|
| Thread: A hoax called gravity. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted June 27, 2008 02:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
This was just to say that we CAN compare these numbers - but of course, it's a different way than saying 1 > -1.
Obviously we can compare them but I meant a comparison similar to the one we use for real numbers 
|
|
Laue
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 06:05 PM |
|
Edited by Laue at 18:05, 28 Jun 2008.
|
Well i can be considered a variable, or even the value itself.
You can't really say that 2 == 3, but you CAN say i == 4. So you can't compare stuff if you don't know their exast values. Though values are so relative, because you might as well say that z > a because z is the much further away on alphabet.
P.S. What the hell I am talking about?
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 06:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You can't really say that 2 == 3, but you CAN say i == 4.
But i is only a symbol. The value is the one important, aka sqrt(-1) 
Quote:
So you can't compare stuff if you don't know their exast values. Though values are so relative, because you might as well say that z > a because z is the much further away on alphabet.
You're right, I was talking about the 'quantification' or however it's spelled -- for example, when you see a force has a certain value, you need to 'compare' it to see: is it enough? is it too powerful? etc..
you can do these comparisons either using 'metric' systems but you will need to compare it something else. For example, how much energy does a Nuclear Bomb release? Answer: because we compare, it's a whole lot more than dynamite for example. But if we had nothing to compare to, like e.g: 2000 + 3*i joules, then that would tell 'us' nothing, because we don't understand the nature of that system.
|
|
Laue
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 07:00 PM |
|
Edited by Laue at 19:01, 28 Jun 2008.
|
Well you can give a value for almost anything really, but then again people may give it another value, different from yours. The example is the metric sistems of EU and USA. We have values for gravity, we have values for intelligence, online game ranks are values too IMO, so are the stars below or avatars in here.
The point is that the ammount of values grows daily, and so the complexity of comparison. I don't really need any metric sistem to say that a child is lower than an adult. But that doesn't mean we don't need them, I'm just saying that everything is becoming more complex and complex, and with new discoveries it happens even more. If quantum computers ever work and become mainspread, I am sure it will have much more complex value factors of performance, speed, memory....
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 07:04 PM |
|
|
Quantum computers are based on probabilities and a probable state for electrons instead of digitally 0 or 1... if you think digital computers are complex, trust me, quantum computers are 10 times more complex
As for value, yeah, but maybe the values we use everyday have an imaginary component too (they are complex instead of real)?? Who knows. Maybe gravity doesn't pull us with 9.81g but rather "9.81g + 13i" or something
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 07:18 PM |
|
|
What the heck are you guys arguing about?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 07:21 PM |
|
|
|
Pointless rant about the world when we're bored
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 09:30 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well i can be considered a variable, or even the value itself.
You can't really say that 2 == 3, but you CAN say i == 4. So you can't compare stuff if you don't know their exast values. Though values are so relative, because you might as well say that z > a because z is the much further away on alphabet.
P.S. What the hell I am talking about?
You need to understand we're not just talking about any i here, but i = sqrt(-1).
Hence, you can't define as i = 4, as 4^2 = 16 =/= -1.
By the way am I the only one who thinks this discussion got sidetracked?
And Death, I think the whole comparison thing comes down to how we compare numbers. It is true, that in daily use, we would say 1 > -1, because "positive is greater than negative". However, for a mathematical point of view, I don't think that makes very much sense; mathematically speaking, I think the modulus (absolute number) is a much more objective way to compare things. After all, back and forth are equally far, so in that sense, +1 and -1 are in fact equal.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 02:56 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 15:43, 29 Jun 2008.
|
That depends how we 'project' our numbers. If we project them on a line, then -1 and 1 are just arbitrary points -- relative to each other, the difference is simply '2'. In fact, we can move the 'relative' point (which is 0) anywhere and still have the same comparisons (if we move both sides, obviously). So this way one can get rid of negative numbers altogether. But I wouldn't say that -1 is equal to 1 though
On the Projective Line the ambiguity between 1/0 is solved as well -- -infinity and +infinity are the same point. The diagram is a circle, and you go counter-clockwise with positive numbers on the right (0 at the bottom), until you reach infinity, at the top. Then you go further counter-clockwise for negative numbers (starting with -infinity, so to speak), and end up with -0.00000....1
This is similar to how two's complement in computers works -- basically whenever you use an unsigned comparison negative numbers will be 'bigger' than positive ones (further from 0, moving counter-clockwise) and -1 will be the largest (because there are only integers).
EDIT: here a diagram:
But yeah this is completely off topic 
|
|
Gnoll_Mage
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 06:26 PM |
|
|
Question (for Alc?) - how does atmospheric `thickness` vary with planet mass/volume?
____________
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 08:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Question (for Alc?) - how does atmospheric `thickness` vary with planet mass/volume?
Well, what I say here is only a very crude simplification, but in general, the more massive the (planitary) body, the larger the gravitational potential it exherts on its surroundings. For every object, there is a minimum gravitational value the planet has to surpass in order to hold on to that item, and the lighter the item is, the bigger the potential is required to bind it. Thus, CO2 is easier to capture, because it's fairly heavy, H2O requires much higher mass, and light gasses like H2 requires very high mass.
Mars has a very thin atmosphere, mainly consisting of CO2 and NH3 (or is it NOx? - I don't remember), because Mars is a fairly small body and only just is able to hold on to these heavy gass molecules. Earth and Venus are significantly larger bodies (~ 8 and 6 times the mass of Mars, respectively) and have much denser atmospheres, as these planets are sufficiently massive to hold on to mid-range gasses like O2, H2O and N2.
The super-massive planets in our Solar System (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune) have atmospheres consisting mainly of light gasses: H2, He, plus H20, NH3, etc. Notice that these planets are refered to as gassy planets, that is because their atmospheres are so thick that they actually make up most of what we consider "the planet". Thus, what we see as Jupiter is actually not the planet Jupiter, but only the Atmosphere surrounding it, and same goes for the other gassy planets. Inside, there is a rocky core, which is about 10 times the mass of Earth (I don't remember the number, but I think it's close to that, I could look it up, if it really mattered).
When all this is said, I should add one more comment. The composition of the planetary atmospheres is related to the planetary mass, but the relation might actually be the other way around: That the planetary mass is determined by the mass of its atmosphere! This might sound counterintuitive, but relates to the way the planets form (ok, this can be a very long discussion!).
To give you a brief idea what I'm talking about, the planets form through solidification of cooling material in a gaseous cloud. The collation of material was triggered by several factors, one being gravitational attraction (as described above) but also thermal cooling of the cloud: Upon cooling, gasses solidify (condense) which favors binding into planetary bodies. This cooling took an amount of time, during which the young sun was starting to be active, heating up the cloud from the centre.
Thus, these were two processes working against each other. It's likely, that the reason that the central planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars) are rocky is, that the inner part of the solar system (closest to sun) never got cold enough for the lighter gasses to condense and be bound in planets (other factors like solar wind sweeping out H2 from inner Solar System also plays in effect here!).
The outer parts (Jupitar, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune) on the other hand reached the critical temperature where - and had available H2 around them long enough - they started collecting light gasses in their atmosphere, allowing them to grow to immense masses and sizes compaired to the inner planets: Remember, that H (Hydrogen) makes up ~75 % (!) of the universe, and He (Helium) constitutes almost all of the remaining 25 % - thus, once you've reached the critical conditions, these planets can bind the material that actually makes up > 99 % of our Solar System! No wonder our own Earth is so puny in size!
As a side-note, this also provides a good impression of why Pluto is obviously an outsider in this company. Pluto is a rocky planet where no rocky planets should be, and obviously, is a foreign object with it's own genetic history.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 08:06 PM |
|
|
Question: Are gases 'gases' (i.e floating around) in massive planets like Jupiter? I mean, are they still floating around, or is the pull so strong that they act like solid materials?
Question #2: Why do heavy objects fall faster?
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 08:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Question #2: Why do heavy objects fall faster?
I think it has something to do with the fact that they have more atoms (protons/electrons)... but I could be wrong though.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 08:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Question #2: Why do heavy objects fall faster?
They don't in a vaccum. Generally it's because of air resistance, plus a little negligible bit because of the Law of Universal Gravitation also depending on the mass of both objects (the object and the Earth). But the difference would be negligible.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 08:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Question: Are gases 'gases' (i.e floating around) in massive planets like Jupiter? I mean, are they still floating around, or is the pull so strong that they act like solid materials?
Gasses are gasses. But to answer your question, those molecules that are in the atmosphere of Jupiter which we know as gasses (H2, NH3, CO2) are also gasses up there. If you were to jump off a pod on the surface of Jupiter, in principal, you would fall down into it, just like if you jumped off a cloud on Earth. However, the atmosphere on Jupiter is much denser, both in terms of pressure (i.e. # atoms / volume) but also in terms of visual depth: We can't really see into the atmosphere, because it's all clouds, which means a mixture of gas and solid material like "ice" crystals and dust ("ice" in this term refering to any solified gas, not only H2O).
Quote:
Question #2: Why do heavy objects fall faster?
Like pointed out above, ideally, they don't. If you neglect air resistance (and the movement of Earth!) all objects have the same acceleration towards Earth: a = g.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Gnoll_Mage
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 10:10 PM |
|
|
Thank you.
Surely we can completely order the complex numbers - just do it first by real part, then imaginary? Or is this not really related to what you were talking about?
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 10:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Surely we can completely order the complex numbers - just do it first by real part, then imaginary? Or is this not really related to what you were talking about?
We can order them like that but I don't think that any number 'above' the real line is greater than +infinity (real infinity, not complex). I thought about a Hilbert Curve orientation but that doesn't work either. Then again not all 'orderings' are valid -- when we need to measure, for example, which one is greater, to see which one has a bigger 'impact' for example.
by the way, the diagram above (Projective Line) also works for complex numbers 
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 30, 2008 12:22 AM |
|
|
Most of the gasses in a gas giant like jupiter are not like gasses as you would expect here on Earth, just because of the large densities involved. For instance, hydrogen under extremely large pressures becomes degenerate, and metallic, which is nothing like hydrogen gas at all.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted June 30, 2008 03:01 PM |
|
|
But you don't have sufficient pressure to make degenerous gasses in Jupiter, do you?
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 30, 2008 03:02 PM |
|
|
|
For some gasses maybe
|
| |
|
|
