Timeline for Minimizing the Side Effects of Breathable Outer-Space
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 5, 2018 at 11:41 | comment | added | Myungjin Hyun | @AlexP Thanks for the clarification! | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 11:39 | comment | added | AlexP | @HarryWeasley: See el duederino's comment. I was wrong, the field is conservative but stable closed orbits are still impossible. | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 11:07 | comment | added | Myungjin Hyun | @AlexP How to prove that an inverse-cube-law field is non-conservative? | |
| Jan 25, 2018 at 0:54 | comment | added | JBH | @Will, I mean it's impossible for the OP to get the universe he wants without an obscene amount of handwaving. "Handwaving" has many derivations. One is the "look over here!" distraction used by magicians. Another is the "I'm simply not going to talk about that" gesture you sometimes get with a person who really wants to talk about something else. Simply put, you can't bend the laws of physics to get there, you break them completely. Thus my admonition later in my answer to simply declare it to be so (handwave) and move on with the story. | |
| Jan 24, 2018 at 20:01 | comment | added | xvk3 | @JBH What do you mean by "You're going to need to handwave this universe something awful"? | |
| Jan 24, 2018 at 19:07 | comment | added | jean | don't forget DRAG! How is the planet orbiting a star without being burned? How it's still orbiting after losing cinetic energy to drag? It must burn in the aether just to fall on the star | |
| Jan 24, 2018 at 15:31 | comment | added | KRyan | @JBH As the name suggests, it’s a space-y take on Treasure Island. One of the better adaptations of that book, I must say; it’s a pretty good movie. | |
| Jan 24, 2018 at 13:56 | comment | added | Onyz | @JBH This answer is a very thorough analysis of potential problems and is very well-written. If you have the time would you mind looking over Pere's answer, as to whether his answer is missing anything? Thank you :) | |
| Jan 24, 2018 at 8:30 | comment | added | Holger | Now that you removed the hydrogen from the sentence, it doesn’t make any sense. You can’t ignite oxygen, oxygen doesn’t burn. You can use oxygen to burn other stuff, but since you removed that other stuff from the sentences, there is nothing to burn. I suggest to rephrase the paragraph: “Human-breatheable air needs to have oxygen while a space in which stars can form needs to have hydrogen. An atmosphere having both is highly explosive…”. | |
| Jan 24, 2018 at 5:08 | history | edited | JBH | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 41 characters in body
|
| Jan 24, 2018 at 3:09 | comment | added | WGroleau | If the part about hydrogen were true, lightning would have converted earth’s atmosphere to nitrogen and water millennia ago. | |
| Jan 24, 2018 at 3:08 | comment | added | el duderino | @AlexP An inverse cube law force is definitely conservative; it can be written as the gradient of an inverse square potential. Stable orbits (and actually bound orbits in general) are indeed impossible in such a potential though, since the effective potential of a two body system has no local minimum. | |
| Jan 24, 2018 at 3:06 | comment | added | bendl | @JBH it's an old Disney movie... Definitely don't think it was winning and best picture nominations though | |
| Jan 24, 2018 at 2:53 | comment | added | JBH | @bendl... I've never heard of the movie! I'm delighted that my rationale isn't so far fetched that it wasn't thought of before me! | |
| Jan 24, 2018 at 2:12 | comment | added | npostavs | "human-breatheable air has a remarkably high amount of oxygen and hydrogen" - human-breathable air doesn't usually have hydrogen, does it? | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 23:37 | comment | added | Alecto | Orbits under the inverse-cube law aren't stable. Solar systems would fall apart really easily. | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 22:08 | comment | added | Andon | Also worth noting, I believe, is that planets would end up leaving their own trails in the atmo-space. Heck, you could even say the atmosphere on the leading edge is significantly thicker than that on the trailing edge. | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 19:45 | comment | added | Ben Sutton | @bendl Treasure Planet was the first thing I thought of when I read this question :) | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 18:53 | comment | added | bendl | Your last paragraph sounds seriously similar to treasure planet the movie | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 17:02 | comment | added | AlexP | An inverse-cube-law field is not conservative, which means that closed orbits are almost impossible without a net energy input. ("Almost" in the mathematical sense, that is, the set of possible closed orbits is of null measure.) | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 16:51 | comment | added | guildsbounty | Definitely agree here. If you're going to have breatheable atmo in-space...you can't bring physics into the equation. Just declare that your universe operates according to its own rules, rename space to...like...The Ethereum or something, and run with it. This is a case where trying to play by the rules is more trouble than it's worth | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 16:22 | history | edited | JBH | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 690 characters in body
|
| Jan 23, 2018 at 16:16 | history | answered | JBH | CC BY-SA 3.0 |