Only if it exceeds the rate of dissipation. Otherwise it would merely slow the dissipation of heat.
Only if it exceeds the rate of dissipation. Otherwise it would merely slow the dissipation of heat.
You'd have to suspend the cup using magnets, in a vacuum to stop any heat generated just leaching back out into the immediate environment. And even then, any heat gain would just be radiated away.
I once had a 700mb pic on my pc.
Makes sense, it'd have to be a bloody powerful shout then, but then it'd take far less than 8 years.
The bottom line is: Thank god for coffee machines and kettles.
Actually no, because if the Earth's mass changed then the value of 1g would change correspondingly.
No, it does not make sense...
If it is in a vacuum, there's no air impulsed by the lungs to produce the scream, there's no vibration in order to produce energy and so there's no way to generate heat through a scream!
The cup would be as cold as it was in the start of the experiment.
What I really meant was that it makes sense that in a normal room, the cup would be losing energy faster than you'd be putting energy into it by shouting.
Oh, yeah you're right...
And those bitchy 8 winters would make you even more frustrated...
Was wondering if someone would spot that
Ahh well.. I did try a search but that thread didn't come up.. anyway .. this is the pointless thread, a subtle difference
C'mon guys.. did I say it was possible?
Fact remains .. if you could sustain that acceleration.. then that's how long it would take.
Sssshhhh now
meh, pendantry
Gravity comes from mass density, not mass. You could change the mass of the earth without the Earth's gravitational field strength changing, likewise you could change g without changing the mass (just give the earth a little squeeze and watch everyone get heavier).
Also interesting to note, were the sun to collapse into a black hole this instant, nothing would change on earth (other than the lights going out after eight minutes and everyone freezing to death after some time). All the planets of our solar system would still orbit the black hole as they did before with the sun, because the amount of mass, and with that also the amount of gravity given a certain distance, did not change.
The thing that makes black holes or very dense mass suck so much is that you can simply get much closer to the center of the gravity well, and by concentrating all the mass on a small spot you also make it go "deeper." Of course this doesn't mean the gravity would increase if you were to hypothetically dig down to the center of earth - at that point it would actually feel like zero-G again, because now all the mass is around you, pulling you equally in all directions.
The thing that makes black holes or very dense mass suck so much is that you can simply get much closer to the center of the gravity well, and by concentrating all the mass on a small spot you also make it go "deeper." Of course this doesn't mean the gravity would increase if you were to hypothetically dig down to the center of earth - at that point it would actually feel like zero-G again, because now all the mass is around you, pulling you equally in all directions.
wouldn't the supernova destroy the innermost planets?
What if earth was cylindrical?
EDIT: I just realized the answer to my own question. If you doubled the length but kept the density the same, the mass would go up, and since the law of universal gravitation is a function of the product of the gravitational constant and the quotient of the product of the two masses of the objects and their distance (I cant believe I just wrote that out in sentence form), the gravity would stay the same because the proportion of mass to distance is the same.
Also, it seems like the law of universal gravitation is kind of a "hack" so to speak. Because it doesn't seem like it would work if you are inside of an object, like if you're swimming underwater in the ocean, for example. And if one full hemisphere of the earth was made of lead, and the other was made of some less dense material like balsa wood, would there be more gravity on the side with the lead? Though I suppose that the distance used for the law of universal gravitation is the distance between the center of masses, not the center of the volume.
it will somehow mold itself to a ovalish sphere form because gravitation pull is suppose to be equal to all directions.
If half the earth is made of lead and half is made of wood, the gravitational centre would be inclined to the side made with lead, and earth will no longer rotate around the physical centre, the whole thing will break up, particles get repositioned and you might end up with a ball of remaining lead, surrounding by a cloud of wood dust.
It was a purely hypothetical situation of an instant transformation to a black hole. Luckily for us, our sun is not massive enough to go supernova, as about ~3 solar masses are required for that to happen and our sun will merely become a red giant (and burn everything on earth anyway. If you miraculously were alive at that point and could look at it, the sun would take about 30° of the sky). But even if it could go supernova it'd need to be about ~15-20 solar masses to be massive enough to overcome neutron degeneracy pressure and form a black hole. Anything below that will just end up as a neutron star (that however might still become a black hole if there's enough mass nearby to feed on over time).
This doesn't mean that you can't create a black hole from less mass, it's just that the natural events to form a black hole don't occur if your star is below that limit. If you'd open reality's developer-console and just arbitrarily compressed the sun (or earth) down far enough it would very well form a black hole and most likely stay that way.
Also interesting (not about supernovae or black holes): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... p;feature=player_embedded
Then again, g actually varies due to location, so all you wannabe high-jump competetors.. find a competition at the equator. g is about 0.05 m/s less.
Provided it could hold it's shape (it couldn't, as JJ72 has said, the edges would collapse under their own gravity and you'd end up with a spheroid again) the gravity would always pull towards the centre of mass. This would cause the gravity to only point straight 'downwards' if you stood exactly on the equator or in the centre of each endcap. Towards the 'poles' gravity would cause everything to be on a steeper and steeper incline the further north or south you got, until you went over the edge again and gravity would get more and more 'vertical' until it was pointing staright down again right in the centre of each endcap.
My computer didn't allow me to see the picture... is was actually too big.
No.
g is an acceleration value, NOT a speed, thus it would be 0.05 m/s² less. But that's still not quite true, as with the comparative "less", you still need something that the value is compared to.
Having said that, the average g for our planet is roughly 9.806 m/s², while it's 9.78 at the equator, which would mean it's only 0.026 m/s² less. As the g on the poles are 9.832 though, you're somewhat right as your fall over the equator would be accelerating less by 0.05 m/s² than your fall over the poles.
G itself remains the same - the constant for g is 9.80665 (to 5 d.p.), so at the equator you just experience .997g
Your penis can't be 12 inches.
Why?
Because, it would then become a foot.
Ahhhh yes, pointless.
Why?
Because, it would then become a foot.
Ahhhh yes, pointless.
if youre penis was over 14 inches and you got an erection you would pas sout there is that much blood there i wondered why i kept passign out
You Kept Passing out Because you noticed you didnt have a penis....
Totally pointless topic
(94 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG