Ask A Science Question - Page 51

Ask A Science Question

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 51 of 64 FirstFirst ... 41 49 50 51 52 53 61 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 636
Thank Tree395Thanks

This is a discussion on Ask A Science Question within the Science and Technology forums, part of the Topics of Interest category; Originally Posted by ProfessorPregraduate If the Bible says the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago , than why ...

  1. #501

    Quote Originally Posted by ProfessorPregraduate View Post
    If the Bible says the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago, than why are some scientists saying the earth is older?
    If you plan to make assumptions about the Bible, I recommend reading it first. It doesn't say that at all.

  2. #502

    Quote Originally Posted by HAL View Post
    I still don't know what you mean by terraforming??! What actually happens? What's the end result? Do you mean some kind of technology that can rearrange the lay of the land? Not possible because plate tectonics define where hills, mountains and volcanoes form. Any other version would just be man-made construction, which is what we already do. If you mean weather manipulation to create fertile land in new areas, well atmosphere and planetary temperatures dictate weather patterns and that can't be changed - other than via irrigation and hydroponics which we already have.

    Right now it feels like you're saying 'terraforming' without assigning any end goal to it. It sounds like you're thinking of outright geographical manipulation to the extent that people can just rebuild any stretch of land to whatever geographical specifications they want, like a video game sandbox, which is a bit of a pipe dream because it ignores all the physical limitations, such as the ones I explained above.

    I also wonder why you're against nuking the polar caps of a planet without life on it? I think it would be a fascinating experiment!
    I meant the following...

    terraform
    verb
    gerund or present participle: terraforming


    • (especially in science fiction) transform (a planet) so as to resemble the earth, especially so that it can support human life.





    Essentially ways to make a place livable for humans. A lot does have to be taken into account with this sort of thing, and even if they have a plan that is doable, they need to consider all possible consequences for doing this.

    We don't know everything that could happen if they nuked the polar caps of Mars, but what we do know is that radiation would be a much greater problem for colonists and scientists on Mars. It does seem like the fastest way to go about trying to terraform Mars, however, fastest is not always the best way to do something. It would be far better to do something slowly but properly.

  3. #503

    So, the length of a line is x, the area of a square is x*x, the area of a cube is x*x*x.

    If we were following this line of thought, if we wanted to add another dimension would the next step be x*x*x*x? Would this be measuring time as some claim is the 4th dimension?

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #504

    Quote Originally Posted by He's a Superhero! View Post
    If you plan to make assumptions about the Bible, I recommend reading it first. It doesn't say that at all.
    Yet regardless of your interpretation, there are those that believe as such. Fundamentalists, and I'm very familiar with them; given that I've been raised in a fundamentalist-Christocentric environment.

  6. #505

    Quote Originally Posted by ProfessorPregraduate View Post
    Yet regardless of your interpretation, there are those that believe as such. Fundamentalists, and I'm very familiar with them; given that I've been raised in a fundamentalist-Christocentric environment.
    I think we can agree that regardless of what I personally believe, or what Fundamentalists believe, or what anyone else believes, either the Bible says something or it does not.

  7. #506

    Quote Originally Posted by He's a Superhero! View Post
    I meant the following...

    terraform
    verb
    gerund or present participle: terraforming


    • (especially in science fiction) transform (a planet) so as to resemble the earth, especially so that it can support human life.





    Essentially ways to make a place livable for humans. A lot does have to be taken into account with this sort of thing, and even if they have a plan that is doable, they need to consider all possible consequences for doing this.
    Understood, cheers.

    We don't know everything that could happen if they nuked the polar caps of Mars, but what we do know is that radiation would be a much greater problem for colonists and scientists on Mars. It does seem like the fastest way to go about trying to terraform Mars, however, fastest is not always the best way to do something. It would be far better to do something slowly but properly.
    Actually you'd be surprised buy just how much could be calculated about the effects of blasting the polar caps of a planet. I'm studying geophysical fluid dynamics now, heh. The physical effects of blasts alone on the polar caps of a planet would be minimal, so I suspect the idea of using massive nukes is to alter the atmosphere in some way. Denser atmosphere, or an atmosphere with a different chemical build up, would possibly result in conditions suited to life in the future.

    But then I'd suggest a better option wouldn't be the rather brute force 'nuclear' option, but instead an option where some kind of 'chemical bomb' is put on a planet, which releases CO2, Nitrogen, Oxygen etc in vast quantities, to form an atmosphere similar to earth.

    I think pretty much the only way to terraform a planet is to change its atmosphere. This is what controls the temperature on the ground, the weather, rain acidity, etc. Yeah, come to think of it, I think the only option is atmosphere manipulation. (Hell, we're doing a good enough job with our own atmosphere by accident! - global warming, ozone later etc..!)

  8. #507

    Quote Originally Posted by Maybe View Post
    So, the length of a line is x, the area of a square is x*x, the area of a cube is x*x*x.

    If we were following this line of thought, if we wanted to add another dimension would the next step be x*x*x*x?
    Yep.

    Would this be measuring time as some claim is the 4th dimension?
    Nope, it would just be a 4th dimension. You can have infinite dimensions from a mathematical point of view.

    I think a misconception people have is that maths can just be used to play around with reality. In truth, 'dimensions greater than 3' is a very, very normal thing when playing with numbers, because numbers aren't intrinsically designed to represent the real world, they're designed to represent logic.

    I'll try to teach you.

    means the set of all real numbers. It's basically every number from -∞ to ∞. All numbers.

    Now we could have a value "x", which is described as x ϵ ℝ. This means "x is an element of the real numbers."

    So x is any number from -∞ to ∞.

    You could draw this as a 'number line' - an infinite line of all the points. This is the definition of the real numbers, . It's just a line with every possible number on it.

    - - - - - - - -

    Now if we increase the dimension, we could have x ϵ ℝ2. This means x is an element of a space with two points describing what x is. But keep in mind, the 'space' is not a physical space. It's just an area for numbers to exist in.

    So now x, since x is described by two points in space, it's essentially going to take the form (x1, x2), co-ordinates where both x1 and x2 are are a number from -∞ to ∞. But remember, these co-ordinates don't exist physically, they're just storing information about the way the numbers exist.

    So how many points are there in this two-dimensional space? Well this is just two number lines, and finding the amount of points is easy - just draw a square! The area of the square is the amount of points it has. So it's just the number line for x1 and the number line for x2 drawn into a square.

    But x1 and x2 have the same number line - the real numbers, - so the size of the space that co-ordinates x1 and x2 exist in is 2. A two-dimensional space!

    - - - - - - - -

    Pushing it up to x ϵ ℝ3, we have x = (x1, x2, x3), which is all exactly the same as above, but in three dimensions.

    Hence, the amount of possible distinct points in this three-dimensional space is 3.

    But remember - it's not a physical space! It's just an area where the numbers exist. x1, x2, and x3 are all standalone values, that's all.

    - - - - - - -

    From here, I hope you can see that it's possible to add as many dimensions as you like.

    4 stands for the points (x1, x2, x3, x4),

    etc etc.

    So when you talk about the area, volume or whatever else, what you're really saying is, "How many distinct, separate points can be found in this given space of numbers?"

    And that's how it extends beyond the three physical dimensions - because pure maths isn't really about describing physical things anyway. It's just playing with numbers.
    Turned Away thanked this post.

  9. #508

    Quote Originally Posted by He's a Superhero! View Post
    I think we can agree that regardless of what I personally believe, or what Fundamentalists believe, or what anyone else believes, either the Bible says something or it does not.
    agreed.
    He's a Superhero! thanked this post.

  10. #509

    Quote Originally Posted by HAL View Post
    Understood, cheers.



    Actually you'd be surprised buy just how much could be calculated about the effects of blasting the polar caps of a planet. I'm studying geophysical fluid dynamics now, heh. The physical effects of blasts alone on the polar caps of a planet would be minimal, so I suspect the idea of using massive nukes is to alter the atmosphere in some way. Denser atmosphere, or an atmosphere with a different chemical build up, would possibly result in conditions suited to life in the future.

    But then I'd suggest a better option wouldn't be the rather brute force 'nuclear' option, but instead an option where some kind of 'chemical bomb' is put on a planet, which releases CO2, Nitrogen, Oxygen etc in vast quantities, to form an atmosphere similar to earth.

    I think pretty much the only way to terraform a planet is to change its atmosphere. This is what controls the temperature on the ground, the weather, rain acidity, etc. Yeah, come to think of it, I think the only option is atmosphere manipulation. (Hell, we're doing a good enough job with our own atmosphere by accident! - global warming, ozone later etc..!)
    That is an interesting idea for an alternative way to tackle this. How could it be done? And how effective could it potentially be?

  11. #510

    Quote Originally Posted by HAL View Post
    Mathematica doesn't give a pretty answer so I'm guessing it needs a crafty workaround.

    I'd say integrate over a half cycle of sin(120pix), to get the area under one single arch, then multiply by the amount of arches in he range from 0 to x.

    That'll give you the area under a fixed, whole number of arches.

    For any incomplete arch at the end of the function, work out how much is left in the range, then do a new integral for sin(120pix) between 0 and the remaining value.

    For example if your range is 0 to 25, and you have complete arches between 0 and 24, there's a remainder of 1 so do a new integral between 0 and 1 to get that last value.

    Then simply add the values for the area under the complete arches, and the area under the incomplete arch at the end.
    I'm jealous at the vernacular you guys get to use. That's some pretty cool verbiage there! (I love jargon, in case you can't tell.)
    HAL thanked this post.


     
Page 51 of 64 FirstFirst ... 41 49 50 51 52 53 61 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Science and you
    By NephilimAzrael in forum INTJ Forum - The Scientists
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 04-04-2012, 02:53 PM
  2. Science Webcomics
    By skycloud86 in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-10-2011, 05:02 AM
  3. science inspired art and art in science
    By susurration in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-06-2011, 01:54 AM
  4. ... Science!
    By sprinkles in forum The Art Museum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-19-2010, 08:59 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:47 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0