Jump to content

Green Baron

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,989

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Green Baron

  1. Green Baron
    This slightly heated discussion has lost all connection to reality :-) I read a page up that ITS has been boiled down to baby itsy (still a BF(reaking) Rocket). Is that a rumour and is there any more info on that ?
  2. Green Baron
    Well, that leads to the discussion about suspended animation through cooling, deep freeze, drugs, ... that all are less than impractical. How are people doing in all the south pole research stations during the long winter months ? I know that they go through a selection process that especially looks at their mental abilities to cope with stress and solitude. It is lonelier than on the ISS where one at least has a constant link down and a view to the outside.
  3. Green Baron
    No data available to answer that, since metabolism is a set of autonomous body functions and difficult to alter without killing the organism and perception of time happens in the mind. Also the term "perception of time" might need some clarification ? Activity or occupation change my perception of time. If the mind is occupied, time flies ... Edit: do other vertebrates have a perception of time ? If so, is it connected to their mental abilities or the metabolism ? idk
  4. Green Baron
    Ok, i know now that i suck at physics, the evidence is overwhelming
  5. Green Baron
    I am not convinced. Wouldn't that be questioning the equivalence principle and GR ? (Edit: not that i see something irrevocably in it but it serves quite well, at least in the macroworld) Because it is impossible to distinguish between an inertial and gravitational reference frame. So were is the difference between them ? Ok, i found this: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/difference-between-gravitational-and-inertial-mass.689095/
  6. Green Baron
    That is true for every point inside a hollow sphere. It's called the Shell theorem. And, yes, any stable orbit means weightlessness or "microgravity" if there are still a few atmospheric molecules. Ninja'd :-)
  7. Green Baron
    I ninja'd you with a Kugelblitz. Or was it a ball lightning ?
  8. Green Baron
    Really ? In this case i meant a ball lightning above and stay out of the discussion of "Kugelblitz" because Kugelblitz in German means ball lightning. Edit: seems to be a translation thing. Kugelblitz is a German word and means ball lightning. I have never before heard it being used in conjunction with something different than the meteorologic/atmospheric thing. But that's just me :-) That's probably a plasma. A spectrum and video of a ball lightning is online i see. But apparently Kugelblitz describes an astrophysical occurrence as well, that forms a microblackhole.
  9. Green Baron
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning#Proposed_scientific_explanations
  10. Green Baron
    Got that, next question: isn't GR, especially the reference frame thing, based on the assumption (or demanding that) that the two masses are the same ? Which experiment could possibly reveal a difference ? And, before that goes to far again: this universe, this configuration.
  11. Green Baron
    Yes. I have a mass then and thus gravity. That's clear to me. But the point was to have very much energy without mass. Then comes the next question: what curves spacetime other than mass (or acceleration, which needs a mass to accelerate) ? Edit: nevermind, the stress-energy-tensor. I think i got it !
  12. Green Baron
    I think Kugelblitze are just hot plasma trapped dynamically and no black holes. They live a few seconds, radiate light and warmth, then pop and are gone (leave a bit for cleaning behind ...). No black hole. At least that's what i heard from someone who saw one, and it would fit much better what physics have taught us ;-) As for the radiation has gravity thing, could you poke my nose to something describing that closer ?
  13. Green Baron
    Yeah, sorry, i don't like being scoffed at like that. Any physicist here who could check that ? - Gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces. (I mean this is trivial.) It only overcomes the others at very high masses. - There is no difference between inertial and gravitational Mass, only the method of measurement. This makes the concept of the reference frame possible, the unability to tell if we are standing on ground or flung around in a centrifuge if we experience a gravitational force; or if we are floating without forces in space or falling towards another mass (inertial or non-inertial frame). Sperm whale and petunia bowl ;-) - This leads to: gravity is a property of mass. Is this too daring a claim ? If there is no mass, there can still be space (radiation for example), but no gravity. Add mass, and things like acceleration have a meaning. - To further explain gravity and unite it with the other forces, a ToE must be dug out.
  14. Green Baron
    It is rather you that should reconsider his view than others that you are putting here as having a necessity for reading schoolbooks ! You write nonsense and are patronising and unsusceptible to what others have presented to you, basic school knowledge about the four forces. I have the feeling you compensate a little with taunting others and therefore said "Don't get too bold !" and i stand to that. Here's one of your gaps: for example you said that that relativity did not show up in the 19th century but in the 20th. That is nonsense. It showed up in the 16th century and was first formulated basically by Galilei. Gauss delivered the mathematical principles, though he maybe wasn't fully aware of the consequences and Kant laid out a philosophical base.
  15. Green Baron
    Actually much more than the mere area they are planted upon since monoculture leads sooner than later to erosion by water or wind. Areas must be given up or fertilized. I cannot tell you which one is better, but there are people who evaluate exactly that. I think (but i am not sure) such evaluations lead to the decision to grow crop for fuel additionally to using fossil fuel, knowingly accepting the disadvantages. Not exactly my idea: Solar panels on the roof, charging station in the garage and an electric car. Nice solution here on 28N in the Atlantic, less for, let's say northern Europe. It is still expensive and the batteries not exactly friendly to environment, but they'll be thoroughly recycled i hope because stuff in them is just too valuable.
  16. Green Baron
    In principle true and growing trees as economic resources was practised since the 18th century with fast growing trees. But it is abandoned because the forests, often monocultures became very susceptible to vermin, fungus and rolling lumber from wind and even suppressed domestic species. Today's foresters are trying to get back to mixed forests again (central and western Europe), but it takes several decades.
  17. Green Baron
    He, don't get too bold !
  18. Green Baron
    Is the power still down due to Irma ?
  19. Green Baron

    Psst. Actually Galilei has worked on relativity, just a hint ;-)

    Not 19th, but 16th century.

  20. Green Baron
    Sleep well, i don't want to get into arguing and i don't need the last word, so i am out ;-) Edit: Did that sound disrepectful ? It is not meant so !
  21. Green Baron
    I don't believe in wikipedia :-) Ok, it is a matter of definitions. For you General Relativity is presumed to describe gravity and presumed to be a valid and you like to add something like "only". I find that there is nothing better than multiple empirical verifications of theoretical assumptions. I don't question cognition and am content with mass as an si unit like meter, second or kelvin, which all are in the end as relative as mass. I might be wrong. If you are consequent than zero gravity does not exits. That'll mean no space and no time. There is no lack of gravity, but a state where different gravitational forces are in an equilibrium. Just sayin' to avoid confusion ;-) Or am i wrong ?
  22. Green Baron
    Yeah, the graviton is speculated to be the gravity carrying particle. Nothing special there. @kerbiloid, pls. give me an example where inertial mass is unequal to gravitational mass. You say no theory supports the equivalence, but General relativity is based on it. Is that no support ? So what exactly is in your eyes the problem with "Gravity is a property of mass" ? and i personally add provokingly: ", be it inertial or gravitational" because the two are only different methods of measuring the same thing, right or not ? Gravity or gravitation is the weakest of the four fundamental forces. An electromagnet lifts a car, atoms keep a courtly distance from each other and electrons for example have a deep antipathy to shake hands. It is only that when very much mass is concentrated that gravity overrules the other forces. Not of importance for every day life :-)
  23. Green Baron
    So ?
  24. Green Baron
    I once (~10 years ago) spoke with a criminalist about data recovery from an overwritten harddisks. It may be tried with special equipment to read the sides of the overwritten tracks, in the hope that the current for overwriting wasn't strong enough to delete the fringes. Small fragments may thus be recovered reconstructed. But really, completely overwriting a track usually destroys the information on it without comeback. That's it's deeper sense ...
  25. Green Baron
    That what, if subject to a change of velocity over time right above your foot, will hurt you, if your foot isn't a prosthesis. Will you ask me now what is "above" ? :-) Edit: oh, and a base si-unit ;-)
×
×
  • Create New...