Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


If you could somehow put the gun in "absolute nothing", how could any chemical reactions take place in the powder if there were no properties which defined how those reactions would proceed? How could the gun or the bullet exist?
Also, how could the bullet travel without space or time? Space and time are properties of a vacuum.

Imagining absolute pure nothingness, and then an object popping into existence, is a good way to comprehend the likely truth that there is a finite physical extent of area that 'something' takes up, beyond which is nothing.

Imagine absolute pure nothingness is all that is;

Then imagine a bowling ball pops into existence;

Imagine that bowling ball represents the totality of all matter/energy/everything of reality;

There is still likely infinite area of nothingness which surrounds it.

Now are you claiming that it is impossible, for 'something' to move into such area of nothingness?

Instead of attempting to discuss the point I was attempting to make, you rightfully so I admit, attempted to point out technicality issues with the thought experiment. I certainly cannot blame you for such;

Though the purest simplest form of the concept I am attempting to express, is just, the aspect of 'something', 'nothing', and any piece of something in any way that a piece of something can possibly move;

and if there is any reasonable thought, that would suggest, a piece of something, could not move off into the area of nothing;

Instead of a bowling ball, or gun, or robot arm, since you shot down those on account of technicalities; imagine the earth exactly as it is now was what popped into existence in the scenario;

(now you can pad around the earth to a finite extent whatever you may need, for technicalities to suffice)

If the earth as it is now, popped into existence (like the bowling ball in that example, into an area of nothingness), could a rocket leave earths surface and increasingly travel away from earth, creating a real increasing theoretically measurable distance?

a reply to: ImaFungi
If these hypotheticals are outside the context of our universe, they are probably:

1. Impossible to answer without further context
2. Not very productive for better understanding physics in our universe, at least not for me.

Basically the question is, if you have a type of nothing other than the vacuum in our universe, what would happen?

It's beyond our experience and since it's fictitious you can probably ascribe whatever fictitious properties you wish to the hypothetical universe in which it exists and obtain a variety of outcomes based on these fictitious assumptions. This is why I find such hypotheticals not very productive.

What known substance could possibly be sprayed from airplanes at cruising altitude to produce the lines in the sky the chemtrolls believe are some nefarious "chemtrail" 'spray'? Contrails and the science that explains their behavior are continually rejected by the chemmunity even though the "chemtrail" 'theories' are insufficient to account for the phenomena. Is there anything I might be overlooking?

a reply to: DenyObfuscation
I doubt you're overlooking anything. A jet with 4 engines can make 4 contrails. A jet with 2 engines can make 2 contrails.

The real chemical dispersing planes look like this and if you could see any trails there would be a lot more than 4 of them, but you probably can't even see any trail unless you're sitting inside the plane looking out the window and even then it's doubtful you could see much due to the low quantities of chemicals released...look at how small those tubes are, which treat many cubic kilometers.

www.cbc.ca...


I'm not really in favor of spraying silver iodide as it's a pollutant, and not only that, the effectiveness is questionable. The argument is made that it's not the biggest source of pollution, but if cloud seeding is not really effective, at least it's avoidable unlike car exhaust or coal burning pollutants. Here's an article about it:

Does cloud seeding work?

At least we aren't sacrificing virgins to appease the rain gods to make it rain anymore, but I'm not entirely convinced that spraying silver iodide is much more effective than that. It might be more effective in limiting the size of hail which is why some insurance companies fund certain hail reduction cloud seeding efforts.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

All I am asking is;

Assuming the universe is finite in quantity and therefore 3d area (which is not a terrible assumption);

And assuming the very meaning of such, means, that there is nothing beyond the finite quantity of something;

Is there any theoretically concept which would make one presume that;

A particulate of something, could not be ejected beyond what at that moment is the finite extent ("edge") of universe/totality?

Presume for a moment, at any given time there is an edge of the universe; beyond which is, not anything;

When at this edge, facing one direction, one would be observing the entire universe (in a sense, like looking down at the ground of earth, is generally viewing the direction of the totality of earth);

While facing the opposite direction, one would be observing the absolute lacking of anything (nothing);

What in theory, prevents your mind from speaking about any possibility, of a particulate of something, being propelled towards the opposite direction of the universe (a particulate propelled towards nothing)?

If you are comfortable enough to say things like; "maybe when you go to the edge you just keep going around like the inside of a sphere";

Why can you not say the possibility of there being real area of nothingness, of which the sphere exists in, and when located on the sphere and as a part of the sphere, with access to pieces of substance and matter and energy, could a piece of substance be ejected away from the sphere;

The same question about 'can an object leave the surface of earth and continually continue away', but imagine representing the entire universe as the earth (a general object with....obviously, finite extent).

a reply to: Arbitrageur
Not a fan of cloud seeding either, and I despise chemmies trying to use it as proof of "chemtrails". I need to refine my question though. I've stated at least a few times in that forum the trails can't be a spray of chemicals. The water formed by the combustion initiates the trail formation, but the mass of a persistent spreading trail is far greater than what was from the plane. It has to be water vapor already in the atmosphere. I get that, the believers don't. I realize it may sound like a silly question, I just thought you or someone reading the thread might know something I was missing.

So the contrails made by the airliners have to be ice crystals, regardless of any 'possible' presence of 'conspiracy particles'?

a reply to: ImaFungi
In this context maybe the question isn't beyond our universe, but if such an edge exists, it's probably beyond the observable universe, so once again it's no more likely to ever have any confirmed observation than something outside our universe.

The simple answer is if there is such an edge, I don't know of any way to model it and I doubt anybody else has any supportable model either. It's an interesting question but one which not only can't be answered today but in all likelihood will never have an answer. Newton's flaming laser sword applies.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation
The only thing I have to add is that the engine soot is present in the contrails in addition to the water vapor and while most of the soot doesn't aid in contrail formation, a portion of it does according to this paper:

Aircraft engine soot as contrail nuclei

According to its chemical composition and structure, engine soot is a mixture of a relatively hydrophobic main fraction almost free of impurities and a more hydrophilic fraction containing impurities. A significant amount of sulfur is accumulated within the aircraft engine on the soot surface as derivatives of sulfuric acid. Together with water soluble organics, they are responsible for the highly hygroscopic nature of the engine soot and for its ability to act as CCN for visible contrails.

ques: Since gravity on the moon is much less, Will any of our nuclear device explode on the moon, if tried?

a reply to: Nochzwei
I don't know of any reason why the fission or fusion reaction wouldn't take place on the moon.

The safeties aren't designed to operate on the moon so if you didn't modify those for the moon, the device might not work.

One single switch was all that stood between the U.S. and nuclear disaster

‘The report implied that because Weapon 2 landed in a free-fall, without the parachute operating, the timer did not initiate the bomb’s high voltage battery (‘trajectory arming’), a step in the arming sequence,’ wrote Bill Burr of the National Security Archives.

If the arming process involves some kind of verification of parachute deployment, it wouldn't work since the parachute wouldn't deploy properly on the moon.

So the critical mass required for fission, is different for the moon?
What would be the units assigned to this critical mass?
a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Nochzwei
So the critical mass required for fission, is different for the moon?

Where did you get that idea?

Mass in independent of gravity, but weight isn't. You would only weigh 1/6 as much on the moon but you'd still have exactly the same mass.

www.thecalculatorsite.com...

Have you been confusing mass with weight? It's very easy to do when you're not entirely sure of how science actually defines them.
...
Formula: Weight (W) = Mass (M) multiplied by gravitational acceleration (g).
...
Here are some key points about weight:
...
Weight is commonly measured in Newtons.

Mass is commonly measured in kilograms.

Lol, Im aware of all that.
So if you construct a nuclear device on the moon, how will you fix the weight/mass of fissile material to put inside and what trigger will you use weaker or stronger than on earth?
And what role does gravity play in the nuclear reaction in a bomb?
a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol, Im aware of all that.

So if you construct a nuclear device on the moon, how will you fix the weight/mass of fissile material to put inside

You say you're aware of that yet you then ask another question which suggests you don't understand. What do you mean "fix" the "weight/mass"? "Fix" implies something is broken and as I said the mass of a nuclear device is the same on the moon as it is on Earth; its mass is the same everywhere.

Since the country I live in is a party to the Outer Space Treaty, I'm prohibited from doing that. Before that treaty however both the US and Soviet Union had plans to detonate a nuke on the moon. One of the biggest considerations back then was how much payload could be delivered to the moon and with rockets at the time, they couldn't get much mass to the moon so it would have had a very small yield had the US project ever been completed, but it never was.

and what trigger will you use weaker or stronger than on earth?
And what role does gravity play in the nuclear reaction in a bomb?

I'm not sure what you mean by a weaker or stronger trigger. As far as I know a fission bomb like "Little Boy" would have worked on the moon if it was designed to be armed on the moon. It fired one piece of uranium at another piece of uranium in a "gun" design which I think would have worked in a wide range of gravity environments, and the powder for the gun I think would probably work without an atmosphere though if the temperature got too low that could be a problem. As I said the arming mechanism depends on the atmosphere and since the moon has no significant atmosphere, that's the part that wouldn't work. You could just set it off on the moon's surface but of course the reach of the explosion is greatly reduced doing that versus an explosion at altitude.

I suspect the effect of gravity on the nuclear reaction would be negligible.

However, the different gravity and lack of atmosphere would affect the explosion aftermath in different ways. In lower gravity, dust and debris from the explosion could be propelled to higher altitudes (all else being equal), especially with the lack of atmosphere to resist such motion.

If you want to read more about the US ideas to nuke the moon (before the outer space treaty was signed), see this paper:

A STUDY OF LUNAR RESEARCH FLIGHTS, VOLUME I

I think there is some confusion and an analogy with stellar fusion. Think this arrises from the fact that in a Stellar core the material i squeezed and the 'trigger' if you will, is automatic via quantum mechanical tunnelling.

BUT

for a device such as we have, the trigger is either via gamma optics and or a conventional fission trigger. The yield difference between a device on the surface of the Earth, and the Surface of the moon, will be identical, since it is a runaway chain reaction, the amount of energy covered is the same.

The only differences i can think of would be in relative velocity adding an 'effective' mass term to the devices, however this correction would be unmeasurable and quite unimportant imo, and would not prove anything specific since the devices will always have different yields since they can never be produced absolutely identically...

So the followup as Arbitrageur said, the question appears to point out either a confusion or a non-understanding of how mass and weight differ.

Now i have done a little research.
It seems that there are a few different theories regarding the so called big bang. And, the fate of the universe.
It would also seem as though some of those theories say there must have been a before the big bang.
If, after this universe ends and, if there is a restart in whatever way.
Would you consider that the laws of physics would be the same as they are in our present universe. Or, could they be different? I know its a difficult one to try to answer. As any answer is mere speculation. Please speculate.

Is Star Trek a reality someday?

originally posted by: Nochzwei
You need to stop time to completely negate gravity. He does not say he completely cancelled it in the time machine has run. He is showing anti gravity signatures. Watch it again carefully'

I'm always "schooling" as you call it. Good thing one of us is.

First, he says in the video he "completely cancels gravity". I'm not re-watching that nonsense, I remember him saying it.

Second, why do you think you need to stop time to cancel gravity? Out in deep space where gravity is negligible time doesn't stop. Near a black hole horizon where time does stop, gravity is extremely strong.
Where did you get this idea that you need to stop time? Do you realize that if you canceled all of the Earths gravity your clock would run like 1 millionth of a second faster per second?!?
Does he have an atomic clock that measures nanoseconds?

Everything that is a part of this universe experiences time. Space can collapse but pray that it doesn't, so that earth and all on it goes into oblivion. Looks like you are still schooling.

No, everything that is a part of this universe does not experience time. Which is a weird thing to say considering I mentioned in my last post what doesn't experience time?
Particles moving at c experience zero time. And guess what.....they STILL experience gravity. So again, what?

Yes Space collapses. When there is extreme gravity. In a black hole. I'm not too worried about it right now. I'm going to hold off on that prayer.

Man read my thread again and watch both the videos. im not about to conduct a physics lesson.
a reply to: joelr

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

All I am asking is;

Assuming the universe is finite in quantity and therefore 3d area (which is not a terrible assumption);

And assuming the very meaning of such, means, that there is nothing beyond the finite quantity of something;

Is there any theoretically concept which would make one presume that;

A particulate of something, could not be ejected beyond what at that moment is the finite extent ("edge") of universe/totality?

Presume for a moment, at any given time there is an edge of the universe; beyond which is, not anything;

When at this edge, facing one direction, one would be observing the entire universe (in a sense, like looking down at the ground of earth, is generally viewing the direction of the totality of earth);

While facing the opposite direction, one would be observing the absolute lacking of anything (nothing);

What in theory, prevents your mind from speaking about any possibility, of a particulate of something, being propelled towards the opposite direction of the universe (a particulate propelled towards nothing)?

If you are comfortable enough to say things like; "maybe when you go to the edge you just keep going around like the inside of a sphere";

Why can you not say the possibility of there being real area of nothingness, of which the sphere exists in, and when located on the sphere and as a part of the sphere, with access to pieces of substance and matter and energy, could a piece of substance be ejected away from the sphere;

The same question about 'can an object leave the surface of earth and continually continue away', but imagine representing the entire universe as the earth (a general object with....obviously, finite extent).

The current cosmology of the expanding universe is that the expansion of space-time itself is expanding faster than light so experiencing an "edge" isn't something that could happen.The universe is 13.5 ish years old but has expanded to ~40 light years across.

There is also no edge you could get to in that sense either because of another reason. Space is not expanding at edges like after a big explosion. It's expanding from all points. On the galaxy scale it's not noticeable but if you look out at distant galaxies they will be expanding faster and faster the farther away they are. At some point you will find a galaxy that cannot be seen because from out local perspective it's moving away faster than light.

Spacetime itself is expanding so it's not a violation of the light speed limit.

So no matter what spot in the universe you choose to be at, it will always appear to be the center with other galaxies moving away at faster and faster speeds. The edge is not accessible.

My guess is that the existence of particles and fields is directly tied to space-time itself. The potentiality of quanta and virtual fluctuations might actually be embedded in space-time. It's all very fine-tuned, the potentials are just strong enough to create virtual quanta that act as messenger particles and so on. A balancing act with all the energies and constants just so. So taking anything outside of space-time should immediately just turn it into pure energy. Or maybe energy cannot exist in a "nothing". It just wouldn't go there. I really don't know.

If the universe stops expanding and didn't contract, someone with a faster than light ship might be able to experience some type of boundary. I think?
If light can't travel beyond the universe then it would bounce back, probably super-heating the now static boundary and creating a wall of brightness. After so many eons of sitting static and collecting heat from photons it would be unapproachable anyways.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Man read my thread again and watch both the videos. im not about to conduct a physics lesson.
a reply to: joelr

Yeah, you would hate to write about physics on a PHYSICS THREAD.

I don't buy that for one second. You spend all kinds of time debating that washing machine thread. Writing all kinds of this and that.
Now I ask 3 simple questions and suddenly you've no time to answer?
I don't believe you can answer those questions.

And I did read some of the thread, I didn't see any answers to my questions.


So I ask you,

Is he using a device that will measure nano-seconds? If he is showing time dilation then how is he showing billionths of a second??? If the gravity of Earth was only partially cancelled then the effect would be even less.


Where in physics does it say you need to stop time to stop gravity?


In gravity your clock will slow. So more gravity, time is slower. At full black hole gravity, time stops.
So where do you get stop gravity = stop time? It should be stop gravity = more time.


You sent me to the thread. So now I'm asking.