Physics thread

If time slows as you approach the speed of light, is there a way to speed up time?

if 2 planets are exactly 1 light year away from eachtother, it would take a spaceship going the speed of light 1 year to reach planet B. If a spaceship left from planet A and a spaceship left from planet B both heading to each other's planets it would take each ship 1 year to reach the planet. Doing the actual, equation tell me how long it would take for the ships to meet in the middle :D

why are tiddies so jiggly?

If you move relative to someone else they would view your time as slowing down and you would view their time slowed down too. The fastest you could view their time run is if they are stationary with respect to you such that both your times ran the same speed.

In other words, no.

Well if both "ships" move at the speed of light then they are massless particles. You never specified a frame in which the time would be measured. For the "ship" itself, 0 time would pass because it is lightlike. For the planets, half a year.

Are we still in the splash zone of that gamma ray burst?

what gamma ray burst? how do you define "splash zone"?

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.

You said the spaceship would be "going the speed of light".
I don't understand the word "speed" here. Could you explain how the pilot knows his speed?

he means "relative to the planet he took off from"

...

Relative to the planet
moving at literally c.

Well, that's one way of looking at it.

Now we need to know if planet B is moving relative to planet A.

can assume very little because if they are 1 light year apart and relative motion will almost certainly be

It would be a slow roast, and painful.

for you

How heavy would the moon have to be for the earth to revolve around it?

the earth and moon both revolve around their common center of mass. They revolve around each other.

If you just left a rock in its own area completely unaffected by anything else, a theoretical nowhere, would its gravity eventually form it into a perfect sphere?

That is a really good question. The answer is yes over a long enough timescale. Why do you think all rocky planets are spherical?

*approximately

What shapes can a planet be other than spherical?

flat

Kidding. It can be oblated due to rotation just as the earth is.

Think of rock as a very viscous fluid. Over a long enough time it becomes spherical because this minimises gravitational potential energy. If it spins, there is less potential energy at the equator so fluid flows there making it oblate.

Sorry for hazy memory, but I remember this form child hood. I overheard that if you interact with the same spot over and over with the same force, your finger will pass through?

Is it possible gravity is infact that Gravity is a (Push Force) pervading the universe in the form of a type of ether and continuously creating?

What is the equal and opposite reaction to gravity?

PS. Will gravity cause the universe to eventually compact down into one singular sphere sorted by density?

Not if the void is infinite., Interestingly, it seems the universe is headed somewhere in a direction, from what I've read.

Well, that would require the molecules and atoms of the rock to shift around and rearrange.
You didn't say what kind of rock it is. A crystal would be much less amenable to this than an amorphous rock.
But, basically, you have the problem that there's a force (chemical bonds) holding most of these molecules in place. They can't slide slowly around; you would have to add energy to break those bonds. The gravity force is enormously weaker than that.
On the other hand, you have random thermal agitation which implies that a bond has a certain nonzero, very small chance of breaking due to vibrations. That could allow the rock to reshape itself over an enormously long period.

gravitydrivenuniverse.com is a site I found and listened to this man's hypothesis on how a big whoosh as he calls it created the universe and how gravity continues to create everything physical.

Well theres an astronomically small chance your finger will quantum tunnel through (about same chance all air in a room localises itself in one corner and you suffocate).

Or your finger erodes teh material and passes through.

What you are describing sounds like the cosmological constant in which case yes, the push force is caused by dark energy which still remains very mysterious.

Gravity. You throw a ball up in the air, earth pulls it down to the ground but the ball's gravity acts on the earth as an equal and opposite force.

No, dark energy is overwhelming gravity. All large galaxy clusters will become separated from each other and never return eventually.

The last line is absolutely correct. Hence as I said over a long enough time period
the rock will reshape itself just as all rocky planets have to some extent.

Asteroids are non spherical because their gravity is very weak and they haven't existed long enough for this process to occur.

the push force is caused by dark energy which still remains very mysterious.

Yes something has to have always been for something to be now.And it would come from outside our physical universe and therefore be mysterious.

If the big bounce happens (Universe becomes time space singularity, time space singularity creates the big bang once again) would that mean the universe starts over again? Or is there a chance the universe would be radically different?

What is dark matter?

What are the chances our brains are biological quantum computers that create the physical reality we experience. They're tied together on a network (Earth's magnetic fields) and influence and share data with each other. Observation affects outcome and that whole phenomenon.

Can thoughts alter reality?

Overall it will look similar on large scales but very different on small scales.

No one knoes. We think its a weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) that doesn't feel the EM force strongly hence is dark.

wut

How do you know that?

Why is the conservation of mass and energy wrong, and how far back did it set our civilization?

is it?

Because there has to be a previous force. Otherwise you are saying the second law of thermodynamics doesn't exist , I.E. if the universe the visible is all there is it should have died out by now.Power is still flowing into it.

Yeah. Also, what are your thougts on the Saturn Sun Theory?

Why should it have died by now? Have you done the math on this?

Do you know what a "force" is?

So you're saying the universe and matter are infinite and don't decay? Why is there any heat left in the universe?

What is outside the universe? What is the universe expanding into?

cant tell, because we can't observer anything outside our universe

So we know there is an end to the universe and that over all it is expanding, but we don't know what is outside it.

So the measurable universe is expanding.

Is there something we know but can't measure?

That falls outside the realms of physics into philosophy and mathematics. Physics only deals with what we can measure

Approximately how fast is my shit travelling when it hits the water?

In what sense do the laws of motion change as one approaches c? I heard that they do but I want to conceptualize it.

Well if something travels very fast, and it shoots a gun forward, the bullet still travels below c in your frame. Thus velocities do not add linearly but instead hyperbolically asymptotic to c.

F = ma holds only if F and a are 4 vectors instead of 3 vectors.

Does/can absolute 0 exist in our known universe?

How will the next magnetic pole shift affect our current understanding of physics, assuming we don't all die

also taking my bachelor of science majoring in physics next year, any advice?

So moving at c reduces the number of vectors? Can you explain these vectors to me? What are they?

I'm not saying anything.
I'm asking you to clarify your question, which doesn't seem to make sense.

I can't understand your question.
How can you "approach c"?
How can you know what your speed is?

Why would I need to know my own speed? What about something else then besides myself? I just want to know what happens when f=ma can't hold true.

Am this fag meaning I only have a Highschool level of physics that I have sorta lost due to summer drinking if absolute 0 is the point in which all particles have lost all their kinetic energy, and if photons are technically particles will absolute 0 cause light to "stop" and become "solid" it will the photons simply be unaffected due to their wave nature?

If a spaceship is traveling at close to C (constant motion) and it turned on the headlights would that light from the headlights travel only slightly faster than the ship, or would it travel at C relative to the shit traveling near C thus traveling faster than C to a static observer? What about if the ship was traveling at C?

If a neutron "turns into" a proton and thus ejects an electron, where does the energy come fro. To accelerate the new electron if the atom's nucleus is static to start with?

sorry if my questions are retarded/don't make sense. Like I said it's been half a year since Highschool physics, so just ignore me if my questions are pants on the head retarded.

No because any confinement in a system (even the entire universe itself0 leads to zero point motion by the uncertainty principle and hence a non zero temp.

Not at all. it happens all the time. All explained by the magnetohydrodynamics of the earth.

If you love physics keep doing it, if you hate it, try chemistry/materials science/engineering. No reason to slave away if you don't like it because if you don't have the passion you will never do well.

Also you will make more money in the latter disciplines so you will be even more happy.

What is the most sciency word you know?

What are the odds that the increasing speed at which our universe is expanding is due to the universe still being in the "barrel of the gun" (being propelled by energy generated by the Big Bang)? I've never quite accepted the idea that the universe is just being pulled apart by some mysterious force. It kinda flies in the face of gravity, you know? But then again I'm woefully uneducated.

Basically my question is: are we really going to experience heat death, or will everything eventually collapse back in on each other and make a big crunch? What's stopping a Big Crunch happening when the universe "ends"? Is there any merit to cyclical universe theory?

No. A 3 vector has 3 components (x,y,z) and a 4 vector has 4 (t,x,y,z) because time runs at different rates for different observers.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/vec4.html

see
F=ma still holds but the definitions of f and a change. Also m is defined in its rest frame (i.e rest mass)

The presence of photons implies energy present hence it is not absolute zero by definition.

light always travels at c always always. Both observers see light travel at c.

neutrons are slightly more massive than a proton so the binding energy decreases supplying the energy.

To a good approximation you can say that when a proton turns into a neutron (only happens in a nucleus) it decreases electrostatic repulsion hence also decreases binding energy but actually answer is more complicated involving field theories of the strong/weak forces.

flux. Simple yet sexy. Even though all it is is rate of something passing through a given area.

The rate of acceleration is also increasing because of the effectively negative pressure density of the vaccuum.

Think about gas in a box. If you expand it its pressure increases. The opposite is true for the universe. The larger it expands the faster the rate of expansion. As far as we can see it will continue to accelerate indefinitely.

Cyclic universe theory is possible but the ratio of dark matter to dark energy isn't high enough. We knw this through CMB measurements

Does light have weight? Does anything not have weight? Can matter be completely destroyed?

light has no rest mass. You can never measure it anyway becasue you can never reach c.

Matter can be converted to energy but energy cannot be destroyed

How can I reduce entropy on Holla Forums

report all shitposts and shills

Thanks man.

I wouldn't say I love physics, but it was my favorite class in Highschool despite me doing better in bio. I loved grade 11 Chem but hated grade 12 Chem and I actually really liked bio this last year. But I am have always liked Physics. I want to do either Astronomy or be an astronaut, so I'm more so using physics as a path.

GRAVITY ISN'T REAL

Well keep going. It will get hard and then if you still love it keep going.

Is there a limit to how big a single atom could get?

I'm a physics oldfag. I enjoyed studying it for sure, and met some great people.

But it's NOT useful and if I had my time all over again I'd take media studies with jew extermination.

the nucleus? well it gets unstable at high proton number and decays. google the island of stability for more. There is no theoretical limit, only practical. If the atom is less stable thanas 2 chucks it will fission.

kek

My plan right now is to take three years of uni to get my physics bachelor, then fight for Israel for a few years in the Bundeswehr and then after that figure out how to be an astronaut or just do something else by then (I'll probably change my mind in that 6 or so years. But who knows, maybe after uni I'll join politics and work on removing Jews and kebabs. I really do want to go to space but one thing is for sure. I need to get a gf and have kids and remove likes from Europa

If I shot a bullet towards a synagogue from the outer edges of the mesosphere, assuming the bullet didn't melt due to air resistance and friction would that bullet have enough force to destroy the entire synagogue and all the merchants inside or would it simply leave a little hole in the roof and travel through?

What's your favourite thing about space?

I dunno I like stuff and that sort of jazz, I guess.

Everything about space has always captivated me from when I was young. Maybe it was my obsession with Star Wars as a kid, or my over active imagination (which still is an issue for me) but I have always loved the other planets, from fiery hot Venus hiding under her clouds to the giant Juptier with its unending storms and innumerable moons, to Saturn's awe inspiring belts, even to other systems and galaxies. I love Kerbal space program even though I haven't even landed on another planet or even entered an orbit outside of Kerbin the mün and minmis, and I've spent hours playing Space engine just looking for other worlds and the complex beauty of the universe and taking physics helped me to understand why some of these things are as they are, and what causes these events. I don't know exactly what about 'Out-There' that I like, maybe just that European explorers itch, or simple wonderment at that which is to large to even comprehend

my dick when this video

Next year I'm going to study chemistry. Since both subjects, physics and chemistry, have a lot in common, can you tell me a bit the studies. What were the challenges, how much fun is it, any useful tips and what to specialize in. And I have another question. I read once that the hottest thing on earth measured was a particle in a particle accelerator and had a temperature of ten billion degrees (°C) hotter than the sun. The fact that nothing was burned or destroyed at the research facility is due to the fact that the particle only existed for a millionth of a second. But how do you explain this, does something need to be exposed to warmth a certain time time ?

Thanks fam.

Anscheinend bin ich nicht der einzige Landser hier, nur mit dem Unterschied, dass ich zuerst zum Militär gehe und erst dann ein Studium in Chemie anfange.

Grüss dich.

argle bargle largle for shargle ma nargle

Wat ?

Thanks for the rare pepe.

Chemistry is basically physics applied solely to the more than 2 body problem of atoms larger than hydrogen, which can be solved exactly.

I couldn't stand chem because of that. I wanted to know more which drove me straight into physics.

Their definition of temperature is plain wrong in that case. temperature cannot be defined for 1 particle because temperature is the standard deviation of kinetic energies in a body of particles.

What they probably did was take a particle, looked at its kinetic energy and equated it to temperature i.e mv^2 = kT but this is plain wrong. A glass of water on a plane is not hotter than a stationary one.

I don't think he reads german is the joke.

Well that's why I'm considering nanoscience as a second option, because it's very physics influenced, but not to much theory like plain physics. Even tough normal chemistry has already a big part of physics in it, if I look at the modules I have to take like, physical chem I + II, quantum physics, thermodynamics, material and surface science etc.

Well the article was from some semi-serious science magazine. Not the "I fucking love science" or reddit type, but similar. It was a piece about the LHC in geneva. It could also be that I was wrong and it were several particles but I can't remember. Apparently they tried to find new elements which are very unstable and only exist for little parts of seconds.

Thanks anyway.

Well I was thinking about the Fallschirmjäger or maybe scouting regiment. I don't speak full German yet canada dual citizen fag which is why I'm doing uni first, my course is in English, so once I'm done three years of uni I'll be able to speak better and sing all the old Wehrmacht songs.

Why not canadian army ?

...

>why not stay in Canada 2015

That isnt what the idiot asked, the idiot wanted to know if both ships are colliding with twice the speed of light. Or if they come at each other with twice the speed of light.

How can there be a smallest particle. I understand it's supposed to be energy only but how is this possible. What if you were to "zoom in" on that?

Research and expedition shows the existence of a celestial realm beyond the south pole.

Theoretically; donut shaped

Also if a planet us spinning fast enough I suppose it could be oval shaped

if the planet is spherical and spins around why don't we fall off in space?

inb4 : gravity

You can't "zoom in" beyond that.
Space isn't infinitely reducible like numbers are.

No, they don't collide with twice the speed of light.
Velocities don't add up the way you're thinking. Space isn't flat the way you imagine.

I can't answer your question because I can't understand it.
What do you mean by "traveling"?
e.g. if you were on the ship, how would you notice that you were "traveling"?

make things colder than absolute zero = reversal of particle excitement = reverse of going beyond the speed of light.

backwards time travel.

Is the Universe already dead?

It can take millions or billions of years for light to reach earth, so the things we see from telescopes are actually things that existed but are probably now long gone.

I can't understand your question because it contains the word "already".
It's like you believe in a "now", a single moment of time that everybody shares.
But there's no such thing.

If the planet is spinning fast enough that could be an actual problem, the only place a ship could land would be the poles.

Well I'm sorry you lack the proper mental capacity to understand basic concepts like motion.

That is not only irrelevant but dumb. If I'm blindfolded and places on a train on a gyroscopic surface that counters any movement I might feels as a result of the training accelerating or turning them that means that I am not actually in motion right? I would actually stay in the exact stop in space that I was in when I last was aware I was in motion right?

Of course not you retard. Although if the ship were traveling at C then they would experience no time between the moment they begin going C to the moment they drop below C

...

What is the most efficient way to store large amounts of energy for future use?

...

...

Don't count your chickens. You haven't explained it yet. When you can explain what motion is, THEN you can call me a retard.

Really?
If "traveling" is not relevant, then why was it mentioned in the first question?

See, you're going WRONG here.
You're talking about accelerating or turning.
But the original question didn't have the spaceship accelerating or turning. It was supposedly "traveling" in a uniform way.
THAT'S what you need to explain.

Since you haven't explained it, your insults are misplaced.

...

I agree that the pilot can sense a CHANGE in speed, but my question was; how can he detect the current speed?

This is the 2nd time somebody failed to answer my question by talking about acceleration instead.

Let me point out the problem with YOUR answer.
Suppose I tell that pilot that he USED to be travelling near C, in the opposite direction, and after the force application, he is now STOPPED.

Can he tell the difference?

I have heard that the Large Hadron Collider could potentially be used to find evidence of extra dimensions.

1. How would they be able to do that?

2. What does it mean if they do discover it

Maybe you can convert mass into energy 1:1? correct me if I'm wrong

So store the energy in mass. But how do I first put it in and then get it out, at least theoretically.

How does a photon emitter produce a single photon?

If a Nigger were stealing a bike at c and the cops started to chase him, how would he run away?

In a straight line towards the nearest ghetto yellling "din do nuffin!"

do ice skkates get warmer during skating?

I know. I just outlined the question he wanted to ask but he formulated in a goofy way.
BUt instead of telling some mundane shit, you should elaborate it in a usefull way and make usefull distinctions instead of saying "if you slap a tit it bounces".

I could explain it exactly, but most people would not understand.

How about this; send somebody East and tell her to walk halfway around the world. Send somebody West for the same distance.
How far apart will they end up?

Not as far as you might think.

Why?

Because the world isn't flat.

Well, space-time isn't flat.

That was a pretty good analogy, now you have to explain different observer positions and then voila, you have a good image. Explain the different observers, one form the outside and then the observers on the ships.

Earth has no real lines of longitude embedded in it. Everybody feels like they're on top of the world and the other guys are upside down.

Well, space has no "mile markers". Everybody thinks they're standing still.

If you apply the law of conservation of energy to initial singularity, does that mean that the 'point' that was our universe had an infinite amount of energy, since it is zero dimensional? Could this be a valid approach of defining an higher being or something alike? Or is there just a flaw in my reasoning?

Sorry if I can't explain myself, I don't usually discuss these things on English.

That is why i said different observer positions. So to stay in your example if i watch a goy in australia he moves with the speed of the earth rotating around the sun and then this system also rotates around the center of the galaxy.
So now you use that and explain it from the observer in the ship towards the other ship and the outside observer.

But whether the pilot knows he is in motion or not is irrelevant because my question was how he would view light from his headlights and how an observer outside of the ship would view the lights. Whether the pilot knows he's moving doesn't effect the speed of the light from the headlights

Smh fam

I've has a very low coefficient of friction and since you must be moving to have friction the temperature of the ice you move on to would "absorb" the minimal heat from the blades

The laws of physics dont apply to the big bang as you know them. What you do is speculation.
If you have no laws of physics you have chaos. The fundamental question is why is there something instead of nothing. And that cannot be solved with logic and that is why cannot apply any laws to it.

so the blades cool down,like the wick on a candle, when i blow the flame out?

On the contrary, it is the ANSWER to your question.

If it flies away at "c" then he doesn't know that he's moving.
If it does something weird then that would prove that he's moving.

If you apply the law of conservation of energy to initial singularity, does that mean that the 'point' that was our universe had an infinite amount of energy, since it is zero dimensional? Could this be a valid approach of defining an higher being or something alike? Or is there just a flaw in my reasoning?

Sorry if I can't explain myself, I don't usually discuss these things on English.

Well the minimal friction and the small contact point of the blades creates enough friction, in conjunction with the movement of the skater's body, to move the skater forward, but the particles of the ice are pulling in energy to try to break the crystalline structure of ice to make water so the heat made by the friction of the blades and the ice is mostly taken by the endothermic ice. But I have had my skates be mildly warm after a particularly hard shift in hockey.

I just wanted to know whether the speed of light is altered by the source of light traveling. So I used an example to help ask my question. If a car were going 5 m/s would the light coming from the car only travel at 3.0x10^6 or would it be going after because the ejection point of the light was already in motion. Because if I shoot a gun in the same direction as my car is traveling, from my car, the bullet would go faster than if it were shot from a static position. Albeit with a much larger amount of air resistance, but light isn't affected by air resistance, just density, temperature ect. of air. Which is why I used a vacuum as my example.

Well, the light moves at "c" relative to the outside observer.

The light also moves at "c" relative to the car.

Does light slow down when traveling through things like foggy glass? How slow can light travel? Could you out speed light by sending it through something really "thick" and then going through something less thick yourself.

are memes a wave or a particle?

They are a fluid, they can evaporate and condense, but not freeze

Ofc, the speed of light is dependent on the material it goes through, it is slower going through water or glass. And to give you a little anectode, the light that is "kept" in the sun emiting through fusion takes years to go to the surface.

Memes are different, memes are like saying your fat mother is fat. While some will say she is fat positive others will say that she is just a fat whore that gave birth to a frog. So memes are both, they are the quantum mechanics of social engineering, your mother is a fat whore that gave birth to a mongoloid and your mother is a proud symbol that gave birth to cognitive unique australian at the same time. What matters is the observervation or the lack of it.

Radius of sun = 695,508 km
Years = more than one, hopefully atleast 2

2*365*24=17,520
695,508/17,520=39.698
I could go faster than 39.698km/h. Faster than baby light.

I will give you an example to illustrate your point.

Imagine you have a girl with huge tits and she is at a party of betas. So the girl wants to exit but she bumps into fedora wearing shitposting hillary clinton voters all the time. Like a wall of CTR and other beta fags, and then the fags will stop her and cite their "mylady i m an enlightened individual wear a fedora hat, while being obese and have an abysimally average iq at the same time, but dare to listen to my cultureless empty words for a while". And then she has to listen to that drivel, and once the beta stops another beta comes, and this goes on and on until she is out of the party, but her main speed always remains the speed of light, she just bumps into betas.
So for example if there where no betas, her speed from one point to another would be c.

Do you think we will ever be able to combine relativistic physics and quantum physics (in "one formula"…)

If yes
when?

Ebenfalls Chemiestudium!

Please find a closed-form solution for the self-field of an electron.

Tell me one practical use that has ever been made of string theory

So the light is going at a different speed (or velocity if we're including vectors) depending on the observer?

Why no, you have completely taken the total opposite meaning to what I actually wrote.
It's amazing you could do that.

The light is going at the SAME speed for BOTH observers.
As I said.

Light's mass ~= 0 so it can go very fast. Is it theoretically possibly to make something lighter than light?

Also, “Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.” Terry Pratchett.

OP, do you agree that existence is a paradox?

physicsforums.com/threads/the-paradox-of-existence.119/

in km/h how fast is the universe expanding?

3.1415627etcetcetc

ok op. im not a physics fag, but i do know a bit about how quantum mechanics work. say that if you have two particles that are quantum entangled and thus one reacts instantly if the other one has been changed. can you use that as communication that will transfer information instantly (faster then the speed of light). like if one particle has been "changed" (forgot the exact word for it) the other particle will also "change" no matter where in the universe it is. Can you somehow get that and make a device (sort of like morsecode) and use it to talk to anyone, anywhere in the universe almost instantly?

Not necessarily correct; current models predict that this is likely but it's also possible that the universe will indeed reverse it's expansion and collapse to a single point. It's also possible that the universe will converge on a certain size.

Open universe is what you described, flat and closed are mine.

recent measurements seem to imply that there actually is no such thing; all detectors developed found nothing and evidence of more baryonic mass in galaxies has been found.

It would act as if you'd dropped the bullet from around a hundred metres up; air resistance would slow the bullet until it reached terminal velocity.

Picture a pan of water on the stove. It doesn't instantly boil, the longer it is exposed to the heat, the hotter it gets. Same principle.

ice skates actually work by melting the ice beneath them; it refreezes behind the skater. So yes, but also no, because most of the heat immediately goes into breaking the latent heat of fusion of the ice.

Yes, and it happens a lot in particle accelerators; look up Cherenkov radiation. It's like a sonic boom but for light.

Can't be bothered to type it so have a wiki page

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

bump

If I go back in time and molest myself…

Does this count as masturbation or rape?

Depends on whether your past self consents.

If not, it's masturbatory incestuous rape.

you life sux, so of course you wanna escape

How does nasas EM drive work and does it lend evidence to us living in a simulation?

It doesn't; all measured thrust given from the prototypes of the RF resonant cavity thrusters are either within experimental error bounds or can be explained by thermal differences. The proposed EM drive (or any zero-propellant drive) would break the law of conservation of momentum and as such is impossible.

read the grand design. it explains this.

thus one reacts instantly

Sorry, I can't understand that question so I can't answer it.
What I don't understand is the word "instantly".
Two spatially separated events can be coincident or not dependent on the reference frame. There's no absolute concept of "instantly".

you're replying to the wrong person, buddy

were you the in the capitalist thread, spewing shit about how energy needs would make us unable to make technology that let us transcend the need for capitalism?

nop

oh, okay

mass contains a LOT of energy. we could theoretically exchange mass for energy using a miniature black hole. it pulls a quantity of mass in that is equivalent to the amount of energy it ejects in relativistic jets.

but this is theoretical, as we would need as much energy as the sun puts out in all directions over a certain period of time (physics amateur, can't recall the details). potentially possible via a dyson sphere or something similar (dyson swarm)

bump
i always like the physics threads

ASK ME PHYSICS QUESTIONS

if a morbidly obese man were in a vacuum, would it be possible to put a piece of dust or something equally minuscule into orbit around him? how small would something have to be to orbit a 400 pounder?

If the man were orbiting a star, the star would also be orbiting the man. Any two objects with mass in space will be co-orbital.

m8 you know that's not my question

You can put one bit of dust into orbit around another bit of dust. ANYTHING in space will be co-orbital, unless they're in contact, in which case they'd be considered a single body.

bamp

What he's saying is YES, technically. However, the scenario you're imagining (fat guy with little dust particles circling him as if he were a star) would not happen. Gravity is based on three things, and three things alone: the mass of object 1, the mass of object 2, and the distance between them. A 400-lb man and a tiny bit of dust have a tiny mass and a relatively HUGE distance between them.

…unless, of course, the distance between the man-dust system and all other objects were extraordinarily great (such that said objects had near-zero gravitational force) and the dust had no velocity relative to the man with which to escape the man's gravity.

In other words, if you spawned a piece of dust and a fat guy right next to each other in the most secluded area of space… it's possible, I guess.

No, the dust would just fall to the surface of the man

If you want me to do the maths for how fast the dust will have to be moving, I will.

Assuming the dust is an average of 1 metre from the centre of mass of the 400lb man, then the dust will orbit the man if it is travelling at 0.00011 metres per second. This means it would take around 10.6 hours to orbit the man, by which time he would probably be dead.

what's the speed of faggotry?

Hey, if you college guys are so smart: how come you never found a way to kill all of the fire ants and killer bees? Sure, maybe it's not going to be a concern but they're on the move and they've been on the move since they were introduced to the United States at a frightening pace and they might just come and make a nest over by (or perhaps *in*) your lab then maybe you'll care.

I don't care because I'm not American.

wew

What are the criteria for calling something an atom.

Made up exclusively of a single nucleus of protons and neutrons surrounded by a number of electrons equal to the number of protons, or this with the equivalent antiparticles.