Topic: the sun
started by: j1mmy
------------------
< j1mmy >
Didn't Mr. Burns have some idea about blocking out the sun ... ?
------------------
-- incubus
As I chase the leaves like the words I never find ...
NO! The sun is annoying...I can only go out in daylight when using sunblock. And not for very long at a time. But at night...it's time to suck!?!
Well marc, better luck next time in getting all you wanted to say in one post.
------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.
------------------
~Anztac - The guy who had the really long sig (formerly Kriegman)
"I am easily driven into a flying rage by blithering idiots"
-cr0bar [The god of this domain]
------------------
-marcc
< lmao.cjb.net - funny pictures >.
[This message has been edited by marc c (edited May 24, 2000).]
------------------ ------------------ ------------------ About the sun: Size matters not, uh, uh...
Well...Russia whooped hitlers ass...I love them for it! And about the opressing Europe thing. There's more to it than that. Hitler slaughtered half countries, and Russia was actually providing help...in they're wierd kind of way, but they did. They're not mean! But there is cold as hell...like Canada...Why not hate them too? about 37 celcius if my memory serves me correctly. Its this heat that they tap into.
Humans is hot because humans consume food. We theoretically burn the food, which makes us hot. Our food-source is plants or comes from plants, because that's what the animals we eat eat (Eehh! Think about that one :)). The sun is what makes them grow. It serves as a powerplant, for the biological reactions inside the plant. The reactions wouldn't occur without the heat (and light) from the sun. You can however fake the sun with an other source of energy, but as all our energy sources is collected from the sun (which is the only energy source in the solar system) that actually only means a redirection of energy. So...once all the plants on the Earth is consumed/transformed into energy there's is basically no energy left on the earth, which means that the closest source of energy is the sun. But as humans covered the sky (or whatever) they blocked the source, which means that no energy is available... Hope it is understandable. It's a bit like Gibbs energy system if you have taken chemistry classes
"Combined with an advanced form of fusion, the machines had all the energy they would ever need......." Yah, I know it all comes down to BS. ------------------ [This message has been edited by Kolben (edited May 28, 2000).]
Then again you could say they are hot due to nuclear reactions in the earth's core. Ho hum. And on the river flows ... ------------------ (why didn't the robots use animals? or breed ppl that didn't have brains? THE ROBOTS ARE EVIL!) [This message has been edited by Happyfish (edited May 30, 2000).]
The fususion thing would be a solution, but they'd still run out of water, eh sometime...if they didn't get out to space... To get energy from a chemical reaction the reaction has to be spontanious, or a decrease in Delta G. Chemicals, only react spontaniously when they have energy output as the result. This again means releasing they're internal energy. This means that you can't make the reaction go backwards unless you put the same amount of energy or more into it. And eventually you would run out of reaktive chemicals. The same principle for the planet core. It won't be hot forever, if the sun doesn't shine.... [This message has been edited by Kolben (edited May 30, 2000).]
The same principle for the planet core. It won't be hot forever, if the sun doesn't shine.... Now just what has the sun shining, got to do with the planets core -besides which all power sources are finite. Before someone suggests black holes or any other idea of that approach, do your research blacks holes are now thought to be finite(Hawking), though I am not sure about the Kashmir Effect.
Black holes were thought as a way of harnessing EM forces to generate unlimited power. Anyway, enough of this
------------------ ------------------ as for destroying the sun. i put some thought into this one day in physics. lecture about particle/wave duality so i think about going to arizona to one of the military aircraft graveyards to try to find enough parts to build an old sidewinder missile. i'd need something like a sidewinder B because it had such shitty heat sensing devices that it would frequently lock onto the sun. if we can pull the sensors we have cheap guidance for whatever we want to send at the sun. from there i was thinking about building an enormous trebuchet that could fling the guidance package out into space. there'd have to be propulsion. this is where i broke down. i thought about putting a drunk on a stationary bike and putting a bottle of scotch out in front of him, but that doesn't seem viable. but i'm thinking that if the warhead is a thirsty four year old that it would eventually drive the sun to suicide(can i have a drink? [two seconds later] can i have a drink? [two seconds later] i'm thirsy. etc), but that's hazy too. the lecture ended about this point.
adeadlyintegral: I remember that story. Its a larry niven short. Think it took like 100 years because of the size of the hole. Something that is the size of an atom can only grab so much matter per orbit. The other reason this worked was it was moving slow enough to be captured by the mars gravity well.(well worked math wise) ------------------ The big bang is now debatable about the start of the uni, newscientist.com for starters. The quantum singularity through the surface of mars would actually take a matter of months if it truely happened, try checking past issues at sciam.com As for destroying the Sun, the quantum singularity within a missile would do it, once the missile burns up, the singularity would carry on through the centre of the sun, passing straight through it might consume enough matter to cause some kind of disruption at the core (something to do MF) according to a friend at CERN, this is also one of the prevailing process theories of super nova explosions (to be tested by Hubble's Infra-red successor in 2007). On a different note, the proposed upgrade to Hubble still being planned means it can actualy see extrasolar planets around there suns.
1. I think the reason the machines in the matrix used humans could be some sort of hardcoded programming. I think its somewhere in Asimov's books, but robots are not supposed to harm their creators, humans. Slicer
1.A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm. 2.A robot must obey orders given to him by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3.A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
'nuff said
-Tony
Also, for the most part, the people that are anti-Star Trek, are the people that don't understand it. ------------------ 1.A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm. 2.A robot must obey orders given to him by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3.A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
1.A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm. 2.A robot must obey orders given to him by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3.A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. Err ... I don't remember posting this. [This message has been edited by j1mmy (edited June 03, 2000).]
For a thread that started out with the above, this is lasting waaaay too long...please stop posting here, thanks.. [This message has been edited by Happyfish (edited June 04, 2000).]
Sithiee, it's a bit lame to just go out and tell people that they shouldn't talk bad about a movie because you like it. The plot of the movie isn't new. It's been told soooo many times in soooo many movies/books/whatever. And the facts that it's too far out physically doesn't make it better. The acting suxx too, but noone has brought that up yet. What makes the movie good is the humor and the tech stuff. That kung fu scene left my jaw hanging by the floor for a long time after the movie was over. But other than that the movie is just another piece in the dusty collection of b-movies. People is making the movie more than it is... In my oppinion the story basically sux0rs. If yours is different it's fine with me. Just don't tell me what to say or feel about the movie. Because I'll say what I mean and not what you've heard in some latenight review on the tv.
------------------ Because Techno = Technology and if you dont move with the Technology you get left behind. Then again, you may enjoy your alternative lifestyle :)
And why the hell should we stop and accept people making shitty movie-scripts? It's like saying feed me shit, and I'll learn to like it. Star Trek is actually made by some physics guy, and have actually stuff in it that could be real. I don't believe in pervert robots!
as for plots being told over and over again, didn't shakespeare say that there are only four basic plots? power, lust, revenge, and (i think) patriotism. or something like the seven deadly sins (go kevin spacey) minus gluttony, sloth, and, wrath? ------------------ My favorite things in the Matrix: The last item is by far the best part. Before I run any race in track, me and my friend joke about there being no spoon, or no race, or whatever. And don't forget the red pill, or the white rabbit. So many cool lines, so little time... That's all folks... Slicer
Everything is all the same plot, its just variations. There are only so many things that get our attention, and its just a matter of putting in twists and combining these things in different ways. Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet was actually a newer version of an ancient Roman story, Piramus and Thisbe (sp definitely). And the Aeneid, supposedly Rome's finest work? Ripped almost entirely from The Odyssey and The Iliad. Nothing changes, just rearranges... Korn, I believe. Slicer _____________________________________________ To whomever was bashing us for overanalyzing the Matrix: It's not so much that we're analyzing the matrix, we're just using it is a jumping off point for discussing artifial intelligence, sentience, nuclear fusion, the universe, etc. The matrix has provided the topic, and now the debate seems to have strayed. We are intelligent people who have a lot of views and theories that average people wouldnt understand, so we come here, and when an opportunity to speak about what has been festering in our heads arises, we take advantage of it. Slicer _____________________________________________ Kolben, i challenge you to come up with a storyline that could replace all the problems you see with the matrix, and still have as good a movie. I really doubt you can, and untill you can, you shouldnt talk about the problems with other peoples work, its not your place. Id say that applies to everything though - untill you can outdo someone's work, its not your place to criticize it.
Slicer
I think you are is just plain ignorant. You are taking too much extacy. I WILL criticize the fuck out of stuff I don't like. And I think it's quite funny that some people can be the way that you are. You must contain alot of anger, since you can't say your true oppinion about anything bad stuff without having to lie. This is the rants section, and it's about oppinions (usually bad) about stuff people don't like. It's like saying that j1mmy shouldn't criticize the sun, because he can't build a better one! Go live on the moon where everybody can't bother you... My favorite movie of all times is "The Last Boyscout". "From Dusk Till Dawn" and "Desperado" is close though.
This discussion is too lameass stupid, because I actually know what you mean, but I really don't care, because I've got another point of view. And you can't change that...So stop bitching about people saying what the mean, without thinking about solving the worlds problems while doing it. I'm a chemist and my job is to synthesize chemicals. Not to be a politician, not to be a writer, not to be a car manufacturer. If someone came up to me and said "this fuckin' compound is crap" about the thing he has paid me to do, I'd analyse it and make it better. I don't expect the poor guy to come up with a solution to the problem, because he's probably not educated to do so. Like when I pay for something and it doesn't work, I'll say "it doesn't work, fix it, or give me my money back". I won't expect people to demand that I come up with a way to fix it...that's just stupid. Then I could have made it myself from the start. In my oppinion your oppinion is stupid! [This message has been edited by Kolben (edited June 05, 2000).]
Every movie I have ever seen has had holes in it, but if it's entertaining, it's done its job. ------------------ [This message has been edited by Kolben (edited June 05, 2000).]
2. You really can't define bad acting. It's kind of intuitive. 3. I have started a Fight Club vs. Matrix Thread Slicer maybe THE trilogy is star wars, but *the* trilogy, i.e. the one that isn't on lunch boxes and underwear (four and six year old brothers, it's there, trust me), is written by a guy named douglas, not george. i like stars wars, but i much prefer the sacrcasm and irony of ford prefect. ------------------ I am not continuing this discussion, unless you come up with some very good argument about why I HAVE to come up with solutions about everything. And don't give me "that would make the world better" because it wouldn't. We'd have lowlevel cheapass stuff, because people didn't want to complaint about stuff, because they should come up with solutions. Constructive critisism my ass! That was what you told a 5th grade as a way of getting them to stop kicking eachothers asses or when you have to teamwork with people. And I'm not planning on making a movie. This is about responsibility, and I'm not responsible for making up solutions for crappy movies. So why should I do that?? And it still wouldn't change the movie. It would still be the same. You live in a fantasy world, and you're really pissing me off, changing the subject without commenting my prev. comment other than this fullscale attack about how stupid I am not explaining why MH's acting sucked. Mark Hamil doesn't convince me. My oppinion is "he sucks" and that's final. I can't explain to you why, because it doesn't come down to just this one thing you say. And even if it did I'm not supposed to point it out. I used it as a comparance. I didn't use it to start a new discussion about SW. And if you didn't understand that, you're a fucking lam0r. So stop bitching about it. And if you've read this thread you would have seen that HappyFish started the argument and I responded to it, AND TOLD WHY IT WAS WRONG. So what is the AGAIN thing??? To use you own way of saying it. You are a lam0r, because when you said that I didn't back my words up, you didn't either. You only told the one side of it. The one where I did it (again?). I don't have to say why I do stuff all the time! Do I? lam0r!!! [This message has been edited by Kolben (edited June 06, 2000).]
------------------ [This message has been edited by Kolben (edited June 06, 2000).]
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.
The gene pool has no life guard, support the GPPTF (Gene Pool Purification Task Force)
raise your hand if you like orange soda.
This reminds me of an argument I was having at work...
In the Matrix...the whole thing with the robots using humans as batteries - that would never work. The energy has to come form somewhere and the only energy input that the earth has is from the sun (except for nuclear energy)...so the idea of having humans as a source of energy - not going to work - a human body does not in any way create energy...makes for a nice movie though.
KICK ASS movie actually...
oh...and Kolben. I'm Canadian, and it's really not that cold here (for a few months out of the year anyway). Actually, I live as far south as northern California.
"Everyone's favorite implement for any task"
------------------
I forgot about the 'advanced form of fusion' though that just sounds like the writers are trying make the idea workable. If the robots did have fusion, they wouldn't need humans ...except for morbid fasination and control...
In physics we're told that a closed system containing an amount of energy will always have that energy in some form. Then your cycle would be possible, but as the Earth isn't a closed system it isn't. Lots of energy is released out to space. This means that in the cycle, there will be a loss of energy, and it wouldn't go very far.
They use the energy for mevoment and stuff, which generates heat because of the friction. This heat they can't collect and is therefore a loss
-- incubus
As I chase the leaves like the words I never find ...
Okay, the only sources of energy the earth has is the SUN, thermal, and nuclear.
I think I am correct now..human bodies don't make energy...done...I no longer am a part of this thread... Suck it down.
quote:
Originally posted by Kolben:
Heat and pressure and tidal forces (gravitational tides)so it does need the sun to stay hot(well not the sun but the gravity the sun produces). (God I'm a geek)
A black hole could be used as a power source as long as you had stuff to feed it. Black holes emit Heat, light (from stuff dying above the event horizon), hard radiation (x-rays, gamma rays)
Now, if you had a Quantum black hole (black hole with the diameter of a single atom) you could use this as a power source. (Groan, I have reached new heights of geekdom with this post)
This is still a finite source of energy because sooner or later you could feed the entire universe to it.
The gene pool has no life guard, support the GPPTF (Gene Pool Purification Task Force)
< http://www.geocities.com/jgoeke610/ >
Past and future pr0n star :)
The gene pool has no life guard, support the GPPTF (Gene Pool Purification Task Force)
< http://www.geocities.com/jgoeke610/ >
Past and future pr0n star :)
quote:
Originally posted by Nero:
as for destroying the sun. i put some thought into this one day in physics. lecture about particle/wave duality so i think about going to arizona to one of the military aircraft graveyards to try to find enough parts to build an old sidewinder missile. i'd need something like a sidewinder B because it had such shitty heat sensing devices that it would frequently lock onto the sun. if we can pull the sensors we have cheap guidance for whatever we want to send at the sun. from there i was thinking about building an enormous trebuchet that could fling the guidance package out into space. there'd have to be propulsion. this is where i broke down. i thought about putting a drunk on a stationary bike and putting a bottle of scotch out in front of him, but that doesn't seem viable. but i'm thinking that if the warhead is a thirsty four year old that it would eventually drive the sun to suicide(can i have a drink? [two seconds later] can i have a drink? [two seconds later] i'm thirsy. etc), but that's hazy too. the lecture ended about this point.
That is the limit on the amount of energy you can get from a single particle be it matter or antimatter.
The gene pool has no life guard, support the GPPTF (Gene Pool Purification Task Force)
< http://www.geocities.com/jgoeke610/ >
Past and future pr0n star :)
By storing humans in vats and leeching energy from them, they are fulfilling this directive, and also gaining energy for themselves.
2. Couldn't the fusion they had support the humans? I know its not possible now, but some wierd sort of energy conversion to sustain our lives might work. Also, you guys are so concerned about the finiteness of energy, but think about it, there are not that many machines, and fusing molecules just on earth could keep them going for a very long time.
The robots weren't really there..neither was Neo..
They have cats in the future?
quote:
Originally posted by Happyfish:
They weren't really killing Neo..
The robots weren't really there..neither was Neo..
quote:
Originally posted by Happyfish:
They weren't really killing Neo..
The robots weren't really there..neither was Neo..
Why is Techno better than Alternative?
"Sorry for the inconvenience." God's last words to the universe in the final book of *the* trilogy.
1. The Kung Fu Fighting. Duh.
2. The Gun Fights.
3. The Big Rack of Guns.
4. The Bitchin Helicopter Gun
5. Cool Graphics of robots and stuff from the 'desert of the real world'
6. All the awesome quotes
Slicer...
...
Dot dot dot's are fun...
Ignorance is Bliss.
Slacker Extraordinaire
_____________________________________________
Mother said I shouldnt talk to strange people. I guess I shouldnt talk to myself anymore...
quote:
Originally posted by Slicer:
The Matrix had quite a few good elements, I'd say its my second favorite movie, after Fight Club
Wow. Someone else that likes Fight Club. I'd have to say that the Matrix was better, but Fight Club would be my second choice for the best movie of last year. So many people I've talked to hated it. I don't really like Brad Pitt but I thought he kicked ass in that movie..and I thought it had an awesome plot. Apparently the book is FAR better. I should pick it up sometime. Someone start a thread...Fight Club: good or bad?
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.
Only that it contains bad elements...I think the movie is good as a whole. Just like I think SW 4+5+6 r0x0rs, though Mark Hamil is/was a lam0r when it comes to acting. I'm just not allowed to say so, because that pisses off Sithiee
1. Nero, tell me what the quotation and the trilogy in your sig are from.
_____________________________________________
Don't talk about Fight Club...
"Sorry for the inconvenience." God's last words to the universe in the final book of *the* trilogy.
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.