Science marches on and my inteleejens is insulted

[Loonyyy]

It's also a function of density. If the planet in question were primarily composed of heavier elements like lead and gold (I know, unlikely, but bear with me), it could be significantly smaller than the earth and still have similar gravity.

Please don't correct people who are smarter than you. Density is a measure of Mass Per unit of Volume. Newton's gravity equation: g=GM/(R^2) is composed of the Gravitational constant, times the mass of the object of which the gravitational field is being measured, divided by the radius. The density influences the Mass.
Also, there's no need to bear with you: Planets such as gas giants exist which have far less density, which influences their gravity. Black holes exist, which are essentially points of infinite mass, which affects their gravitational output.

If a planet had greater density, it would have greater mass, so a smaller radius planet could have a greater mass than earth and have similar gravity.

The moral of the story: Don't nitpick, unless 1. You're correct, and 2. It adds something to the conversation. 3. They need correcting. None of these apply, and your post makes you look like an uneducated dolt, as well as a jerk.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

It's also a function of density. If the planet in question were primarily composed of heavier elements like lead and gold (I know, unlikely, but bear with me), it could be significantly smaller than the earth and still have similar gravity.

Please don't correct people who are smarter than you. Density is a measure of Mass Per unit of Volume. Newton's gravity equation: g=GM/(R^2) is composed of the Gravitational constant, times the mass of the object of which the gravitational field is being measured, divided by the radius. The density influences the Mass.
Also, there's no need to bear with you: Planets such as gas giants exist which have far less density, which influences their gravity. Black holes exist, which are essentially points of infinite mass, which affects their gravitational output.

If a planet had greater density, it would have greater mass, so a smaller radius planet could have a greater mass than earth and have similar gravity.

The moral of the story: Don't nitpick, unless 1. You're correct, and 2. It adds something to the conversation. 3. They need correcting. None of these apply, and your post makes you look like an uneducated dolt, as well as a jerk.

You should apply the same rules to yourself. You admitted that mass is a function of density, and gravity is a function of mass. Therefore gravity is a function of density, Q.E.D. More to the point, for a small planet to have high gravity, it has to have higher mass in a smaller space, therefore density is the key factor we're looking at here.

Edit: By the way, I said that a small planet made out of the heavier elements was unlikely, and it is, so bearing with me was very much necessary. Someone who knows as much about the universe as you claim to would know that black holes are not planets but rather what is left of a supermassive star after it goes supernova, that gas giants are not small in comparison to other planets (stars, maybe, solar systems, nebulae, and galaxies certainly, but not planets.) and also that the heavier elements (like gold and lead) are rarer because they are only formed /by/ a supernova. A planet made entirely out of lead, gold, uranium and so on would be incredibly improbable.

 

[Loonyyy]

[quote="Owyn_Merrilin" post="18.316837.12899369
You should apply the same rules to yourself. You admitted that mass is a function of density, and gravity is a function of mass. Therefore gravity is a function of density, Q.E.D. .[/quote]
Obviously. But it isn't "Also" a function of density. Density is inherent in the calculation. You could resolve the density part to a density calculation of Mass over volume multiplied by the volume, cancelling the terms, and put that in the equation. It would be a pointless endeavour, but you could. My point is, your correction wasn't a correction, it was a pointless nitpick. Nothing you have said is of any merit, as it is either 1. Incredibly obvious, or 2. Not really relevant. On a similar note, we could measure a real planet, with variable density, and derive a gravity function to describe gravity at all points on the sphere, using an R-theta coordinate system, or one defining the circumference and the position at all points, which would accurately describe the gravity of a real planet, with variable density. Of course, this is useful for some things, but rather irrelevant to the discussion of the silliness of writing about a planet which is capable of supporting human life, which is made up largely of toxic heavy metals and radioactive isotopes, which are inimical to life as we know it. Of course you are right, a small planet with suitable gravity could exist. But merely breathing the atmosphere of such a planet, being filled with particles toxic to Earth life, would kill you over an extended stay. You'd be better off taking Mercury shots than living there long term.
Now, do you want to drop this, or shall we derive an equation? Because that really seems like a waste of time. Or we could try to find the optimal non-toxic element capable of making a planet perfectly fitting the criterion specified, then calculate the probability of it existing, and being anywhere near earth, and come to the conclusion that the whole thing is unlikely.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

You should apply the same rules to yourself. You admitted that mass is a function of density, and gravity is a function of mass. Therefore gravity is a function of density, Q.E.D. .

Obviously. But it isn't "Also" a function of density. Density is inherent in the calculation. You could resolve the density part to a density calculation of Mass over volume multiplied by the volume, cancelling the terms, and put that in the equation. It would be a pointless endeavour, but you could. My point is, your correction wasn't a correction, it was a pointless nitpick. Nothing you have said is of any merit, as it is either 1. Incredibly obvious, or 2. Not really relevant. On a similar note, we could measure a real planet, with variable density, and derive a gravity function to describe gravity at all points on the sphere, using an R-theta coordinate system, or one defining the circumference and the position at all points, which would accurately describe the gravity of a real planet, with variable density. Of course, this is useful for some things, but rather irrelevant to the discussion of the silliness of writing about a planet which is capable of supporting human life, which is made up largely of toxic heavy metals and radioactive isotopes, which are inimical to life as we know it. Of course you are right, a small planet with suitable gravity could exist. But merely breathing the atmosphere of such a planet, being filled with particles toxic to Earth life, would kill you over an extended stay. You'd be better off taking Mercury shots than living there long term.
Now, do you want to drop this, or shall we derive an equation? Because that really seems like a waste of time. Or we could try to find the optimal non-toxic element capable of making a planet perfectly fitting the criterion specified, then calculate the probability of it existing, and being anywhere near earth, and come to the conclusion that the whole thing is unlikely.

Okay, here's where you messed up. I wasn't correcting your math. I was adding to your layman's explanation -- the only factor you mentioned was a planet's radius, which you used to imply that a smaller planet could never have gravity as high as a larger one.


By the way, I fixed your quote. For someone who claims to be smarter than me, you sure did a good job of royally borking it. I'll give you that you have a better mathematical understanding of the physics that I do. But you're really being an asshole about it, and not showing intelligence so much as a smug sense of superiority over your knowledge of undergraduate level physics.

 

[Saulkar]

Man, I read the title as "Science marches on and my Intelli-jeans is insulted".

That sounds like one pair of intelligent jeans.

Yeah, no kidding. I leave them one place and they get up and hide somewhere else! XD

 

[Saulkar]

i read watched an old sci-fi mocumentary made in the 40s, talking chronocling the fictional first moon landing in the year 3046... hm...

actually this raises a question in my mind, when it comes to future sci-fi stories, is it better to set them too near in the future or too far? ghost in the shell was a world in which cybernetics technology had already spread all over the world, but it was set in the year 2030. it might have sounded right when it written in the 80's, but now it's pretty clear that it's gonna take a bit longer than 2030. and evangelion was set in the year 2015 after a cataclysm wiped out half of man kind in 2000. now people who watch it beyond the year 2000 might be abit taken out of the experience.

but on the other hand, like that mocumentary i mentioned, a story loses a big chunk of intrigue when it talks about "the year 5163! a time of cars running on air! and colour tv! and magical devices that let you talk to eachother from anywhere on the planet!"

which do you think is better escapids?

Personally I think the best thing is to look back and try to figure out how quickly technology has influenced and taken to evolve in the past and then look at present trends and try to figure out how they will influence the growth and development of technology in the future. Now I am no historian and I will admit that this is a pretty poor analogy but it is the only one I have at the moment.

Imagine the growth of technology as a line.(A graph dummy :3 )

Take the period just before to after Renaissance, it was a massive boost in technology, knowledge, and art beyond what anybody previously thought possible thus a massive curve up in the line but the rapid growth in knowledge which lasted like (I am guessing here do not bite my head off) 250 to 300 years and remained at a pretty steady pace. While there were dips and rises the line remained relatively straight as technology and knowledge advanced at a fairly consistent rate then come the late 1800s or so and technology took another curve upward that kept curving upward till about 2000. Technology over the past ten years has remained at a pretty consistent pace in advancement since then so I guess you could say we are in for about a hundred years of a steady pace of technological development and thus nothing too shocking or hard to envision. That plus looking at the present for clues. You could say anything you can imagine within reason could be possible within a hundred years.

You could also look a hundred years back and see what they thought would happen in a hundred years that did not happen to give you a vague idea of things that are still more than a hundred years beyond us.
Example: 1910 Prediction-Giant space stations in the year 2000
Reality: A stagnating space program and thus no massive cities on mars in the next hundred years but maybe the moon.

Anything that at the current time seems to be well out of our true understanding or far to impracticable should be put more than a hundred years in the future at which point it is the author's own job to made a researched an educated guess as to how far into the future to put it.

Now that I am done with thy wall'O'text, I do believe on a second read through that it does not make much sense, oh well. You should get the general idea.

To sum up my point, whenever you get a time where culture and technology advance at a relatively steady pace with no real surges in the past you get a general idea of when to place your story in the future with more contemporary stories taking place with a reasonable guesstimate of the length of one of these steady paces and for anything more whimsical, it is the job of the author to decide when to place their story after said contemporary straight line .

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

What?
Jupiter is NOT a brown dwarf. Not even close.

The reclassification is not "pending", it is an idea in the minds of a few (very few) astronomers who are more obsessed with that planet than I am. It is big, damn big, and heavy, and energetic, but not a failed star or anything close.

The qualifications for calling something a planet seem to be changing on a daily basis. Planet now dwarf Pluto and asteroid now dwarf Ceres are two good examples. Astronomers are obsessed with planets, its their job.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

I'm saying the white blood cells in the person receiving the blood transfusion can not recognise the red blood cells from the blood transfusion. I have a major in immunology, I'm not an idiot.

blood transfusion failure because of blood type mismatching is not caused by an immune response. there are antigens on the red blood cells that bind with an antibody that is always present, and not produced as part of an immune response, and causes the blood to clot, leading to the blood rejection.

As soon as something foreign enters your bloodstream, the immune system sends off its best and brightest to determine if its a threat or not. If something is tagged with an antibody, then the immune system will attack it. Different blood groups have different antigens. If the antibody doesn't match the antigen then there will be an immune response.

 

[khiliani]

As soon as something foreign enters your bloodstream, the immune system sends off its best and brightest to determine if its a threat or not. If something is tagged with an antibody, then the immune system will attack it. Different blood groups have different antigens. If the antibody doesn't match the antigen then there will be an immune response.

To determine if something is a threat or not, the foreign material needs to set of one of the danger signal receptors, such as the toll-like receptors, or the nod-like receptors. These receptors are all triggered by things present on viral, bacterial or fungal cells, but not on human cells. There is nothing on a red blood cell that would set off an immune response.

The antibodies in the sera that bind to blood are IgM. IgM is a shit opsonin, that is it is not very good at flagging foreign material to the rest of the immune system. What IgM is good at is haemagglutination, and causing the blood to clot, thus leading to the observed pathology.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

To determine if something is a threat or not, the foreign material needs to set of one of the danger signal receptors, such as the toll-like receptors, or the nod-like receptors. These receptors are all triggered by things present on viral, bacterial or fungal cells, but not on human cells. There is nothing on a red blood cell that would set off an immune response.

The antibodies in the sera that bind to blood are IgM. IgM is a shit opsonin, that is it is not very good at flagging foreign material to the rest of the immune system. What IgM is good at is haemagglutination, and causing the blood to clot, thus leading to the observed pathology.

Yeah, but it doesn't explain some of the (sometimes) violent reactions people have had when they have had the wrong blood given to them.

 

[khiliani]

Yeah, but it doesn't explain some of the (sometimes) violent reactions people have had when they have had the wrong blood given to them.

and neither does opsonisation and destruction of red blood cells by neutrophils.

 

[Brandon237]

What?
Jupiter is NOT a brown dwarf. Not even close.

The reclassification is not "pending", it is an idea in the minds of a few (very few) astronomers who are more obsessed with that planet than I am. It is big, damn big, and heavy, and energetic, but not a failed star or anything close.

The qualifications for calling something a planet seem to be changing on a daily basis. Planet now dwarf Pluto and asteroid now dwarf Ceres are two good examples. Astronomers are obsessed with planets, its their job.

They would not change that severely. They change, within reason, to get a better set of objective standards to which entities can be compared, and to make a better, clearer system of classification. Jupiter is too far seated in the planet classification, the only things it shares with brown dwarfs are its chemical composition (not exactly a rare one at that) and the fact that it emits more heat than it absorbs. As for the rest, everything we know about its mass, formation and internal reactions say that it is very much a planet. A huge and energetic one yes, but by no means a failed star.

Your argument also lacks in facts that back up your statement, you simply give one piece of hyperbole. Your fact about the dwarf planets was something that was always a dodgy region of classification due to the sizes of those bodies, where as Jupiter is far from being in that situation. It would be at double its size.

Perhaps obsessed was the wrong word... emotionally attached is more accurate, because their aims are NOT academic.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

If ever there was a central hub for buzz-killing and raining on a parade it's TvTropes.

OT: I think there is a difference since we KNOW that a lot of our science fiction is silly today.

 

[imnot]

Some old comic my dad had predicted that by 1987 we would have several functioning Mars colonys where they eat special Mars cabbage.

It was from the 1950s so it proberly is serious.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

They would not change that severely. They change, within reason, to get a better set of objective standards to which entities can be compared, and to make a better, clearer system of classification. Jupiter is too far seated in the planet classification, the only things it shares with brown dwarfs are its chemical composition (not exactly a rare one at that) and the fact that it emits more heat than it absorbs. As for the rest, everything we know about its mass, formation and internal reactions say that it is very much a planet. A huge and energetic one yes, but by no means a failed star.

Your argument also lacks in facts that back up your statement, you simply give one piece of hyperbole. Your fact about the dwarf planets was something that was always a dodgy region of classification due to the sizes of those bodies, where as Jupiter is far from being in that situation. It would be at double its size.

Perhaps obsessed was the wrong word... emotionally attached is more accurate, because their aims are NOT academic.

Here's the thing about humans, we like to think we are special and unique. You wouldn't be able to get much more special or unique than having a failed micro star system within an existing star system.

For the record, I never made the claim Jupiter was an actual Brown Dwarf, I said reclassification pending. It is still a gas giant, for the moment anyway.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

and neither does opsonisation and destruction of red blood cells by neutrophils.

People don't have violent reactions every time the red blood cells get recycled or from the dead blood as a result of injury or a viral/bacterial infection.

 

[khiliani]

People don't have violent reactions every time the red blood cells get recycled or from the dead blood as a result of injury or a viral/bacterial infection.

I dont see you point, are you saying tha immune destruction of blood cells doent normaly cause disease?

also, if a bacteria gets into your blood and starts replicating, that is seriously bad.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

I dont see you point, are you saying tha immune destruction of blood cells doent normaly cause disease?

I'm saying that the wrong blood during a transfusion can send the body in to severe shock.

 

[khiliani]

I dont see you point, are you saying tha immune destruction of blood cells doent normaly cause disease?

I'm saying that the wrong blood during a transfusion can send the body in to severe shock.

yeah, caused by clotting.

 

[Brandon237]

They would not change that severely. They change, within reason, to get a better set of objective standards to which entities can be compared, and to make a better, clearer system of classification. Jupiter is too far seated in the planet classification, the only things it shares with brown dwarfs are its chemical composition (not exactly a rare one at that) and the fact that it emits more heat than it absorbs. As for the rest, everything we know about its mass, formation and internal reactions say that it is very much a planet. A huge and energetic one yes, but by no means a failed star.

Your argument also lacks in facts that back up your statement, you simply give one piece of hyperbole. Your fact about the dwarf planets was something that was always a dodgy region of classification due to the sizes of those bodies, where as Jupiter is far from being in that situation. It would be at double its size.

Perhaps obsessed was the wrong word... emotionally attached is more accurate, because their aims are NOT academic.

Here's the thing about humans, we like to think we are special and unique. You wouldn't be able to get much more special or unique than having a failed micro star system within an existing star system.

For the record, I never made the claim Jupiter was an actual Brown Dwarf, I said reclassification pending. It is still a gas giant, for the moment anyway.

But astronomers have shown this not to be the case... and people ALSO enjoy dashing others hopes... so fact shall prevail.

But the reclassification is not pending, and almost certainly never will be...