Bill Phil Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 2 hours ago, Delay said: Would it be possible for a movie to have an exciting narrative while still obeying all laws of physics and with current technology? I'm talking about a genre of movies that would usually disregard both or one of these things in order to make room for a narrative. The Martian came somewhat close. Only real issue is the strength of the dust storms. Of course there were production issues and inconsistencies between scenes, but that isn’t anything good editing can’t fix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted December 5, 2018 Share Posted December 5, 2018 The circle is now complete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted December 5, 2018 Share Posted December 5, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, Delay said: Would it be possible for a movie to have an exciting narrative while still obeying all laws of physics and with current technology? Most of the narrative fans will get bothered with the fizzix-schmizzix details. Most of the science fans will be unhappy without them. So, it would be a movie about two physicist professors first arguing about the scientific blah-blah (to make happy the science fans), then beating each other and throwing one of them into window (hi, Ggravity!) (to make happy the narrative fans bothered with the first half). Edited December 5, 2018 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisias Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 Similar designs, completely different solutions. Had Buran the same problems too (I.e., debris hitting the heat shield)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 On 12/5/2018 at 12:17 AM, Delay said: Would it be possible for a movie to have an exciting narrative while still obeying all laws of physics and with current technology? Yes - any standard fiction film, to be honest. Your daily soap opera still obeys most of physics as they don't make anything up on that end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Lisias said: Had Buran the same problems too (I.e., debris hitting the heat shield)? The rocket was covered with 1..1.7 mm thick ice. http://buran.ru/htm/flight.htm If ice was 2 mm thick the launch should be aborted. https://www.gazeta.ru/science/2018/11/14_a_12059095.shtml So, probably yes. Edited December 12, 2018 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted December 18, 2018 Share Posted December 18, 2018 Imagine standing right here: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roboslacker Posted December 18, 2018 Share Posted December 18, 2018 I was thinking the other day about prime numbers the other day, and had a thought. You know that one proof where you take every prime below some value, multiply them, add one, and then the new number is prime? Well what is you subtracted one instead? I've been thinking about it for a bit, and I think the number would also be prime. But if this is true, then I just discovered proof of infinite twin primes, which I find unlikely. Does anyone know a way to disprove this idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razark Posted December 18, 2018 Share Posted December 18, 2018 (edited) 20 minutes ago, roboslacker said: Does anyone know a way to disprove this idea? Provide a counterexample. For example: Let your "some value" be 8. 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 = 210. 210+1 = 211 (prime) 210-1 = 209 (not prime (11*19)) (I've never heard of this proof, by the way. I'm just taking your word for it that it exists.) Edited December 18, 2018 by razark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monstah Posted December 18, 2018 Share Posted December 18, 2018 (edited) 22 minutes ago, roboslacker said: I was thinking the other day about prime numbers the other day, and had a thought. You know that one proof where you take every prime below some value, multiply them, add one, and then the new number is prime? Well what is you subtracted one instead? I've been thinking about it for a bit, and I think the number would also be prime. But if this is true, then I just discovered proof of infinite twin primes, which I find unlikely. Does anyone know a way to disprove this idea? That proof is only valid because you assume there are finite primes, and take X+1 where X is the product of all of them. So, (X+1) has to be a prime, not just because it isn't a multiple of the primes you multiplied, but also because there aren't any other primes you could divide it by. If (X-1) is a lesser prime than (X+1), it renders the demonstration of the existence of (X+1) as a prime incorrect. (Of course, the original demonstration isn't that X+1 is a prime, it's that's an absurd you could have finite many primes, so the question of whether (X+1) actually is or isn't a prime isn't really a question at all...) Edited December 18, 2018 by monstah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roboslacker Posted December 18, 2018 Share Posted December 18, 2018 (edited) 45 minutes ago, razark said: (I've never heard of this proof, by the way. I'm just taking your word for it that it exists.) 43 minutes ago, monstah said: That proof is only valid because you assume there are finite primes, and take X+1 where X is the product of all of them. So, (X+1) has to be a prime, not just because it isn't a multiple of the primes you multiplied, but also because there aren't any other primes you could divide it by. If (X-1) is a lesser prime than (X+1), it renders the demonstration of the existence of (X+1) as a prime incorrect. (Of course, the original demonstration isn't that X+1 is a prime, it's that's an absurd you could have finite many primes, so the question of whether (X+1) actually is or isn't a prime isn't really a question at all...) I looked into it some more, and found out that I was misremembering and misinterpreting the infinite prime proof. Edited December 18, 2018 by roboslacker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted December 18, 2018 Share Posted December 18, 2018 (edited) Hmmm...do you suppose the sum of all primes converges to a finite value, even if there are infinitely many of them? Probably not...? Edited December 18, 2018 by cubinator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0111narwhalz Posted December 19, 2018 Share Posted December 19, 2018 4 hours ago, cubinator said: Hmmm...do you suppose the sum of all primes converges to a finite value, even if there are infinitely many of them? Probably not...? If there are an infinite number of primes, and each one is larger than the last, then they shouldn't converge any faster than 1+1+1+…. Which is divergent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted December 19, 2018 Share Posted December 19, 2018 22 minutes ago, 0111narwhalz said: If there are an infinite number of primes, and each one is larger than the last, then they shouldn't converge any faster than 1+1+1+…. Which is divergent. The only exception would be if the negation of each prime was considered prime as well, in which case it would converge to 0. However, they aren't included in the definition of primes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0111narwhalz Posted December 19, 2018 Share Posted December 19, 2018 29 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said: The only exception would be if the negation of each prime was considered prime as well, in which case it would converge to 0. However, they aren't included in the definition of primes. Is -1 a prime number? Its only factors are 1 and itself. That would neatly take care of negative prime numbers, if so: they're the product of a prime and -1, and therefore composite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted December 19, 2018 Share Posted December 19, 2018 8 minutes ago, 0111narwhalz said: Is -1 a prime number? Its only factors are 1 and itself. That would neatly take care of negative prime numbers, if so: they're the product of a prime and -1, and therefore composite. As far as I can tell, they are essentially considered the same "prime ideal" in advanced math, and so basically ignored. The standard definition of a prime is a natural number greater than 1. https://primes.utm.edu/notes/faq/negative_primes.html https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1002459/do-we-have-negative-prime-numbers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 If you stand in the sunlight on Earth, and look at the shadow of your head, you are looking directly towards Earth's shadow as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adsii1970 Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 Just now, cubinator said: If you stand in the sunlight on Earth, and look at the shadow of your head, you are looking directly towards Earth's shadow as well. Why don't we consider the shadow cast upon the earth by your head (figuratively speaking) as a "melon eclipse" since we have solar and lunar eclipses... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 1 minute ago, adsii1970 said: Why don't we consider the shadow cast upon the earth by your head (figuratively speaking) as a "melon eclipse" since we have solar and lunar eclipses... You could extend it to any object, and then call it an "atmospheric eclipse" or "incomplete eclipse" because the shadow extends only partway through the atmosphere unlike a solar eclipse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adsii1970 Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 4 minutes ago, cubinator said: You could extend it to any object, and then call it an "atmospheric eclipse" or "incomplete eclipse" because the shadow extends only partway through the atmosphere unlike a solar eclipse. Yeah, probably so. But there is something funny about the term, "melon eclipse" Hey, @cubinator, would you move over to the left? You're causing a melon eclipse over here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 28 minutes ago, adsii1970 said: Yeah, probably so. But there is something funny about the term, "melon eclipse" Hey, @cubinator, would you move over to the left? You're causing a melon eclipse over here... Or the opposite, like that moment when you're sitting facing the general direction of the Sun, and someone is standing nearby talking to you, and you're looking up at them with the Sun near their head, and it's like "Dude, take a step to the left, I need a full melon eclipse here!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adsii1970 Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 2 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said: Or the opposite, like that moment when you're sitting facing the general direction of the Sun, and someone is standing nearby talking to you, and you're looking up at them with the Sun near their head, and it's like "Dude, take a step to the left, I need a full melon eclipse here!" See... it could be a very useful term... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 (edited) A Dyson sphere. Spoiler Or a total ecliptor, depends on which side you turn. Edited December 20, 2018 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0111narwhalz Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 Flux describes change or flow, e.g. heat flux. Flux also describes a chemical added to slow a reaction, especially in metallurgy. In other words, flux reduces flux. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V7 Aerospace Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 (edited) Who built the stock craft in KSP lore-wise? The space station core's description mentions that it is in the Kerlington craft catalog, but are there other contractors who built other craft? This space station core, assembled by Kerlington contains parts from various other manufacturers. How does this whole system work? I always thought the manufacturers only existed to supply parts for the space program, who would then do the job of constructing craft. But it seems they also provide their own craft, using parts from companies that they haven't collaborated with (at least not confirmed, unlike C7-Rockomax RAPIER). Who built the Learstar? the Kerbal X? The Bug-E-Buggy? Edited December 20, 2018 by V7 Aerospace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.