Started by Legend, Sep 02, 2014, 07:17 PM
previous topic - next topic0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Someone on Reddit asked why astrology was ridiculous. Why's it ridiculous that the gravity from a star could have an impact on development?Wait is the supposed 'science' of astrology claimed to be about gravity of the stars? How does that make any sense? I thought it was just spiritual shame.
The gravity being tiny is the obvious answer.
The force of gravity between Earth and the closest star was bigger than I expected, but even still. It comes out to a tiny acceleration. Like less than a quadrillionth of the acceleration the Earth gives objects on the surface.
Basically even if astrology wasn't bunk, it'd still be stupidly useless that it'd basically be bunk again.
If the gravity from even the closest stars had an effect on development, so would the gravity of some large ships and buildings.
Haven't done any calculations, but I'd guess that the effect of most stars in astrology would be even less than the effect of small buildings.
Wait is the supposed 'science' of astrology claimed to be about gravity of the stars?It's the psuedoscience I've heard of it in the past. The redditor made a similar "why couldn't gravity do such and such".
How does that make any sense?I mean it doesn't make any sense so...
I thought it was just spiritual shame.I'm not sure how common the spiritual vs gravity explanations are.
Someone on Reddit asked why astrology was ridiculous. Why's it ridiculous that the gravity from a star could have an impact on development?Gravity is super weak compared to other forces but stars and space objects can be just so massive.
The gravity being tiny is the obvious answer.
The force of gravity between Earth and the closest star was bigger than I expected, but even still. It comes out to a tiny acceleration. Like less than a quadrillionth of the acceleration the Earth gives objects on the surface.
Basically even if astrology wasn't bunk, it'd still be stupidly useless that it'd basically be bunk again.
If the gravity from even the closest stars had an effect on development, so would the gravity of some large ships and buildings.
Haven't done any calculations, but I'd guess that the effect of most stars in astrology would be even less than the effect of small buildings.
VizionEck Cube Royale is releasing this year "I'm Mike Armbrust" -Me |
VizionEck Cube Royale is releasing this year "I'm Mike Armbrust" -Me |
Something that most people don't get is when people are doing research on obvious questions.The worst is that no one wants to fund those uninteresting studies/experiments, especially ones that just set out to replicate old studies. Science only works if everything is checked.
Like questions that everyone thinks they know the answer to, just based off common sense or experiences.
One challenge is that common sense is often super wrong. The obvious, seemingly clearly correct view can actually be wrong.
Also just had a weird bug. Was deleting some new lines and it was deleting characters from a word. Added a new space and all the characters came back.
VizionEck Cube Royale is releasing this year "I'm Mike Armbrust" -Me |
VizionEck Cube Royale is releasing this year "I'm Mike Armbrust" -Me |
https://www.quora.com/How-would-a-realistic-very-large-spaceship-look-like/answer/Dave-ConsiglioQuora tends to have weird answers. That wouldn't work at all.
VizionEck Cube Royale is releasing this year "I'm Mike Armbrust" -Me |
Quora tends to have weird answers. That wouldn't work at all.Quora has a mix of answers from terrible to great.
It takes a lot of energy to launch stuff into space, the person is right that in situ resource utilization is important, but no one argues the resources should be used as is lol. Mine, refine, and manufacture all in space.But what if a space ship didn't have to go through an atmosphere?
A hollowed out asteroid would make a horrible ship. Way too heavy to move and way too fragile. A purpose built ship with heat shields would handle aerobraking so so so much better. The massive asteroid would have no way to control itself in the air and would need to plunge into the thicker lower atmosphere to really slow down. It'd be nearly impossible to end up in a desired orbit. Every real world spaceship needs to fly like a "plane" to control where they go. This video from the sixties shows how it worked with Apollo:
Interestingly enough, SpaceX's BFR was actually designed to enter the Martian atmosphere upside down.
This would allow the rocket to stay in the upper atmosphere longer and bleed off more speed before entering the thick lower atmosphere. Without having this control, the rocket would have too much velocity and would "bounce" off.
Quora has a mix of answers from terrible to great.Learning about spaceships and atmospheres has been a funny experience for me. First you think all the wings on spaceships in movies are cool cause sci fi, then you think all the wings are dumb cause physics, but then you think they're cool again cause rocket equation. In a super far future universe where rocket fuel works like car fuel alla epstein drive, dumb blocky spaceships make sense. They also make sense for generation ships or crafts with weak but highly efficient engines. For example a ship like this is freaking awesome.
But what if a space ship didn't have to go through an atmosphere?Spoiler for Hidden:
I don't think it'd work for other reasons.
Wouldn't be very practical to move for one thing.
VizionEck Cube Royale is releasing this year "I'm Mike Armbrust" -Me |
Page created in 0.200 seconds with 23 queries.