Physics thread

Explain that shit with the manifolds that got a nobel prize.

ya dun goofed

Manifolds are simply surfaces where a distance measure (metric) measures separation of two nearby points.

The surface of the earth is a 2-D manifold as is Euclidean space and Lorentzian spacetime

I was smoking outside 3 hours ago, and I remembered you, Physics user – and now here you are. Explain the coincidence.

Also, while smoking, I noticed that raindrops seemed to slant in front of the headlights of moving cars. When a car slowed down or stopped, the slanting decreases or disappears, respectively. Why is that?

I know that this happens but only when inside a car – or does the same rule apply?

If you didn't get it:
Car moves →
Raindrops = ////
Car stops
…drops = ||||

Uhh, just relative velocity?

Rain falls straight down, if you move in a car, the raindrops are now moving with a slant towards your windshield from your perspective driving.

well ok. i'm happily gassing my fellow citiens at the wheel of my chevy moving at 70mph relative to the road. a truck doing 100 overtakes me while another, also at 100 drives past in the opposite lane. i switch on the headlamps. does the light not travel at 3 different speeds at once, depending on who measures it?

I'm not inside the car nor moving with it. I'm just standing

Why are only certain metals magnetic? Why metals and not other elements?

Could project Orion have actually worked?

Speed of light is constant for all observers, time and distance measurements are different to keep c constant.

Ok misread. I have never seen this. Maybe there was just wind at the time? Or maybe an optical illusion because you are looking at the car.

see

It doesn't answer why only metals can be magnetic. And why only certain metals.

See this image

If Earth is really spinning and moving through universe that fast, how come the atmoshpere just doesn't fly away? There is nothing that could hold the gas atoms so far above Earth, they would just fuck off in the space to balance their spread. We are being lied about the shape of the Earth, which in reality is a concave cell, which doesn't spin at all.

Oxygen is paramagnetic. There is an unpaired 2 electrons on the molecule in the P orbitals which have non zero angular momentum, hence an overall magnetic moment. So its not just metals

And metals have a stronger response because they are in a solid lattice. Oxygen is randomly oriented so all the moments cancel out but in a lattice they are fixed so the lowest energy state is a sum of all of them.

I think I know why. It's an optical illusion. When the raindrop is at the top of the headlight the car is further away than it is at the bottom. Hence your brain extrapolates that the rain is falling at an angle when it isn't.

It's the same problem when you are slowly moving in a car and you are not quite sure wheither you are moving or another car is backing up.

The only force on the gas atoms is the earths gravity. Why would they fly away?

Because a gas always wants to spread to fit its surrounding, the molecules of gas would want to spread evenly all over the universe. If I keep a gas in a balloon and then open open the balloon, the gas will want to escape, so if we assume that there is vacuum around our planet, the gas should want to equal it out. Additionally gravity has to be extremely weak in such heights as to influence the atoms to keep them nearby, especially when we supposedly move so fast, we would just fly away and the gas wouldn't catch up.

Gas does spread out when you open a balloon at home but do you think the velocity of the gas molecules is greater than escape velocity from the planets surface? It's not, except for hydrogen.

The gas will fly high into the atmosphere but the vast majority of it will eventually get pulled down again

I don't think so, the molecules of gas are repulsing each other, and if there is vacuum on one side and on the other a giant mass of gas molecules, they will always want to spread in vacuum. I have to conclude that if our planet really looks the way scientists say, there has to be a layer of glass or something surrounding the whole planet and keeping the glass in space, or, which I think is the case, we live inside a cell concave Earth, in an enclosed system, which makes much more sense than a small planet moving incredibly fast in a vast vacuum.

I got a question why did the scientist past the geometry test? Because he wasn't obtuse.

Bazzingle.

Give me just one reason the block theory of time is wrong

r/jokes with that one, please. one way ticket, redditpun as toxic cargo. hotwheels will pay.

Pls reply

Nuclear propulsion as a means of space travel? Sure! Not sure about how to apply it. not my field.

No idea what that is.

Well I figure there is definitely some sort of physics behind it. It is the detonation of nuclear bombs behind a space ship to propell it forward tbh.

Not OP but nigga you dumb. Gas molecules don't "repel". To first order, an ideal gas dosn't really interact with itself at all, which is why gas spreads. It bounces off walls of a container to change direction, and when it doesn't hit a wall it keeps going, thus spread. An ideal gas is so sparse that collisions, or getting near enough to interact with itself is rare.

But gases arn't ideal. There are also physical forces between gas molecules.. That are attractive. Things like gravity (week), london dispersion forces, dipole-dipole interactions, other vanderwalls interactions, that can help.

But the big one, is the pull of the earths gravity on every single gas molecule. So you have gravity pulling down on everything, whats pushing up ? inb4 vacuum sucks. Nah it doesn't. Pressure gradients suck. There is probably a "skin", that varies relatively smoothly down to zero pressure to match vaccum.

Also, if you think gravity can't hold gas togther how are stars formed? Basically huge piles of hydrogen gas bound togther only by gravity (and week vanderwalls), collapse under the gravitational force. (But they repulse and the vaccum sucks them in…)

Anyway, your idea that repulses itself into space it stupid.

That's all bullshit what you say, I don't know what stars are or if they even exist, I don't believe anything from NASA, there is no way a huge layer of thick gas would stick to a gigantic ball that spins rapidly around its axis, while moving at crazy speed through vacuum, there is, according to the "science", nothing up there, that should glue the gas to this planet, all the van der Waals forces and gravity are much weaker than the movement of our planet. The gas should simply disperse in the open vacuum. In the current model of Earth, the planet should just lighting fast disappear, while the gas layer would slowly dissipate in the surrounding vacuum. They lied to us in school!

Aerospace Engineer here, yes it can work, it just costs a lot of money, I'm not sure about project Orion in particular, but the spacecraft will most likely have to be assembled in space. That was the original purpose of the Space Shuttle, to being small payloads into LEO and then construct larger objects in LEO.

strawman.NASA isn't the only one claiming their are stars or what they are. what you mean is "I don't believe what tens of thousands of people across many different religious, countries, time periods have said over the course of 100 years or so.

Nigga this is not how physics works. First "movement" of the planet means nothing. How do you stick to the planet as it moves? How do you stick to your car as it moves? The planets motion literally means nothing. From the rest frame of the earth, the gas is almost stationary. From the rest frame of the stars, its moving fast, not unlike you in your car from the ground perspective.. Why don't you fall out ?

2nd. You don't just declare the movement is too strong! (Even though movement is irrelevant). If it was, you write down a physical model based on physical principals , then solve resulting equations, and show gas should fly into space.

You can use words to try to explain the physics, but ultimately olnly mathematics counts. Trying to create new physics or disagree with existing physics based on words like "the movement is to strong" is a fundamental misunderstanding of how physics works and extreme autism.

We discussed this.

Why should it disappear? Do you actually believe any of this garbage?

Why? Elaborate multi-thousand year long government + elite conspiracy to hide the fact that the earth is round because that a round earth proves Jesus is imaginary?

then how are we still attached?

Because it doesn't move at all, it is a stationary concave cell unit, we live inside on its walls. It looks like pic related.

How come we cant see the other side?

LOL. We would fall off of it! Litterally no gravitation force by shell theorem if its uniform density. Unless the thing was spinning rapidly to create centregal force (why should you believe in that anyway ?), what would hold us against it ? What holds the big space ball thing up in the middle ? It would have to be wired to the shell (the earth). Why can't we see the wires?

Nigger don't make me trig at you. I'll do it!

Because the light rays don't move straight, they curve.

I have no answers to these questions, unfortunately

OK, this is my last post, believe what you want guys.

...

shit my post got messed up, look at my explanation and tell me if I understood your question

*centrifugal, not centripetal sorry

I believe dark matter is the cumulative error factor for unknown field effects. As we learn more it will shrink until it's gone. I don't believe it's actual physical stuff (aside from a few burnt out stars here and there)

Lol. If the spaceball thing was heavy, and you believe in graviation, it would actually pull us in.

In your world, there is little no scientific model of anything. There is your picture that looks cool.

Now, you need to develop new theories of everything to explain it. IE. Gravity probably can't work like it does in our model. You need to create a bunch of fundemantal forces that holds it all togther, and perhaps even a new mechanics, and worse all that needs to be consistant with every thing ever observed (or at least by you), IE, water bottles falling distance propotional to time ^2 .

I am not sure this can be done, but mathematics is vast, and perhaps it could. Anyway, until you do that, there is no compelling evidence for you model. And plenty of compelling evidence for everyone else model.

Also the fact that we have pictures….

you're probably right, it seems more mathematically logical it would arise out of a field or something we yet don't understand, explaining it away as just another particle seems like lazy physics.

Lol no. Cumulative errors in field theory are usually out by parts in 10^-10 or even less

dark matter is a factor of 10 (!!!!) error. Way too big to be simple errors unless field theory is completely wrong which is extrememly unlikely.

Was Einstein secretly black?

MY NIGGA

WE WUZ FIZZICISTS N SHEIT

It all comes down to electron spin. If a group of adjacent electron spins in an object orient in a particular direction it creates a domain. If the domain is large enough it becomes a permanent magnet.

Then there's paramagnetism and superparamagnetism - which will create a domain when subject to an external magnetic field. Essentially an induced magnet.

Magnetism is basically a quantum effect large enough to be observed at the macroscopic level. It's very strange.

Whats with shit getting magnetic when its cooled super cold

Heating shit fucks with the direction of electron spin because you are putting energy into the system, which is why you can demagnetise something by heating it up and why magnets are more powerful when colder.

Also it seems like certain things are non-magnetic initially but in reality it is simply that at room temperature the heat fucks with it enough to make it practically unnoticable.

How loud is the sun?

Like really really loud, you wouldn't want to stand next to it
t. Mike Tyson

And more movement implies more things molesting quantum mechanics.