we don't know it since we have no "slow object" to reference ourselves to, we would never have to worry about becoming too massive. If we were receiving infinite amounts of energy at an exponential rate, the universe would have collapsed itself billions of years ago.
sorry it has taken me so long to respond to this, graduate applications and finals took way more of my time then I thought they would. anyway we wouldn't need infinite energy because we wouldn't need infinite mass. also even a if we are using the reference frame of say a neutrino shot out by the sun some things should collapse into a black hole  that wouldn't collapse in our reference frame.
also a quick comment on Lorddave
I think you gain apparent mass but none of the gravitational effects since it's not really mass. 
even ignoring the apparent gain in mass you still decrease in length, which increase density, granted that effect wouldn't increase density as quickly but wouldn't it eventually increase enough to collapse if viewed from the right reference frame?

2
Technology, Science & Alt Science / relativity and black holes
« on: November 21, 2011, 02:37:40 PM »
So the other day I had a random thought that I think is has not been asked on this forum before.
so the faster you go the denser you get according to relativity.( you gain mass but your length shrinks) so if you are going fast enough shouldn't you collapse into a black hole? and since it is all relative isn't there a reference frame where we all collapse into a black hole? does anyone know how relativity deals with this? I am probably missing something obvious...

3
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Math questions?
« on: June 14, 2011, 06:31:27 PM »
ooo. I have a question actually... so I have been trying to come up with a "nice" equation that describes the electric field inside the plane of a ring... my integrals keep getting reaaaaally ugly and I was wondering if you can come up with a nice integral for it...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/curloo.html#c1
'thanks but that is the magnetic field at the center of a current loop. I was looking for the electric field as a function as how far we are from the center of the loop while still being in the plane.

4
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Math questions?
« on: June 13, 2011, 05:24:59 PM »
ooo. I have a question actually... so I have been trying to come up with a "nice" equation that describes the electric field inside the plane of a ring... my integrals keep getting reaaaaally ugly and I was wondering if you can come up with a nice integral for it...

5
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Dark Knight Rises
« on: June 06, 2011, 11:22:39 PM »
The Batman Beyond movie was actually pretty good.  That show itself was fairly underrated as well.
this. I loved the show though I thought that it each episode felt a little rushed, being only 1/2 hour. the one with mr freeze especially.

6
Ohm's Law kids... V=IR

To get the same current capacity as a standard AC source (~120V) you would need to produce a 120VDC source. Since DC does not work with transformers this severely limits your options.
this.
my understanding was the entire reason we us AC is it is much easier to up or lower the voltage. this way you can send it through power lines at high voltage then lower it back down when it gets where it needs to be. granted I could be wrong but that is my basic understanding of the subject.

7
The Lounge / Re: Do you wear a watch?
« on: March 30, 2011, 10:45:48 AM »
I love wearing watches. I never take mine off. it has been on for the past three months. only problem is I sometimes forget to take it off when I go rock climbing... bad things can happen if you do that... trust me.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Fox News
« on: March 30, 2011, 10:25:24 AM »


but on the same note is it really fair that some people are wealthy by being born in the correct family and some work there asses off to make enough to live?

Fair is subjective. Please tell me why someone is evil for being born in to a life where they'll never have a money problem. Life isn't fair, no matter what you do it's gonna make it unfair to someone. Does this mean I don't think it's tragic? No, but life's a bitch.
okay so socialism/welfare and scuh is bad because people that don't work as hard as other people get paid the same, so the problem is people are getting things they didn't work to deserve. yet inheritance has the same issue (people getting stuff they did not work for) yet you don't have a problem with it....

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Fox News
« on: March 29, 2011, 09:02:43 PM »
Communism is something completely different, and has it's own issues. A free market with a healthy dose of Socialism is a good thing, and it annoys me that so many Americans fear it out of not understanding it, or simply being told that it's bad.

Typical liberal oversimplification of the issue.  There are many intelligent people who are against socialism for what they see as perfectly valid reasons.

I never said otherwise,

Hence, oversimplification.  You made a blanket statement and implied (even if you didn't state it) that all Americans who disagree with socialism do so out of ignorance.

Quote
but could you elaborate?

Well, it's all about entitlement.  People who do the necessary work to succeed don't feel that they should be responsible for people not willing to do the necessary work to succeed.  But in many cases that's exactly what socialism forces on society.

I know people who are third generation welfare recipients, and spit out babies for the money and benefits the government is willing to shell out, just for being poor and having a lot of kids.

Honestly, I don't think it's right that my taxes should be supporting these people.  And I classify myself as a liberal.
but on the same note is it really fair that some people are wealthy by being born in the correct family and some work there asses off to make enough to live?

10
Minnesota for the win.

11
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Chemistry question
« on: March 01, 2011, 04:56:59 PM »
I think the main thing you would get would be hydrogen and oxygen gas.

I know that if you use salt, you end up with chlorine gas, because Chlorine is oxidized preferentially to water, and sodium would reduce preferentially to Hydrogen.  Although this doesn't work out perfectly and you end up with some interesting chemistry.  I know my explanation is shit, but it's been 12 years since I've done redox reactions.
I know that chlorine oxidizes with preferentially to water, which means that it is happier being in its ionized form then water is being water meaning that water breaks down first right?
I swear that I used to see people at the science museum preform electrolysis with salt water. granted I could be wrong but the 5 minutes I spent googling it seemed to implies people use saltwater to for like home electrolysis which I doubt would happen if it produced chlorine in greater concentrations then oxygen and hydrogen. again I could be wrong but that is just based on what I remember from chem.

12
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Chemistry question
« on: February 27, 2011, 08:26:59 PM »
I think the main thing you would get would be hydrogen and oxygen gas.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homosexuality
« on: February 25, 2011, 09:33:32 AM »
homosexauls are fags and bible

That doesn't sound like a reasoning

It's biblical reasoning.

"bible" is not a reason, specifics? I can tell you there are only about 6 verses that are against homosexuality and about 30 verses against heterosexuality (these numbers are the closest to the actual figures that I can remember, but I know that there's more against hetros than homos)

The Bible is very clear on the subject of homosexuality. There are about 6 verses to confirm this.
out of curiosity how many are from the new Testament?
Jesus and several others in the New Testament say the Old rules still apply.  Anyone who tries to weasel out of the Old by saying they follow the New needs to go back and actually read the books instead of trying to justify it.
That was not actually my point. my point is that if all the laws about homosexuals come from the old testament and they are following those laws they must also follow these laws.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=33726.0

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homosexuality
« on: February 24, 2011, 09:14:21 PM »
homosexauls are fags and bible

That doesn't sound like a reasoning

It's biblical reasoning.

"bible" is not a reason, specifics? I can tell you there are only about 6 verses that are against homosexuality and about 30 verses against heterosexuality (these numbers are the closest to the actual figures that I can remember, but I know that there's more against hetros than homos)

The Bible is very clear on the subject of homosexuality. There are about 6 verses to confirm this.
out of curiosity how many are from the new Testament?

15
the argument is if you know everything about the universe now that does not mean that you know the future. I am demonstrating that omniscience does not mean future knowledge.
Omniscience by definition, implies knowledge of the future. I think you are restricting his knowledge to one frame of time and relying on his infinite intelligence. I believe the common contention here is that god directly witnesses the future.


total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.
therefore if you have something that can't be known, such as the future according to quantum there is no problem. at least with that definition of omniscience.

16
quantum uncertainty says that even if you knew everything about a system you would not be able to predict what would happen. therefor being just because god new the past does not mean he would know the future.
Quantum uncertainty doesn't apply to omniscience. I doubt god's alleged ability to know the future is dependent on mathematically deriving it.
the argument is if you know everything about the universe now that does not mean that you know the future. I am demonstrating that omniscience does not mean future knowledge.

17
quantum uncertainty says that even if you knew everything about a system you would not be able to predict what would happen. therefor being just because god new the past does not mean he would know the future.

18
Arts & Entertainment / Bioshock
« on: February 15, 2011, 05:56:31 PM »
http://kotaku.com/#!5760779
So the bioshock movie is dead. instead they are going to make one based on atlas shrugged...
thoughts?

19
The Lounge / Re: More flat Earth breeding.
« on: February 15, 2011, 05:24:18 PM »
Why are you congratulating him?  She's the one that has the hard part.
that is why we are congratulating him... I don't see why you are confused.

20
The Lounge / Re: Random Political Comic thread
« on: February 15, 2011, 02:40:32 PM »
Well, they did beat the odds. If I get heads on a coin clip, I beat 50% odds. It didn't have to happen to me, I had the same chance as everybody else and I got lucky, probably along witha couple other people.

The rest died.
I don't view that as beating anything. that is the universe turning out the way it is supposed to. I would view that like beating a law of physics by flying a plane. it is using the laws not beating them

21
The Lounge / Re: Random Political Comic thread
« on: February 15, 2011, 01:42:09 PM »
I hear argument all the time about how someone had a 1 and a million chance of living and pulled through. this isn't a miracle if 999,999 thousand people with the same disease died. yes the person you loved might have survived but they didn't beat the odds. the are just the expected outcome of a system.  someone needs to survive other wise it would be 100% chance of death. not sure how coherent that is but... I really don't care.

22
The Lounge / Re: Random Political Comic thread
« on: February 14, 2011, 02:48:38 PM »
your natural survival instincts vanis-- OK, the last one is true if you're used to road riding...

Objection. Drivers are mostly retards when it comes to bikes.
but if you know that fact and ride anyway... that is like having a guy play with a bear get attacked, then saying he wasn't stupid it was the bear that was stupid. he should have known the inherent dangers of dealing with something that stupid and not done it.

24
The Lounge / Re: Random Religious Comic Thread
« on: February 11, 2011, 10:46:09 AM »
Sooo, how are those religious comics coming along? :P

Lurk moar.

Thank you for this insightful response, are you suggesting that I lurk in a different thread that might actually have religious comics? Well, I'll give it a shot.
sigh... look around here...
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=35607.0

25
The Lounge / Re: Rules to Live By
« on: February 11, 2011, 09:48:43 AM »
"Don't Panic"
hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy

26
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Not a Christian Nation
« on: February 11, 2011, 09:23:54 AM »
Did it scar them for life, seeing a different religion than they had been exposed to?

No, I was right there to show the absolute absurdity of it all.

Would you have the same opinion if they had gone to a Christian service?

I would say that there is a difference between learning about other religions, and have the school have a sponsored religious rights. I have no problem with schools teaching about how Christianity as effected the world and teaching the basic tenants of it and all other major religions for that matter. I have problems with school sponsorship of a religion...

27
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Dolphins
« on: February 10, 2011, 05:46:18 PM »
http://current.com/news/91825903_scientists-say-dolphins-should-be-treated-as-non-human-persons.htm

This paper is a rather interesting read, but it will not be the topic of discussion. Rather I would like to discuss the similarities of this paper and the discussion that occurred when England was trying to decide if aboriginees were people and exempt from hunting.
wait England had it legal to hunt people? um Okay this will sound stupid but what exactly do you want to discus? what level of intelligence should we give them human rights or something similar?

28
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: When will people understand?
« on: February 04, 2011, 03:53:15 PM »
WARDOGG, why is it wrong harvest fetal stem cells?

29
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: When will people understand?
« on: February 04, 2011, 03:51:32 PM »
guy guys lets stick to the argument about stem cells, and the fact no one is claiming that they have brain waves, So why is harvesting fetal stem cells bad?


So basically by time a women realizes shes pregnant...then its a baby.

Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram (EEG). H. Hamlin, "Life or Death by EEG," JAMA, Oct. 12, 1964, p. 120

Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, "appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation," or six weeks after conception. J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain," New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564
but the point is that the stem cells we harvest come from a source that has no brain waves.

30
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: When will people understand?
« on: February 04, 2011, 03:08:32 PM »
So basically by time a women realizes shes pregnant...then its a baby.

Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram (EEG). H. Hamlin, "Life or Death by EEG," JAMA, Oct. 12, 1964, p. 120

Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, "appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation," or six weeks after conception. J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain," New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564
but the point is that the stem cells we harvest come from a source that has no brain waves.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 51