Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → Did you know that!?
Did you know that!?
2006-02-04, 11:15 AM #1
In honor of Bill Nye The Science Guy, post randoms facts!


Did you know that?!

- The rovers Spirit and Opportunity were proposed, authorized, announced, designed, launched and successfully landed upon Mars within the timeframe of Duke Nukem Forever's development.
Got a permanent feather in my cap;
Got a stretch to my stride;
a stroll to my step;
2006-02-04, 11:17 AM #2
Im a nerd.


The closer something gets. The faster it seems to move as the light has less space and less matter to travel through [yes i just made that up...Probably wrong]
2006-02-04, 11:33 AM #3
uncle phil from the fresh prince does the voice of shredder.
2006-02-04, 11:36 AM #4
Originally posted by Tiberium_Empire:
Im a nerd.


The closer something gets. The faster it seems to move as the light has less space and less matter to travel through [yes i just made that up...Probably wrong]


Technically yes, but I think you're thinking more of noises moving away from you, like a siren sounding slower as an ambulance drives away from you.
nope.
2006-02-04, 11:40 AM #5
If you accelerate a 60 kg person to a velocity of 60 km/s, then their kinetic energy is equivalent to the total chemical energy in all the food they will eat throughout their entire life.
Stuff
2006-02-04, 11:44 AM #6
I am wearing pants! thats a fact!
Holy soap opera Batman. - FGR
DARWIN WILL PREVENT THE DOWNFALL OF OUR RACE. - Rob
Free Jin!
2006-02-04, 11:48 AM #7
the more certain you are of an object's location, the less certain you are of it's velocity, and vice-versa
2006-02-04, 12:39 PM #8
Originally posted by ragna:
the more certain you are of an object's location, the less certain you are of it's velocity, and vice-versa

Uncertainty principle! That refers to subatomic particles -- in order to check a particle's location as precisely as possible, you have to bombard it with higher and higher frequencies of waves .. this in turn alters its velocity more and more; and vice-versa. I don't think it applies to macro level things (actually, it doesn't apply to macro level things, otherwise kinematics in physics would be utterly pointless)

Originally posted by Tiberium_Empire:
Im a nerd.


The closer something gets. The faster it seems to move as the light has less space and less matter to travel through [yes i just made that up...Probably wrong]


That's the doppler effect and applies for (sound) waves, not light (and it's not because of less matter etc etc)
一个大西瓜
2006-02-04, 12:42 PM #9
The Doppler effect works on light too; you just have to be going a lot faster to notice it. It's what causes red-shift in faraway galaxies.

Also I believe there's a bumper sticker you can buy that's red, and it says "if this sticker looks blue then you're going too fast." I want one just for the sheer nerdiness of it.

EDIT: Pommy's postcount is 0x1111
Stuff
2006-02-04, 12:42 PM #10
your mom

lol
2006-02-04, 12:49 PM #11
And here's something I wrote for a similar thread on another forum back in october when I was just learning this stuff

it's probably wrong, but who cares

Quote:
n order to fire an object (regardless of mass) in a manner that the object will remain in the air, travel entirely around the earth, and return to the initial spot and continue going indefinitely provided there's nothing in its way, it has to be fired at and maintain a velocity in spite of air resistance of about 249951 km/s, or about 155346 mps. To compare, light travels at 300000 km/s, or about 186451 mps. We're assuming the object is fired "straight forward" at about 2 m above the ground.

(This is essentially putting the object in "orbit" of the earth while still in the earth's atmosphere)
一个大西瓜
2006-02-04, 12:49 PM #12
Originally posted by kyle90:
The Doppler effect works on light too; you just have to be going a lot faster to notice it. It's what causes red-shift in faraway galaxies.
EDIT: Pommy's postcount is 0x1111


oh. beyond my knowlege hahah
一个大西瓜
2006-02-04, 12:53 PM #13
Originally posted by Pommy:
n order to fire an object (regardless of mass) in a manner that the object will remain in the air, travel entirely around the earth, and return to the initial spot and continue going indefinitely provided there's nothing in its way, it has to be fired at and maintain a velocity in spite of air resistance of about 249951 km/s, or about 155346 mps. To compare, light travels at 300000 km/s, or about 186451 mps. We're assuming the object is fired "straight forward" at about 2 m above the ground.

(This is essentially putting the object in "orbit" of the earth while still in the earth's atmosphere)


I think you may have misplaced a decimal somewhere... it'd be closer to about 17 km/s. (I didn't do the math but that's the speed the space shuttle orbits at).

Pommy stop posting bad science :p
Stuff
2006-02-04, 1:06 PM #14
In 1977 there were 37 Elvis impersonators in the world. In 1993, there were 48,000. At this rate, by the year 2010 one out of every three people will be an Elvis impersonator.

zomg, random fact generators are cool : Coca-cola was originally green.
Holy soap opera Batman. - FGR
DARWIN WILL PREVENT THE DOWNFALL OF OUR RACE. - Rob
Free Jin!
2006-02-04, 1:34 PM #15
Originally posted by kyle90:
I think you may have misplaced a decimal somewhere... it'd be closer to about 17 km/s. (I didn't do the math but that's the speed the space shuttle orbits at).

Pommy stop posting bad science :p


it's much faster than the speed a space shuttle orbits, because it's 2m above the ground in the earth's atmosphere
一个大西瓜
2006-02-04, 1:39 PM #16
it takes more energy to create antimatter than is created when you react it with normal matter


Therefore, anti matter reactors/ warp drives will never be physically possible.

In your face, trek fans.
Code:
if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}
2006-02-04, 1:40 PM #17
Originally posted by Pommy:
it's much faster than the speed a space shuttle orbits, because it's 2m above the ground in the earth's atmosphere


Atmosphere has nothing to do with orbital velocity.
Stuff
2006-02-04, 1:42 PM #18
Originally posted by Ruthven:
it takes more energy to create antimatter than is created when you react it with normal matter


Therefore, anti matter reactors/ warp drives will never be physically possible.

In your face, trek fans.

I dunno that it will always take more energy...I mean, there's a LOT of energy in that reaction.
D E A T H
2006-02-04, 1:44 PM #19
In theory, since the energy is already contained in matter, you could just "flip" its properties to become antimatter without it costing you any energy.

In practice, we have no idea how to do this so we have to throw particles at each other at high speeds and hope that some antimatter results from the collision.
Stuff
2006-02-04, 1:46 PM #20
Originally posted by kyle90:
Atmosphere has nothing to do with orbital velocity.


I didn't say it did -- distance from the center of the object when it comes to gravity does though. I just emphasized the atmosphere part because I thought you had misread my post to be 2m above the earth's atmosphere.

The whole point of my "fact" was to see how fast you'd have to shoot something in order for it to go all the way around the earth (in an ideal world). Cuz, you know, that was common in some cartoons we saw when we were children.
一个大西瓜
2006-02-04, 1:55 PM #21
The numbers are still way wrong... a shuttle orbits about 500 km up, which is a negligable difference to ground level as far as orbiting goes.

But here, I'll do the math just to make sure.

v = sqrt(GM/r)

G = gravitational constant = 6.67300 * 10-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2

M = mass of earth = 5.9742 *10^24 kg

r = radius of earth (plus your two meters) = 6378100+2 = 6378102 m

therefore v = 7905.96179 m/s or almost 8 km/s (I guess my previous estimate of 17 km/s was a bit off; I got it right from a website though so they must have been wrong)

I don't get how you got such a huge number.
Stuff
2006-02-04, 2:05 PM #22
That's the same exact math I used, and now checking your numbers I get a number even less (around 2500 m/s) :confused:
一个大西瓜
2006-02-04, 2:18 PM #23
That's strange... I did it again and got the same result as the first time. Weird.
Stuff
2006-02-04, 2:21 PM #24
well, I think I figured out where I got the huge number .. I think I did km/hour (multiplied the end thing by 3600) rather than km/s. Also .. i think my result might be a result of having the r value in meters and not km. I'm not entirely sure =/

(also, if i do it in km, I get ~77200)
一个大西瓜

↑ Up to the top!