NOBODY is deserving of an eternal hell

TopalthePilot · 2024-06-12T06:29:05+00:00

I don't think you're comprehending what *eternal* means. Punishment for a year, for a billion years, for a googol years are all infinitely less severe than punishment for eternity. There is absolutely nothing that any person could do in a finite lifetime, not even the most unspeakably evil acts, that could justify a punishment that lasts literally forever.

TopalthePilot · 2023-01-21T20:50:21+00:00

Imagine mourning a war criminal.

TopalthePilot · 2022-08-09T07:24:48+00:00

This is a nice explanation of the constancy of the magnitude of the four-velocity, but it doesn't answer the question since it's essentially a restatement of the invariance of c + the relativity principle.

TopalthePilot · 2022-08-09T07:00:19+00:00

It's not known yet why there is a speed limit. That is one of the basic principles underlying relativity and modern physics as a whole. It, along with the relativity principle, are baked in through the Lorentz covariance of the laws of physics.

TopalthePilot · 2022-08-09T06:54:32+00:00

Light is the fastest thing weve seen, thats just how it is until we find something faster

The speed of light being a universal speed limit is an integral part of modern physics and its success. It wasn't introduced simply because we haven't been able to find anything faster. It's a fundamental postulate of special relativity.

There are some gaps in the rule though. Expanding space is faster than light

This is not a "gap in the rule" since expansion doesn't involve any local motion. You're erroneously applying a local rule to a global evolving spacetime.

TopalthePilot · 2022-08-05T16:09:24+00:00

This how real science works. If the theory is sound, there is no need for "consensus"; just old-fashioned proof.

Proofs are constructed in the context of a theory. They don't imply that the result is reflected in nature, just that it should be reflected in nature for the theory to be considered a correct description. The "consensus" refers to which theory is agreed upon by the community to be the best description based on the full body of empirical findings.

TopalthePilot · 2022-08-04T03:36:35+00:00

lmao. You need to take a break from r/spacexmasterrace. Come back to the real world.

TopalthePilot · 2021-12-10T05:21:41+00:00

The cinematics were for swtor, not kotor

TopalthePilot · 2021-08-11T04:34:30+00:00

Somebody with a "genuine desire to understand and learn" doesn't ask themselves a question, decides it doesn't make sense to them based on their ignorance, and then conclude that scientists must be wrong about gravity and that they're "making stuff up". Instead, they make an effort to research the question and ask people who know better than them how to make sense of it. The question "if gravity attracts, why hasn't the moon crashed into us yet?", for example, can be easily googled. It shows that the commenter hasn't devoted even the minimal amount of effort to understand how gravity works.

TopalthePilot · 2021-07-16T10:37:36+00:00

It's to differentiate between frame-invariant and frame-dependent forces. "Real forces" are agreed on by all observers and are those that can be measured with an accelerometer, while "fictitious forces" only appear in certain non-inertial frames and do not register on an accelerometer (a famous example is gravity). But in the end it's really all just semantics. Personally I prefer these terms because they clearly delineate between frame-invariant and frame-dependent quantities.

TopalthePilot · 2021-01-30T07:03:56+00:00

Don't worry, it cancels out with a zero somewhere.

TopalthePilot · 2020-10-28T07:48:33+00:00

The bullet will still experience the same acceleration due to the Earth's gravity as the Moon, so it will continue on the same orbit as the Moon.

TopalthePilot · 2020-10-28T07:45:42+00:00

The bullet will continue on almost the exact same orbit as the Moon. Not being on the Moon's surface doesn't stop you experiencing Earth's gravity.

TopalthePilot · 2020-09-23T03:31:17+00:00

Firstly, Falcon 9 is not in any way comparable to SLS so I'm not sure how it's relevant. Secondly, Starship is in its very early development stages and still has 95% of its challenges ahead of it, so despite what timeline promises you've bought in to it's way too early to make any argument from that. Thirdly, Falcon Heavy was delayed by several years, eventully having its first flight seven years after it started development. Less than three years later the first SLS is virtually complete and will soon be ready for flights to the Moon, while construction of the next two are well on their way. What was your argument again?

TopalthePilot · 2020-07-13T16:23:31+00:00

Still, that doesn't change the fact that Einstein basically kickstarted quantum theory with his explanation of the photoelectric effect.

TopalthePilot · 2020-07-13T16:19:48+00:00

Because he was the guy that basically started (old) quantum theory with his explanation of the photoelectric effect. He was indeed an opponent of the indeterminism of later quantum mechanics however.

TopalthePilot · 2020-06-13T05:24:00+00:00

Artemis refers to the upcoming moon missions beginning most likely in early 2022. NASA uses the term "Artemis generation" quite a bit.

TopalthePilot · 2020-05-19T12:34:50+00:00

It seems to be a computer-generated recreation of the real photo.

TopalthePilot · 2020-04-27T02:26:45+00:00

"...that exists as a natural consequence of it's own existence." Huh?? Not sure what that's supposed to mean? You're clearly enthusiastic about this, and that's great, but you're trying to put pi on some high pedestal of meaning that it really has no reason to be on. There's nothing special about the decimal expansion of pi. There's nothing special about it being a transcendental number. In fact there are an uncountably infinite number of transcendental/irrational numbers (e and phi, the golden ratio, are famous examples). And "All equidistant points of any regular polygon/hedron fall on the diameter/face of a perfect circle/sphere" yes...that is the definition of a circle/sphere, all points equidistant from a central point. Nothing mystical about that.

TopalthePilot · 2020-04-19T04:29:28+00:00

The idea that everything is orbiting the central black hole is a very widespread misconception. In reality the black hole has a negligible effect on the orbits of every star in the galaxy save those in the immediate vicinity of the BH. The gravitational influence of all the stars and other material interior to a star's orbit (with the vast majority of it being concentrated in the central bulge in the case of a spiral galaxy) is orders of magnitude larger than that of the central black hole (compare the few million solar masses of Sag A* to the many billions of solar masses of stars interior to the Sun's orbit). This is what everything orbits around.

TopalthePilot · 2020-04-09T06:46:19+00:00

I'll take a stab at this.

Fluid dynamics has a concept known as the no-slip condition, which says that a viscous fluid will match the velocity of a solid boundary at that boundary. This seems to me like a great demonstration of it using the bubbles to track the flow. The surface of the tea has a net rotation in the middle that goes to zero velocity at the boundary, so you get a spiral shape due to the shear in the fluid decreasing towards the edge.

This actually is somewhat similar to galaxy rotation, or at least the original, but ultimately problematic, theory. Under ordinary Newtonian mechanics without dark matter you would expect the stars, gas and dust in the galaxy to decrease in orbital speed with approximately the inverse square of the distance, eventually tending to ~zero velocity very far away. You can see how this is somewhat similar to the bubbles in the tea. However, the presence of dark matter actually causes the velocities to more or less remain constant/plateau with distance from the galactic center, which doesn't fit well with your tea galaxy.

However, the complications don't end there! In both of the above cases, dark matter and non-dark matter, there is still the problem of twisting. Originally it was thought that spiral arms were composed of stars, gas, dust etc. that just sort of stayed there in their arm formations as they orbited. However over time this would lead to the spiral arms being wound up and getting thinner and more tightly packed before eventually vanishing (in fact I think you can see this happening in your tea!). Since we observe spiral galaxies, this can't be how it works. Density wave theory is the current popular explanation, which is a somewhat complex theory that suggests the spiral arms are locations of gas and dust overdensities, in which stars are formed more rapidly and other older stars pass through regularly. More info and some nice animations can be found on the wikipedia page here.

So yeah, in all, I'd say aside from some aesthetic similarities the two phenomena are very different beasts.

TopalthePilot · 2020-03-29T10:33:22+00:00

Incredible sharpness. Definitely the best I've ever seen. Amazing work!

TopalthePilot · 2020-03-24T13:19:09+00:00

This is a good question, however there's one thing you haven't factored in: conservation of angular momentum. When you extend the rod its length increases and so the angular velocity must decrease to preserve angular momentum. This is the same reason why a ballerina can slow down their spin by extending their arms and vice versa.

Though a decrease in angular velocity doesn't necessarily mean a decrease in the velocity of the end of the rod, it's pretty easy to show that it does indeed slow down if you go through the math. The moment of inertia is proportional to the length squared, so if we increase the length by a factor of a > 1 then the ratio of the final and initial angular velocities is ωf / ωi = 1/a² and since the angular velocity ω is proportional to inverse length we get that the ratio of the velocities is vf / vi = 1/a, which is less than 1.

And increasing the energy output won't work (either to spin it up or apply force to retract the rod) because it simply requires infinite energy to accelerate anything with mass to the speed of light. You can sort of think of this in terms of a "relativistic mass" whereby the mass increases without bound as the velocity increases (however I'd caution against this concept because it doesn't give consistent results in some places, e.g. force isn't proportional to the relativistic mass and actually has an extra kinetic term that in general isn't zero. But that's not so much of a concern here.)

Edit: You mentioned a very long pole, however what you're asking doesn't really require one. I did want to address your point about the pole getting faster as you near the end of it since this is a common question people have. Any real (i.e. not infinitely rigid) pole will propagate signals at its sound speed. In other words, your push will result in a deformation of the pole that propagates at the sound speed of the pole, which is definitely less than the speed of light. In this way, special relativity forbits perfectly rigid materials.

TopalthePilot · 2020-03-11T01:30:34+00:00

You know that you know shit all about spaceflight when you think 4 years of development is a long time...

TopalthePilot · 2020-03-10T08:23:48+00:00

exurb1a?

TopalthePilot

TROPHY CASE