I guess it will probably come as a huge shock to you, but people shooting those cameras with rifles, filling the camera’s body with insulating foam, or dropping gasoline-drenched tires over the cameras and lighting them on fire don’t normally attempt it from a moving vehicle either...
I’d imagine that it would be pretty hard for hornets to fly very far after their wings have been vapourised by a 1W laser. More of a ballistic trajectory based on their motion at the instant you hit them, I suspect.
Light has momentum NOT mass. There is a difference. Photons are massless particles and all that, the usual edge case quirks of physics aside since they don't matter here.
To be more accurate, photons do have relativistic mass (pure energy) even though their rest mass is zero.
The lightsaber itself only has a few advantages over a regular sword anyway
Don’t be ridiculous...
Pit an expert swordsman against a Jedi knight and if the swordsman’s blade is in any fewer than eight pieces when he hits the ground then the Jedi knight obviously wasn’t trying very hard.
I built a few guns from k-nex as well, some of which worked better than others... of course, I wasn’t limiting my design constraints to mimicry of actual guns, so whatever worked was good enough for me. I don’t remember all that well but I think I did have some sort of triggering mechanism on one of them.
I'm a total physics and astronomy noob, but I always saw black holes not so much as *pulling* the light so hard it couldn't escape, but rather distorting space so much that shortest path for light to travel is right back toward the singularity.
Light doesn’t take the shortest path. It just travels in straight lines (relativistically speaking – to an outside observer its path might not seem straight).
Anyway, looking back I realise now that you latched onto his use of the term “white hole” and assumed things that I don’t think the poster intended to imply by it. He was just trying to come up with a word for the antimatter equivalent of a matter black hole, and apparently “white hole” was the answer that seemed obvious to him.
Time stops... and you are moving infinitely fast... the two of which, together, mean you get ripped apart. On a sub-atomic level. Sorry about your luck.
What happens to the particles that formerly composed you when they hit the singularity... well, that’s anyone’s guess. Personally, I’m inclined to believe that the universe is a continuous medium and singularities are impossible, but it’s all theoretical no matter what theory you believe.
So any trip through the even horizon will be very, very fast. Probably an an appreciable fraction of the speed of light.
The event horizon is precisely the point at which you will be traveling at the speed of light... because not even light can escape it.
To use a similar analogy to gp’s blood analogy, suppose you held a flashlight in your toes as you passed through the event horizon. As soon as the flashlight passes through the event horizon, it’ll disappear: not even the light from it will be able to reach you. The only way for this to be possible is for the light source to be moving away from you at a speed equal to or greater than the speed of light. Oh, and your toes will also be moving away from you at that speed. Remember that bit about being ripped apart?
Not to worry much about that, though, because the rest of you will be moving at very nearly the speed of light and it’ll all be over quickly...
Gravity has overcome the nuclear forces keeping the soup of sub-atomic particles apart
The problem with that statement is that it is patently absurd. Gravity is several orders of magnitude lesser in strength than the nuclear forces keeping the sub-atomic particles apart, and they both scale up proportionally as the mass and density increase.
A significant number believe that singularities cannot exist in the first place, naked or otherwise.
Anyway, if a singularity could exist, it would be a point of infinite curvature in space-time, i.e. a point of infinite mass. As such I don’t see any way for it to not create an event horizon.
A and C, and B if you change it to read “This question would get me full credit on the SAT but just about anyone coming out of a typical public school would be utterly clueless.”
Hell, even/. is doing pretty poorly on this one, what with all the people confusing how you calculate percent increases with percent decreases and confusing the both of them with consumption vs. efficiency.
No... 20 mpg vs. 10 mpg is a 100% efficiency decrease (it uses 100% more fuel) and 50 mpg vs. 33 mpg is a 50% efficiency decrease (50% more fuel).
If you’re talking about efficiency increases, it’s a 50% increase from 10 mpg to 20 mpg (it uses 50% less fuel... using 100% less fuel would be using none at all) and it’s a 34% increase from 33 mpg to 50 mpg (34% less fuel).
That depends on whether it’s actually higher-octane petroleum distillates or just spiked with ethanol, a cheaper fuel with an extremely high octane rating but less energy per volume than gasoline.
Octane rating does not relate to the energy content of the fuel (see heating value). It is only a measure of the fuel's tendency to burn in a controlled manner, rather than exploding in an uncontrolled manner. Where octane is raised by blending in ethanol, energy content per volume is reduced.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I figured as well, but their wings are pretty fragile and gonna be one of the first things to go...
I guess it will probably come as a huge shock to you, but people shooting those cameras with rifles, filling the camera’s body with insulating foam, or dropping gasoline-drenched tires over the cameras and lighting them on fire don’t normally attempt it from a moving vehicle either...
Wear the dark glasses, and hit them sideways. If you’re really worried, close the eye that you’d prefer to keep... ,) - one eyed winking smiley.
I wanna know what happens if they hit the ball with it... flaming soccer ball going straight for the goalie’s head?
I’d imagine that it would be pretty hard for hornets to fly very far after their wings have been vapourised by a 1W laser. More of a ballistic trajectory based on their motion at the instant you hit them, I suspect.
Light has momentum NOT mass. There is a difference. Photons are massless particles and all that, the usual edge case quirks of physics aside since they don't matter here.
To be more accurate, photons do have relativistic mass (pure energy) even though their rest mass is zero.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
The lightsaber itself only has a few advantages over a regular sword anyway
Don’t be ridiculous...
Pit an expert swordsman against a Jedi knight and if the swordsman’s blade is in any fewer than eight pieces when he hits the ground then the Jedi knight obviously wasn’t trying very hard.
Does he need a special license for that?
The video also should’ve read “Fire it” rather than “Shoot it”...
Pedantry aside, that was extremely cool.
I built a few guns from k-nex as well, some of which worked better than others... of course, I wasn’t limiting my design constraints to mimicry of actual guns, so whatever worked was good enough for me. I don’t remember all that well but I think I did have some sort of triggering mechanism on one of them.
I'm a total physics and astronomy noob, but I always saw black holes not so much as *pulling* the light so hard it couldn't escape, but rather distorting space so much that shortest path for light to travel is right back toward the singularity.
Light doesn’t take the shortest path. It just travels in straight lines (relativistically speaking – to an outside observer its path might not seem straight).
Anyway, looking back I realise now that you latched onto his use of the term “white hole” and assumed things that I don’t think the poster intended to imply by it. He was just trying to come up with a word for the antimatter equivalent of a matter black hole, and apparently “white hole” was the answer that seemed obvious to him.
Citation please.
Oh wait... you’re full of – what was it you said? Bullshit, that’s what.
Gravity starts out much weaker than than the electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear forces, but gains over them as the amount of matter increases.
As the density of matter increases, the other nuclear forces increase too.
You... (a) LOL, (b) LOL, (c) um (d) ok you obviously do not understand the concept of a singularity.
To be honest, I thought you were stating (implying, at least) that as a fact.
It's obvious that I was not intending to present that as a fact, but questioning if the earlier poster was intending to imply that.
It wasn’t obvious... and apparently I was confused.
an antimatter variation of a black hole would have strong anti-gravity...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter
Consensus: Antimatter has normal gravity.
Not quite.
Time stops... and you are moving infinitely fast... the two of which, together, mean you get ripped apart. On a sub-atomic level. Sorry about your luck.
What happens to the particles that formerly composed you when they hit the singularity... well, that’s anyone’s guess. Personally, I’m inclined to believe that the universe is a continuous medium and singularities are impossible, but it’s all theoretical no matter what theory you believe.
So any trip through the even horizon will be very, very fast. Probably an an appreciable fraction of the speed of light.
The event horizon is precisely the point at which you will be traveling at the speed of light... because not even light can escape it.
To use a similar analogy to gp’s blood analogy, suppose you held a flashlight in your toes as you passed through the event horizon. As soon as the flashlight passes through the event horizon, it’ll disappear: not even the light from it will be able to reach you. The only way for this to be possible is for the light source to be moving away from you at a speed equal to or greater than the speed of light. Oh, and your toes will also be moving away from you at that speed. Remember that bit about being ripped apart?
Not to worry much about that, though, because the rest of you will be moving at very nearly the speed of light and it’ll all be over quickly...
Gravity has overcome the nuclear forces keeping the soup of sub-atomic particles apart
The problem with that statement is that it is patently absurd. Gravity is several orders of magnitude lesser in strength than the nuclear forces keeping the sub-atomic particles apart, and they both scale up proportionally as the mass and density increase.
And that, ladies and kiddos, is why you shouldn’t use percentages to describe efficiency...
A significant number believe that singularities cannot exist in the first place, naked or otherwise.
Anyway, if a singularity could exist, it would be a point of infinite curvature in space-time, i.e. a point of infinite mass. As such I don’t see any way for it to not create an event horizon.
It was even more obvious than you realised... what they were really asking is,
“Which is more... half of a lot, or one-third of a little?”
You have to rent a second car and drive both cars the remaining 50 miles at 60mph.
A and C, and B if you change it to read “This question would get me full credit on the SAT but just about anyone coming out of a typical public school would be utterly clueless.”
Hell, even /. is doing pretty poorly on this one, what with all the people confusing how you calculate percent increases with percent decreases and confusing the both of them with consumption vs. efficiency.
No... 20 mpg vs. 10 mpg is a 100% efficiency decrease (it uses 100% more fuel) and 50 mpg vs. 33 mpg is a 50% efficiency decrease (50% more fuel).
If you’re talking about efficiency increases, it’s a 50% increase from 10 mpg to 20 mpg (it uses 50% less fuel... using 100% less fuel would be using none at all) and it’s a 34% increase from 33 mpg to 50 mpg (34% less fuel).
That depends on whether it’s actually higher-octane petroleum distillates or just spiked with ethanol, a cheaper fuel with an extremely high octane rating but less energy per volume than gasoline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating