Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

Think about these


  • Please log in to reply
570 replies to this topic

#31 Incognitum

Incognitum

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 10 July 2007 - 10:06 AM

Incognitum,
Sorry for the lack of courtesy in not citing the specific objection. It was, however ment to be vague. I was simply throwing back the same comment you made to Cipher22. It appeared that you were arogantly tearing down (instead of building up by the strength of your own arguments) when you stated that Cipher22 should read a book or two before posting again.



I would make three points about this:

First, that Cipher22's comments were demonstrably wrong, and I explained in detail how before disparaging them.

Second, that Cipher22 was purporting to bring to the table ideas that were brought second-hand from his chem teacher, and not concepts that he had personal knowledge of. I was very upset by the report of a public school teacher giving such hogwash to his students, and my remark was meant to be a directive to seek knowledge from a better source, although I admit it was phrased rather harshly.

Third, that Cipher22 had intentionally crafted his post to be inflammatory towards those who understand the concepts being discussed, in the hopes of baiting a response such as was furnished.

The specific objection was relating to your brick analogy, which you responded to Headswabby and dug yourself an even deeper hole. What you are saying about the the speed of light is correct and I think everyone understands what you meant by the maximum "weight" of a brick, it is simply not stated correctly. The weight of the same brick can change. Theoretically there is no maximum, practically there is sure to be. But the fact that a bricks weight can change and the speed of light does not makes it a poor analogy (in my opinion). Maybe I have misunderstood your response to Headswabby, but from my point of view you were grasping at straws. Maybe you can explain it to me in a way that is not too technical for me to follow.



I don't know how to explain any simpler then I did in my last post. The maximum weight of a brick cannot change. The idea that whatever brick you make, someone can always make a heavier one, or put it in a stronger gravity well is irrelevant. The maximum weight will be where all the variables for gravity, size, materials, and any other pertinent considerations are all set so that the maximum weight is achieved. Even if this means the maximum weight of a brick is one atom away from it collapsing on itself and becoming a black hole, whatever the limit, that limit is not maileable. That is why it is the maximum.

I am quite unsure however, how this off-hand comment became such a big part of the discussion. The part of the example that was pertinent was the answer.

P.S. Don't take anything I am writing too seriously, bleive me, I don't. I am just having a little fun. I could'nt have hard feeling towards a Feynman fan.



No harm done, I was just very surprised as I know my physics are sound (even if there is disagreement about my metaphors) and I wanted to know what you objected to so I could riposte appropriately. Knowing that you impugn only my knowledge of astro-masonry, and not that of special relativity, I am quite content.


Could you do me a favor? Can you please provide an explanation for your signature:

Thanks




No trouble, it's Greek. Translated it means, "Do it! Now, now; quick, quick!" It is from an ancient Greek love spell that my brother found while doing research for his master's thesis. This spell is purported to cause "men to fall in love with women, women to fall in live with men, and virgins to run out of their houses."

First you draw a demon on parchment. This demon is headless, and his name is a synonym for 'envy.' Then you tack this image up over the door to the public bathhouse and recite the magic words. Then! ...you wait.
  • 0

#32 howtex

howtex

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 10 July 2007 - 02:34 PM

Incognitum,
Thanks for the explaination

Knowing that you impugn only my knowledge of astro-masonry, and not that of special relativity, I am quite content.



LOL
  • 0

#33 dVs

dVs

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 10 July 2007 - 08:21 PM

correct me if i'm wrong but an unstoppable force can be created:

imagine a wire one atom thick: it would have an (near) infinite pressure and so by adding just a tiny amount of force would cut through anything (because Pressure=Force/Area so if area=0 (or as close as you can get) then any force creates infinite pressure.) on the other hand, it is impossible to make an object which could stop this from slicing through.

and in answer to 8, it is really very simple: God does not exist ....problem solved...




yes... and again in theory, could not all space be removed from between the atoms of a given surface, creating an armor through which nothing could pass?

if so, then when the bullet struck the armor, would it not actually be simply a collision of two atoms (the foremost on the bullet, and whichever atom said atom struck upon the armor)? and so my guess is that the answer to "what would happen" is fusion... and a subsequent nuclear explosion.
  • 0

#34 Incognitum

Incognitum

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 10 July 2007 - 08:27 PM

yes... and again in theory, could not all space be removed from between the atoms of a given surface, creating an armor through which nothing could pass?




No. Atoms are mostly empty space themselves. Even if they were lined up next to each other and glued in place, most of your armour would be empty space. It is only the dense nucleus that reflect alpha particles. But it will be seen that since scientists can split these nuclei, I would submit that no armour is impenetrable to atomic bombardment.
  • 0

#35 dVs

dVs

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 10 July 2007 - 08:51 PM

No. Atoms are mostly empty space themselves. Even if they were lined up next to each other and glued in place, most of your armour would be empty space. It is only the dense nucleus that reflect alpha particles. But it will be seen that since scientists can split these nuclei, I would submit that no armour is impenetrable to atomic bombardment.



i readily defer to your better informed judgment on all things atomic... assuming it were possible to extract the nuclei (thereby removing the space) and fashion an armor thereof... is not atomic bombardment the very process by which fusion is begotten? would that not be the very end result i have proposed? (doesn't seem all that much less likely than a bullet honed to an single-atom tip to me, at any rate)
  • 0

#36 Incognitum

Incognitum

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 10 July 2007 - 09:03 PM


No. Atoms are mostly empty space themselves. Even if they were lined up next to each other and glued in place, most of your armour would be empty space. It is only the dense nucleus that reflect alpha particles. But it will be seen that since scientists can split these nuclei, I would submit that no armour is impenetrable to atomic bombardment.



i readily defer to your better informed judgment on all things atomic... assuming it were possible to extract the nuclei (thereby removing the space) and fashion an armor thereof... is not atomic bombardment the very process by which fusion is begotten? would that not be the very end result i have proposed? (doesn't seem all that much less likely than a bullet honed to an single-atom tip to me, at any rate)



Sort of, certainly it is not the case that a particle accelerator is synonyms with a nuclear reactor. Not every material can be used in an atomic bomb, but any atom can be split into quarks. Assuming you aren't making this armour out of uranium-32 it should be plenty safe to split.
  • 0

#37 coachjason

coachjason

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 10 July 2007 - 09:33 PM

As to the one about a car going the speed of light and turning the headlights on. You could relatively compare it to someone going the speed of sound and turning on music. The driver still hears the music therefore I believe the driver would still see his headlights (inertia). Any effect on a bystander would be mere speculation due to the fact that no man made object has reached the speed of light yet. My best guess would be that a bystander would see nothing but a flash and that there would be some sort of after effect like a sonic boom when the sound barrier is broken.
Another question you could ask is when a car is going 55 mph and turns on the headlights, is the light now traveling the speed of light plus 55 miles per hour?
  • 0

#38 unreality

unreality

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6370 posts

Posted 10 July 2007 - 09:37 PM

no it travels at the speed of light
  • 0

#39 Iceman8705

Iceman8705

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 11 July 2007 - 12:26 AM

#7:
This is a problem that is inspired by relativity. As I understand it, this is what would happen:
First, the car cannot go the speed of light. Accellerating it to the speed of light would require an infinite amount of energy because, in relativity, momentum is conserved, so the mass is forced to increase as the velocity approaches c. It is an unreachable limit, and reaching it would entail instantaneous travel, surpassing it would allow for travel backwards through time, reaching a result event before the cause.
If it were possible, my guess is that an observer in a car travelling the speed of light would be frozen in time and would not witness anything at all.
If the car was travelling arbitrarily CLOSE to the speed of light, things from the driver's point of view would be normal, and he would see the light travel away from him at the speed of light (the speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter how fast they are going). An outside observer (assuming he could keep track of what's going on), would see slow motion people in the car and the light from the headlights slowly outpacing the car.
  • 0

#40 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 11 July 2007 - 02:17 AM

For number 5, you convert to Fahrenheit.

Soo... 0 degrees Celsius is 32 degrees Fahrenheit.
1/2 of 32 = 16
16 degrees Fahrenheit = approximately -8.6 degrees Celsius.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users