Jump to content

Shower thoughts


p1t1o
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ColdJ said:

Not a myth, science. Though I probably shouldn't have generalised the spill out of the frame period as that depends on many factors. So I will say give it a million to spill to be safe. As for the first, go take a caliper micrometer to some 50 year old single pane glass and compare top to bottom. Remember that when it was cast it was floated flat on Tin to give it an even thickness all over, so any difference shows the point.

IIRC this method was used to prove that the windows in “The Amityville Horror” house to prove that the windows had never been broken, counter to the claims of the people living there (it was based on an allegedly true story). But maybe the supernatural force that broke the windows reassembled them, hmmm? Or they were just hallucinating…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Does a submarine have glassy windows?

The pressure is greater than in cathedral, are they concave?

Nope.

The only ways of seeing outside are with Sonar, Hydrophones, and the Pericope.

The only openings are the weapon hatches, and the exit/entrance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Admiral Fluffy and @kerbiloid Not every submarine is a military sub. Yes Submarines for exploration have windows and yes they are concave to stand the pressure. Thick glass, Acrylic and if you can afford it, Transparent Aluminium are all possible materials for them. The transparent Aluminium is created in a special process.

https://technologyinarchitecture.com/transparent-aluminium-aluminium-oxynitride/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

convex

And I mean concave.

Aluminium is not a glass.

The trouble with thinking that only 1 thing can be described by a word is confusion. So to be clearer. Someting that is convex and transparent, atleast in glass and acrylic generally works as a magnifying lens and so would distort what you are seeing through it. The inside of exploration and recovery subs windows are concave. But to make it less contentious lets say that they are a hollowed out hemisphere. Anything that is solid to the touch and can be seen through is considered to be under a catch all term of glass. Yes it doesn't have the molecular and atomic components that make up silica based glass but it does qualify for the catch all term. I did say Transparent Aluminium, not regular Aluminium. It is real, very expensive and has been used by the US military to make Humvee windows that can stop a 50 caliber round. I gave you a link, please feel free to google and read up on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ColdJ said:

I gave you a link, please feel free to google and read up on it.

Thanks, I will have a look.

But I mean tnot the shape given on purpose, but have their glasses been deformed by the external pressure after years of underwater, like the cathedral windows according to the rumors are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regular glass that is formed properly is very tough. It is the imperfections like bubbles that weaken it. Fiber glass is literally extruded glass that does not have weakening imperfections and so can can be used to make a mat that can be formed around a shape. Enough pressure to deform sub windows would deform the metal sub around the window first. If you manage to push a window of the type used in a sub far enough, it will shatter rather than deform. @kerbiloid

6 minutes ago, Som-Boi_lol said:

What if kerbals are actually us in a lot of years? Earth was destroyed, but we sent an escape ship and found a Solar system-like system. We found Kerbin and moved there.

If Kerbin is considered high G compared to Earth then over a long time of natural selection, only the stockiest of us would survive and our skin would adapt to the conditions. We are talking in a million years type time frame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ColdJ said:

If Kerbin is considered high G compared to Earth then over a long time of natural selection, only the stockiest of us would survive and our skin would adapt to the conditions. We are talking in a million years type time frame.

That's why we can't find houses on Kerbin, only a space center.  And who lives in the space center? Thats right: normal kerbals kerbonauts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Clever Kerbals.

Silly ones fly by rockets.

 

27 minutes ago, Som-Boi_lol said:

That's why we can't find houses on Kerbin, only a space center.  And who lives in the space center? Thats right: normal kerbals kerbonauts!

 

41 minutes ago, Som-Boi_lol said:

What if kerbals are actually us in a lot of years? Earth was destroyed, but we sent an escape ship and found a Solar system-like system. We found Kerbin and moved there.

Here is my theory

There was once a lot more Kerbals but an asteroid hit Kerbin (hence the crater) and only a handful survived, so they are trying to find another habitable planet to colonize and abandon there scarred Kerbin.

This is a rough theory but someone could go into it more in depth, maybe even make a lore series like Minecraft's Deep Dives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BuranAce said:

 

 

Here is my theory

There was once a lot more Kerbals but an asteroid hit Kerbin (hence the crater) and only a handful survived, so they are trying to find another habitable planet to colonize and abandon there scarred Kerbin.

This is a rough theory but someone could go into it more in depth, maybe even make a lore series like Minecraft's Deep Dives.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BuranAce said:

Would you perhaps be willing to make a KSP lore video :) Wink Wink Nudge Nudge

I don't have the required things but others a free to use my work. There are other great theories from others on there too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Literally had this thought in the shower. How does special relativity work on a rotating sphere?

Because an outside observer would argue that the linear speed depends on the latitude, whereas observers on the sphere would argue that there is no relative motion at all, regardless of latitude. Two points on a sphere never move relative to each other. Then again, higher latitudes have a shorter distance to travel in the same amount of time, so they are actually moving more slowly...

I guess this is why special relativity specifically describes inertial reference frames, since a sphere is constantly accelerating anyone on it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Delay said:

Literally had this thought in the shower. How does special relativity work on a rotating sphere?

Because an outside observer would argue that the linear speed depends on the latitude, whereas observers on the sphere would argue that there is no relative motion at all, regardless of latitude. Two points on a sphere never move relative to each other. Then again, higher latitudes have a shorter distance to travel in the same amount of time, so they are actually moving more slowly...

I guess this is why special relativity specifically describes inertial reference frames, since a sphere is constantly accelerating anyone on it?

They aren't travelling more slowly, they just complete a revolution in a shorter time. And you need to define if the observed event is caught up in the same rotational motion or is off the sphere at fixed point in space, which presents it's own problems to the observers who are on a moving surface that constantly changes the angle of the observation. If everything is on the same rotational surface and the curve does not obscure their view of the event then only the speed of light travelling from the event to their eyes will affect the overall observation in the relative space time. The theory was based on the observers being on a relatively flat plain with a clear linear line of sight to the event and does not translate well to the model you are hypothesising.

Also unless your sphere is spinning ever faster the observers on it aren't accelerating but are being moved at a constant velocity relative to to their distance from the central axis point. Don't quote me on any of this. Better off asking someone from MENSA or NASA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the romantic scenes they love so much to put a hundred of burning candles around...

If they are fond of low-tech open-fire sources of soot, why never use bowls of blubber?
It would be even more original and romantic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ColdJ said:

Have you actually smelled burning blubber?

In XIX it was normal, so what. The century of high society, romantism, and good manners.

Like if a hundred of burning candles (how do they not bother with lighting them?) make air better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since candles were traditionally made from tallow for a couple thousand years, with the Romans perfecting basically premelting the sheep/cow fat resulting in a less smelly and better burning candle... Plus the medieval times beeswax was being used.... why would anyone want to make one from the fat of an arctic animal which most, if any at all, had never seen or heard of at that time?

 

Edited by Dientus
wash, rinse, repeat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...