WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
If it's the portion of the year where your portion of the Earth is tilted towards the sun, do not trust a cloudy day to block UV. Sure, if you're not down in New Zealand or neighboring areas that suffer from the ozone hole, yeah, you can probably go outside for a bit without sunscreen and not get too burned. Maybe just a bit warm. But go ahead, spend a cloud-covered spring or summer day at the pool with no sunblock. You will still get burnt to a crisp.
Funny, because, you know... i tried to start a discussion on quasars like some weeks before because i realized there is something fishy in the current model. I love to get backed up by actual discoveries LATER. If thats your definition of moron... well, be my guest.
What i failed to see is your ideas on the actual model Dark Energy/Dark Matter model. If you don't dare to think about something in public you will of course omit some mistakes, thats for sure.
Truth is the current model fails to explain the orbit velocities of the outer matter on the accredition disks of galaxies and fails to explain the increasing expansion speed of matter. The reason is something in the galactic core of course. I am certain there are still some huge misconceptions and so far all asumptions seem to be verifyable by observation. Dark Matter/Dark Energy isn't verifyable by observation (hence "dark"). The current model fails to explain 95% of the contend of the universe. I think this can't even be called a "model". It simply doesn't qualify by failig to explain a huge percentage of the cosmos. And so far i have not even venturet into things like the oldest observed galaxies, planets or things like the Sloan Great Wall wich seriously challenge the Big Bang theory.
Does that somehow reach your mind or is it all cryptic gibberish to you?
ACSIS on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
No, I get it.
I'm just not credulous enough to think that my or anyone else's wild, untrained, unevidenced speculation is going to give me any answers to the questions you've fabricated.
I do have a simpler question for the people that might know:
All of the planetary bodies I know of in our own solar system orbit in a similar plane and in the same direction. Has everything in the solar system been rotating in the same direction since it was all just a big cloud of dust or do counter-orbiting bodies ever form in any given system?
All of the planetary bodies I know of in our own solar system orbit in a similar plane and in the same direction. Has everything in the solar system been rotating in the same direction since it was all just a big cloud of dust or do counter-orbiting bodies ever form in any given system?
If i may: no its not rotating in the same direction initially, and it never totally does. But since orbiting matter pulls on other orbiting matter there is a kind of averaging effect. A certain gravimetric stream that pulls on orbiting matter. This is also why it collapses to a disk. There are exceptions of course, and those are the result of impact events. So: yes, counter-orbiting bodies form, but they tend in general to be averaged (or collide with averaged mattter). There is a certain trend and the result is what we see as our solar system today. There are also rogue planets wich may be caught or ejected from a solar system, so there is also a kind of interexchange of planets between star systems as they follow their irregular orbit around the center of the galaxy (a full orbit is a galactic year).
I'm just not credulous enough to think that my or anyone else's wild, untrained, unevidenced speculation is going to give me any answers to the questions you've fabricated.
I do have a simpler question for the people that might know:
All of the planetary bodies I know of in our own solar system orbit in a similar plane and in the same direction. Has everything in the solar system been rotating in the same direction since it was all just a big cloud of dust or do counter-orbiting bodies ever form in any given system?
to the first question, essentially yes as far as we know
short answer is, it is possible
longer answer is we don't really fucking know
0
Options
#pipeCocky Stride, Musky odoursPope of Chili TownRegistered Userregular
edited March 2012
It's generally only possible if it's a captured object, and its counter orbit would decay over time.
The nature of gravity and accretion pretty much guarantees everything will be spinning in the same direction because it's pulled towards other things that are spinning in that direction.
G.I. Joe taught me that apple seeds contain cyanide.
Well yeah, how else are you supposed to kill giant blob monsters?
Before following any advice, opinions, or thoughts I may have expressed in the above post, be warned: I found Keven Costners "Waterworld" to be a very entertaining film.
It's generally only possible if it's a captured object, and its counter orbit would decay over time.
The nature of gravity and accretion pretty much guarantees everything will be spinning in the same direction because it's pulled towards other things that are spinning in that direction.
Unless, of course the mass of the spinnig object is so great that it will drag everything into its own spin (like a rogue gas gigant or neutron star). Or it may be really, really fast, so it won't be easy to catch (like comets).
Ok, not really, but still awesome. I have a secret hope that Canada jumps on this technology to outfit its future vessels.
I love their motto
"speed destroys"
The shitty thing is that there is not a ship in existence that can generate the power necessary to fire that thing. Especially at like 10 rounds a minute, which I think is what they want out of it.
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
Ok, not really, but still awesome. I have a secret hope that Canada jumps on this technology to outfit its future vessels.
I love their motto
"speed destroys"
The shitty thing is that there is not a ship in existence that can generate the power necessary to fire that thing. Especially at like 10 rounds a minute, which I think is what they want out of it.
I would have thought that the Nimitz-class ships would have enough spare wattage to do it
I mean, they've got a nuclear reactor on board. How the hell are they generating the power to fire it on land?
Ok, not really, but still awesome. I have a secret hope that Canada jumps on this technology to outfit its future vessels.
I love their motto
"speed destroys"
The shitty thing is that there is not a ship in existence that can generate the power necessary to fire that thing. Especially at like 10 rounds a minute, which I think is what they want out of it.
I would have thought that the Nimitz-class ships would have enough spare wattage to do it
I mean, they've got a nuclear reactor on board. How the hell are they generating the power to fire it on land?
Nuclear reactors come in varying capacities. So it's not like any nuclear reactor=UNLIMITED POWER.
But I actually talked to Jess about this because she's actually worked on Navy projects before. The short answer is that to keep costs down, the reactors are basically designed to handle the total possible load that will be expected when the entire ship is designed. Rail guns require enormous amounts of power to fire. On land, they typically do this not by having a super powerful generator provide all the energy on demand, but by charging up massive banks of capacitors over time until they have enough energy stored up for a test.
So basically, before they could fit practical rail guns on any existing ships, they would have to replace the reactor with a significantly more powerful one just for starters. She also pointed out that the promise of these being less expensive to fire than conventional guns (because of smaller rounds since you don't need chemical propellant) is highly misleading. The fact that you need all that power generation on hand for that one subsystem means that you're paying much more for installation and maintenance of a much more powerful reactor that's producing surplus power you don't need the vast majority of the time. According to her, the Navy tends to ignore cost of maintenance in calculating the cost of new systems. So they're basically just looking at how much the rail guns and ammo would cost while pretending that the increased maintenance costs don't matter.
Aren't Rail Guns supposedly superior weapons as well, though? I was under the impression that a Rail Gun replacing a regular gun of a similar size was supposed to have superior accuracy, range and hitting power? Seems like that might be worth the cost of an upgrade, or at least maybe worth the cost of putting into a more powerful reactor when you build a new ship.
Yes, but again at the cost of requiring a much larger power plant. That has to provide much more power output than that class of ship would normally require. Even though you only need all that extra power once in a blue moon. The main selling point is that a ship can carry more ammo less expensively because it doesn't need to carry the propellant. But that's misleading. The propellant is the much larger power plant and it will cost much more to design, install, and maintain than just carrying rounds with chemical propellants.
Wikipedia also says that Railguns require pretty heavy maintainence due to friction and so on.
I guess that has gotta cost as well
0
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
To be honest, despite how cool railguns are, I dunno why there isn't more development being done on hypersonic ship-borne missiles. Guns, even fancy nuclear-powered ones, is old tech. Once that bullet leaves the barrel, that's it. Missiles can fly down a street and take a left at Park and 5th...
Well, missiles have the opposite problem. All the cost goes into the missiles themselves so they're very expensive per round. While they have their place, you don't really want that to be the backbone of your force projection.
My buddy who is an engineering graduate said that while missiles are great, big-ass gun are really good for one thing that missiles don't do that well, which is suppression of enemy territory while you are launching a ground invasion. For that you need to be able to fire a lot of shells as quickly as you can over a wide area, and for that big guns are best.
So yeah, that sounds logical to me.
Solar on
0
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
No-one ever thought of making a sort of self-loading missile battery?
0
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
Well, missiles have the opposite problem. All the cost goes into the missiles themselves so they're very expensive per round. While they have their place, you don't really want that to be the backbone of your force projection.
Yeah, I guess you have a point there. Without knowing the actual numbers I can't really speculate on total system cost...
Well, missiles have the opposite problem. All the cost goes into the missiles themselves so they're very expensive per round. While they have their place, you don't really want that to be the backbone of your force projection.
Yeah, I guess you have a point there. Without knowing the actual numbers I can't really speculate on total system cost...
Aren't Rail Guns supposedly superior weapons as well, though? I was under the impression that a Rail Gun replacing a regular gun of a similar size was supposed to have superior accuracy, range and hitting power? Seems like that might be worth the cost of an upgrade, or at least maybe worth the cost of putting into a more powerful reactor when you build a new ship.
they travel outrageously fast and generate a massive amount of force
so they will essentially go where you point it and annihilate whatever it hits
Posts
What i failed to see is your ideas on the actual model Dark Energy/Dark Matter model. If you don't dare to think about something in public you will of course omit some mistakes, thats for sure.
Truth is the current model fails to explain the orbit velocities of the outer matter on the accredition disks of galaxies and fails to explain the increasing expansion speed of matter. The reason is something in the galactic core of course. I am certain there are still some huge misconceptions and so far all asumptions seem to be verifyable by observation. Dark Matter/Dark Energy isn't verifyable by observation (hence "dark"). The current model fails to explain 95% of the contend of the universe. I think this can't even be called a "model". It simply doesn't qualify by failig to explain a huge percentage of the cosmos. And so far i have not even venturet into things like the oldest observed galaxies, planets or things like the Sloan Great Wall wich seriously challenge the Big Bang theory.
Does that somehow reach your mind or is it all cryptic gibberish to you?
I'm just not credulous enough to think that my or anyone else's wild, untrained, unevidenced speculation is going to give me any answers to the questions you've fabricated.
I do have a simpler question for the people that might know:
All of the planetary bodies I know of in our own solar system orbit in a similar plane and in the same direction. Has everything in the solar system been rotating in the same direction since it was all just a big cloud of dust or do counter-orbiting bodies ever form in any given system?
only if
happens
rock the vote!
If i may: no its not rotating in the same direction initially, and it never totally does. But since orbiting matter pulls on other orbiting matter there is a kind of averaging effect. A certain gravimetric stream that pulls on orbiting matter. This is also why it collapses to a disk. There are exceptions of course, and those are the result of impact events. So: yes, counter-orbiting bodies form, but they tend in general to be averaged (or collide with averaged mattter). There is a certain trend and the result is what we see as our solar system today. There are also rogue planets wich may be caught or ejected from a solar system, so there is also a kind of interexchange of planets between star systems as they follow their irregular orbit around the center of the galaxy (a full orbit is a galactic year).
to the first question, essentially yes as far as we know
short answer is, it is possible
longer answer is we don't really fucking know
The nature of gravity and accretion pretty much guarantees everything will be spinning in the same direction because it's pulled towards other things that are spinning in that direction.
Need some stuff designed or printed? I can help with that.
still can't access databases
how I am I supposed to be able to look up if those are actually flux ropes forming during the eruption or if it's just how the movie looks
where in the northern hemisphere water goes counter clockwise.
and then bart went to austrailia.
"Hey does the water really go backwards when you flush?"
No. The Coriolis Effect is orders of magnitude too weak to do that. Stop getting your facts from the Simpsons.
Need some stuff designed or printed? I can help with that.
I did watch that episode though, fucking hilarious.
Somewhat space related?
Ok, not really, but still awesome. I have a secret hope that Canada jumps on this technology to outfit its future vessels.
I do not like that.
Also, this is not space related but I'm gonna go ahead and stick it here.
Meth user burns down 5th oldest tree in the world.
lady burned down a tree that was estimated to be 3,400-3,600 years old.
When she was tryin to do meth.
That sucks.
If the Earth Stood Still
Modeling the absence of centrifugal force
I really like this and have come back to it a few times since i saw it.
I know it's not what you meant, but saying it like that implies she tried to smoke meth and instead accidentally burned down a tree.
I love their motto
"speed destroys"
"no, it goes forwards"
95% of my science knowledge comes from cartoons
Now I know!
Well yeah, how else are you supposed to kill giant blob monsters?
With water, obviously.
Unless, of course the mass of the spinnig object is so great that it will drag everything into its own spin (like a rogue gas gigant or neutron star). Or it may be really, really fast, so it won't be easy to catch (like comets).
The shitty thing is that there is not a ship in existence that can generate the power necessary to fire that thing. Especially at like 10 rounds a minute, which I think is what they want out of it.
I would have thought that the Nimitz-class ships would have enough spare wattage to do it
I mean, they've got a nuclear reactor on board. How the hell are they generating the power to fire it on land?
Nuclear reactors come in varying capacities. So it's not like any nuclear reactor=UNLIMITED POWER.
But I actually talked to Jess about this because she's actually worked on Navy projects before. The short answer is that to keep costs down, the reactors are basically designed to handle the total possible load that will be expected when the entire ship is designed. Rail guns require enormous amounts of power to fire. On land, they typically do this not by having a super powerful generator provide all the energy on demand, but by charging up massive banks of capacitors over time until they have enough energy stored up for a test.
So basically, before they could fit practical rail guns on any existing ships, they would have to replace the reactor with a significantly more powerful one just for starters. She also pointed out that the promise of these being less expensive to fire than conventional guns (because of smaller rounds since you don't need chemical propellant) is highly misleading. The fact that you need all that power generation on hand for that one subsystem means that you're paying much more for installation and maintenance of a much more powerful reactor that's producing surplus power you don't need the vast majority of the time. According to her, the Navy tends to ignore cost of maintenance in calculating the cost of new systems. So they're basically just looking at how much the rail guns and ammo would cost while pretending that the increased maintenance costs don't matter.
I guess that has gotta cost as well
So yeah, that sounds logical to me.
Yeah, I guess you have a point there. Without knowing the actual numbers I can't really speculate on total system cost...
One example, Tomahawk missiles for the current iteration:
$1.45 million per unit
http://costofwar.com/en/publications/2011/analysis-fiscal-year-2012-pentagon-spending-request/
they travel outrageously fast and generate a massive amount of force
so they will essentially go where you point it and annihilate whatever it hits