most dense object?

Status
Not open for further replies.
RE:naser

This is exactly the opposite of what I said. I explicitly said that storing data is not the same as using an algorithm to generate data.
Click to expand...

Misunderstanding: what I ment was

100 x 10 = 1000

will be strored in memory not as the numbers with some explicit mathematic value, but as a screenprint, a graphic picture. (wouldn'matter if it were a picture of a cat). The thinking department of the brain will at some moment get the picture from the memory and operate on it...To memorise graphically the data would mean that it does not matter if the string is random or ordered.
 
Gravity powered generators, where are they?

Could some one answer this question for me. why dont we have gravity powered generators. and I dont mean hydro power,If I can make a gravity powered generator just by using weighted gears one would think others have tried to or have had the same idea before.
 
Re: Gravity powered generators, where are they?

Originally posted by Guy Trinidad
Could some one answer this question for me. why dont we have gravity powered generators. and I dont mean hydro power,If I can make a gravity powered generator just by using weighted gears one would think others have tried to or have had the same idea before.
Click to expand...
All sorts of machines trade potential energy of weights for other forms of energy. This is not new.

If you're asking "why don't we build perpetual motion machines that can derive free power from gravity," the answer is that they can't exist.

- Warren
 
Warren I appreacite your reply and always enjoy reading your comments, but could I get a second reply on my question about gravity powered generators. because I can see in my mind so clear and I am drawing it up now. it is flooding my mind daily.
 
Originally posted by Guy Trinidad
Warren I appreacite your reply and always enjoy reading your comments, but could I get a second reply on my question about gravity powered generators. because I can see in my mind so clear and I am drawing it up now. it is flooding my mind daily.
Click to expand...
Go for it, man. Draw up your plans, describe your apparatus in good detail, and we'll analyze what it does.

Or better yet, go build one. :)

- Warren
 
Well, in the running...

...the iron (Fe) atom's nucleus is the most tightly packed of all elements on the Periodic Table.

...then there's the Bose-Einstein Condensate, a substance manufactured at just above 0 Kelvin (absolute zero).

...neutronstars, quarkstars, blackholes and glue-balls!
 
I love gravity machines. Thats why I'm obsessed with Trebuchet catapults. I'm sure there must be a way of levering an object to 11.2 km per second but I don't have the cold hard cash to go and build those kind of monstrous money pits. Some Lord in England spent around seventy thousand pounds building a reproduction Treb which actually worked. Spends his days hurling dead horses and cars around his property. Eccentric? Maybe a little. Isn't that the rich term for insane. Anyway, models are great fun. Go to it. Post us a picture of it when you are done.
 
This 'argument' among brains, memory, storage space, and density is becoming more heated and less of a disagreement. Why not leave ignorance to its own (I'm not taking sides or speaking of one general side) and one's personal beliefs to their own instead of doing what I'm doing and trying to make the other, who will probably hold onto their opinions for the sole purpose of pride, believe your side? (Ironic how one can find hypocrisy in the most subtle areas) Let us respect the other's opinions whether we agree or not; there is no reason to use harsh, personal statements that explain nothing and only cause a rise in this metaphoric temperature.

Now, whoever brought up the statement about atoms---that's pretty interesting, something I never knew.

Personally I believe either a black hole or neutron star are the densest (at least known) objects.

As for earthly objects, this is strange. One can use various devices to increase the density (or more so compact the object itself) of an object... thus I'm not exactly sure on this one--nor am I on the black holes/neutron stars. They're just my two cents.

Edit: Random moment: What's this? Free sheet music? Sometimes ads can be useful...
 
Prince_James said:
Quark matter is not denser than a black hole.
Click to expand...
Well, since the singularity that comprises a black hole is concieved of as a point, the concept of density - mass per unit volume - is meaningless. No one speaks of the "density" of a black hole.
 
If the volume of a black hole is zero, then a black hole with a mass of 1 kg has the same density as a black hole with a mass of 10E100 kg.
 
valich said:
This is a no-brainer. The densest object in the world is definitely my wife!
Click to expand...
She is only the second densest. Unless unable to snoop in your posts here. (First place goes to you for posting that.) :D
 
francois said:
If the volume of a black hole is zero, then a black hole with a mass of 1 kg has the same density as a black hole with a mass of 10E100 kg.
Click to expand...
Yes. Infinite. Which is just one of the absurdities you encounter at a singularity. Generally why they say that the "theory breaks down" given a singularity. Is it really a truly dimensionless point? Who knows. The theory breaks down. Nevertheless, there is no measure of the density of a black hole. Meaningless.

And yes, osmium is the densest naturally occurring element.
 
Guy Trinidad said:
Warren I appreacite your reply and always enjoy reading your comments, but could I get a second reply on my question about gravity powered generators. because I can see in my mind so clear and I am drawing it up now. it is flooding my mind daily.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately this thing that you can "see in your mind" is based on a bad model. For thousands of years, humans were sure they understood how things worked. If you threw things up, they came back down, heavy things fell faster (false), etc. It turns out the human brain is very bad at making an ACCURATE model of even simple Newtonian physics. It took all the way until Newton for someone to formalize and lay out the rules as they ACTUALLY were (which in a lot of cases was counter what people FELT the universe acted like). In your head you may feel as though this machine can do what you say, but Newton's laws (and subsequently, relativity as well) predicts that it CANNOT. What you're talking about is free energy. It doesn't exist. Entropy is a constant, we cannot create new energy, and even the energy we have will become less and less useful as the universe approaches heat death.

Gravity is simply force. Its useful for storing energy, as gravitational potentially energy, but you cannot get energy from nothing. Sorry.

-AntonK
 
ProCop said:
The densest material that anyone will ever imagine is a contracted universe one second before the Big Bang.
Click to expand...

If matter is energy , and energy is matter .... then you probably have a point .... closely followed by a black hole ....

And by the way - does anyone one know, what the matter/energy ratio is in a black hole ????

After all it seems that massive amounts of energy can be compressed into a singularity .....

:p :m:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top