|
Atmosphere
I How long does it really takes to change the atmosphere on a planet ? It says 2.5 yrs but i think i have been waiting longer than that.
------------------ "what horror, what horror............" |
Re: Atmosphere
No it takes that long.
------------------ Seawolf on the prowl |
Re: Atmosphere
Atmosphere Converter I takes 3.0, AC II takes 2.5 and AC III takes 2.0 years.
|
Re: Atmosphere
THanks, I have always wonder what the formula was for AC's. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
|
Re: Atmosphere
Do you still need the atmosphere converter after it has completed upgrading the planet's atmosphere? (If not, it would be very nice if the thing automatically disappeared)
|
Re: Atmosphere
Yes, you can scrap the AC after the atmosphere has been changed.
|
Re: Atmosphere
fedak, no it doesn't get scrapped automatically, but watch your logs. It tells you when an atmosphere conVersion has been completed. Then select the line, click "Go To" and scrap the AC and build like crazy....
|
Re: Atmosphere
Remember 2.5 years is 25 turns. I don't know if that was the problem but I'll share a little embarrasment of my own. I've played the game several times, even used the Atmo Convtrs b/f and I KNEW that 2.5 years is 25 turns but for some reason, Last nite I had the ultimate brain fart. Built a Value Improv'mt plant, waited 1 turn for my 1% improvement, but alas no improvement. Then the light came on and I was completely ashamed. Oh well. Live and learn.
------------------ Character is best defined as that which you do when you believe nobody is watching. |
Re: Atmosphere
Speaking of atmospheric conVersion, one thing that would be nice as an interface add-on would be an indicator of some sort showing how much time you have left before a planet's atmosphere is converted. One in the Main Window when you click on a planet, and some indicator in the Colonies window with the same information.
|
Re: Atmosphere
Also a atomsphere converter will NOT convert a gas giant to a none atomsphere. (perhaps a constructed world it might, I have not tried that one yet)
|
Re: Atmosphere
Str8_Gain, I second your comments. It would be nice to see atmospheric conVersion progressing. Same for conditions.....
|
Re: Atmosphere
There are no gas giant none pictures in the files so it can't change to what doesn't exist.
|
Re: Atmosphere
You can't have a gas giant without gas. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif
|
Re: Atmosphere
given that scientistis think the core of jupiter (and therefore any other gas giant with similar atmospheric composition) is likely to be a diamond the size of earth, converting it to a vacuum should leave you with a small rocky world.
it should also ruin your economy, perhaps. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif ------------------ "Just think of it as Evolution in action" - 'Oath of Fealty', by Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle. |
Re: Atmosphere
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cybes:
given that scientistis think the core of jupiter (and therefore any other gas giant with similar atmospheric composition) is likely to be a diamond the size of earth, converting it to a vacuum should leave you with a small rocky world. it should also ruin your economy, perhaps. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> can you post a link to that info? it sort of dorks with how i understand elementary phisics, its been a while, but i thought i was paying attention. that might be the case if all the carbon on jupiter wandered to the center, but even so i kinda thought things turned to liquid (mose dense state of matter) as it was compressed. man, i hate it when they release Version 2.0 of the universe just because sales on the first edition were dropping off, and all your knowledge goes out of date. |
Re: Atmosphere
sorry - can't so a link. the theory was postulated as long ago as Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series. basically, though, you had the right idea in that free carbon migrates to the centre (being more dense).
firstly, some chemical reaction i can't remember offhand cracks free carbon off of methane, creating a carbon 'rain'. the carbon continues straight through the 'metallic' hydrogen liquid, and forms a solid core. the pressure and heat then convert it to diamond. the theory only really 'works' for gas giants with a significant portion of methane, though. ------------------ "Just think of it as Evolution in action" - 'Oath of Fealty', by Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle. |
Re: Atmosphere
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cybes:
firstly, some chemical reaction i can't remember offhand cracks free carbon off of methane, creating a carbon 'rain'. the carbon continues straight through the 'metallic' hydrogen liquid, and forms a solid core. the pressure and heat then convert it to diamond. the theory only really 'works' for gas giants with a significant portion of methane, though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> um-kay. cool. but why would the carbon not liquify rather than crystalize? of course, presuming that the carbon 'rain' is more like carbon 'snow' or 'hail' sorry, dont mean to be turning the thread into science class. [This message has been edited by Puke (edited 31 January 2001).] |
Re: Atmosphere
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Puke:
um-kay. cool. but why would the carbon not liquify rather than crystalize? of course, presuming that the carbon 'rain' is more like carbon 'snow' or 'hail'<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> well, i'd guess those terms are pretty equivalent, given that carbon doesn't seem to have a liquid form that we know of. it can be a gas in combination with other gasseous elements, but not by itself... pure carbon only does 'free' (like soot), 'graphite', or 'diamond' - as far as we know, of course. as an aside, this theory was indirectly referenced in Arthur Clarke's "2015" (title?), after the jovian sun ignited, shards of the core diamond fell upon the surface of europa. a research ship then landed on the planet (for reasons i don''t remember), and there was some scene involving the greedier members of the crew rushing around collecting fragments. ------------------ "Just think of it as Evolution in action" - 'Oath of Fealty', by Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle. |
Re: Atmosphere
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cybes:
well, i'd guess those terms are pretty equivalent, given that carbon doesn't seem to have a liquid form that we know of. it can be a gas in combination with other gasseous elements, but not by itself... pure carbon only does 'free' (like soot), 'graphite', or 'diamond' - as far as we know, of course. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> acording to the periodic table at http://chemlab.pc.maricopa.edu/periodic/C.html carbon has a melting point of 4100 Kelvins. I am not aware of any element without a melting point, although we dont have enough heat and pressure to melt carbon anywhere near the surface of the earth, i would not doubt the molten core would hit 4100K. much less jupiter. granted, its much harder to melt than say, PLUTONIUM (ironically, cubic zirconiums are harder to melt), and I dont mean to be an ***, but I am having a hard time with this theory. |
Re: Atmosphere
Quick question on Atmospheric Converters; is the time required the same for all size planets? Wouldn't it make sense for a Huge planet to take longer than a tiny moonish sized one? If this isn't happening now, could it be modded to happen? I'm not fresh on my atmospheric science, but that seems realistic.
|
Re: Atmosphere
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by woodelf:
Quick question on Atmospheric Converters; is the time required the same for all size planets? Wouldn't it make sense for a Huge planet to take longer than a tiny moonish sized one? If this isn't happening now, could it be modded to happen? I'm not fresh on my atmospheric science, but that seems realistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeppers. Same time for all size planets. Some folks recommend that you just build the plants on large and huge world for that very reason. If you spend the resources building the plant on a tiny world, you just get 4 extra facilities. If you build it on a huge world, you get 20! Building the plants on anything but a 'none' atmosphere world takes too long. Much easier to just capture enemy empire colonists who breathe the right atmosphere and transplant them. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif [This message has been edited by raynor (edited 31 January 2001).] |
Re: Atmosphere
Woodelf, yes the time for atmospheric conVersion is the same reguardless of planet size. Its just that your "return on investment" is lower with smaller planets. I personally don't convert any planet other than huge and large.
As to the theory that Gas Giants have a diamond core, I'm having a hard time understanding that. If that was the case, wouldn't the earth's core also be diamond? IIRC, the earth has an iron core 'cause iron has a specific gravity (I think that's the term) greater than carbon. Its not as if we have no carbon on this planet. If that's the case, wouldn't the core (of any celestial body) be made up of the "heaviest" element in the planet makeup? Isn't that why a rock sinks and hydrogen gas floats upward? I'm definitely not a chemistry expert but my common sense leads me to believe that's the way it should be. I know this thread is going off target and probably should be elsewhere, but I definitely am curious as to the answer... EDIT: Oops, sorry raynor. Didn't mean to "double post" your answer. We seem to be on at the same time a lot lately... [This message has been edited by rdouglass (edited 31 January 2001).] [This message has been edited by rdouglass (edited 31 January 2001).] |
Re: Atmosphere
As long as everyone is in a frenzy over realism, I say that gas giant troops should get a 1000% bonus when attacking non-gas giant troops. Because the gravity on a gas giant has to be at least 10x that on the other worlds, they should be able to kick butt against their wimpier 1 standard G colonists/troops. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
(Never mind that troops are more like cargo items stored in the planet that have nothing to do with colonists and are therefore atmosphere non-specific...) |
Re: Atmosphere
'Tis Okay, RDouglas--just so long as you agree with me. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
Large and Huge... Whoop! Great minds think alike. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: Atmosphere
Raynor, I'm not sure about that. Yes, G Giants have a much greater gravity hence the species should be vastly stronger. Yet all the "troop" pictures seem to be "mechanized" and inside vehicles. That, in theory, should negate any advantage. If troops were set up like SE3 where they had infantry, then yes, I agree. However, I have seen no infantry in SE4. Of course, they may very well be ther and I haven't seen them - I rarely ever invade planets, I take 'em with Puppet Political Parties..
|
Re: Atmosphere
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Puke:
<snip!> man, i hate it when they release Version 2.0 of the universe just because sales on the first edition were dropping off, and all your knowledge goes out of date.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ROFLMAO http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon10.gif Good one Puke. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: Atmosphere
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by raynor:
[b]As long as everyone is in a frenzy over realism, I say that gas giant troops should get a 1000% bonus when attacking non-gas giant troops. Because the gravity on a gas giant has to be at least 10x that on the other worlds, they should be able to kick butt against their wimpier 1 standard G colonists/troops. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, Jupiter's surface gravity is about 2.5 G's due to its high density. Saturn, Neptune and Uranus, OTOH, are between 0.9 and 1.2 G's or about Earth normal. The high G worlds would be huge rock and ice planets not gas giants. [This message has been edited by Krakenup (edited 31 January 2001).] |
Re: Atmosphere
Um, where did you get that 'surface gravity' information? I hope you realize that gravity is a function of mass, not density. There also is absolutely no scientific information about the 'surfaces' of any gas giants, just theories.
Also, to whomever made the comment about liquid being denser than solid, you are incorrect. Some solids, based on their freezing processes are less dense than their liquid counterparts (like water). But for most elements and compounds, solid is the densest state. |
Re: Atmosphere
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by apache:
Um, where did you get that 'surface gravity' information<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From my old high school chemistry days. I think that you meant "specific" gravity that I used. And again I'm not sure if that is the correct term to use. However, what I meant was that since things like iron are more "dense" than other things, the more "dense" elements / compounds should be at the center. Its what makes steel float in mercury.... That should IMO rule out the "diamond core" theory unless carbon is the "densest" element in the planet's composition. |
Re: Atmosphere
|
Re: Atmosphere
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by apache:
Um, where did you get that 'surface gravity' information? I hope you realize that gravity is a function of mass, not density. There also is absolutely no scientific information about the 'surfaces' of any gas giants, just theories.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, uh, you could use a search engine such as Yahoo and search on "planet surface gravity" or something similar and look at one of the thousands of references. Oh, and it absolutely is a function of density. Read one of the references. |
Re: Atmosphere
If you're talking realism...
How do hydrogen /methane/ CO2 breathers invent fire? + how do ice planet dwellers invent fire? How do gas giant dwellers (The colony base pic looks like it is hovering somewhere in the upper atmosphere) invent anything? You can't mine iron without VERY LONG drill bits and of you can't make very long drill bits without carbon steel. |
Re: Atmosphere
As far as the strength of a gas giant race is concerned, the real question is, what type of life would evolve on a gas giant? If you look at the race portrait of the Eee, they look more like bubbles than anything else. Probably not very strong in hand-to-hand combat. (As my son put it, all you would have to do is pop them.)
I have always pictured a gas giant race as one that floats/flies in the upper atmosphere of the gas giant. That also meshes with the baloon-like appearance of the gas giant colonization tech. Whatever life there would be on a gas giant, I think we can safely say that it would in no way even remotely resemble life on a rock world. |
Re: Atmosphere
to the many people with issues regarding the diamond-core theory:
i didn't think it up. nor am i an astrophycist or a chemist - just someone who reads a lot. i can't answer all of your questions. if you want to take this up seriously, ask in sci.astro, or of an applicable scientist you know, or even consult a library. books are, after all, where i heard about the idea in the first place. puke: as rdouglas said, though, solid is the densest form of most elements. given the pressure at the core of a jovian planet, i'd reckon any carbon present would pretty much have to be in the densest form available. so, it's a hot diamond. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif rdouglas: i think you answered your own question, didn't you? iron is 'heavier' than carbon, so that's what's at the centre. whereas, carbon is 'heavier' than the majority of elements on a jovian, so that is at the centre instead there. (sorry it took so long to reply - timezones are a ***** http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif ) ------------------ "Just think of it as Evolution in action" - 'Oath of Fealty', by Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle. |
Re: Atmosphere
Re: Planetary Cores:Off-topic Alert!
I'm not an expert either but... Planetary cores are not generally "static" objects, especially in cases like Gas Giant planets. That there is a solid core at all is questionable (hence "surface gravity " is a debatable term - surface of what?) Here's the thing, Earth has a liquid core, not a solid one. There is no question of Carbon congealing at the center and forming diamonds - the whole mass is in motion. Similarly, most current theories about the nature of gas giant planets are such that the gases and other elements and compounds are constantly moving, fissioning (splitting) and fusioning (combining) under intense conditions of heat and pressure. Much of the lower atmosphere of the GG is probably in a "plasma" state (fourth - or fifth, depending on how you count - state of matter, neither solid, liquid or gas). In this state electrons are generally stripped from thier atomic cores - very energetic, polarized and turbulent. No diamonds here. For an example of a Gas Giant creature, see Roger Zelazny's story in the collection "Frost and Fire" (story name escapes me) which is basically a jellyfish with tough sides. |
Re: Atmosphere
since we have completely destroyed this unsuspecting little thread, i will ask:
does anyone remeber what the gas giant hydrogen breathers were like in the David Brin books (uplift/startide/sundiver)? i dont, but i remember he had 'em. |
Re: Atmosphere
i only mentioned it is an aside. a mild attempt at humour, really. never expected it to spark such controversy.
as i said, it's not my theory, and i'm not the one to take it up with. it's also an older theory ("cosmos" was early 80s, i think), and may have since been discarded while i wasn't watching. ------------------ "Just think of it as Evolution in action" - 'Oath of Fealty', by Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle. |
Re: Atmosphere
Well, I looked up planet surface gravity, and all kinds of other stuff just to find out where you got your information. Yes, I did find plainly given stats that claimed the surface gravity compared to earth's surface gravity. Now, I calculated through the numbers using the universal law of gravitation, and the maximum radius of Jupiter. This gives the aforementioned statistics that Jupiter's surface gravity is approximately 2.5 times that of earth's. However, the fact is that the 'surface gravity' here is the gravity at Jupiter's outer atmosphere. We don't know where the surface of Jupiter actually lies, and as such, using such a statistic to calculate gravity at the 'surface' of jupiter is pretty ridiculous. If Jupiter had a solid core the size of earth, for example, the gravitational acceleration there would be about 3520 times that of Earth's.
Oh, and I still have no idea where you found that gravity is some function of density, because its absolutely untrue. It is a function of mass and distance only. This is related by the equation, a=GM/(r^2) where M is the mass of the planet in kilograms, r is the distance from the center of that planet in meters, and G is the univerersal gravitational constant, 6.672*10^-11. This gives you the acceleration due to gravity. |
Re: Atmosphere
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by apache:
Oh, and I still have no idea where you found that gravity is some function of density, because its absolutely untrue. It is a function of mass and distance only. This is related by the equation, a=GM/(r^2) where M is the mass of the planet in kilograms, r is the distance from the center of that planet in meters, and G is the univerersal gravitational constant, 6.672*10^-11. This gives you the acceleration due to gravity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> im with you on all your statements, and it really supports what i was thinking. i have to point out though, that you could derive density from mass and distance (although you could obviously not do it the other way around). |
Re: Atmosphere
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by apache:
Well, I looked up planet surface gravity, and all kinds of other stuff just to find out where you got your information. Yes, I did find plainly given stats that claimed the surface gravity compared to earth's surface gravity. Now, I calculated through the numbers using the universal law of gravitation, and the maximum radius of Jupiter. This gives the aforementioned statistics that Jupiter's surface gravity is approximately 2.5 times that of earth's. However, the fact is that the 'surface gravity' here is the gravity at Jupiter's outer atmosphere. We don't know where the surface of Jupiter actually lies, and as such, using such a statistic to calculate gravity at the 'surface' of jupiter is pretty ridiculous. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, if you want to be picky http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif, but remember that when you get all the way down to the center of Jupiter, gravity is zero because you have an equal amount of mass pulling in every direction. The pressure is pretty high though. The point, however, is that raynor and Barnacle Bill posted about how high gravity would be on a gas giant, but it isn't. It's similar to Earth's in many cases because of the low density of gas giants. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If Jupiter had a solid core the size of earth, for example, the gravitational acceleration there would be about 3520 times that of Earth's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'll have to question your math here. Jupiter has 318 times the mass of Earth so if it were the same size as Earth, it would have 318 times the density and, consequently, 318 times the gravity. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> Oh, and I still have no idea where you found that gravity is some function of density, because its absolutely untrue. It is a function of mass and distance only. This is related by the equation, a=GM/(r^2) where M is the mass of the planet in kilograms, r is the distance from the center of that planet in meters, and G is the univerersal gravitational constant, 6.672*10^-11. This gives you the acceleration due to gravity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps you weren't aware that mass is a function of density, namely density times volume, and that the volume of a sphere is a function of r^3 (4/3 pi r^3 IIRC). Therefore, the simplest form of the gravitational equation is a constant (4/3 pi G) times density times radius. So if you used this form of the equation, gravity would depend only on density and radius. In reality, the three variables (mass, density and radius) are interrelated, and the equation can be written using any two of the three. You can, however, have two planets with identical masses but different densities that have widely different surface gravity. In that case, gravity would vary with density to the 2/3 power. |
Re: Atmosphere
Krakenup and Apache,
You're both confused. Fortunately for you, I'm a physicist, and I'm here to set you straight. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon10.gif Both of your equations are correct, but you are both making bad assumptions. If you use the equation that has only mass and radius, then you have to keep in mind that you only use the mass INSIDE the radius. Jupiter's solid surface, if it has one, is obviously way below the gaseous surface, so you would not use the total mass of Jupiter for your M. (It would be way too high.) On the other hand, if you use the equation that has only density and radius, then you have to keep in mind that you have to use the AVERAGE density INSIDE the radius. Since the density increases as you get closer to Jupiter's core, you clearly should not simply use Jupiter's overall average density. (It would be way too low.) But, of course, all this talk is silly anyway, because the heat and pressure at Jupiter's solid surface (if it has one) would be enormous. Nothing could live there. Any life would have to be in the atmosphere. At what radius? Who can say? |
Re: Atmosphere
First off, yes, the 3520 was a typo, one I noticed and thought I fixed, but apparently did not.
Now, no no no, density has nothing to do with gravity. It is only distance and mass, and density is a function of mass and volume. At a distance of R from some mass M, the gravitational acceleration at that distance is constant, no matter how dense the mass is. If you have a black hole with the mass of the sun, it will definitely be a few million times denser than the sun. However, the gravitational force on the earth from the black hole will be exactly the same as the force the sun has on the earth, if the earth orbited a black hole at the same distance it orbits the sun. Now, if you were at the center of Jupiter, theoretically you would either experience infinite gravity or gravitational force based on the mass of the planet. Logic says its no gravity, but then again, there cannot be zero gravity, in fact there would at least have to be a force completely pulling you apart because you are completely surrounded by the mass of Jupiter. But then again, we really do not know since we have never been to the center of any planet or moon or anything to see what the gravitational forces would be. |
Re: Atmosphere
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by apache:
If you have a black hole with the mass of the sun, it will definitely be a few million times denser than the sun. However, the gravitational force on the earth from the black hole will be exactly the same as the force the sun has on the earth, if the earth orbited a black hole at the same distance it orbits the sun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your statement is correct but you are missing the point. The AVERAGE density of the mass INSIDE the earth's orbit is the SAME for the sun and the black hole. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by apache: Now, if you were at the center of Jupiter, theoretically you would either experience infinite gravity or gravitational force based on the mass of the planet. Logic says its no gravity, but then again, there cannot be zero gravity, in fact there would at least have to be a force completely pulling you apart because you are completely surrounded by the mass of Jupiter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm sorry, but I cannot give you even partial credit for this answer. You could have either used integral calculus or else used Green's Theorem and symmetry arguments. Either way, the correct answer is that the gravitational force at the center of a planet is zero. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by apache: But then again, we really do not know since we have never been to the center of any planet or moon or anything to see what the gravitational forces would be. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We do not need to go there and measure it. We have known the answer from theory since Newton's Principia was published. |
Re: Atmosphere
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by apache:
First off, yes, the 3520 was a typo, one I noticed and thought I fixed, but apparently did not. Now, no no no, density has nothing to do with gravity. It is only distance and mass, and density is a function of mass and volume. At a distance of R from some mass M, the gravitational acceleration at that distance is constant, no matter how dense the mass is. If you have a black hole with the mass of the sun, it will definitely be a few million times denser than the sun. However, the gravitational force on the earth from the black hole will be exactly the same as the force the sun has on the earth, if the earth orbited a black hole at the same distance it orbits the sun. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nice try at changing the ground rules, but we're talking about the gravity at the surface of a celestial body. The gravity at the surface of the black hole (however you define that) is nearly infinitely greater than the gravity at the surface of the sun because the black hole is nearly infinitely denser than the sun and thus has an infinitesimal radius. In the equation using mass and radius, this shows up as a very small r resulting in a very large gravitational force. I realize, of course, what you are trying to say, but describing the phenomenon using only mass and radius is awkward. You could say: "Well, Uranus is very big and has a very big mass, and gravity only depends on mass and size, but its gravity is less than Earth's because . . . uh . . . well, the ratio of the mass to the size is not all that big." Since the ratio of the mass to the size is the density, the explanation becomes "Uranus has low surface gravity because of its low density." Simple, understandable and absolutely accurate. |
Re: Atmosphere
Krakenup, I have given up on you. I really don't have a clue why we keep saying the same things differently and keep thinking the other one is wrong. The original argument I was making was that the surface of Jupiter is not at its outer atmosphere, and we honestly do not know what it's interior is composed of. Hence, declaring 'surface gravity' of a gas giant is pretty useless since we don't know if there is a surface or even where it is.
Now, as for DMM, if you have read some of my other Posts lately, you would know that I am not going to take a theory lying down. First of all, there is the massively disputing theory of general relativity, which essentially throws Newtonian theories out the window. I'm not gonna argue anything about it, though, since I have a limited understanding, and its all theory anyways. Second, anything regarding the gravitational forces at the center of a massive object is completely theoretical, and there is absolutely no experimental proof to support any of it. Therefore, taking it as a fact is something best done with a grain of salt, rather, an entire salt shaker. Third, getting a net zero gravitational force is vectorial and mathematically correct, but the fact is that the gravitational forces could not cancel each other, putting no force on the body, they just act to keep the object at the center of the body in equilibrium, or in otherwords, they will not induce a velocity or accleration on the body as a whole in any direction. However, if the object at the center could not withstand the forces pulling on it, it would indeed be ripped appart. Think of it like a reverse pressure. Rather than keeping an object from expanding, like air pressure acting on a balloon, it would keep an object from imploding. Anyways, categorically saying I am wrong is wrong. |
Re: Atmosphere
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Puke:
since we have completely destroyed this unsuspecting little thread, i will ask: does anyone remeber what the gas giant hydrogen breathers were like in the David Brin books (uplift/startide/sundiver)? i dont, but i remember he had 'em.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Brin doesn't say too much about the sun creatures in Sundiver (and nothing at all in uplift/startide, IIRC). At the time of Sundiver, I don't think humanity knew much about the sun creatures and was just establishing contact. In Brin's second series (Heaven's Reach), there is more discussion about gas breathers, but they aren't Sun-based, just gas giant-based. Those gas breathers were amophous globules with a very different, image-based (?) thought and communication processes. |
Re: Atmosphere
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by apache:
Now, as for DMM, if you have read some of my other Posts lately, you would know that I am not going to take a theory lying down. First of all, there is the massively disputing theory of general relativity, which essentially throws Newtonian theories out the window. I'm not gonna argue anything about it, though, since I have a limited understanding, and its all theory anyways. Second, anything regarding the gravitational forces at the center of a massive object is completely theoretical, and there is absolutely no experimental proof to support any of it. Therefore, taking it as a fact is something best done with a grain of salt, rather, an entire salt shaker. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> General Relativity doesn't dispute Newtonian physics, it encompasses them. Newtonian physics works, as we see proven every day with our satellites, rockets, and planetary astronimcal observations. The term "theory" here does not mean "completely unproven" - newtonian and GR physics have been borne out in countless scientific experiments. To say "it's all theory anyway" implies it is all completely untested and anybody's guess, which is totally untrue. You can say we can't be sure about the gravity at the center of a planet just because we haven't measured it directly, but the world uses the math of physics to predict behavior/properties of things reliably, all the time. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> Third, getting a net zero gravitational force is vectorial and mathematically correct, but the fact is that the gravitational forces could not cancel each other, putting no force on the body, they just act to keep the object at the center of the body in equilibrium, or in otherwords, they will not induce a velocity or accleration on the body as a whole in any direction. However, if the object at the center could not withstand the forces pulling on it, it would indeed be ripped appart. Think of it like a reverse pressure. Rather than keeping an object from expanding, like air pressure acting on a balloon, it would keep an object from imploding. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm. I'd say that if the net gravitational force on an object is zero, that by definition, all the gravitational forces have canceled out. Gravity is not like pressure in the example you give. For a small object (relative to the size of the planet), say a person, if the net gravity is zero for that person, every point (ie: every cell, every molecule) on/in the person will have a net gravity of zero. The tidal differences between, say, points on the person's left and right arms would be too small to matter. |
Re: Atmosphere
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LintMan:
The term "theory" here does not mean "completely unproven"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> yah - the term for that is "hypothesis". a theory is a hypothesis which has been shown to explain currently known facts, and predict new ones. ------------------ "Just think of it as Evolution in action" - 'Oath of Fealty', by Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle. [This message has been edited by Cybes (edited 02 February 2001).] |
Re: Atmosphere
*wanders about staring off to the horizon* Nope, can't see the topic anywhere....
If I took 2 small (say the size of a beachball) black holes and through cunning and artifice managed to get them to orbit their mutual center of gravity.....Then i stuck my head into that center of gravity, would it clear my sinuses? Or would it just turn my head into a thin string of skull and brain matter linking the two? I ask, because this cold cure stuff doesn't work and I happen to have 2 small black holes lying round the place. I am just joking. Please understand that any form of medical treatment involving singularities should only be used on the advice of a doctor (possibly of physics) |
Re: Atmosphere
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jimbob55:
*wanders about staring off to the horizon* Nope, can't see the topic anywhere.... If I took 2 small (say the size of a beachball) black holes and through cunning and artifice managed to get them to orbit their mutual center of gravity.....Then i stuck my head into that center of gravity, would it clear my sinuses? Or would it just turn my head into a thin string of skull and brain matter linking the two? I ask, because this cold cure stuff doesn't work and I happen to have 2 small black holes lying round the place. I am just joking. Please understand that any form of medical treatment involving singularities should only be used on the advice of a doctor (possibly of physics)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think the correct treatment, assuming a small enough singularity, would be to insert the singularity into the sinus cavity to promote drainage. Of course, I am not a doctor, I only play one on TV. Ok, ok, I only dream of playing a doctor on TV. Actually, I'm just a software engineer, but I am relativistically certain that if you place a black hole up your nose, you will no longer have any concerns about sinus congestion. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon10.gif |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.