Science or Science Fiction: The thread to debate science.

pienkie · Post by **pienkie** » 16 Oct 2007, 20:39

jamin_za wrote:
lancelot wrote:Is this a thread for the Google Championships of the World
Agreed.

I just wish I had the time to participate.

Between talking rubbish with my colleagues and scanning the network for new music for my latest MP3 CD, I don't really have free time to google today

loooooooooooooooool

Tribble · Post by **Tribble** » 17 Oct 2007, 06:06

Question. As a kid, taking a focussed light beam - we used to burn things. Used a magnifying glass.

Would not an intense focussed beam be used as a weapon by the dear USA? I really cannot see energy harvesting in space being financially viable for them - but a weapon, in space, not requiring an additional power source - now that I can see. Perhaps I am a pessimist - but that is the type of thing super powers do when they feel under threat.

Hex_Rated · Post by **Hex_Rated** » 17 Oct 2007, 11:34

They aren't allowed to put weapons of mass destruction in outer space. There is a treaty called the Outer Space Treaty that forbids it. Don't know how long it will last, but there will be a huge outcry if the US breaks it. This power station might be a disguise but I doubt it. It transfers the power to the ground using radio waves (microwave). The receiving Antenna is 6.5 x 8.5 kms. Not focussed enough to cause any serious damage.

Website · Post by **hamin_aus** » 17 Oct 2007, 11:42

The fact of the matter is that America has been having a power crisis for almost a decade now.

I remember a few years back, large parts of California were without power for days.
They almost make Eskom look competent.
The US has finally realised their predicament and are looking for possible solutions.

I doubt this is a weapon in disguise.

Gatsby · Post by **Gatsby** » 17 Oct 2007, 11:49

I hope USA blow sum shiat up, news has been so boring recently.

D3PART3D · Post by **D3PART3D** » 17 Oct 2007, 11:56

Lol Gatsby!

thealluseless · Post by **thealluseless** » 17 Oct 2007, 12:11

They almost make Eskom look competent

not a chance...

eskom is one of the few companies in the world who try discourage ppl using their product...

and heres a killer. was doing work at megawatt park on friday, and they were running on a gen....mildly amusing

Website · Post by **hamin_aus** » 17 Oct 2007, 12:34

thealluseless wrote:
They almost make Eskom look competent
not a chance...

For what it's worth, we in SA pay less for electricity than most 1st world countries.

I know power is cheaper here than in Australia and New Zealand.

Also, we could easily meet our countries power requirements if Eskom stopped supplying power to other parts of Africa.

But then most of Southern Africa would be without power.

I'm not defending them, I'm just pointing out that we are probably better off power-wise than our friends in America. Now and probably in the long run.

The 2 new plants in WC, which give the region 1050 megawatts of electricity at peak time.

Plus they have plans bring a mothballed plant back online and have 3 new plants fully operationa by 2012

http://www.eskom.co.za/live/content.php?Category_ID=527

viceroy · Post by **viceroy** » 17 Oct 2007, 13:27

Plus they have plans bring a mothballed plant back online and have 3 new plants fully operationa by 2012

So basically another 5 years of power shortages which will most likely get worse as demand rises each year.

I'm really not looking forward to winter when demand is much higher than it is at the moment (bad weather or not)

Website · Post by **hamin_aus** » 17 Oct 2007, 14:43

viceroy wrote:I'm really not looking forward to winter when demand is much higher than it is at the moment (bad weather or not)

The mothballed Camden Power Station will be back up and running before June 2008, and the new Komati Power Station will come online shorlty after.

Winter/summer consumption rates do not difer that much here in Durbs.

The rest of you will just have to tough it out

Ark · Post by **Ark** » 17 Oct 2007, 15:18

jamin_za wrote:The rest of you will just have to tough it out

Or leave the country

viceroy · Post by **viceroy** » 17 Oct 2007, 15:42

M'kay...
Byee...
See ya...
Don't let the door smack you in the back of the head

GreyWolf · Post by **GreyWolf** » 19 Oct 2007, 07:59

interesting new black hole discovered:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/18 ... upersized/

Tribble · Post by **Tribble** » 19 Oct 2007, 09:09

@GreyWolf - we will discuss the "KILL ALL CATS!" later

There is one question that has always bothered me about the science of time. If there is no one around to observe the passage of time - does it remain linear?

GreyWolf · Post by **GreyWolf** » 19 Oct 2007, 10:28

that question is redundant since time is not linear to begin with.

Kovu · Post by **Kovu** » 19 Oct 2007, 10:43

@ GW _ pls describe time

Hex_Rated · Post by **Hex_Rated** » 19 Oct 2007, 11:12

A gross oversimplification would be that we live in 3D space and time would be the 4th dimension. Therefore, if you wanted to describe the coordinates of an object in space, you would need it's x,y,z co-ordinates (relative to a reference frame) and the time it was there. This is a very simple model of spacetime. In reality it is far more complicated (general and special relativity and quantum physics).

Kovu · Post by **Kovu** » 19 Oct 2007, 11:53

Thank you Hex Rated

Kovu · Post by **Kovu** » 19 Oct 2007, 11:55

but this brings me to a question...

is the time of one object in a diferent space from another the same?

Hex_Rated · Post by **Hex_Rated** » 19 Oct 2007, 11:58

No. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

Kovu · Post by **Kovu** » 19 Oct 2007, 12:02

Hex_Rated wrote:No. See:

that then says time is not linear,i am clear...
then is the time of a certain object linear?

Hex_Rated · Post by **Hex_Rated** » 19 Oct 2007, 12:05

No. It depends on the speed it's travelling at, due to a phenomenon known as time dilation.

Kovu · Post by **Kovu** » 19 Oct 2007, 12:21

but would that not mean that stationary objects do not have time?

what does the phenomenon of time dilaition say about stationary objects ?

Hex_Rated · Post by **Hex_Rated** » 19 Oct 2007, 12:32

Stationary is a relative term. There are few absolutes in physics.

Time dilation means that one objects experience of time varies by how fast it is travelling relative to another object. An object travelling close to the speed of light ages and experiences time very slowly, while other objects experience time normally. They've managed to measure this phenomenon in satelites and AFAIK even GPS's take this into account.

Nothing is truly absolutely stationary. My computer may be stationary relative to me, but the earth is rotating, so relative to the centre of the earth it is moving (with me). And the earth is moving around the sun; and the sun around the galaxy; and the galaxy is moving relative to other galaxies and space is expanding.

Kovu · Post by **Kovu** » 19 Oct 2007, 12:44

ok ok i get it now_thanks Hex_ hope you don't mind me asking all this... when some1 knows a bit or a lot more than i in a certain matter i tend to ask a lot and you seem like you know about this.

back on point: that would mean if something were to truly be stationary relatively to all, it would be out of time so to speak,right?