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 ...
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.
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?
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.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.
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..!)
Nope, it would just be a 4th dimension. You can have infinite dimensions from a mathematical point of view.Would this be measuring time as some claim is the 4th dimension?
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.
ℝ 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, ℝ. 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, ℝ - so the size of the space that co-ordinates x1 and x2 exist in is ℝ2. 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 ℝ3.
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.
ℝ4 stands for the points (x1, x2, x3, x4),
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.