quade 3 #26 February 27, 2007 QuoteHey there was no troll.... Yeah . . . I believe you. There was no way in hell the first post you made was to set up the second, because I KNOW you're a physics student and you ALWAYS post physics questions in Speakers Corner. Riiiiiiiight.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gene03 0 #27 February 27, 2007 Once again, WWWHHHOOOOOOOOOSSSHHHHHH.“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him. Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #28 February 27, 2007 QuoteQuoteNot sure the question is stated as intended. An object inside a nuetron star, measuring 1" square, takes up 1" square of space inside the nuetron star. Maybe what was meant was how an object 1" square when outside a nuetron star can take up less space when moved into the center of the nuetron star? What is the volume of a 1" square object? 0 ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #29 February 27, 2007 QuoteYou picked up on that too. Flatlanders. Flatland -- nice book.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #30 February 28, 2007 QuoteOnce again, WWWHHHOOOOOOOOOSSSHHHHHH. When did you say "wwwhhhooooooooossshhhhhh" before?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gene03 0 #31 February 28, 2007 I didn't. The "once again" was to bring attention to your question in your first post. The whoosh was the sound of your question going over peoples' heads.“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him. Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #32 February 28, 2007 QuoteQuote> How can an object occupy a space far smaller than the total volume of the object? In very warped time-space, an object will occupy a space smaller than its total volume. For example, a neutron star has a volume that greatly exceeds the space it occupies. Black holes are the ultimate example of this. Not sure the question is stated as intended. An object inside a nuetron star, measuring 1" square, takes up 1" square of space inside the nuetron star. Maybe what was meant was how an object 1" square when outside a nuetron star can take up less space when moved into the center of the nuetron star? I'd agree that a given object of perceived fixed size moving fast enough to experience time dilation undergoes a change in volume and mass; but a static object (experiencing no acceleration in any dimension takes up exactly the volume of space that it possesses itself. I'm open to hearing differently, but would like to know the mechanics involved in a static object taking up less space than it's own volume. Ignoring the volume squared vs cubed gaffe, it's easy to argue that it depends on your frame of reference in both situations. Why? gravity is acceleration for these calculations Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #33 February 28, 2007 QuoteI didn't. The "once again" was to bring attention to your question in your first post. The whoosh was the sound of your question going over peoples' heads. Ohh, gotcha. BTW, I was quite impressed by the way all the letters in your "whoosh" occured in multiples of three. Was that co-incidence or did you actually count them out?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gene03 0 #34 February 28, 2007 Just a coincidence or is it? Na just tapped it out on the ole keyboard with out a thought, like all my posts on here.“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him. Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #35 February 28, 2007 QuoteBTW, I was quite impressed by the way all the letters in your "whoosh" occured in multiples of three. Was that co-incidence or did you actually count them out? And the fact that you noticed and counted them out yourself is even more impressive. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #36 February 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteBTW, I was quite impressed by the way all the letters in your "whoosh" occured in multiples of three. Was that co-incidence or did you actually count them out? And the fact that you noticed and counted them out yourself is even more impressive. I guess you wouldn't believe me if I said I was just naturally perceptive?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #37 February 28, 2007 QuoteI guess you wouldn't believe me if I said I was just naturally perceptive? Oh, but I would! . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikempb 0 #38 March 2, 2007 Well "they" you know those scientists believe the ENTIRE Universe when it began was soo small it could fit into your fist before it went Bang!!!!! Hurts my head trying to imagine that one. It is because of the density of an object . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
