Recent content by Jota

But, does that amount of time apply only to the stars, OR, is that the amount of time it would take any given matter to decay. For instance, if hypothetically a rock were placed in some unimaginably safe place, prevented from the process of erosion, prevented from being consumed by supernovas...

Thanks! I appreciate your reply; I just have two more amateur-ish questions: Well, although I'm quite the grown-up, with the excessive joint-popping arthritis to prove it... could you give a basic rundown of how that would work, and explain it as if you were talking to an 8th grader. :) Also...

I suppose I should start out by confessing that I'm hopelessly ingorant on the subject of physics, so please, be gentle. :) My question is about the eventual decay of matter into...well, random subatomic particles, or iron...I can't recall what the theorie/s state precisely. But apparently...

So, Janus, you are saying that the craft I described would work?

So would that mean that, theoretically, assuming enough resources to make the craft, what I described indeed WOULD be able to reach nearly the speed of light?

"vaporization" gun I got my information on speeds of sound through various materials from this page: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/soundv.html#c1 Material v (m/s) Diamond 12000 Pyrex glass 5640 Iron 5130 Aluminum 5100 Brass 4700 Copper 3560 Gold 3240...

Idea for a high speed "craft"...would this work? Note: since I am not a physicist, I can't be certain how foolish I might sound if the following hypothetical device would not be physically possible (or economically useful, for that matter), but I'm a curious sort of fellow, so I'd appreciate...

Energy requirements for a relativity "launcher" I read about an interesting concept for space travel in the book "the Millennial Project: colonizing the galaxy in eight easy steps". Unfortunately, I forgot what exactly the author called it, and so have dubbed it a "relativity launcher". It was...

relative I did mean relative to someone on earth, but come to think of it, perhaps that wasn't the best reference point. Earth also moves (around the sun, and with the rotation of the galaxy), which might add more complicated calculations for ITS speed as well as the spaceship's. Since I'm not...

Imagine a highly advanced spaceship that can go at 99.99 percent the speed of light. Assume that it takes a year to accelerate to get to that speed, and another year to slow back down. It has a crew that, on the voyages between stars, enjoys playing various games as the ship's computer takes...

This question may sound ignorant. When it comes to physics, I guess you could say I'm physically challenged. Still, I would appreciate any and all help given. Assume a future, highly advanced human civilization built a spaceship at the edge of the galaxy. The ship slowly started accelerating...

So that would mean a given volume of material could have much more or much less mass than the same volume of another material. For example, one cubic foot of frozen helium, would have much less mass than a cubic foot of lead. Correct?

Sorry, I feel so foolish everytime I post. I am a dunce at hard science. I wish I could make sense of that equation, but I'm terrible at math. But, I suppose what I'm trying to ask is: Does Mercury, at approximately the same volume of some gas giant's moons, have so much more density because...

But, planets with greater density do have greater gravity, don't they? As I pointed out, Mercury has about the same diameter as some moons of saturn and Jupiter. They all have about the same amount of matter. However, it also has far greater gravity, because the moons are composed largely of...

Please forgive me for how odd this question may sound. I just couldn't write it to make any more sense, and I do apologize for that. Mass, by what I know, doesn't seem to produce the amount of gravity that it should. Take the example of Jupiter: it has a mass approximately 300 times that of...