The final frontier

Post anything that doesn't belong in any other forum, including gaming and topics unrelated to motorsport. Site specific discussions should go in the site feedback forum.
User avatar
vyselegend
0
Joined: 20 Feb 2006, 17:05
Location: Paris, France

Post

Tom wrote:Heres one I saw at the talk yesterday, very cool indeed. Any guesses as to what they are? (I know)
I know this pic! I read in a magazine those smoke like pillars are star's nursery.
Europeans, Russians and Asians are nowhere near Americans when it's about spacial programs. That's obvious. 99% of the amazing things we can learn and see of the space comes from the NASA. To transcript Ciro's feelings in my own way, it's like comparing Super Aguri and Renault.
BTW, nice pic manchild, very realistic :lol: . But... Tell me, where is the Ferrari burning in flammes in it's way crashing on earth after being shot by the triumphant Renault? :wink:

DaveKillens
DaveKillens
34
Joined: 20 Jan 2005, 04:02

Post

Tom wrote:So what are nebulas and supernovas?
I suggest you read the book "Black Holes and Warped Spacetime - William J. Kaufmann, III "

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/scien ... ience.html

User avatar
NickT
2
Joined: 24 Sep 2003, 12:47
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Post

8) Cool thread 8)
NickT

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Post

Tom wrote:So what are nebulas and supernovas?
I really love this stuff. I studied physics for 4 years before I decided to graduate in engineering...

A nebula is a cloud of gas, like the photo you posted. Those clouds are mainly composed of hydrogen, produced at big bang, when the universe was created. Actually, they have a lot of elements, like alcohol and (believe or not) complex aminoacids, like the ones needed to create life. There are nebulas that have the same "proof" as a bottle of vodka, or at least enough alcohol to make a lot of scottish whisky!

When hydrogen agglomerates, stars are formed. You only need a random fluctuation in the density of a nebula for a denser region to form. From there, gravity starts to pull more hydrogen from the nebula until a "ball" of hydrogen forms. Once the density of this ball is high enough and the temperature rises (because the gravitational energy of matter falling into the protostar is converted to heat), nuclear reactions starts and a new star is born.

The photo you posted (and the one I posted later) shows a region of the nebula where stars are being formed. They create those "pillars" of gas, gas that is being sucked toward the stars, sort of a "vacuum cleaner" swallowing the gas. I am not sure what nebula you posted, (I have seen it before, but I do not remember now) but I guess it could be Horsehead.

Once you get a stable star, like our sun, there is an equilibrium between the pressure of the light and the gravitational energy. Light has mass and when it impacts on something it moves it. So the sun is like a giant balloon, inflated by the pressure of the light it produces, and trying to collapse under its gravitational force (like the tension of the rubber membrane of the balloon).

The sun works transforming the hydrogen into helium, the helium into lithium, oxygen and heavier elements. All the elements in your body were created from hydrogen in a star furnace (we are stars ashes, there is a song about it...). Once the hydrogen fuel is exahusted, the light it produces starts to diminish, so the balloon collapses. The layers "rebound" in a giant explosion: this is a nova. If the star is big, the explosion is bigger and you have a supernova.

The explosions of supernovas create shock waves that compress any close nebula, creating new protostars that will become new stars. This cycle repeats through the galaxy, creating the arms (bands of stars) and the dark regions (nebulas still not "compressed).

I am simplifying a little here, but this is the general picture.
Ciro

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Post

I will try to resume the arguments I gave on my article on engineering of space flight, as I see some of you apparently are interested on the space theme and I am having my lunch at the PC...

The kinetic energy of a moving object, if you take in account relativity is:

E = Delta M * V squared

Where delta M is the relativistic change in mass and V squared is the square of the speed of the object. For example, if you accelerate 1 kilo to half the speed of light, the mass of this kilo becomes (I am using the symbol ^ to signify "exponential"):

Delta M = 1 kg /(1-(150.000 km/seg/300.000 km/seg)^2)^1/2 = 1.154 kilos

This does not mean that our kilo of matter is growing somehow, simply that it is harder to accelerate it as we approach the speed of light.

The kinetic energy of this kilo, at half the speed of light is:

E = 0.154 kg x 9.8 m/s2 x (300.000 km/seg)
E = 136.000.000.000.000.000 joules

If we take a year to reach this speed, the power needed is:

P = 136.000.000.000.000.000 joules/ (86.400 seg / day x 365 days / year x 1 year)
P = 4.300 millions of watts = 3.2 million hp

A Ferrari (sorry, Vyselegend, I meant a Renault) engine, with 800 hp is not enough!

It is not a power out of reach, either. The bigger hydroelectric dam in Colombia produces around a quarter of this power. Clearly, it weights more than a kilo, :wink: but with four big hydroelectric dams we are reaching the mark. For example, six Saturn V gives us the same power, unfortunately, only for 2.5 minutes, not for a year. And, of course, six Saturn V weight also more than a kilo...

If we could use a tank of antimatter, things change. Half a kilo of antimatter put together with a another half kilo of ordinary matter, generates approximately 90.000.000.000.000.000 joules, according to E=mc2.

How much matter-antimatter do we need to accelerate each kilo of "our" starship? Easy:

M = 136.000.000.000.000.000 joules / 90.000.000.000.000.000 joules / kg - force
= 1.51 kg – force
= 0.154 kg

If we have an starship of, let's say, 1.000 tons, we only need 250 kilos per day of matter-antimatter to accelerate it to the speed of light. This amount would fit in a truck gas tank. We only need a "tank" of antimatter daily. At the end of the year we have spent 150 tons of our starship to reach half the speed of light.

This would be really expensive. If we assume 1.3 dollars per Kilowatt-hour (the cost of electricity in Colombia), we will spend (per kilo):

Power = 4.300 Megawatts = 4.300.000 kilowatts
Energy = 4.300.000 kilowatts x 365 days x 24 hours = 37.700 millions kwatts-hour
Cost = 37.700 million kilowatts – hour x 1.3 dollars/kilowatt – hour
Cost = U$ 49.000 millons

To push our starship to the speed of light we would spend 49.000 billion dollars. This is 3.000.000 times the cost of the entire series of Saturn V trips to the moon. My advice: if you find an extraterrestrial, ask him for money: he has a lot! :wink: This also explains why all the extraterrestrials depicted seem so thin: each extra kilo on the flying saucer costs a lot of money. :wink:

I will abbreviate here, but the time it will take to reach the nearest star is 2.276 days, a little over 8 years. Not bad.

If you are still here, you may have noticed that the increment in apparent mass equals the mass of matter-antimatter needed to get this speed: this means that, to reach the speed of light, we have to convert the entire ship into energy, passengers included! This, for me, is a beautiful symmetry... Joking around, as I like, it also explains why the famous Star Trek "teletransporter", where people were converted into energy and then reconverted, failed so much: it was the fuses... :wink:

If somebody is still not bored to death, I could explain later (I just finished my lunch) why we can be the first intelligent race in the galaxy...
Ciro

DaveKillens
DaveKillens
34
Joined: 20 Jan 2005, 04:02

Post

But doesn't mass decrease as velocity increases? I believe that as we approach the speed of light, mass wil have decreased by a factor of 8. I better get out my Buck Rogers slide rule on that one. :wink:
The light created inside the sun takes about a year to reach the surface because of gravity and other such factors, but just eight minutes to travel the last 93 million miles before it gives me a sunburn.

http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~obyrne/ ... lucyna.pdf

p.s. I love the string theory, it explains the voices in my head. :roll:

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Post

DaveKillens wrote:But doesn't mass decrease as velocity increases?
DaveKillens, I am impressed by you reading my post. I did not think anybody would. You are probably, like me, on vacation. :) This is why I decided to break my own record for a long post. Who knows, maybe somebody will read it some day...

I am afraid you are wrong. As you approach c (speed of light, around 300.000 km/second) your mass increases exponentially.

The equation that gives you the mass increase is this:

m = m0/square root(1-(v^2/c^2))

Where m0 is your mass at rest, or mass when your speed is zero, v^2 is the square of your current velocity and c^2 means c (the speed of light) squared.

I do not have my Buck Rogers slide rule at hand either but, for example, if you are going at 225.000 km/sec, which is 3/4 of the speed of light, your mass increases by:

m = m0/square root (1-(225.000^2/300.000^2))
m = m0/square root (1-(50,625,000,000/90,000,000,000))
m = m0/square root (1-0.562)
m = m0/square root (0.44) = m0/0.661 = 1.51 m0

Your mass increases a little over 50%.

As I explained, this does not mean that you grow or something like that. You will be remain unchanged. But when you try to accelerate, you find that you need 50% more horsepower to reach the same acceleration as when your started to move. Your inertia has increased.

You can see that when you reach the speed of light, the equation converts to:

m = m0/square root (1-(c^2/c^2)) = m0/square root(1-1)
m = m0/square root (0) = m0/0 = infinity

No matter what force you apply, your mass is infinitely high, so your acceleration is zero. This is why (under special relativity) you cannot surpass the speed of light.

I have never calculate how much this effect increases the mass of an F1 car, but it will be certainly negligible.

Let's see, an F1 car reaches 350 km/hr, which is around 0.01 km/sec. This means :

m = 600 kg / square root (1-(0.01^2/90.000.000.000)
m = 600 kg / square root (1-(0.0094/90.000.000.000)
m = 600 kg / square root (1-0.000000000000105)
m = 600 kg / square root (0.999999999999894)
m = 600 kg / 0.9999999999999474
m = 600.000000000031

The increase in mass is only 0.03 millionths of a gram. This is insignificant. That is the reason why we can not notice the effects of relativity on ordinary speeds. Only when you approach the speed of light this effect becomes dominant.

Sorry for the lengthy and step by step calculations, but I have found that this gives you a quick idea of the apparently bizarre effects on your mass as you approach the speed of light, compared with the speeds we experience ordinarily.

This is the reason why it took so much time to discover relativity: only whe we started to observe particles moving at high speeds, like electrons and the such, did we notice the mass increase.

The famous equation of Einsten, e=mc^2 gives you the amount of energy that you get when you annihilate matter, for example, using an atomic bomb.

You could get the energy needed to accelerate an F1 car from the total annihilation of 0.03 millionths of a gram of matter, assuming a perfectly eficient engine. This is the reason why when you annihilate matter in an atomic bomb you get such enormous amounts of energy. Gas tanks would be minuscule if we used atomic energy instead of gasoline... You can move a giant submarine for thousands of kilometers with a few kilos of uranium, even if reactions are far from perfect efficiency.

The simmetry I find beautiful is that to reach the speed of light you should annihilate the totality of the ship, and efectively, convert it into light. :wink:

As I have never found this result of special relativity in any book, and this relation gives you certain figures and limitations about the kind of ship you need, I decided to write something about it a few years ago.

The fastes vessel humankind has created was the Apollo capsule. In 1968, Bormann, Lovell and Anderson became the fastest pilots on history, reaching around 40.000 km/hr. This is around 11 km/sec, ridiculously low compared with the speed of light.

The nearest star to Earth is Proxima Centauri. I can see it tonight from my patio, close to the Southern Cross, shining over the southern sky of Bogotá.

The light from this star takes a little less than 4 years to reach my house: the Apollo capsule would take a little over 930.000 years to get there. We clearly need something different from a rocket to reach it.

Of course, the Star Trek teletransporter is the perfect solution: you step on it and you are transported instantaneously. This, I think, is the Holy Grial of transportation science... :lol:
Ciro

User avatar
Scuderia_Russ
0
Joined: 17 Jan 2004, 22:24
Location: Motorsport Valley, England.

Post

manchild wrote:When I start thinking about the end of universe and meaning of life kind of issues I also start wondering why the hell am I getting so upset about F1 at all :lol:
Same here Manchild. It makes alot of things we hold dear in our little, insignificant lives look pretty unimportant and unspectacular.
"Whether you think you can or can't, either way you are right."
-Henry Ford-

miqi23
miqi23
7
Joined: 11 Feb 2006, 02:31
Location: United Kingdom

Post

lol how about the UFOs ? Sometimes I think its all bullshit but hey who knows!

I have seen loads and loads of conferences about such things like UFOs, time travel etc etc which makes me think like hang on a sec, these people have spent all their lives doing research into such phenomenon there has got to be something that they are after! To be honest it gets confusing after you get into this, I ended up buying loads of books about UFOs but sadly all the so called technology dicussed there were electronics engineering related, no aerodynamics what so ever!

Lets nick their technology and use it in F1 :D

Sorry, I should shut up now, I know its sad!

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Post

miqi23 wrote:lol how about the UFOs ? Sometimes I think its all bullshit but hey who knows!
Actually, I will give you the proof that UFO's don't exist... :wink:

It goes like this: suppose they exist. Now, let's be pessimistic: after you reach a new planet, it takes you, for example, 5,000 years to build again a civilization from zero, to be able to build another spaceship to go to the next star.

The galaxy has around 70,000 light-years diameter. If we make travels of 3.5 light-years (the distance to Proxima Centauri) you would need 20,000 travels like the one I described, to reach the other side of the galaxy. As I am assuming that every time you travel it takes you 5,000 years to build a civilization and develop a new spaceship, it takes you a "mere" 100 million years to populate the entire Galaxy.

As the Galaxy is much older (around 12.000 million years) and on Earth life produced human beings after a "mere" 3.500 million years, this means that the Galaxy should be full of inhabited planets by any race older than us.

The project OZMA and now SETI-Phoenix (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) has been looking for extraterrestrials, using their infrared signatures or radio waves. They haven't found anything in a thorough search of stars that are in a sphere of 80 light-years around the Earth. This is the first proof that there are not as much UFOs as some people tend to believe...

The radio telescopes we have now are able to detect signals really faint: even the noise produced by radios and TV could be detected, so if there were a planet like Earth inside this sphere we should have find it by now.

There is an article on Scientific American along the lines I just have described, if you want to google around.

This means we could be the first intelligent race in the galaxy... or that we still have to make a better search. YOU can help to search for extraterrestrials: here is the link.

They take the data from the Arecibo dish and distribute it to many voluntary individuals PCs on the Internet. While your PC is idle, it looks for signatures of intelligence on the radio signal they send you. Of course, if your PC finds it, they will notify you... :lol:
Ciro

miqi23
miqi23
7
Joined: 11 Feb 2006, 02:31
Location: United Kingdom

Post

I know what you mean Ciro. The thing is that you are telling me all the logical stuff that is out there. To be honest I have further looked into all the explanations you have provided to prove that UFO dont exist but what experts have said is that Time travel is possible and how UFOs do it! I am not gonna explain every thing about it but yeah look into it more and I am sure you will come across it.

Furthermore, I have talked to this Israeli guy on email who claims to work with the Aliens in his clinic :shock: , calls them some other dimension entities. Infact he has cured loads of stuff through them.

Anyways back to UFOs. Most conferences provide so many explanations into this that makes you think that there is something going on! I am not saying that Aliens exist, its just UFOs can be anything after all its un-identified flying objects. May be a US secret craft designed in Area-51! Who knows? But trust me mate, it is a weired world these UFO guys live in. I dont think they are crazy, most of them have PhDs etc etc.

My opinion keeps on changing with time lol

DaveKillens
DaveKillens
34
Joined: 20 Jan 2005, 04:02

Post

It's amazing how arrogance and pride can blind us. Many years ago, the belief was that the world was the very center of the universe, and that the entire cosmos rotated around us.
I believe in the mathematics and science that support the notion that "life" exists out there. But to assume that some scientifically advanced species takes all the time and trouble to travel many parsecs to visit this planet stretches intelligent thought. Not only that, but to work hard in maintaining secrecy from the general population, while giving most they encounter anal probes sort of gives this story a bit of foolishness.
The truth is that we're a very small planet on a very dull solar system, tucked away in a very remote arm of an average galaxy.

User avatar
Spencifer_Murphy
0
Joined: 11 Apr 2004, 23:29
Location: London, England, UK

Post

Scuderia_Russ wrote:
manchild wrote:When I start thinking about the end of universe and meaning of life kind of issues I also start wondering why the hell am I getting so upset about F1 at all :lol:
Same here Manchild. It makes alot of things we hold dear in our little, insignificant lives look pretty unimportant and unspectacular.
Passion is something that logic cannot rationalise. But I have to agree, thinking about Space really does make u realise just how tiny we really are. :shock:
Silence is golden when you don't know a good answer.

User avatar
Tom
0
Joined: 13 Jan 2006, 00:24
Location: Bicester

Post

Image

This ones fake.

Whos taking the photo? the sun looks to be on the wrong side and all the leading edges on the real shuttle are black to deflect heat on re entry, the front of the engine covers are not! (there should be a black patch on the lumpy bit either side of the bottom of the tail fin)
Murphy's 9th Law of Technology:
Tell a man there are 300 million stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure.

miqi23
miqi23
7
Joined: 11 Feb 2006, 02:31
Location: United Kingdom

Post

thats an artist's impression of the real thing!