Subject:
|
Re: Couldn't resist
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Jun 2001 22:10:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7393 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Joel Kuester writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
>
> > I appreciate the fact that you do agree with me but I must truthfully say
> > that I never considered the fact that friction does indeed keep together the
> > bolts on a space craft. Are there any other sceintific laws that either me
> > or Paul failed to consider in our thoughts about space craft, Duane? Thank
> > you for not seeing me as evil in the LEGO space bulletin board, Duane.
>
> I believe Paul was poorly communicating a correct idea.
>
> The scientific law of friction is applicable everywhere, even in space. It
> is a law, and going to space won't make it go away.
> What you need to understand is how this law works. The friction that we are
> used to calling drag is the friction of air particles on a jet, or water
> particles on a submarine. The drag is much greater underwater because the
> water is denser with particles. This is an operation of matter states, ie:
> the density of a liquid state is more than the gaseous state, and the solid
> state is greater than the liquid.
I've been reading the bundle of posts on the subject, so I am aware of the
type of friction that he was talking about. I just wanted to make a
tangental point since the "type" of friction had been dropped from the post.
>
> The reason drag is a moot point in space is because it is a near-vaccuum.
> The amount of particles is so low that you rarely bump into them, and
> therfore there is no effect. The lift a wing creates needs particles to
> move around the wing (faster on the top and slower on the bottom, due to the
> diffence in the surface areas of the top and bottom of a wing) and the
> difference in speed this creates causes a pressure tension to literally pull
> the wing up. I am just going by memory for this explaination right now...
> there is a lot more to it than that, but thats the basic concept behind wings.
>
> few particles in space = insignificant friction to the craft.
> near vaccuum in space = no pressure and therefore no "lift" possible.
I tend to agree with you. After all, isn't that along the same line of
reasoning as to why propellor driven (or drug depending on your point of
view) aircraft don't perform well at high altitudes? Air pressure is less,
rendering the propellor less effective. (let's not even get into the type of
engine.)
>
> > I am not sure that the people who say that faster than light speeds are
> > impossible are correct because I thought I saw a story on Yahoo many months
> > earlier that said that scientists HAD, in fact, caused an object to travel
> > FASTER than light but I do not remember the context of the story or where on
> > Yahoo News I heard the story.
>
> We cannot make anything go that fast right now. What you may have heard
> about is scientists isolating a particle that they believe traveled FTL in
> an atom smashing experiment. There are a few different theories right now,
> and I personally view super string to be the most possible. I really don't
> like the squishy science concepts behind quantum mechanics. but that's a
> whole different thread. (excuse the pun)
That sounds like the article that I was thinking of. Thanks. That's one
particle FTL. Now, if we could just get a massive amount of particles FTL....
>
> cheers!
> Joel Kuester
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Couldn't resist
|
| (...) I believe Paul was poorly communicating a correct idea. The scientific law of friction is applicable everywhere, even in space. It is a law, and going to space won't make it go away. What you need to understand is how this law works. The (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.space)
|
195 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
