[QUOTE=sltungle;32033282]Why would you assume that? The only difference between deuterium and regular hydrogen is one neutron. Deuterium is chemically identical to hydrogen, it's just got double the mass.
If anything it's WORSE. Kinetic energy is proportional to the velocity squared, and to mass linearly. If you want to go faster you want to throw your propellent away from you quicker, not make it more heavy.[/QUOTE]
Right. Thanks.
Actually, having woken up slightly more in the past 5 minutes I don't think that works. You can't really apply the concept of 'equal and opposite' to energy I don't think. You can only apply it to force.
But then... momentum is the integral of force, and momentum is directly linked to kinetic energy.
Gimme an hour and let me get some caffeine into me and I'll get back to you.
I the gigantic volcano "Olympus" on mars still active?
And if so, could it erupt?
[QUOTE=booster;32035133]I the gigantic volcano "Olympus" on mars still active?
And if so, could it erupt?[/QUOTE]
Mars is geologically dead. Has been for a very, very long time. That's why the planet has no magnetosphere, no protection from solar radiation.
Mars very well could have been habitable in the distant past, but when its core cooled down and stopped rotating the magnetosphere dwindled and failed, and the solar radiation was finally able to get to it and strip the atmosphere from the planet. With little protection left from the radiation any life would probably have quickly died.
Earth too shall one day befall the same fate.
[QUOTE=sltungle;32035352]Mars is geologically dead. Has been for a very, very long time. That's why the planet has no magnetosphere, no protection from solar radiation.
Mars very well could have been habitable in the distant past, but when its core cooled down and stopped rotating the magnetosphere dwindled and failed, and the solar radiation was finally able to get to it and strip the atmosphere from the planet. With little protection left from the radiation any life would probably have quickly died.
Earth too shall one day befall the same fate.[/QUOTE]
Well damn :(
Anyway, hypthetically, if Mars still had a heated core. And you forced the volcano to erupt, by an explosion of some sort. Covering the air with dust. Would that speed up the greenhouse effect? Or would the cloud be so thick that sunlight wouldn't be able to penetrate it, making mars even colder?
Would terraforming mars even be possible?
[QUOTE=booster;32035394]Well damn :(
Anyway, hypthetically, if Mars still had a heated core. And you forced the volcano to erupt, by an explosion of some sort. Covering the air with dust. Would that speed up the greenhouse effect? Or would the cloud be so thick that sunlight wouldn't be able to penetrate it, making mars even colder?
Would terraforming mars even be possible?[/QUOTE]
Possible? Of course. Probable? Uhh, not with the way humans currently value shiny pieces of yellow metal over progress, no.
While I'm still posting.
Can we determine how far the first Radio waves we've sent have travelled into space?
And at what speed?
[QUOTE=booster;32035473]While I'm still posting.
Can we determine how far the first Radio waves we've sent have travelled into space?
And at what speed?[/QUOTE]
distance = speed * time
speed = speed of light in vacuum
Radiowaves are just another form of electromagnetic radiation like light. They travel at the exact same speed as one another in vacuum. They're essentially the exact same thing (just different wavelengths and frequencies).
[QUOTE=sltungle;32035485]distance = speed * time
speed = speed of light in vacuum
Radiowaves are just another form of electromagnetic radiation like light. They travel at the exact same speed as one another in vacuum. They're essentially the exact same thing (just different wavelengths and frequencies).[/QUOTE]
I'm not entirely familiar with the dates the first radio transmissions were created, but I'm guessing it's somewhere between 80-100 years ago.
Would that then mean, that those radio waves have travelled about 80-100 lightyears into space?
[QUOTE=booster;32035710]I'm not entirely familiar with the dates the first radio transmissions were created, but I'm guessing it's somewhere between 80-100 years ago.
Would that then mean, that those radio waves have travelled about 80-100 lightyears into space?[/QUOTE]
Yup, pretty much. Although the Earth's a moving source, so I'm pretty sure the radiation would be red-shifted/blue-shifted very, very slightly (not too much though, I don't think - generally you don't notice red-shifting/blue-shifting unless the object emitting the radiation is moving sufficiently fast).
Can anyone tell me if this formula is right
[img]http://i.imgur.com/ikAEs.jpg[/img]
it's to calculate the average temperature that two substances come to when in contact in a closed system.
T1 = temperature of object 1
m1 = mass of object 1
c1 = specific heat capacity of object 1
and so on for object 2
[editline]31st August 2011[/editline]
you can have my working if you want
I got the same result with Delta E1 = - Delta E2
I wouldn't be so quick to call m1c1 / m2c2 a constant, though.
Pretty sure it isn't.
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32042311]I got the same result with Delta E1 = - Delta E2
I wouldn't be so quick to call m1c1 / m2c2 a constant, though.
Pretty sure it isn't.[/QUOTE]
It is if you're assuming what I'm assuming
c1 and c2 are most definitely constants, and if the mass of both objects stays the same then m1 and m2 will be as well
I'm thinking "hot metal ball dropped into water" type scenario. Thanks for verifying!
[editline]31st August 2011[/editline]
I mean if you change the objects each time then you'll obviously end up with a different constant for each situation, which is fine
Well, it's pretty pointless to have a constant that is only a constant in a determined situation, don't you think?
And c1 and c2 aren't constants, that's why there is c1 and c2. G in Newton's law of gravity is a constant because regardless of how you use it, G stays the same. Your k doesn't.
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32043267]Well, it's pretty pointless to have a constant that is only a constant in a determined situation, don't you think?
And c1 and c2 aren't constants, that's why there is c1 and c2. G in Newton's law of gravity is a constant because regardless of how you use it, G stays the same. Your k doesn't.[/QUOTE]
eh
I put m1c1/m2c2 as a constant because it's easier to write k than that and it doesn't change [B]in each specific situation[/B]
All a constant is is something that doesn't change in the equation under certain assumptions. There are "universal constants" like G which probably don't ever change, yes, but not every constant has to be strictly unchanging in every situation, it just has to stay constant for the scenario in which you're using it.
Think of a simple rule like W = mg
there, g is being used as a constant acceleration, 9.81 ms^-2. That's because W=mg is only an approximation for objects close to ground level on planet Earth. It's not a "universal" constant, but it does the job in this situation.
[editline]31st August 2011[/editline]
this is barely important anyway, I'm just glad the formula works
The problem is that W = mgh works for a huge number of questions. Not to speak that W=mgh isn't even a proper formula. It's W=mah. Your K only works for two bodies. That abbreviation is useless in thermodynamics.
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32045146]The problem is that W = mgh works for a huge number of questions. Not to speak that W=mgh isn't even a proper formula. It's W=mah. Your K only works for two bodies. That abbreviation is useless in thermodynamics.[/QUOTE]
I was using w for weight but whatever
nigga I don't give a fuck
[editline]31st August 2011[/editline]
actually no, nigga all of a sudden I give a lot of fucks
how is my "k" any more useless than the arbitrary constants you get when solving a particular differential equation
nobody's gonna write all those cs and ds and ks down in the databooks and nobody in sound mind would put my k in a databook either, it's PURELY there to make the equation look nicer, if that's not a valid use of it, then I've been lied to many many times
[editline]31st August 2011[/editline]
so just... get off my BACK, you... meanie
"arbitrary constants you get when solving a particular differential equation"
Mind elaborating on that part?
It turns an ugly equation in a system of equations. Destroys the intended simplicity, man.
I'm not too fond of the constant in the electric force equation either.
[editline]31st August 2011[/editline]
Oh, thought you mean work.
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32045465]"arbitrary constants you get when solving a particular differential equation"
Mind elaborating on that part?.[/QUOTE]
Say if you integrate random function blah blah you'll get something plus a constant
That constant is always given the letter c, but you have no idea what it actually is until you find the specific solution
[editline]31st August 2011[/editline]
that's all I meant
Can't believe I haven't stumbled upon this thread yet!
Just started out taking Chemistry HL and Biology HL in the IB course, so I'll be asking questions here if I'm stuck. :smile:
Wow I signed up for Neurobio and somehow my schedule says Marine Bio
what the fuck
So if we one day start to travel in close to light speed spaceships, how are we going to fix that colossal time problem.
I mean, if we decide to go and discover the centre of the galaxy which would take like 21 years for the travellers in 99.9% lightspeed.
For the people on earth, that trip would take 30,000 years.
The time problem really just sounds like a kick in the face for any sort of interstellar space travel. For it to be somewhat conventional, every living being on earth would have to go at the same time. And even then if we reach our destination (without somehow crashing into something on the way), how can we be so sure that that "destination" is still there? For all we know it could've perished thousands of years ago.
Is the human race doomed to live and die on this one planet?
[QUOTE=booster;32062450]I mean, if we decide to go and discover the centre of the galaxy which would take like 21 years for the travellers in 99.9% lightspeed.[/QUOTE]
No. It would take much longer than that.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32066188]No. It would take much longer than that.[/QUOTE]
Carl Sagan lied to me :(
Though, that's probably because it's from the 1980's. Must be quite outdated.
Did you truncate the 99.9%? The number of 9s has a big impact. At 99.9% lightspeed it would be about 1,180 years for the person aboard the ship.
[editline]2nd September 2011[/editline]
Compared to 373 for 99.99% of c and 118 for 99.999% of c.
[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;32053569]Wow I signed up for Neurobio and somehow my schedule says Marine Bio
what the fuck[/QUOTE]
It's your [i]destiny.[/i]
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32070281]Did you truncate the 99.9%? The number of 9s has a big impact. At 99.9% lightspeed it would be about 1,180 years for the person aboard the ship.
[editline]2nd September 2011[/editline]
Compared to 373 for 99.99% of c and 118 for 99.999% of c.[/QUOTE]
He didn't really go into detail much.
Here's the part
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZj2yDzXqpA#t=31m20[/url]
[QUOTE=booster;32070408]He didn't really go into detail much.
Here's the part
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZj2yDzXqpA#t=31m20[/url][/QUOTE]
Oh so he doesn't actually give a speed.
[img]http://www.centauri-dreams.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ramjet-side-text.jpg[/img]
I do wonder if things like this would ever become reality, or if they'll just stay as fiction.
[QUOTE=booster;32070568][img]http://www.centauri-dreams.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ramjet-side-text.jpg[/img]
I do wonder if things like this would ever become reality, or if they'll just stay as fiction.[/QUOTE]
They once said that about flying machines and ocean going ships so you bet your ass its gonna happen.
[editline]1st September 2011[/editline]
We'll all be long dead though so....
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
