absGeekNZ
@absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
- Comment on breakfast 1 week ago:
Well after a cup of that…there will most likely be shit
- Comment on Little Pea Shooters 2 weeks ago:
Taking the planet as the reference point. Complicates the situation a lot, but here we go.
If you contrast “A” and “D”. The initial velocity in “A” is 1, whereas “D” is 201. The acceleration due to gravity in “A” SEEMS LOWER (this is why external observer is way easier) on the way in and in “D” it seems higher. In “A” you are literally falling for much longer (gaining much more speed); than in “D”.
In “C” and “F” the situations are also different, I over simplified a bit too much. In “C” you would spend more energy than in “F”; since the acceleration due to gravity would seem higher, but not that much more. I should have made the exit angle 90°, to make them exactly equivalent…
The calculations are significantly more complex from the point of view of either the planet or space craft.
Thinking about trying to solve a real set of equations is a bit much; there are other concerns; like the fact that gravity drops off at 1/d^2^; so distance between the objects matters, the integration over distance of the equations is beyond me (I haven’t had to do that since uni, 20yrs ago). But the concepts are not too complicated; and for me at least the external observer makes it so much less complicated.
- Comment on We can't all be astronauts. 2 weeks ago:
First assume that it is a spherical cow traveling through a vacuum…
- Comment on Little Pea Shooters 2 weeks ago:
It is difficult to conceptualise.
But you also have to choose the most convenient observer to help you get it.
I would say the easiest way to “get it” would be to consider it from the Suns observation point of view. Choosing the planet or spacecraft just means that you have to consider a lot more relative motion.
- Situation A: Your space craft is catching up to the planet;
- Situation B: You have gained “29” speed as you fall toward it.
- Situation C: You spend 20 speed climbing back out of the gravity well; for a total speed gain of 9.
- Situation D: Same setup, you catch the planet quicker because it is now traveling toward you.
- Situation E: You have only gained “11” speed rather than the 29 when the planet was moving away from you.
- Situation F: You still spend 20 speed to climb out of the gravity well; for a total speed loss of 9.
This is obviously simplified and the numbers are meaningless. But the concept stands.
Depending of the incoming and outgoing angles; the energy changes are more or less…
Hope this illustrates it a little better.
- Comment on Little Pea Shooters 2 weeks ago:
No, it’s hard to explain without diagrams.
But as you fall towards a planet (any gravity well); you pick up speed, if the planet is moving away from you, you fall for longer before you catch up. As you climb back up, you don’t spend all of the energy you gained on the way down. That difference is the Slingshot effect.
It also works in reverse, if the planet is moving towards you. You catch up quicker, thus gain less speed. And spend overall more energy than you gained when you climb back out. Slowing down in the process.
- Comment on Little Pea Shooters 2 weeks ago:
You are gaining (or losing) energy based on if you are traveling in the same direction at the planet or not.
If you are coming from behind (travelling in the same direction) you an falling into the gravity well for longer. Thus gaining more energy. The extra energy is based on the speed of the planet through space.
Conversely if you an coming from the front, you fall for a shorter period. You lose energy at you climb up the gravity well.
- Comment on She can't cope with the stress. No problem just go through the day buzzed 3 weeks ago:
- Comment on I know I get excited when I see NFLD mentioned 3 weeks ago:
The comparison is looking very favorable to Australia currently.
If you use the thousands of kiwis, moving there permanently, every month.
- Comment on Not stealing 3 weeks ago:
Ah yes; the tactical wees discussion.
“Yes, I know you don’t need to go right now; but we are going to be in the car for 30 - 40 minutes; go to the toilet now please!”
- Comment on I know I get excited when I see NFLD mentioned 3 weeks ago:
Some of us like it when we are not mentioned…maps without NZ (sorry for the Reddit link)
- Comment on Not stealing 3 weeks ago:
You are not; but they are not really assholes. They are optimising for some outcome that they want, with inferior tools/mechanisms. Depending on age, their brain runs on emotion most of the time, logic is a distant second place.
In saying all of that…they can seem like assholes in the moment!!!
- Comment on don't get too streptococci 3 weeks ago:
I got ulcers, mainly mouth and throat…
- Comment on don't get too streptococci 3 weeks ago:
Immune system: Fuck you, you’re too healthy. I’m gonna attack these healthy (rolls dice), skin cells.
- Comment on The virus she told you not to worry about. 5 weeks ago:
Pretty much.
The ocean is a war zone, an endless battle between bacteria and viruses. Trillions of dead every day; weapons developed and discarded as the tide of battle ebbs and flows.
- Comment on It’s getting harder to skirt RTO policies without employers noticing 5 weeks ago:
I assumed that they are using some foreign keyboard.
Didn’t take long to parse the “th” from the symbol. Though sometimes it catches me and reads as a “p”
- Comment on Anon crunches some numbers 5 weeks ago:
Basically all of our technology it based on the manipulation of electromagnetism.
I doubt that possible discovery is exhausted at all, there are three other fundamental forces we don’t know how to manipulate yet.
Hell there may be fundamental forces we are as yet unaware of.
Other than nuclear power and weapons; which liberate energy from the weak force. We don’t use any other force directly.
At this stage, direct manipulation of the other fundamental forces, is science fiction. We don’t know how… yet.
Just to point out a, the first “modern” plastic, polystyrene, was discovered in 1839. The widespread use of plastics didn’t occur till the 1950’s…a full 110 years later. Carbon fibre was first developed in 1958, and is widely used today, less than 70 years later. I would say CF is more widely used today compared to plastics in the 1950’s.
If you look at the very first thing that could be called a plastic, you’d need to go back around a thousand years.
Don’t let perspective bias fool you, things are developing faster than ever.
- Comment on Anon crunches some numbers 5 weeks ago:
Material Science, the decades of research with carbon are starting to become evident in real products. Superconductor research continues to move forward.
Medical Science, the advancements are crazy. Especially in the surgical space. Targeted treatments are Just on the cusp of being viable. mRNA vaccines are a whole other level, their utility over the next few decades will be immense.
Bioscience, the rate of progress in this field is so interesting. So many problems that are falling to custom microorganisms, it is great to see.
Agricultural gains, are not even close to finished. I agree to era of brute force agriculture is over, but intelligent targeted farming has huge potential.
The second space age is happening right now. We are watching in real time, the rapid advancement of aerospace technology.
I could go on and on. Just because computing tech has hit a temporary plateau, doesn’t mean that the rest of science has slowed down.
- Comment on Time to pluralize titles. 5 weeks ago:
Back to the futures: quantum superposition edition
- Comment on Time to pluralize titles. 5 weeks ago:
Shaun the sheep movie
- Comment on Anon crunches some numbers 5 weeks ago:
While that may be true for individual technologies; in aggregate across all technologies.
Technical growth seems exponential; maybe sometime in the future technical advancement itself will resemble the ‘S’ curve; but for now we are still growing our technical prowess extremely quickly.
- Comment on One Angry Man 5 weeks ago:
Avenger: the reach around, it is only fair
- Comment on mogbattle 1 month ago:
So millihelens then?
- Comment on One Angry Man 1 month ago:
- Comment on One Angry Man 1 month ago:
Shaun the Sheep: Farmageddon
- Comment on 🐀🔥🔥🔥 1 month ago:
No, plenty of main dishes are spicy/sweet.
There also desserts and sweets that are spicy/sweet. There are some snacks that are essentially sweetened spicy fish…
- Comment on 🐀🔥🔥🔥 1 month ago:
A lot of Asian foods are spicy/sweet; it is great.
- Comment on Laxative Effect 1 month ago:
Slow clap 👏
- Comment on I just dont seem to ever learn 1 month ago:
The induced demand theory of coffee cup size.
- Comment on I just dont seem to ever learn 1 month ago:
Get a BIGGER cup.
- Comment on US education 1 month ago:
You can probably safely say plate tectonics is a lie in Texas, and not have to worry about inconvenient earthquakes to explain to the class. Try that in NZ…far more active over here.
