Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #8 - charagrin (08/16/2012) [-]
So then the utilization of space coordinates in things like Star trek, Mass Effect, and the like is actually wrong? Because every system would not be moving at the same speed and direction right?
#44 to #8 - anonymous (08/16/2012) [-]
ITT people trying to discuss intergalactic travels with primary school physics
User avatar #14 to #8 - cheesymuffins (08/16/2012) [-]
Well, they may or may not be. It depends on how you set it up. For example, when we make course corrections on the ocean, we regard the Earth as stationary (even though it is spinning and hurtling around through space), with north being the north pole, south being Antarctica, and assign angles to them and everything in-between, with 0 being straight north and 180 being straight south. Similarly, in Star Trek, they might regard the center of our galaxy as roughly stationary, and align a grin based on that information in conjunction with some other known landmarks, for example, our sun. Then the other systems in the galaxy can be found by calculating their velocities in relation to the center of the galaxy and those known landmarks, and a very powerful computer can keep track of their mobile positions, and their future positions as a function of time
User avatar #15 to #14 - charagrin (08/16/2012) [-]
That makes sense. But they would first have to establish the exact direction and velocity of other systems, stars, planetoids, astroids, etc. Right? Like if Miami was the center of the galazy, and a frighter off the coast was traveling south at ten miles an hour, and you found another ship while out in your boat. To know where the ship will be at a specific point in the future you will have to know which direction it is going, as well as its speed, etc. But what about gravity wells, astroid fields, solar winds, and the like diverting it off its path randomly. Again in a small area it would not be noticieable, but in something as vast as the universe itself.....
User avatar #267 to #15 - cheesymuffins (08/17/2012) [-]
In both Star Wars and Star Trek, they only traveled in their own galaxy, not the universe. But, the answer to your question is yes and no. Yes, as in knowing the location, speed, direction of movement, and mass of all the objects would be necessary for proper navigation. There is a way of making navigating the galaxy more consistent, however: you can treat systems as being roughly one unit on large scales. For example, you can treat all the solar system as one unit, everything from the sun to the kuiper belt, when you're in interstellar space. When you need to move within a planetary system, however, you can 'zoom in' on that system, and then show the movement and masses of objects within the solar system for navigation purposes. Also, with things like the asteroid belt, you can treat the systems as roughly planar, and just treat it as a band of impassable space, and go over it. Doesn't work so well for the kuiper belt, which is more like a bubble, but a manned ship with sensors of modern capabilities will be able to navigate it by hand.
#9 to #8 - anonymous (08/16/2012) [-]
Everything moves at a constant rate. if i drop a peanut and an elephant out of a plane. they will fall together next to eachother at 9.8 meters/second. this is space though. i have no fucking clue. space has no friction so it would never speed up or slow down. it's at a constant rate
#16 to #9 - charagrin has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #11 to #9 - unforgivenfive (08/16/2012) [-]
9.8meters/second squared is the acceleration due to gravity ON earth (going straight down...cause you know. gravity)
9.8 meters/second is a vector velocity (speed) that could go in any direction
science and shit...learn it silly anon
User avatar #17 to #11 - charagrin (08/16/2012) [-]
Just a side note, everything does not fall at the exact same rate. Some things will fall faster then 9.8MPS and some will fall slower depending on weight, shape, volume, etc. 9.8MPS is an average, not an absolute. A feather will not fall as fast as a lead marble for instance.
User avatar #23 to #17 - copyhat (08/16/2012) [-]
9.8 m/s is not an average - how is it supposed to be that?
#18 to #17 - thehumoroushumerus (08/16/2012) [-]
Following is meant as friendly correction =)

Mass is not a factor with any bearing on the gravitational acceleration caused by the earth, thus a feather and a lead ball will experience exactly equal acceleration (in the area of 9,83 m/s^2 to 9,79 m/s^2 iirc depending on given geographic location). Their actual velocity (meters per second as opposed to meters per second squared) may differ though due to other factors contributing positively or negatively to the acceleration e.g. an explosion or air resistance (likely the greatest differentiator between lead ball and feather fall velocity). It's important to remember that acceleration =/= velocity, and that mass for the intents of this discussion is merely a proportionality constant applied to acceleration to equate force (F = m*a) meaning that increased mass results in increased force which affects how the object in question responds to other forces such as air resistance but doesn't actually contribute to the acceleration caused by earth's gravitational pull.

I hope this makes sense and isn't too affected by the fact that English isn't my first language =)
#19 to #18 - thehumoroushumerus (08/16/2012) [-]
don't know how to edit but i forgot to say that in example the lead ball and feather would experience equal acceleration and velocity if in a vacuum only affected by earths gravity :)
User avatar #10 to #9 - charagrin (08/16/2012) [-]
But logically depending on where the matter was in the big bang as it expanded outwards it would be effected by the gravity of objects around it, as well as its own inertia. Just because it is space does not mean objects truly have no weight. In space you could throw a ball made of lead faster then you could throw a balloon. Even if the speed is really really really minor with small objects we are talking about trillions of tons with vastly different volumes and mass spread out across billions of miles.
#7 - anonymous (08/16/2012) [-]
quite simple concept to wrap your head around heres somehting a bit harder
were slowing drifting inward toward a black hole while we also are drifting outward from the arm of the galazy we're in
#6 - chocopockey (08/16/2012) [-]
#5 - Michaelbl (08/16/2012) [-]
Its beautiful.
#4 - realyboredguy (08/16/2012) [-]
Well yes the solar systems turns around the center of the galaxy.
User avatar #2 - bitchplzzz (08/15/2012) [-]
We're just a though in some ones mind. And so is he. And some day that motherfucker is gonna get shot in the head.
User avatar #3 to #2 - bitchplzzz (08/15/2012) [-]
#1 - kittenwithadog (08/15/2012) [-]
For the tags
For the tags
#13 to #1 - lolollo (08/16/2012) [-]
My roommate and I lost it when is zoomed out and it was just the number 4 all over the white board.  Before we were both like "Watch it be just a bunch of random math problems".
My roommate and I lost it when is zoomed out and it was just the number 4 all over the white board. Before we were both like "Watch it be just a bunch of random math problems".
 Friends (0)