| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Uncle Clover" |
| Date: |
21 Jan 2007 07:15:06 PM |
| Object: |
Another physics challenge |
I've got something that I think is a pretty decent physics challenge for you to
mull over:
If we were to take every single atom in the known universe and stack them
end-to-end along a tubular line, the tube being no wider than the largest
presently known stable element, roughly how long might that line be?
Black holes are a questionable factor, to me at least. At some point during
this atomic stacking, black holes would need to be dealt with. So let's say
that as a result of our atomic stacking activities, all of the black holes and
everything on their side of the event horizon cease to exist in reference to our
known universe. Any orbiting matter, radiation, etc.... etc... etc.... would
still be there, but only to be added to our atomic stack.
Just querious...
--
L8r,
Uncle Clover
___________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Beauty is where you see it.
___________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: Another physics challenge |
21 Jan 2007 09:19:12 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Clover" <UncleClover@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
news:f938r2189ou6cduum9q0uo8e5pof6284us@4ax.com...
I've got something that I think is a pretty decent physics challenge for
you to
mull over:
If we were to take every single atom in the known universe and stack them
end-to-end along a tubular line, the tube being no wider than the largest
presently known stable element, roughly how long might that line be?
From here to infinity.
Smiler,
The godless one
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: Another physics challenge |
21 Jan 2007 07:27:06 PM |
|
|
Uncle Clover wrote:
I've got something that I think is a pretty decent physics challenge for you to
mull over:
If we were to take every single atom in the known universe and stack them
end-to-end
Okay, stop right there. Atoms are mostly empty space. The electrons
surrounding the nucleus are typically compared to a cloud. This is
like asking us to "stack" clouds "end to end".
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Corinthian Leather" |
|
| Title: Re: Another physics challenge |
22 Jan 2007 06:51:51 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps wrote:
Uncle Clover wrote:
I've got something that I think is a pretty decent physics challenge for you to
mull over:
If we were to take every single atom in the known universe and stack them
end-to-end
Okay, stop right there. Atoms are mostly empty space. The electrons
surrounding the nucleus are typically compared to a cloud. This is
like asking us to "stack" clouds "end to end".
So if he had said "stack all *atomic* [emphasis mine] particles
(electrons, protons, and neutrons)..." would that be clearer?
RCL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: Another physics challenge |
22 Jan 2007 06:54:29 PM |
|
|
Rich Corinthian Leather wrote:
Martin Phipps wrote:
Uncle Clover wrote:
I've got something that I think is a pretty decent physics challenge for you to
mull over:
If we were to take every single atom in the known universe and stack them
end-to-end
Okay, stop right there. Atoms are mostly empty space. The electrons
surrounding the nucleus are typically compared to a cloud. This is
like asking us to "stack" clouds "end to end".
So if he had said "stack all *atomic* [emphasis mine] particles
(electrons, protons, and neutrons)..." would that be clearer?
Why not stack all the electrons and quarks? They are believed to be
infinitessimally small, in which case they'd all fit into a single
singularity.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Another physics challenge |
22 Jan 2007 08:04:49 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps wrote:
Rich Corinthian Leather wrote:
Martin Phipps wrote:
Uncle Clover wrote:
I've got something that I think is a pretty decent physics
challenge for you to mull over:
If we were to take every single atom in the known universe and
stack them end-to-end
Okay, stop right there. Atoms are mostly empty space. The
electrons surrounding the nucleus are typically compared to a
cloud. This is like asking us to "stack" clouds "end to end".
So if he had said "stack all *atomic* [emphasis mine] particles
(electrons, protons, and neutrons)..." would that be clearer?
Why not stack all the electrons and quarks? They are believed to be
infinitessimally small, in which case they'd all fit into a single
singularity.
Martin
Why bother with any of this, it is a math problem, not a physics questions.
If I were to stack all the "X" in the "Y" it would reach/go around the "Z",
M times.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
