BlueCosmology

"master programming" is an incredibly vague term, very few programmers would consider themselves as having mastered programming (and the ones that do consider themselves to, most people would disagree) Depends what you mean by "simple apps". You can make incredibly simple ones within a few days of learning to program, e.g. a version of the countdown number game could easily be made within a few days of starting to learn programming.

No, though capture orbits do ofcourse exist in rotating black holes as well as stationary ones. Time reversal does not work that simply in curved spacetime. In a blackhole all directions in spacetime point towards the singularity of the blackhole, hence time reversal still results in travelling towards the singularity. The 3 types of orbit, including capture, around a non rotating non charged black hole are shown in this http://www.astro.ex.ac.uk/people/sing/Notes/14.SchwarzschildSpacetime_Orbits.pdf.

They were (fairly accurately) representing the four dimensions of spacetime very well. I assume you're talking about 'the fifth dimension', which they also didn't do badly. It's not difficult to generalize things to more than the four dimensions of our universe, and their representation of it was pretty consistent, they simply had a fifth dimension that represented time but spatially. A lot of the things they had to do in terms of orbits seemed very off, but not what you're saying. They required huge boosters to leave Earth, but didn't to leave the other planets that had higher surface gravities than Earth, which is clearly wrong. However changing your radial trajectory with respect to a blackhole is not something that requires a lot of Energy, things that are done in our solar system (e.g. gravitational slingshots) are pronounced very strongly in high field areas around blackholes, it does not take a lot of energy to change an orbital trajectory into an escape velocity or otherwise. He never simply made it to the singularity in the film, after he passed the event horizon he traveled into the fifth dimension that the film had set up. The blackhole was meant to be a supermassive blackhole, and very massive blackholes such as this do not have huge tidal forces at the event horizon and hence wouldn't spaghettify. Unlike in Newtonian physics where no capture orbits exist, capture orbits do exist in general relativity (the effective potential has an inverse cubic term with respect to distance, unlike in newtonian where there is only an inverse term and inverse square term, resulting in higher deviations of trajectories due to gravity at close range in general relativity) and hence a flyby can be captured.

That isn't true. Momentum increases without bound as a massive particle approaches c. The concept of "gaining mass" in terms of relativity is very misleading, and usually used completely incorrectly because of how misleading it is. Relativistic mass as it is known, is purely a way to make some newtonian formulae still work in the relativistic limit. However, many of the formulae do not work even with relativistic mass, and more important relativistic mass is not mass, in how mass is defined (i.e. gravitational charge and resistance to motion) you should really avoid ever talking about relativistic mass, as even Einstein concedes even though he originally came up with the concept of relativistic mass. There is no meaningful definition of relativistic mass, and using also makes other concepts lose their meaning such as acceleration. Einstein 1948 "It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the ’rest mass’ m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion." Droping the landers would give it a boost if it fired the landers off, however as it just drops them (i.e. lets go and lets the tidal force of the black hole take them) there is no increase to it's velocity, the momentum of the total system remains constant. There are also many stable orbits for black holes, all precess (i.e. their closest point to the black hole rotates over time) but they are still stable. For a non rotating non charged black hole the closest stable orbit is 3/2 times the event horizon.

Never used ground-penetrating radars before. Have used magnetometers a fair few times though, mainly in developing magnetic shielding for a compact atom interferometer gravity gradiometer to produce a homogenous and low magnetic field within the inteferometer so that the contribution from gravity's gradient to the phase difference in the interference pattern produced can be extracted from the phase difference due to the zeeman effect, which for a compact atom interferometer in Earth's magnetic field is usually much higher and swamps out the signal due to gravity's gradient.

Newtonian physics is never used to "fix transitions". Where have you heard that? Newtonian physics just plain and simply does not work at all in the regimes you're talking of. Special relativity is incorporated in quantum physics, and also it is just a subset of general relativity, it does not say anything is wrong about either. Very close to a blackhole is brighter than the surroundings area, accretion discs are heated up to the point where they emit tremendous amounts of visible light, and there are orbits of light trapped near it.

There's really no reason whatsoever to consider differential cross-sections. It's either scattered or it isn't, the direction of scattering is irrelevant.

Yeah that's the way to do it.

Why have you randomly decided to work out the power supplied per kg? Then after that you've decided that the power is no longer power but just energy. And then ontop of it you've then decided that the energy supplied per kg is now the energy supplied per 500kg.

Work out what the speed of the water would have to be to produce a flow rate through a nozzle.

The flow rate is not independent of the power. You won't get 500l/s through a 1m² pipe with that power.

Call it whatever you'd like? I'd suggest P.

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h289/Greenfire31/Fig%20B.jpg http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h289/Greenfire31/Fig%20C.jpg http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h289/Greenfire31/Fig%20D.jpg http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h289/Greenfire31/Fig%20E.jpgThis is just something I thought of while on lunch break. I've got a small rubber band ball and a ring made out of twist-ties on my desk in the office that kind of made me visualize all this. It just kinda sparked my thought process and I figured since I don't really know how this would work, I'd throw it at all of you and see what you say. For the sake of the argument, please assume that mankind has a material strong enough to hold this super-structure together and the resources required to build it in the first place. For a perfectly spherical mass, with a material strong enough enough to hold together, then yes it's pretty trivial to show that a ring would be able to just float above the planet with its axis of symmetry going through the axis of symmetry of the mass. Consider the force of gravity on any point of it, there will always be a point on the opposite side of the ring with exactly the same force on it but with the opposite direction, cancelling it out. However, this would clearly be incredibly unstable. The smallest difference in gravitational force on one point from another would cause it to no longer cancel out, and a runaway collapse would occur. If one point was the tineist bit closer to earth, it would have a higher gravitational pull and hence be pulled closer, gaining an even high one and so forth. The smallest difference from equilibrium would instantly collapse it. Since we have things such as a moon. Or the fact that the earth isn't perfectly spherical. Or dust. Or the CMB not being perfectly isotropic, this setup is not possible to maintain.

That is not ill posed. A thermal particle is one that's energy is within a standard deviation of the energy of a particle with mean energy. By "at least" I mean, at least. The answer is very sensitive to available energy yes.

Hahah, arithmetic is about as far from maths as possible (you're never going to find a maths paper that is just solving equations for particular values), and it certainly isn't interesting. I guess my turn to ask a question? Given a star that's core temperature is atleast an order of magnitude too low for thermal protons to classically fuse, what is the rate of fusion?

Eh, plugging numbers into a formula is neither physics nor interesting enough to be bothered doing.

(V²*m*sin(O))/2*(mg-sin(O)Fr) Where O is the angle of the slope, m the mass of the car, v the final velocity, g gravitational acceleration and Fr friction

Yes. Much more.

This is (and has been since GCSE was introduced) taught at physics GCSE.

The pump has a power that it supplies to the water. Obviously the speed that the water is accelerate to with this given power depends on how many litres the power is supplied to.

I don't think the minute or two it took you type that really makes any difference when the time between your comments was 5 hours. If you're saying that the time it took you to write that comment was comparable to the time you ran the simulation for, then there is no way in hell that could be run on a home computer even with good algorithms (let alone the just calculating forces every timestamp that it does) Again, keep in mind that that has literally nothing, at all, to do with this. That is NOT an n-body simulation and requires absolutely no computational power, in comparison to an n-body problem that requires a lot even with well designed algorithms.

Then no, if it is literally just working out the new forces every timestep due to all gravitational interaction, there is no way at all that will run accurately for a chaotic system like this in such a short time on a home computer. Not a chance at all.

He said he's scaled G.

Again, patched conics is NOT an n-body approximation for gravity. Patched conics is an approximation for trajectories between multiple 2 bodies (infact it's generally used between multiple single bodies). It does not, at all, apply to this situation of having 3 bodies that all affect each other to a similar degree, because it completely ignores all interactions between them.

Patched conics give precisely zero accuracy at all for an n-body simulation as it does not model any gravitational interaction at all between the different bodies. N-body gravitation is a very complicated, very computationally intense problem. 4 body simulation could potentially be done to a reasonable precision in a few hours on a home computer, but I find it doubtful (particularly in something that doesn't seem like it is made to be a proper simulation, and even more so that it seems like it's attempting to do a whole solar system simulation. That is not going to happen on a home computer to reasonable accuracy that fast.) I'm not saying 4 body gravitation could not be done on a home computer that fast, with some good algorithms designed particularly for it it seems possible. However, it is certainly very doubtful in something that doesn't seem like it is particularly designed as such for high precision simulations, especially if it is attempting to do the same accuracy for all the particles in the simulation which it appears to be.