Darnok
-
Posts
1,266 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by Darnok
-
-
17 hours ago, peadar1987 said:
1. You measure how far it travels in a given time. Then you use the equation s=u*t+0.5*a*t2 to calculate the acceleration. No need to know the mass beforehand.
2. In the diagram of the earth and moon. Taking the centre of the moon at the reference angle, you have the opposite as 1, the hypotenuse as Phi, and the adjacent as the square root of Phi.
3. That's not really how that works. The radioactive material will decay according to a stochastic process, generating the same amount of heat regardless of whether it is in the core or not. I do genuinely appreciate the effort at coming up with a solution though.
4. Yes, but you are using circular reasoning in your model in that case. You say your model is valid because it fits the orbits of the planets, as predicted using your model. You're right in saying that the moon and Ceres should have similar composition if they had formed near each other. We don't know the exact composition of Ceres yet, but its density is only 62.6% that of the moon (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=density+of+ceres%2Fdensity+of+the+moon), so it is fair to say that the two bodies have radically different composition. Before you say it, yes, this is assuming that mass is a thing you can work out from orbital periods.
1b. Fair enough, but everything agrees with each other on this. If we look at, say Jupiter, its mass as predicted by the orbits of its moons is consistent with it being composed primarily of hydrogen with some helium. When we do a spectroscopic analysis of the atmosphere it is composed of hydrogen and helium. The magnetic field is consistent with their being a metallic hydrogen core, which is also exactly what you would expect would happen if a mass of hydrogen and helium the same as we have estimated Jupiter to be existed.
2b. The problem isn't even that you have one data point, the problem is that you have come up with a general hypothesis before you have nearly enough data, and it's not backed up by other knowns.
3b. See 3
1. ok
2. And what is wrong with that?
3. ok
4. According to NASA(link) Mean density Moon/Earth is 0.606, so if Ceres/Moon density is 0.626... I am on the right track
1b Sure it does, but that is because we estimate mass of Jupiter using calculated mass of known volume of hydrogen and helium. Then it is impossible it wouldn't work.
2b Just like mass wasn't backed up by anything in Newton times or relativity while Einstein was alive. They just made up things, made some math to prove their models and others agreed with this.
-
1 hour ago, p1t1o said:
1 An extremely basic error in trigonometry:
x^2 + 1 =/= x^2
2 Umm....measuring change in position over time? Am I missing something?
3 So...do you want to use a single datapoint or not? I have seen you go to the mat for both sides of that now.
4 This is not possible. Nor is there a lack of molten material surrounding the core.
5 This is not a hypothesis. Thinking up a hypothesis in your head and then searching for evidence is a fool's errand.
hypothesisnoun-
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
6 However, at all points you seem to take the cart before the horse. Real science
I said it before: read, read, read. Trust* established science. Stand on the shoulders of giants.
*At first. And by "at first" I mean, "until you are a giant in the field". This is because established science is based on SO. SO. MANY. DATAPOINTS. SO MANY. I CAN'T EVEN...
1. Where I used that equation?
I hope you read my other posts more carefully.
2. Yes, source of forces. Just to be clear... I said that mass-model is just our current interpretation of things that we can observe, not that there is no interactions between objects in universe.
Look even @peadar1987 finally wrote "If you can find a flaw in it and come up with a better explanation that does not involve the concept of mass, be my guest" this is all I am talking about a different concept (hopefully simpler and more accurate).3. Sure, single data point is enough for making hypothesis as quoted by you definition says "limited evidence as a starting point"
4. Ok, maybe you are right.
5. goto 3
6. Real science is based on evidence, so I can say for 100% sure I am right, that is why I am waiting for more samples.
Trust estab... what?
Progress from science comes from different ways of thinking and different interpretations of nature, not from single established, forced and most popular way of thinking. -
-
1 hour ago, peadar1987 said:
1. The force applied, and the acceleration. Acceleration is distance travelled over time. Force can be calculated by, say, the deformation of a spring.
2. You showed one picture (which actually contains an error). This shows one thing, for one planet, with no reasonable explanation or hypothesis about why it might be true for others. Everything else you have just pulled out of your lower digestive tract.
3. And you are using a model without mass to try and explain a universe where objects have resistance to acceleration. Go figure. The energy deposited by the moon into the earth is a fraction of a percent that of radiogenic heating. If the core of the earth had a fraction of a percent more energy in it, its temperature would go up by a maximum of a few degrees. Far more energy is deposited into the system by solar radiation. And in any case, even in the moon is depositing energy into the core of the earth, keeping it liquid, that still doesn't validate your theory that Ceres must have formed in orbit around the earth because it is a certain fraction of the radius of the moon.
4. Pretty much every one of my posts, but the general message is the same. More specifically, when your version of the Titus-Bode law has to ignore the fact that Neptune exists.
1. Show me how you calculated acceleration without using mass. There is no point in discussion with you if you say that mass has to exist because only equation you know to calculate forces between bodies have to use mass.
2. What error? Where? How large?
As far as I know we measured speed of light on only one planet (sample with single case) and we assumed it works same way on every spot of universe?
So sample of size one is enough for scientific theory, if author name is Albert, but it is not good enough to even start considering hypothesis of unknown author?3. I was talking about something else... read my last post again.
My hypothesis is:
tidal forces created by Moon "feed" Earth core with additional radioactive material by changing shape of core and at same time melting more rocks around it. What adds more fuel for core, so it can burn longer.4. My version comes from hypothesis that Neptune's current orbit isn't its original orbit, during billions of years Neptunes orbit could change, but this is topic for different thread.
What fits in here is that same event that pushed Neptune to new orbit could push Ceres out of Earth's orbit.
But that can be easily proved by gathering samples from Moon and Ceres (maybe not right from the surface... but little drilling should be enough for this). If both Moon and Ceres formed on near by orbits they should have common composition?1 hour ago, peadar1987 said:1b. No, you can push it along the ground, you can put it on wheels, or skates, or skis. The gravitational force and the reaction force from the ground cancel each other out, the only net force applied is the one you are providing. As for the force of gravity, well, everything we see in orbit behaves as if it is experiencing a force proportional to the product of its mass and the mass of the parent body, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Every probe we have launched, every planet, moon, binary star, comet, exoplanet we have ever observed obeys this rule. If you can find a flaw in it and come up with a better explanation that does not involve the concept of mass, be my guest. I guarantee you will not be able to.
2b. No. Nobody does. So your hypothesis has no grounding in fact or reality, and flies in the face of many well-established scientific principles.
3b. Radioactive decay works the same no matter what physical forces you place on the nuclei. And the total amount of heat generated will be the same whether the decay occurs in the core or in the mantle. Unless you want to challenge another piece of established science.
1b. Proportional to estimated mass, because we only estimate mass of planets and stars.
Sure give me some time... Newton didn't came up with his equation within single weekend
2b That is why I call it hypothesis and I am searching (waiting until some observatory finds such planet and moon for me) for more samples. http://www.utahpeoplespost.com/2015/07/jupiters-twin-planet/
3b. Nope, I don't want to change that one, I just wonder does this process can be "fed" by melting more material that surrounds Earth's core... if yes then tides caused by Moon can extend "life" of our magnetic field.
-
13 hours ago, peadar1987 said:
1. No. You are using the resistance of an object to acceleration in response to an applied force. Only one of those things is a force. How do you explain the fact that objects don't accelerate to infinity when a force is applied?
2. So when you do it it's okay, but when I don't have the time to, you get all touchy? Gotcha. It's a coincidence.
3. So you think they increase its life how? By magic? Because tidal heating (the amount of energy we can see the moon losing to the earth) is miniscule in comparison to the energy of formation of the earth, and radiogenic heating. I don't think I'm going to be able to explain the concept of a stable orbit to someone who rejects the concept of mass entirely.
4. Repeatedly and obviously, for anybody with even an arbitrary knowledge of sciance.
1. And what values do you need to calculate "resistance of an object to acceleration"?
2. What? I showed you math in one post of this thread.
3. I didn't said "it is main source of heat" did I? I doubt you can explain anything since you are using model with mass to prove mass exists
4. Give me link to post.
11 hours ago, insert_name said:#1 seems incoherent and not really sayin much
#2 every good experiment increases that sample size
#3. the core is radioactive, its not going to change much with tidal heating. especially if the second moon is small
1. If you push something you are using force, but between object you are pushing and Earth exists another force, so you are using force vs force to move object, but that doesn't prove existence of mass. You can not measure source of that force between object and Earth, you only assume it is mass using model created by Newton.
2. Sure, do you know where are habitable planets?
so I could increase it
3. Depends, without tides core would have exact same size all the time, that means it would have same amount of radioactive material.
But with tides core shape is changed a bit and this change can melt and add rocks and more radioactive materials to the core.
Also I don't know how radioactive materials decay works with matter that is in constant move, with tidal forces from Moon it does move all the time.
-
Evidence please...
-
31 minutes ago, Temstar said:
Let me put it this way, we think apples fall from trees because matter has this property that attract each other (oh okay fine, matter has this property that it bends space time around it). But just because up to this point apples has always fall down from trees, is it safe to assume that tomorrow apple will also fall down from trees and not upwards into the sky? What about an apple tree on the other side of the observable universe? Does its apple fall down?
If you answer no, it's not safe to assume, then physics as a science cannot exist.
I can observe that apple does fall from tree, but that doesn't mean it is property of apple and Earth that creates force between them
Of course that is model that fits 10-based system and with change of numerical system we should/could also change this model. Because maybe there is different source of that force... attraction (it is wrong word it assumes that force is created because of properties of apple and Earth). For imperial units I would change lots of equations, so it would be more practical.
Let me put it this way... but does apple falls down on Earth's orbit or outside of Sun SOI?
Just because you measured something happens ON Earth doesn't mean it happens on entire universe in same way... that is why force that causes apple to fall on Earth has different value on Pluto and same thing maybe with speed of light, because speed is just valueShort version: just because apple falls in same speed on every spot on Earth doesn't mean it will fall with exact same speed on Mercury or on Pluto... so how insane were people who assumed that light will travel in same speed on other planets just because they measured it has exact same speed on few spots on Earth?
-
4 minutes ago, Temstar said:
One of the most fundamental assumption of physics is that the same physics apply everywhere throughout the universe. If it's proven repeatedly that speed of light in vacuum is invariant, that means it's been proven at many different point in Earth's orbit. But even then that's not the point - we always assuming that if a result is repeatable (in this case extremely repeatable), then it's repeatable everywhere in the universe given the same conditions.
If the assumption is that physical laws and facts can be different in different places we wouldn't have physics. Physicists can all quite now and something else more productive because physics no longer have predictive power.
Still no evidence, just hypothesis with sample of size one (near Earth only measurements). How that even became popular hypothesis after geocentric model fallen? Because this is exact same thing that was wrong with geocentric model... we calculate things locally and assume that entire universe works like that!
4 minutes ago, p1t1o said:Since you are desperate to be spoonfed: it is possible for people to do this without actually going there by using lots of other science. This is extremely common.
Sure, but those are not evidences that come from observations... while that kind of evidence is basic for science. Then this is not science... it is more like belief based on things you like and accept.
-
9 minutes ago, Azimech said:assumptionəˈsʌm(p)ʃ(ə)n/nounnoun: assumption; plural noun: assumptions; noun: Assumption
-
1.a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof."they made certain assumptions about the market"
synonyms: supposition, presupposition, presumption, premise, belief, expectation, conjecture, speculation, surmise, guess, theory, hypothesis, postulation, conclusion, deduction, inference, thought, suspicion, notion, impression, fancy;
It has many meanings, you pick what fits your way of thinking
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assumption
belief as synonymous for assumption also works...
-
-
8 minutes ago, Temstar said:
Yes, often, and repeatedly. It's this very experimental evidence that shattered the luminiferous aether theory. In fact this experimental evidence was tested so many times that it was iron clad before Einstein came up with Special Relativity.
In fact you could say Special Relativity was a model specifically created to fit the invariant light speed experimental evidence.
Many times, but not many and not very distant places... that is why locally it might be true. While globally not really.
As for metric system debate... it is one of its topic, sine science is trying to measure things like speed of light using equations made for 10-based system... but other numerical systems could gave more accurate results but with different equations... that is why we can't change numerical system and equations without changing concepts that they were based on.
-
2 hours ago, Kertech said:
299 792 458
Another thing why do you think speed of light is constant in vacuum?
What evidence do you have? Where were made experiments to prove it?
If we made experiments with speed of light on Earth, on Earth's orbit, outside of Earth SOI, on Mercury orbit, on Pluto orbit, outside Sun SOI, near star at least 50% larger than our Sun and... just in case outside of our galaxy SOI then I will accept that C=constant, but otherwise... what is your prove it really is constant? And I am not talking about calculation, I want evidence from experiments from different locations... because speed of light might be constant LOCALLY.
-
4 minutes ago, p1t1o said:
Thats a HUGE assumption. Go away, re-derive some equation or other, using Imperial [or any other, for that matter] units, so that it comes back "simpler" and come back with it and you will find that you will get FAR more support and be treated FAR more seriously.
I'm not even sure that the suggestion makes sense, but I'm OPEN MINDED...
Science is based on assumptions
25 minutes ago, p1t1o said:No, but it IS empirical. If 99% of world scientists think SI is the way to go, you had better have pages and pages and pages of support for an Imperial system, other than an unqualified statement of "It is best ".
On another note, the only benefit of having "natural" definitions is so that you can re-construct your standard if your prototypes become damaged. Neither Science nor the universe care if units, metric or otherwise, are "natural".
Sure, but laws of universe/nature works somehow... and those are not 10-based values as science shows it on every step.
-
On 13.02.2016 at 9:23 PM, peadar1987 said:
1. Sure I can support it. Go outside. Push something. Does it accelerate to infinity when you push on it? No? Good. It has mass.
2. I don't have the time or the inclination to play little number games. As for your hypothesis, it is utterly worthless with your sample size of one. Sure I can't disprove it, because we don't have any other points of reference. But you can't prove it or even back it up. It has about as much support as Russell's Teapot just now.
3. I never said the magnetic field didn't prevent stripping of the atmosphere, I said it is what blocks most of the radiation from the sun. Common misconception, and one I try to correct whenever it comes up.
I'd like to know how you think the moon keeps the centre of the earth molten without being a source of heat. You might say tidal forces. This at least is plausible, but when you examine the numbers, the heat from radioactive decay is an order of magnitude greater today, and was even greater in the past.
My statement was that if the moon was heating the core of the earth, it would be by virtue of its size, not by virtue of it being an absurdly specific proportion of the earth's radius. The onus is on you to prove that the moon wouldn't provide the same hypothetical benefit you say it does if it were 5% larger or smaller.
1. So I am using force vs force that is between that object "something" and Earth... and how does it prove existence of mass?
2. Ohhh, so you can say something is wrong and then run without giving any evidence of your claim... how scientific
Every experiment starts with sample size of one.
3. Then core is cooling down and tidal force may increase its "life".
Maybe you should try to build your own solar system and show me evidence that any radius is good for stable orbital movement?On 13.02.2016 at 9:52 PM, peadar1987 said:On the Titus-Bode law stuff, Darnok gets thoroughly debunked in this thread, even if he doesn't realise it:
In which post?
-
3 minutes ago, p1t1o said:
No, but it IS empirical. If 99% of world scientists think SI is the way to go, you had better have pages and pages and pages of support for an Imperial system, other than an unqualified statement of "It is best ".
On another note, the only benefit of having "natural" definitions is so that you can re-construct your standard if your prototypes become damaged. Neither Science nor the universe care if units, metric or otherwise, are "natural".
Using different numerical system would require use different equations... some could be simpler?
-
2 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:
Darnok, you don't appear to be a scientist or to have any scientific background. You have never tried to work out something like the horsepower produced by a nuclear reactor of volume X cubic yards, with fuel energy density Y btu/tonne, whose density is given as Z lb/cubic inch. It is not pretty, and it will make you beg for the simplicity of the metric system.
As for using pi as a base for our calculations, have you ever tried to do maths with a non-integer base? Heck, have you even tried to count in a non-integer base? It would make paying for a loaf of bread and a litre of milk almost impossible without a calculator.
For counting we have 10-based system. I said in one post that 10-based system is mainly for every day common use. While you are trying to convert equation made for 10-based system into other numeric systems... that is plain wrong. For different (for example) non-integer base system you would need different equations. But narrow mind is narrow mind,
what you read in school stays true for you forever.
-
31 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:
Please do not take my posts out of context. π has NOTHING to do with any discussion between metric or imperial. It is on a completely other level. And I would also very much appreciate you not taking remarks made AGAINST your claim and try to contort them in a remark in favour of it.
Metric might make no sense for you but fortunately the majority of the world does not agree.
Science is not democracy.
2 minutes ago, p1t1o said:This is by far the worst thing about Imperial units...
It is best and very natural approach.
-
19 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:
π is a mathematical concept. π is the relation between diameter and circumference in a circle. π is π no matter which system you use. Metric, imperial, it does not matter. Even for an alien civilization π will be exactly the same for them as it is for us.
Exactly
It is universal, while our 10-based numbers aren't. That is why metric vs imperial has no sense for me because both are wrong. However what I like in imperial is that it is trying to use different "systems" for different things IMO that is best way to improve scientific calculations, but instead of 10-based numbers we should try to search for different numerical systems... in some cases maybe binary in other π-nary, maybe there would be even case 10-nary system.
1 minute ago, Kertech said:http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
as for why caesium, I'm not going to do a physics lesson, but regardless it changes between to energy levels predictably (and it is more constant than doing it by rotation of the earth which does change)
So why 1/86 400 of the mean solar day, why use solar day at all? It is not natural nor universal value... it is local value for our solar system and we are trying to use it to measure entire universe... it is very stupid concept as stupid as geocentric solar system model.
-
17 minutes ago, Kertech said:
The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.
And how is that natural? Why we not use 9 192 631 771 periods? And why cesium?
-
17 minutes ago, Kertech said:
Metric is an attempt to make a system based upon "natural" scales, so a gram is a mL of water and fills a 1cm sided cube and takes 1 cal to heat it by 1 degree. The interantional standard for a metre is now based on the speed of light (the distance light will go in 1/299 792 458 of a second)
Not on natural, but on artificial calculations
1kg=1000g it is our concept, because 1 is shorter than 1000, there is no natural approach in this.
As for 1 metre... how much is 1 second?
And how it is natural?
-
27 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:
Getting people to change from one system to another is difficult. Very difficult. But geting people to change to a system that is both very similar and at the same time very different is nearly impossible. That way you invite cock-ups. It won't be a matter of if things will go wrong but when.
If you are getting people to change get them to change to the most most logical and widest used system. It will take just as much effort and makes everybody's life (on both sides of the equation) a lot easier.Concept of 10-based system is not logic based. Also widest used system doesn't mean it is correct system, because making computations on floating numbers you are doing lots of miscalculations, rounding errors etc etc. It is very inaccurate approach.
21 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:The universe doesn't work in any numeric system, no matter how many times you say things to that effect.
Just because you are so narrow minded you can't see this doesn't mean it isn't there.
Also what is π?
Isn't that base system for motion in our universe, since most of things orbits or spins on circular-like paths?
-
43 minutes ago, andrewas said:
The universe doesn't work in any units system. Imperial or metric are both equally useful when it comes to describing observed phenomena. Imperial loses its advantages when working outside the human scale it was designed for. Metric offers easier arithmetic. It would be even better in base 12, but it's way to late to make that conversion now.
Universe works in math constants units system
That is why I said "modified imperial" not exact imperial.
Key idea is to use different numeric system for different real/natural event or physical property of matter and energy. If you find correct numerical system you won't get meaningless numbers like @PB666 described in his post (1.616199(97) × 10−35) instead you will have natural numbers like 1, 2 or 10 is π in π-nary system just like 10 is 2 in binary system. -
If we are talking about every day common use then metric seems fine.
But in science modified imperial system would be better, because universe doesn't work in 10-based numeric system.
-
I would vote for 1.1.5 for probe telemetry
-
7 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:
Are you just trolling or are you seriously asking for Chernobyl drone/phone footage?
The Chernobyl disaster happened in april '86. There where no camera phones or drones back then. And the soviet government only admitted something had happened a few days after. Footage like what you're asking for simply does not exist.I don't know your age but I guess you're not that old. And you might not be aware there actually was a time, not that long ago, before cellphones and computers.
I was talking about photos and videos made today. Are you aware that today that power plant is draining lots of money? Structures that are build in there should be showed to public.
-
Answer is very simple... where are photos and videos made after disaster? With all those drones and cameras today we should have 360 degrees panorama views or some other selfies from site near power plant... unless someone is taking lots of money for nothing.
I read somewhere that EU is paying 800 millions of EUR per year to maintain power plant structure and protect us fro radiation.
I hope you read my other posts more carefully.
What if the Earth had a 2nd moon?
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted · Edited by Darnok
1. I don't know yet...
2. I am defending it as hypothesis, while I got feeling some in here say it is very wrong to even start thinking about that kind of hypothesis.
3. It all depends how you interpret data. There are tons of different experiments done and you can make different interpretation of "what was studied" and "what results means".
4. Can you live on Mars without using any technology?