Author
|
Topic: Thoughts about the Ur-Quan... (Read 32213 times)
|
Art
Guest
|
Indeed it would, though it would raise a great many questions. Right now the whole point of a singularity is that by definition you can't say what it's made out of -- you can't say what size it is (other than "smaller than the Schwartzchild radius") because, almost by definition, singularities occur in places where you can't see them.
It is theoretically possible to see "naked singularities", but the circumstances that would lead to one being able to do so are complicated (i.e. I don't understand them), but it was a big deal recently when it was proven that it was possible. (Stephen Hawking lost a bet about it.) It creates logical problems if you can, in fact, see inside a black hole to the singularity -- the reason for the original Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis, the idea that singularities must always be hidden behind event horizons, was the logical principle that since singularities are places where the ordinary laws of physics don't hold, where density becomes infinite and so forth, it shouldn't be possible for the rest of the universe to observe or interact with what happens inside of one without breaking down the normal rules of physics in the rest of the universe. I don't think the implications of the CCH being false make much difference as of yet, since it's doubtful naked singularities actually exist, that they're forming anywhere near us or that we could observe them if they were, but it does open up all kinds of possibilities.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Crowley
Frungy champion
 Offline
Posts: 73
|
Woo, another history major here who is intensely interested about these kind of things but doesn't read enough about it. Anyway, one new thought into this conversation I came up with is this: would it be feasible construct a Dyson sphere that is very thin and light so that the radiation pressure given by the star would roughly counteract the gravitation and you wouldn't need incredibly durable materials that are perfectly balanced?
Another thing I've wondered about Dyson spheres for a longer time is that if it really takes in vast majority of the energy that a star produces, how do you arrange things so that the whole thing doesn't eventually melt down?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ChainiaC
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 139
Cybernetic Experiment
|
Well, no, mammals are not a very efficient power convertor. They lose a lot of energy in the form of heat. Not to mention the fact that only part of the energy is actually directed to the muscles driving the treadmill, oh and those muscles also produce a lot of excess heat. You would be better off directly burning the hamster food in a powerplant.
However... it WOULD be a great idea to have all the gyms in the world produce power. Think about it, there are millions of humans working out somewhere every day. They use all kinds of contraptions with built in resistance. So why not use dynamos for resistance? I mean the humans need to work out anyway to improve their physical health (or so that they (think they) look attractive). It would be a waste to discard all that power as heat 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Art
Guest
|
If you've tried sitting on an exercise bike that measures the amount of power in watts you're generating at any given moment, it's rather depressing, as are those bikes that force you to keep a small light bulb lit by the power generated by your spinning. Humans don't generate much power at all; I once read an article that said that the average amount of power any human being can produce in a given day is 700 watts or less, and the real mark of the Industrial Revolution was the leap into the "kilowatt age", where you can generate power in kilowatts rather than watts at a time.
BTW, Sander Scamper, have you ever used a Stairmaster?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ChainiaC
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 139
Cybernetic Experiment
|
Well since the amount of calories burned per minute isn't too impressive... the wattage cant be either. I'll give my best on one of those bike things and precisely note the amount of calories / minute so I can calculate my (usefull) wattage 
also... isnt 1 joule the amount of energy to lift 100 grams 1 meter up in the air? If so I can calculate my max power output at the benchpress 
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 23, 2004, 01:46:54 pm by ChainiaC »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
You are both correct as to your definitions of energy values.
Art, however, was a little off in using Watts as an energy value: it is a unit of power, energy per time. Joules per second, to be specific.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobucles
Guest
|
I've used a bike that has a Watt meter on it. I'm not very strong, mind you, and I managed to produce about 70 Watts of power. That's not even enough to power a Pentium 4!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Culture20
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 917
Thraddash Flower Child
|
Enough to power a 15" monitor though; That'd solve childhood obesity; You want to use AIM to message your friends? Hop on the stationary compu-cycle. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ChainiaC
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 139
Cybernetic Experiment
|
Wow, a stroke of genius! Kids'll be so incredibly well trained. I should have had one of those, I hated sports as a kid 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Art
Guest
|
You are both correct as to your definitions of energy values.
Art, however, was a little off in using Watts as an energy value: it is a unit of power, energy per time. Joules per second, to be specific.
Yes; the meters I was talking about measure power, not energy -- they tell you how much power you're producing at any instant rather than measuring the total energy you've produced.
The thing about watts and kilowatts per day should've been watt-hours and kilowatt-hours, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
