Comic Genesis Forums

Quentyn's attitude bears a striking resemblance to that of a Todd brother in that panel where he grins at the Royals and Redcaps.

BTW, by "lux bomb" I meant a device which "explodes" lux instead of energy. But I admit that "capacitor" is a better term.

remmon wrote:

Aurrin wrote:

Sharuuk wrote: Granted that's the correct spelling......but if you spell out Doc Brown's pronunciation I think it would be this

1.21 JIGAWATTS

1.21 GigaWatts = 1.21 x 10^9 Newton-Meters per Second
( Equivalent to applying a 1.21 billion Newton force for a distance of one meter, in one second -- this is more power than is generated by most nuclear reactors. )

And a lot less then your average nuclear bomb.

Also, a 100 gram object on which that power is applied would start moving REALLY damned fast... like, 1.21 billion * 9.81m/s
And if that exceeds the speed of light, it'll move a little slower...

It amuses me, to no end, that this thread got started because "lux capacitor" sounds a lot like "flux capacitor".

remmon wrote:

Astral wrote:No one can go faster then the speed of light, thats simply imposible. There for I propose that we Lower the speed of light to a more acseptable level!

Actaully, there's some discussion about wether or not the speed of light might be variable. It seems that at and shortly after the big bang the speed of light may have been substantially higher then it is currently.

If, and only if, that is true, that means the speed of light is simply another barrier for us to smash to pieces.

the speed of light in a vaccuum is not variable. However, with applied Quantum Physics, you can bypass it, since you are not dealing with light or matter then.

See web pages regarding string theory for details.

remmon wrote:

Astral wrote:No one can go faster then the speed of light, thats simply imposible. There for I propose that we Lower the speed of light to a more acseptable level!

Actaully, there's some discussion about wether or not the speed of light might be variable. It seems that at and shortly after the big bang the speed of light may have been substantially higher then it is currently.

If, and only if, that is true, that means the speed of light is simply another barrier for us to smash to pieces.

If by 'discussion' you mean 'ridiculous speculation by people who don't know what they're talking about' I'll buy that there's a question about c-variability.

What is true is that there is accumulating evidence that there are ways to bypass c somehow, not that c itself is variable. Quantum tunneling and quantum coupling seem to operate at superluminal effective velocities, and there are hints that magnetism and gravity are coupled after all.

There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophies

Further, some parts of string theory predict a particle capable of travelling faster than light, tenatively dubbed the 'tachyon'. We don't know if they exist for sure, but it'd be cool if they did!

Orion's Arm is "hard" science fiction and uses wormholes (but it takes years to get the other end to another star system). To go back AGAIN on topic, I bet Quentyn keeps Wildcard in the scabbard from now on...and sleeps and bathes with it belted.

I seem to remember an experiment to accelerate light past the speed of light, making it break its own speed limit as it were ... heres the link. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/ ... _7-21.html

Just a question ... isnt the major reletavistic problem with getting something up to the speed of light (c) the fact that increased energy put into it to accelerate begins converting into mass instead of speed as it approaches C? I wonder if the fact that light is supposedly mass-less has something to do with the fact that they could do this.

I personally believe that light has some mass (or at least some gravitational effect) otherwise it would take some explaining how it can have no mass and yet is still affected by gravity. still if it does have mass it can't be very large so for the most part it would still be relatively massless. but I aint about pleasing the masses.

BlasTech Wrote:

I seem to remember an experiment to accelerate light past the speed of light, making it break its own speed limit as it were ... heres the link. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/ ... _7-21.html

I hate to tell you that Bill Nye the Science Guy started his career on a local show in Seattle called Almost Live. It was Comedy show kind of like Saturday Night Live. Bill Nye the Science Guy was on of the skits he used to do. I am not sure he even has a Science background.

figures

s'what i get for never watching those shows

THIS is what I LOVE about these forums.....we've got some seriously smart people here!!!

S'aaruuk

Well I did some checking and Bill Nye and found he did have a Mechanical Engineering degree. Below tells the story.

Nye graduated from Cornell University with a Bachelor of Science in mechanical engineering. For the next three years, Nye worked for the Boeing Corporation on flight control systems and designed a hydraulic pressure resonance suppressor that is still flying on Boeing 747s. Nye worked as a consulting engineer on various projects in the 1980s. His clients included the U.S. Department of Justice, where he has a Level 3 security clearance and consulted on the configuration of an A-12 fighter jet.

Nye's career took a different path in 1986 when he originated Bill Nye the Science Guy on KJR Radio in Seattle, Wash. He was also the writer and talent for Almost Live, a television comedy show produced by KING Television, Seattle. He won 13 local Emmy awards for writing and performing.

BlasTech wrote:I seem to remember an experiment to accelerate light past the speed of light, making it break its own speed limit as it were ... heres the link. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/ ... _7-21.html

Just a question ... isnt the major reletavistic problem with getting something up to the speed of light (c) the fact that increased energy put into it to accelerate begins converting into mass instead of speed as it approaches C? I wonder if the fact that light is supposedly mass-less has something to do with the fact that they could do this.

shyal_malkes wrote:I personally believe that light has some mass (or at least some gravitational effect) otherwise it would take some explaining how it can have no mass and yet is still affected by gravity. still if it does have mass it can't be very large so for the most part it would still be relatively massless. but I aint about pleasing the masses.

Several misconceptions here. Let's see if I can help sort it out....

The basic equation involved with mass-energy conversion is the famous E = mc^2, where E is energy, m is rest-mass and c is, of course, the speed of light. Rest-mass is the mass measured when the object is at rest relative to you. However - the equation implies that energy has a slight amount of equivalent mass of its own, which 'responds' to gravitation (another whole complex issue in general relativity)... and which increases the effective mass of the object possessing energy.

Since motion is a form of energy, even a slight speed will slightly increase the mass of an object. As its speed increases, the force acting has to act on an ever-increasing mass, which means it takes more and more energy to increase the speed further, and this eventually builds up to a significant amount; at 86% of light-speed, this accumulation has built up to twice the rest-mass. After this point it starts snowballing, and light-speed requires infinite kinetic energy.

Light, gravitons if they exist, and just maybe neutrinos are particles with zero rest-mass, which means they can only exist as wave-forms of energy which travel at light-speed. They have an effective mass (given by E/c^2 = m) which allows them to be affected by gravitational fields in a more-or-less classical treatment; but in general relativity theory, gravitation is not a real force but an effect of the presence of mass warping space-time. (The particles move in straight space-time lines which look curved from our embedded-in-time perspective. Einstein had to invent tensor calculus to deal with this problem...)

As was noted, Bill Nye does have a real degree and does know what he's talking about. Unfortunately, the reporter interviewing him was a bit clueless. The experiment they're referring to is a superluminal wave-form; the photons themselves are not believed to be traveling faster than light, but the interference effects do. Whether this effect can be used to transfer information at superlight speeds is currently unclear. Theoretically it shouldn't be able to, but the experiments seem to indicate that it can.

The universe is not only stranger than we imagine - it may be stranger than we can imagine.

Kerry Skydancer wrote:[Since motion is a form of energy, even a slight speed will slightly increase the mass of an object.

I'm assuming that I'm remembering something wrong, because the last time I had (what I thought was) a really good science class was my sophomore year in high school, but... I thought mass was the measure of the amount of matter in an object. If it's something else, please remind me of what, and if it is that, how is the amount of matter changing?

matter (if I'm remembering this correctly) is essentially mass (weight) and volume

or to quote the generalized phrase "matter is anything that has weight and takes up space"

I used weight as a reference actually weight is based on the current mass in correlation with the gravitational forces in effect, since the gravity on earth is prettu much a constant as far as most insturments of measuring weight are concerned one scale works wherever you go so weight on earth becomes a pretty good measurement of an object's mass.

confused yet? I know I am!



actually I had wondered, what if space doesn't stretch at all, what if it flows towards gravitational points (earth, stars, black holes) and space at it's natural state acutally is in a slight state of anti-gravity, that would help explain why the universe is growing and accellerating while growing at that

(the previous theory before they found out that it was accellerating was that with all the matter of the universe producing gravitational pulls they should either be moving inwards or should be slowing down from the force of the BIG BANG but they discovered something different to be true)

if I'm wrong please tell me (in fact it might be better if I'm wrong because the theory would make some great sci fi material in a story)

shyal_malkes wrote:<snip> that would help explain why the universe is growing and accellerating while growing at that

(the previous theory before they found out that it was accellerating was that with all the matter of the universe producing gravitational pulls they should either be moving inwards or should be slowing down from the force of the BIG BANG but they discovered something different to be true)

if I'm wrong please tell me (in fact it might be better if I'm wrong because the theory would make some great sci fi material in a story) <snip>

I thought they'd found out from measuring the red/blue shifts in stars that the universe was still expanding, but slowing down ... gawrsh i love reliving old physics lessons =^_^=

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


Yes, that is correct, I saw that report. Everyone was expecting a negative number, or even a Zero for the rate of expansion, but lo and behold, they got a positive number! The theory for that is that subatomic particles appear and disappear continuously, and since this happens everywhere, that is what is making the expansion accelerate.

Golly, and all these responses from one exclamation. Does 1 bolt of lightning REALLY pack that much power, though?


?Zacatep?ngolas!

Until next time, remember:

I

AM

THE

J.A.M. (a.k.a. Numbuh i: "Just because I'm imaginary doesn't mean I don't exist")

Good evening.

[WARP!!!]

While we're on the subject of the big bang ... i thought this might get a few laughs

Back in high school i once had a "hitchhiker's guide-esque" moment in a class about relativity. (bear in mind this was only done using highschool physics, so please all you people out there with phd's dont be too cruel when you pick holes in it ... and for note the word "infinitely" could be taken to mean "large enough that quibbling over semantics really doesnt matter")

I got a question in my head: Assume someone finally managed to discover a way to accelerate to the speed of light ... and they thought to themselves "woah, cool i think i should try this out" so they went and trialed it. At some point during the trials once they reach C, whatever mechanism that allowed them to bypass reletevistic mass increases fails. Their mass increases infinitely in an infinitely small space of time. This then generates an infinitely strong gravitational field which sucks all the matter in the universe into an infinitely small point.

At which point the universe explodes again a la big bang.

The funny part was that i could imagine it being just a big reset button for the universe ...

meaning at some point in time (in more hitchiker terms) some schmuck is going to figure out a way to supercharge his little spaceship and then collapse us all the way back to the beginning of time again :D

Wayfarer wrote:

Kerry Skydancer wrote:[Since motion is a form of energy, even a slight speed will slightly increase the mass of an object.

I'm assuming that I'm remembering something wrong, because the last time I had (what I thought was) a really good science class was my sophomore year in high school, but... I thought mass was the measure of the amount of matter in an object. If it's something else, please remind me of what, and if it is that, how is the amount of matter changing?

Classical vs. relativistic physics. In our normal everyday existence, mass is the amount of matter and is a conserved quantity to about six decimal points. High school chemistry pretty much teaches that mass is constant.

In the more precise versions of chemistry and physics, however, mass-energy is the conserved quantity and the total apparent mass of something depends (slightly, under 'normal' conditions) on the amount of energy present, including motion, heat, chemical bonding, etc. Mass and energy can be shifted back and forth by the actions of chemical and physical processes, but the apparent mass doesn't change significantly until you get up to serious amounts of energy (nuclear reactions, forex) or relativistic speeds (generally defined as >10% lightspeed). Rest-mass is the amount of matter in an object, but the total apparent mass changes with energy content.

Now if you want things to get really weird, you have to start taking the changes in perceived duration into account under intense gravitational fields (aka intensely deformed spacetime) or high relative speeds. This can even lead different observers (which means observers moving at different velocities) to disagree on the order of observed events.