Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: A question to think about
  • Subject: A question to think about
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: A question to think about

bah

Posted by: v8juice
Posted by: The Rip Saw
Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.


Um, I've only taken physics up to Grade 11, but I thought that if an object was in a state of uniform motion, then there were forces acting upon it, they were just balanced, which resulted in zero acceleration/deceleration and therefore a state of uniform motion. Anyways, if an object is moving, then there must have been an unbalanced force to instigate the movement in the first place (I think, in the real world anyway). There are always forces, no matter how small, that are acting upon an object.
Keen observation. Physicists have changed the wording to "net force" due to the fact that two forces can cancel each other out completely. Also, there is more to it than that, as you have to add rotational motion to the equation as well. Also, we are only speaking of external forces. There are trillions of internal forces action upon stuff, but they don't effect its inertia in any way.

  • 08.17.2004 1:00 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Ah, net force, that's what it was. Summer, you know, I kind of forgot.

  • 08.17.2004 1:01 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Did you go to bed or something? I was actually enjoying being mentally stretched like that. I find that kind of stuff kind of cool. Anyways, if you're still reading this, try and figure out that brain teaser I posted in here on the first page. It's a good one my dad told me.

  • 08.17.2004 1:12 AM PDT

bah

Well, I was giving someone else a chance to answer it. If we assume the fly doesn't explode from the impact of the train, it does indeed stop for a very short period of time. The fly does not stop as a whole, but parts of it will be going 3 mph, whereas others will be going 50 mph. The net speed will be zero. There is the literal answer, I'll bet there's a funny one somewhere out there...

  • 08.17.2004 1:26 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: The Rip Saw
Well, I was giving someone else a chance to answer it. If we assume the fly doesn't explode from the impact of the train, it does indeed stop for a very short period of time. The fly does not stop as a whole, but parts of it will be going 3 mph, whereas others will be going 50 mph. The net speed will be zero. There is the literal answer, I'll bet there's a funny one somewhere out there...


Hmm. Interesting. The answer I was given was that the center of gravity of the fly stopped for a fraction of a second as the rest of it deformed on the front of the train. Which, I think, equates to about the same thing you said. Oh, and trains may go slower than 50 mph, I just threw out a number. I really don't know. But if they do go significantly slower, the likelihood of the bug exploding and screwing up all this logic decreases.

  • 08.17.2004 1:31 AM PDT

Gamertag: Sarge 117

Wow you guys know your stuff lol. I was able to follow a good part of what you guys were talking about, but I only have grade 9 science right now lol. But I'd say that there's still a lot to be learned about forces and energy etc. For example, scientists know, due to the doppler effect (the effect in which wavelengths are either shortened of lengthened because their source is moving), that the universe is expanding, and that galaxies are moving outward in all directions. So you'd think that because of gravity the universe would be slowing down or stopping and begginning to collapse inwards, but it's not. Something is pushing the universe outward against the forces of gravity, dark energy (dark signifying the unknown).

Interesting stuff.

  • 08.17.2004 1:33 AM PDT

bah

Bingo. The center of mass would be going 0. That's also the net sum of the fly's inertia, sort of.

  • 08.17.2004 1:35 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: sarge117
Wow you guys know your stuff lol. I was able to follow a good part of what you guys were talking about, but I only have grade 9 science right now lol. But I'd say that there's still a lot to be learned about forces and energy etc. For example, scientists know, due to the doppler effect (the effect in which wavelengths are either shortened of lengthened because their source is moving), that the universe is expanding, and that galaxies are moving outward in all directions. So you'd think that because of gravity the universe would be slowing down or stopping and begginning to collapse inwards, but it's not. Something is pushing the universe outward against the forces of gravity, dark energy (dark signifying the unknown).

Interesting stuff.


Really? I never knew that. That's rather interesting, especially concerning our little solar system, since the sun is expanding slowly and getting ready to explode in another couple hundred thousand lifetimes, one would think that it's gravitational effect would also increase, thus drawing all the planets in closer to it, shortening the orbits, shortening the year, even, given enough time.

I don't know, space was never my specialty. Just kind of rambling on here. I prefer investigating stuff that happens on earth.

Edit: Sorry, it's late, the length of the orbits is the same thing as the length of the year, just in different terms, find myself getting a bit too wordy as it gets later

[Edited on 8/17/2004 1:40:02 AM]

  • 08.17.2004 1:37 AM PDT

bah

Einstein had at one point theorized the existence of dark energy, or negative energy, but he dropped the theory because it scared him. You see, energy CAN be created and destroyed, just in equall parts. So if you make some energy, you have to make some anti-energy as well. When these two particles come into existance, for a tiny fraction of a second, they excert a force outwards, then they disappear. This is our best explanation for nagative energy. Scientists are now pretty much convinced that the universe will continue to expand forever and ever untill everytihng is dead.

  • 08.17.2004 1:39 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Ah it is good to see an interesting conversation on this forum, it sure has been a while.

I will decline to add my two cents to this debate- I am afraid theoretical physics is not one of my strong points. But still, it makes for an interesting read.

Maybe a series of debates on different subjects would be a good idea-Everyone could get involved.

  • 08.17.2004 1:42 AM PDT

Gamertag: Sarge 117

That's a good point, but energy isn't being created all the time is it? I think that the only time energy is created is when matter is converted into energy (which it can be according to Einstein). It's all over the place just being converted from one from to the next etc. right? That is, unless the nuclear fusion in stars is matter being turned into energy, but I don't think it is, because isn't that just a conversion of the potential energy in the atoms?

  • 08.17.2004 1:46 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Energy and anti-energy particles? I always thought that energy was one of those intangibles, like momentum kinda, you can see it but if you look through a microscope at a million times magnification you wouldn't see it.

Wait, momentum is energy . . . damn it, there goes that train of thought. Anyways, if I'm thinking right (and it's late, I may not be) energy is what causes forces to occur. Now, what would anti-energy do? And would it ever be possible to harness and utilize anti-energy for anything? I wouldn't think so, since energy is literally everywhere, and once energy and anti-energy collide, there is a violent reaction and they both disappear. Perhaps this may be the next superweapon? Scary thought.

  • 08.17.2004 1:47 AM PDT

bah

matter and anit-matter annihilate each other in huge explosions releasing tons of energy. Energy and anti-energy annihilate each other and leave notihng behind. No explosion, no light, just notihngness. Scarey.

  • 08.17.2004 1:54 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Holy -blam!-, I need to get to bed. Been nice chatting with you guys. Being mentally stimulated like this is quite fun . . .

Food for thought: What happens to matter/energy/anti-energy when it goes into a black hole? What would happen if two black holes came into contact with one another? What if a star got sucked into a black hole? I don't know, use your brains and think up some stuff. G'nite.

  • 08.17.2004 1:55 AM PDT

Gamertag: Sarge 117

If energy is what causes forces to occur, then wouldn't negative energy stop forces? If that's true, what would happen if negative energy acted upon something it it's inert state, with no current external forces being applied to it? Would you get "negative force?" What the- o man that's wierd ...

  • 08.17.2004 1:57 AM PDT

bah

Anti-energy causes blackholes to slowly evaporate. And if two blackholes collided, we would get to witness a rare phenomena known as "gravity waves."

You don't want to know.

Me go to bed now too. I'll bookmark this thread.

  • 08.17.2004 2:00 AM PDT

Gamertag: Sarge 117

Stars get sucked into black holes all the time. The result is a quasar, which is a black hole in the process of devouring and destroying stars. You get and IMMENSE firestorm that is brighter than all the stars in the sky because energy is escaping from the blackhole at its poles, stretching in either direction for unimaginable distances.

  • 08.17.2004 2:00 AM PDT
Subject: Indeed...

Add the email above to your MSN to contact me with emergencies on the forum.

FOR CARNAGE, APPLY WITHIN
Marathon, Myth, and MORE (Under construction)

NO U! A Webcomic.
Mob Of Angry Peasants Chat

Posted by: v8juice
Posted by: Ace__
wow i just wanted to think a little now u guys are going into newtons laws and stuff but if the force hit the object and ricocheted off of it for a split second the force had to stop right when it hit then technicaly it would be stopped


Here's a brain teaser for you. A flie is travelling down some train tracks at approximately 3 miles an hour. A train is coming down the tracks in the opposite direction at approximately 50 miles an hour (or however fast trains go). Now, of course, the flie hits the train, goes splat, and starts going in the opposite direction. Now, for an object to change directions like that, it has to momentarily come to a stop. So, we know the flie had to come to a complete stop when it hit the train. However, the train did not stop. Now, if the train didn't stop, then how did the fly stop because it was stuck to the front of the train? Explain.

I know the answer, I just want to see how smart you guys really are . . . jk



I am upset that I didn't return sooner. I had that. Good night.

  • 08.17.2004 2:10 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

they fly would stop cause it is not going on its own energy anymore and since the train is going faster it pushes it away..... i think

  • 08.17.2004 8:58 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

are we all out of ideas? maybe more questions u guys have we can talk about

  • 08.17.2004 1:19 PM PDT
Subject: A question to think about
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: v8juice
Posted by: sarge117
Wow you guys know your stuff lol. I was able to follow a good part of what you guys were talking about, but I only have grade 9 science right now lol. But I'd say that there's still a lot to be learned about forces and energy etc. For example, scientists know, due to the doppler effect (the effect in which wavelengths are either shortened of lengthened because their source is moving), that the universe is expanding, and that galaxies are moving outward in all directions. So you'd think that because of gravity the universe would be slowing down or stopping and begginning to collapse inwards, but it's not. Something is pushing the universe outward against the forces of gravity, dark energy (dark signifying the unknown).

Interesting stuff.


Really? I never knew that. That's rather interesting, especially concerning our little solar system, since the sun is expanding slowly and getting ready to explode in another couple hundred thousand lifetimes, one would think that it's gravitational effect would also increase, thus drawing all the planets in closer to it, shortening the orbits, shortening the year, even, given enough time.

I don't know, space was never my specialty. Just kind of rambling on here. I prefer investigating stuff that happens on earth.

Edit: Sorry, it's late, the length of the orbits is the same thing as the length of the year, just in different terms, find myself getting a bit too wordy as it gets later


Gravity is determined by an object's mass, not volume. Since the sun wouldn't be gaining mass, instead, blowing it off, the gravity would slowly decrease.

  • 08.17.2004 1:53 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Another good question. If your traveling at the speed of light what would happen if you turned your headlights on?

  • 08.17.2004 4:57 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

It's impossible to have both of those things, if you have an unstoppable force then you can't have an unmoveable object.

  • 08.17.2004 4:59 PM PDT

bah

Sure you can. An unmovable object would be an unstoppable force if it was moving. As for turning on your headlights, the photons would simply gather in the beginning and slowly fan outwards in a wall of light.

  • 08.18.2004 1:54 AM PDT

Add the email above to your MSN to contact me with emergencies on the forum.

FOR CARNAGE, APPLY WITHIN
Marathon, Myth, and MORE (Under construction)

NO U! A Webcomic.
Mob Of Angry Peasants Chat

OK I have one - Since you were mentioning that matter can travel at up to, but not past, the speed of light - If you were moving at the speed of light and moved your arm forward, what would happen? The relative accelleration would mean that your arm would be moving at c+1'/s or so, faster than light. Does this mean it transubstantiates into a base form of energy? Or would it be the fly brain teaser mentioned above -- where you simply slowed down to disperse the extra speed once it got to that horizon?

  • 08.18.2004 3:14 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3