|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Apr 23, 2013 23:09:27 GMT
not if you treat them both as vectors. Huh? How? Could you enlighten me on the subject? A vector is just an angle, line or an object in three dimensional space. At least, it is if you're talking about Euclidean space. There are literally dozens of other vectors in mathematics and physics, so I don't really know which one he is referring to. It kind of misses the point, because Jones is not an immovable object, just a very durable one. Coyote's blade isn't infinitely powerful, just very sharp. Jones' gravity is obviously not infinite, otherwise she would sink into the ground. I would venture to say you could kill her under the right circumstances (to the extent that Jones was ever alive in the first place). Coyote's blade is not infinitely sharp, otherwise it would cut through it's sheath and fall to the floor, and cut through that, and pretty soon it and infinitely heavy Jones would be shaking hands at the center of the earth. "Unstoppable force meets immovable object" is just a figure of speech, and not meant to be taken strictly literally. |
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Apr 24, 2013 0:12:44 GMT
Jones' gravity is obviously not infinite, otherwise she would sink into the ground. Actually, wouldn't it be the ground that moves?  (Not that it really matters. Infinite inertial mass does not imply infinite gravitational mass.) |
|
ReubenPatrick
Junior Member
"What is yours can be mine"
Posts: 84
|
Post by ReubenPatrick on Apr 24, 2013 0:20:44 GMT
Huh? How? Could you enlighten me on the subject? A vector is just an angle, line or an object in three dimensional space. At least, it is if you're talking about Euclidean space. There are literally dozens of other vectors in mathematics and physics, so I don't really know which one he is referring to. It kind of misses the point, because Jones is not an immovable object, just a very durable one. Coyote's blade isn't infinitely powerful, just very sharp. Jones' gravity is obviously not infinite, otherwise she would sink into the ground. I would venture to say you could kill her under the right circumstances (to the extent that Jones was ever alive in the first place). Coyote's blade is not infinitely sharp, otherwise it would cut through it's sheath and fall to the floor, and cut through that, and pretty soon it and infinitely heavy Jones would be shaking hands at the center of the earth. "Unstoppable force meets immovable object" is just a figure of speech, and not meant to be taken strictly literally. Used as a figure of speech, eh... Like Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris. Thanks by the way. |
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Apr 24, 2013 5:38:32 GMT
Jones' gravity is obviously not infinite, otherwise she would sink into the ground. Actually, wouldn't it be the ground that moves? (Not that it really matters. Infinite inertial mass does not imply infinite gravitational mass.) Could be. I was taught that regardless of the origin of the force, if two objects are gravitationally attracted to one another the pressure exerted on the contact point of each when they meet is the combination of their momentum, rather like a car accident. Thus, whether the earth is moving Jones, or Jones is moving the earth, they should both be moving towards the each others gravitational center until gravity is balanced out by another force like drag. Then again, I always failed those test problems where they ask you the velocity of the elephant being dropped down a certain grade of slope, so perhaps I'm not the best person to ask. If only Neil DeGrasse Tyson was a GKC fan... he would have the answer. |
|
|
|
Post by cannister on May 6, 2013 0:56:21 GMT
If Jones' gravity were infinite, I think I would be less concerned about her sinking into the ground than her absorption of all nearby matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by download on May 6, 2013 4:51:29 GMT
She would become the heaviest black hole in existence and start absorbing a good portion or all of the universe
|
|
ReubenPatrick
Junior Member
"What is yours can be mine"
Posts: 84
|
Post by ReubenPatrick on May 6, 2013 6:50:33 GMT
She would become the heaviest black hole in existence and start absorbing a good portion or all of the universe Well being killed by Jones doesn't sound THAT bad... She's just one in my long list of who I want to kill me if the time comes. It includes Liam Neeson hunting me down, Goku, Ezio and Kratos. Nuff said Imagine being killed by Jones as she sucks you in, draining all of your will to live while Morgan Freeman narrates your last moments while still alive whilst instilling a keen sense of helplessness as you die. Well that's speculation is done. Let a new one rise. Since Tom will probably make the next update go back to the present (He's such a tease), who do you think is chasing them? |
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on May 6, 2013 13:51:21 GMT
She would become the heaviest black hole in existence and start absorbing a good portion or all of the universe No she wouldn't. Black holes don't work like that.  I don't know enough about general relativity to tell what would happen if her gravitational mass approached infinity, but it she just had a very large mass (say, that of a large galaxy) then most things being "sucked in" would never actually pass her event horizon: they'd just keep falling indefinitely in what's called an "orbit". As for what happens inside the event horizon, I'm not sure. Things get a bit noneuclidean, and the line between space and time starts to blur. But I do know that it's possible that we're living inside a black hole right now. It turns out that as the size of a black hole increases, the less dense it has to be, so if the density of the universe is high enough then the universe itself has an event horizon. ;D |
|
Morpheus
Full Member
The Most Adorable
Posts: 242
|
Post by Morpheus on May 6, 2013 13:56:52 GMT
...Because science.
The best things about physics is that no matter what manner of craziness the sci-fi writers out there thinks up, actual physics always trumps it, most of the time rather easily.
|
|
|
|
Post by download on May 7, 2013 3:20:21 GMT
She would become the heaviest black hole in existence and start absorbing a good portion or all of the universe No she wouldn't. Black holes don't work like that. I don't know enough about general relativity to tell what would happen if her gravitational mass approached infinity, but it she just had a very large mass (say, that of a large galaxy) then most things being "sucked in" would never actually pass her event horizon: they'd just keep falling indefinitely in what's called an "orbit". As for what happens inside the event horizon, I'm not sure. Things get a bit noneuclidean, and the line between space and time starts to blur. But I do know that it's possible that we're living inside a black hole right now. It turns out that as the size of a black hole increases, the less dense it has to be, so if the density of the universe is high enough then the universe itself has an event horizon. ;D None the less, destruction of the universe |
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on May 11, 2013 6:28:19 GMT
...Because science. The best things about physics is that no matter what manner of craziness the sci-fi writers out there thinks up, actual physics always trumps it, most of the time rather easily. Here's a good one for you: You may have heard that some theories of black holes have corresponding white holes. Well, you may not have heard that the white hole end would be backwards in time. So, the sci-fi authors whom have the universe end in a big crunch black hole, and say it'll create the big bang for the next universe? Well, it's just as plausible that it created THE big bang for the very universe it destroyed. Talk about the mother of all stable time loops. And it's possible that the universe we're living in right now is such a universe... Think about that one for a moment. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by download on May 11, 2013 7:04:52 GMT
Personally I'm a fan of the infinite looping universe theory. I don't subscribe to it being the same every time though
|
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on May 11, 2013 13:55:46 GMT
Personally I'm a fan of the infinite looping universe theory. I don't subscribe to it being the same every time though Well, the "fixed history" model is the one that's most likely to apply in real life... Said universe, if it is dense enough, would loop not only in time, but in space as well. (Inside a black hole, space is literally bent so that there's no way out. Unless you can travel in time, that is. So, a TARDIS actually could escape a black hole. ;D) |
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on May 12, 2013 8:55:13 GMT
Personally I'm a fan of the infinite looping universe theory. I don't subscribe to it being the same every time though Me too, but the astrological community seems to be convinced that everything is going to fly apart until every atom is too far away from each other to do much. I don't know how much I buy into the heat death theory, but considering I won't live to see it, it doesn't bother me much. |
|
|
|
Post by download on May 12, 2013 9:50:35 GMT
Personally I'm a fan of the infinite looping universe theory. I don't subscribe to it being the same every time though Me too, but the astrological community seems to be convinced that everything is going to fly apart until every atom is too far away from each other to do much. I don't know how much I buy into the heat death theory, but considering I won't live to see it, it doesn't bother me much. True, but I have trouble with a theory that doesn't explain where the universe came from. Though i guess my complaints don't prove or disprove any theory . Why are we even discussing this anyway? |
|
|
|
Post by legion on May 12, 2013 15:12:14 GMT
Personally I'm a fan of the infinite looping universe theory. I don't subscribe to it being the same every time though Me too, but the astrological community seems to be convinced that everything is going to fly apart until every atom is too far away from each other to do much. I don't know how much I buy into the heat death theory, but considering I won't live to see it, it doesn't bother me much. Actually, recent LHC findings seem to point out more in favor of our universe ending in a vacuum metastability event than in a heat death scenario (though they're still working on the data). In this scenario, we are living in a false stable vacuum, and in many billion years, a true stable vacuum bubble will nucleate somewhere in a high-energy region of the universe, and will then quickly expend in all directions at nearly the speed of light, destroying all matter as we know it in the process. Morality: don't cross the streams. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on May 12, 2013 20:09:41 GMT
I don't know how much I buy into the heat death theory, but considering I won't live to see it, it doesn't bother me much. For the most part it happened before you were born. One second after the Big Bang, the temperature of the explosion was still around 10,000,000,000 degrees Kelvin. Today, it's around 3-4 degrees Kelvin. |
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on May 12, 2013 20:15:08 GMT
Me too, but the astrological community seems to be convinced that everything is going to fly apart until every atom is too far away from each other to do much. I don't know how much I buy into the heat death theory, but considering I won't live to see it, it doesn't bother me much. Actually, recent LHC findings seem to point out more in favor of our universe ending in a vacuum metastability event than in a heat death scenario (though they're still working on the data). In this scenario, we are living in a false stable vacuum, and in many billion years, a true stable vacuum bubble will nucleate somewhere in a high-energy region of the universe, and will then quickly expend in all directions at nearly the speed of light, destroying all matter as we know it in the process. Morality: don't cross the streams. Yikes. I've always wondered why something strange and terrible beyond our imagining hasn't barreled out of the unobservable universe and crushed us yet. I'll just have to pack my towel, put my thumb out and hope for the best. |
|
|
|
Post by download on May 13, 2013 7:12:13 GMT
I don't know how much I buy into the heat death theory, but considering I won't live to see it, it doesn't bother me much. For the most part it happened before you were born. One second after the Big Bang, the temperature of the explosion was still around 10,000,000,000 degrees Kelvin. Today, it's around 3-4 degrees Kelvin. That's entropy for you |
|
|
|
Post by legion on May 13, 2013 11:28:54 GMT
I don't know how much I buy into the heat death theory, but considering I won't live to see it, it doesn't bother me much. For the most part it happened before you were born. One second after the Big Bang, the temperature of the explosion was still around 10,000,000,000 degrees Kelvin. Today, it's around 3-4 degrees Kelvin. Heat death means lack of thermal exchange (and thus lack of energy), the actual temperature at which this state is reached doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on May 14, 2013 6:34:43 GMT
True, but I have trouble with a theory that doesn't explain where the universe came from. Define "came from". This theory describes the universe as a sort of 4-dimentional tapestry with no loose ends. Time is included in this, so there's no "before" the universe, nor an "after". It just is. The only way you could have it "come from" somewhere is by speculating some extra-dimensional, non-temporal source; then you're getting into Theology's territory. Why are we even discussing this anyway? Well, this is wild speculation...  For the most part it happened before you were born. One second after the Big Bang, the temperature of the explosion was still around 10,000,000,000 degrees Kelvin. Today, it's around 3-4 degrees Kelvin. Heat death means lack of thermal exchange (and thus lack of energy), the actual temperature at which this state is reached doesn't matter. Kind of... You're right that temperature has nothing to do with it, but I think this could use some more elaboration. It all has to do with the Laws of Thermodynamics. Because of them, in every "transaction" of energy (such as those we call "life") looses a bit of energy to waste heat. This waste cannot be completely recovered by any means ("heat engines" do exist, but they are based on potential energy from temperature differentials, and can't be 100% efficient either). So, extrapolate these laws into the distant future, and we have a universe that is gradually loosing more and more energy, progressing to a uniform medium of uniform temperature, throughout the entire universe. And there is nothing that can be done to stop it. So, yeah; it's a pretty depressing way to go. |
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on May 14, 2013 8:54:36 GMT
True, but I have trouble with a theory that doesn't explain where the universe came from. Why are we even discussing this anyway? Well, this is wild speculation... I find digressions from the forum's primary topic refreshing, and ultimately beneficial to said topic. Aye, and that's treacherous ground indeed. To me it seems entirely unnecessary to assign a "start point" or a "primary cause" of the universe as theology so nobly attempts to. This hypothesized primary cause inevitably has to break rules, and be assigned special conditions to exist at all, as if we state that everything must have a creator, then this "final" creator must also have a creator, and a damn sight more complicated one than the one before. Thus, in fact, the creator is not "final" at all, but must have an infinitely regressive line of creators creating them, each more infinitely complicated than the last. In the end I think Carl Sagan said it best: "If we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must of course ask the next question: where did God come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step, and conclude that the origin of the Universe is an unanswerable question? Or if we say God always existed, why not save a step, and conclude that the Universe always existed?" |
|
|
|
Post by download on May 14, 2013 10:23:39 GMT
Maybe we need an off topic thread?
|
|
notacat
Full Member
That's not me, that's my late cat Mimi: I'm not nearly so cute
Posts: 188
|
Post by notacat on May 14, 2013 18:55:06 GMT
Me too, but the astrological community seems to be convinced that everything is going to fly apart until every atom is too far away from each other to do much. Not completely sure the astro logical community would be bothered about atoms…you mean astro nomers? This will teach me to leave the forum to stew over the weekend: catch-up is a mare ;D |
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on May 14, 2013 19:34:35 GMT
Me too, but the astrological community seems to be convinced that everything is going to fly apart until every atom is too far away from each other to do much. Not completely sure the astro logical community would be bothered about atoms…you mean astro nomers? This will teach me to leave the forum to stew over the weekend: catch-up is a mare ;D Lel, did I just appeal to astrology? How embarrassing! |
|
|
|
Post by Steam Engine on May 14, 2013 23:55:00 GMT
Dr Randy Disaster is the Doctor. Just look at his bowtie.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordofpotatoes on May 15, 2013 15:42:03 GMT
I think I get Jeanne, now on reread, Muut says they do not deal in electrical appliances and that she cannot cross the river. The reason she can cross the river is because something changed there since last time Muut was there, there's now a tic-toc on the ground. She can only go to where there's technology(for some reason).
Basically, what led me to this theory is when I asked myself the question 'What happens to robots when they die in GKC?', they can't go into the ether, can they? The answer is limbo. Jeanne was a robot.
|
|
|
|
Post by download on May 15, 2013 15:51:21 GMT
I think I get Jeanne, now on reread, Muut says they do not deal in electrical appliances and that she cannot cross the river. The reason she can cross the river is because something changed there since last time Muut was there, there's now a tic-toc on the ground. She can only go to where there's technology(for some reason). Basically, what led me to this theory is when I asked myself the question 'What happens to robots when they die in GKC?', they can't go into the ether, can they? The answer is limbo. Jeanne was a robot. I wouldn't put it past Tom for this to be possible |
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on May 15, 2013 20:02:44 GMT
I think I get Jeanne, now on reread, Muut says they do not deal in electrical appliances and that she cannot cross the river. The reason she can cross the river is because something changed there since last time Muut was there, there's now a tic-toc on the ground. She can only go to where there's technology(for some reason). Actually, I'm pretty sure Tom said that Muut was wrong because he didn't know that she was the reason stuff can't cross the river... |
|
|
|
Post by lordofpotatoes on May 15, 2013 21:11:15 GMT
I think I get Jeanne, now on reread, Muut says they do not deal in electrical appliances and that she cannot cross the river. The reason she can cross the river is because something changed there since last time Muut was there, there's now a tic-toc on the ground. She can only go to where there's technology(for some reason). Actually, I'm pretty sure Tom said that Muut was wrong because he didn't know that she was the reason stuff can't cross the river... It'd be great if you find a quote for this, I've long thought that the Tic-Toc on Gillitie's side and Jeanne coming over there was related. |
|
