Somethign that cannot be explained with science

[Shalmanese]

Science cannot prove the non-existance of an invisible, pink unicorn.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Mingon

Thats not technically falling to be pedantic 😛

Sure it is! It's just falling from a great height. After all, Skylab fell back to Earth, didn't it?

and for their to be a forest you would still need and atmosphere to keep them alive.

Maybe they're super-mutant trees that use the solar wind to provide them with the oxidizing agents they need!

 

[Pudgygiant]

Nothing says it's a live tree. Just a tree. And all you squares are interpreting it to mean the 'plant' form of a tree. Why couldn't it be a family tree written on paper?

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Pudgygiant
Nothing says it's a live tree. Just a tree. And all you squares are interpreting it to mean the 'plant' form of a tree. Why couldn't it be a family tree written on paper?

Fair enough. 😉

What's the forest, then?

 

[Mingon]

Would a piece of paper fall or float 😀 and when it landed it would still make a noise

Sure it is! It's just falling from a great height. After all, Skylab fell back to Earth, didn't it?

Not really, it was caught up in the earths atmosphere then fell. The act of it falling only happened inside the atmosphere, outside it was in space and hence it was in orbit albeit a decaying one, so to technically fall it needs to be in an atmsophere being affescted by gravity 😛

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Mingon
Would a piece of paper fall or float 😀 and when it landed it would still make a noise

Sure it is! It's just falling from a great height. After all, Skylab fell back to Earth, didn't it?

Not really, it was caught up in the earths atmosphere then fell. The act of it falling only happened inside the atmosphere, outside it was in space and hence it was in orbit albeit a decaying one, so to technically fall it needs to be in an atmsophere being affescted by gravity 😛

Maybe that's how engineers think of falling. I never considered that it involved being in something that would slow down motion. Could we then say that nothing can float in space because there's no water or air?

 

[Mingon]

Maybe that's how engineers think of falling. I never considered that it involved being in something that would slow down motion. Could we then say that nothing can float in space because there's no water or air?

Not quite sure I understand your point. To fall requires something to be affected by gravity does it not? whilst things are in space they cannot fall as their is no up/down do you not agree? As for floating in space that is a term which holds no true value, You are not floating as you are just not being affected by gravity. I would say being suspended in space is better than floating but pray tell what your explanation is?

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Mingon

Maybe that's how engineers think of falling. I never considered that it involved being in something that would slow down motion. Could we then say that nothing can float in space because there's no water or air?

Not quite sure I understand your point. To fall requires something to be affected by gravity does it not? whilst things are in space they cannot fall as their is no up/down do you not agree? As for floating in space that is a term which holds no true value, You are not floating as you are just not being affected by gravity. I would say being suspended in space is better than floating but pray tell what your explanation is?

The prevailing gravitational force would be towards the sun (unless, of course, you were close to some other planet or moon), so you could define "up" and "down". But I do like the way that you're defining terms specifically so that they are unnecessarily meaningless in certain contexts. 🙂

 

[Mingon]

Rjain - this is getting slightly off topic perhaps if you wish to continue do so via PM. I still think my first response is the best so far 😉 how does one scientifically explain personality - or the lack of it 🙂 j/k

 

[JeremiahTheGreat]

Science cannot prove anything. Think about this one..

 

[Pudgygiant]

If you hold something 2 feet above the surface of the moon, it "falls" down to the surface. Key word is "falls". There is no atmosphere on the moon, yet things can still fall there.

 

[Mingon]

the moon does have an atmosphere actually 😛 hence it requires an escape velocity

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Mingon
the moon does have an atmosphere actually 😛 hence it requires an escape velocity

😕 🙁 :Q :disgust:

 

[Mingon]

Whatever

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Mingon
Whatever

The only thing you got wrong was the "hence".

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: Mingon
Whatever

The only thing you got wrong was the "hence".

To elaborate...

Escape velocity is reached when kinetic energy is equal to gravitational potential energy. That is,

1/2 m v^2 = G M m / r^2

v = sqrt(2 G M / r^2)

Nothing to do with atmosphere there.

 

[Mingon]

To elaborate...
Escape velocity is reached when kinetic energy is equal to gravitational potential energy. That is,

1/2 m v^2 = G M m / r^2

v = sqrt(2 G M / r^2)

Nothing to do with atmosphere there

Sorry but that is over simplifying the action of escaping the atmosphere.

Kinetic energy is required to accellerate the 'craft' yes/no
The craft is run on fuel which provides the kinetic energy yes/no
The fuel's energy is effected by the atmosphere yes/no
Any drag created due to an atmosphere will also effect the escape velocity yes/no

So to me at least the atmosphere of a planet does have an effect.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Mingon

To elaborate...
Escape velocity is reached when kinetic energy is equal to gravitational potential energy. That is,

1/2 m v^2 = G M m / r^2

v = sqrt(2 G M / r^2)

Nothing to do with atmosphere there

Sorry but that is over simplifying the action of escaping the atmosphere.

Kinetic energy is required to accellerate the 'craft' yes/no
The craft is run on fuel which provides the kinetic energy yes/no
The fuel's energy is effected by the atmosphere yes/no
Any drag created due to an atmosphere will also effect the escape velocity yes/no

So to me at least the atmosphere of a planet does have an effect.

Escape velocity is the velocity needed to escape the gravitational pull of an object. You can't define any escape velocity that takes drag into account, since drag is different for different objects at different speeds. You can redefine terms to suit your own purposes, but that doesn't mean they mean the same to others. And even without an atmosphere, you'd still have an escape velocity, even with your definition. There's a reason Armstrong didn't fly away when he started walking on the moon. 😉

Edit: Wow. I didn't even notice that you mentioned fuel in there. Almost like a mountain painted pink. That has no relationship to velocity. It's the propulsion system. In fact, escape velocity is defined in terms of projectile motion, i.e, without any propulsion. And a fuel's energy doesn't have to be affected by the atmosphere. Nothing that can escape the atmosphere can use such a fuel. That's why even the SR-71 can't escape the atmosphere. The engines just cut out. Rockets carry their own supply of oxidizers and satellites typically use nuclear energy.

 

[Mingon]

There's a reason Armstrong didn't fly away when he started walking on the moon.

You mean apart from being weighed down.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Mingon

There's a reason Armstrong didn't fly away when he started walking on the moon.

You mean apart from being weighed down.

Exactly. 🙂

Escape velocity is one way of measuring just how "weighed down" you are.

 

[Mingon]

Edit: Wow. I didn't even notice that you mentioned fuel in there. Almost like a mountain painted pink. That has no relationship to velocity. It's the propulsion system. In fact, escape velocity is defined in terms of projectile motion, i.e, without any propulsion. And a fuel's energy doesn't have to be affected by the atmosphere. Nothing that can escape the atmosphere can use such a fuel. That's why even the SR-71 can't escape the atmosphere. The engines just cut out. Rockets carry their own supply of oxidizers and satellites typically use nuclear energy.

Yeah I know realised my error in that one just after posting 😱 but I figured the gase in the atmosphere would still have an effect on the burn pattern so I left it.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Mingon

Edit: Wow. I didn't even notice that you mentioned fuel in there. [...]

Yeah I know realised my error in that one just after posting 😱 but I figured the gase in the atmosphere would still have an effect on the burn pattern so I left it.

You're just thinking in terms of an engineer, not a scientist, that's all. 😉

Escape velocity is a scientific term, really. It has nothing to do with how to build a vehicle to transport anything off a celestial body.

 

[Mingon]

You're just thinking in terms of an engineer, not a scientist, that's all.

Escape velocity is a scientific term, really. It has nothing to do with how to build a vehicle to transport anything off a celestial body.

It still seems an over-simplification to me, but then its the little fine details that are important in my book, I crave accuracy in all things I hate the idea of adding 10% just to make sure - sloppy attitude.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Mingon

You're just thinking in terms of an engineer, not a scientist, that's all.

Escape velocity is a scientific term, really. It has nothing to do with how to build a vehicle to transport anything off a celestial body.

It still seems an over-simplification to me, but then its the little fine details that are important in my book, I crave accuracy in all things I hate the idea of adding 10% just to make sure - sloppy attitude.

I wouldn't want to drive over a bridge built by you, then... In any case, you're not supposed to use escape velocity in the first place to even think about getting something into orbit, except for maybe if you're trying to put a lower limit on the amount of fuel you'll need. But that'll be one hell of a loose lower limit. 😛

 

[Mingon]

Nothing I have ever designed has ever failed through design flaws, but then I desgned things you cant even imagine 🙂