Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Macros

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Macros

 
 
Paul J Gans
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-23-2013
In rec.photo.digital Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Homogenous hollow sphere (as the only object). Whereever
>you are inside, the pull is identical in each direction.
>Therefore a Dyson sphere is inherently stable, but a ringworld
>would be unstable and needs active stabilization against the
>tiniest movements.


A Dyson sphere, or more properly a Dyson shell, is also
inherently unstable just as Ringworld is. See wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere#Dyson_shell

--
--- Paul J. Gans
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-24-2013
PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 5/22/2013 6:24 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> J. Clarke <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, ozcvgtt02


>>>> But still, I'd like a configuration where gravity sources
>>>> (carefully placed by you) do *not* influence parallel light
>>>> rays to become non-parallel.


>>> Wolfgang, I really do not understand why you are harping on this ad-
>>> nauseum. If you think it has some real relevance to the issue of
>>> starlight being treated as parallel rays then do explain the relevance.


>> Naah, it has no real relevance.


>> Except when "you want to get theoretical" (PeterN's words),
>> in that case the rays don't stay perfectly parallel except for
>> a very few configurations (e.g. inside a perfect and hollow
>> sphere). I had hoped PeterN would think about it or look it up
>> (and maybe present such a configuration) and thereby understand
>> that his claim of
>> | If you want to get theoretical, the gravitational influence of randomly
>> | distributed objects might very well equalize each other. Therefore the
>> | rays would remain parallel.
>> (PeterN in Message-ID:
>> <51771a0b$0$10833$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>)
>> was wrong.


>> Thinking about it: he probably knows it by now, he just
>> *can't* admit that he was not completely right --- strictly
>> theoretically, that is.
>> You're right, I should let PeterN from the hook, he's digging
>> so fast that one can't see very much any more from all dirt
>> he's throwing up.


> You simply refuse to understand what "random" means.


Most people can't understand meanings that you make up for
words and don't bother to explain.

Speaking of that: does *your* "might very well equalize each
other" perhaps be the same as most people's "it hasn't the
chance of a snowflake in hell to equalize each other"?

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-24-2013
Paul J Gans <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>Homogenous hollow sphere (as the only object). Whereever
>>you are inside, the pull is identical in each direction.
>>Therefore a Dyson sphere is inherently stable, but a ringworld
>>would be unstable and needs active stabilization against the
>>tiniest movements.


> A Dyson sphere, or more properly a Dyson shell, is also
> inherently unstable just as Ringworld is. See wiki


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere#Dyson_shell


I gladly admit that 'inherently stable' might be the wrong word,
but please explain what happens in Dyson sphere, where the sun
is off center (and sphere and sun initially not moving against
each other) and contrast that to what happens to a ringworld
under the same conditions.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul J Gans
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-24-2013
In rec.photo.digital Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Paul J Gans <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> In rec.photo.digital Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>>Homogenous hollow sphere (as the only object). Whereever
>>>you are inside, the pull is identical in each direction.
>>>Therefore a Dyson sphere is inherently stable, but a ringworld
>>>would be unstable and needs active stabilization against the
>>>tiniest movements.


>> A Dyson sphere, or more properly a Dyson shell, is also
>> inherently unstable just as Ringworld is. See wiki


>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere#Dyson_shell


>I gladly admit that 'inherently stable' might be the wrong word,
>but please explain what happens in Dyson sphere, where the sun
>is off center (and sphere and sun initially not moving against
>each other) and contrast that to what happens to a ringworld
>under the same conditions.


Same thing. The sphere is just a three dimensional version.

The attraction of the sun does not provide a restoring force
to center either one. When off center there is more sphere
further away than there is sphere nearer the sun. So the
net attraction works out to be zero.

Don't take my word for it. Check Google or Wiki.

--
--- Paul J. Gans
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2013
Paul J Gans <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>Paul J Gans <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> In rec.photo.digital Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>>>Homogenous hollow sphere (as the only object). Whereever
>>>>you are inside, the pull is identical in each direction.
>>>>Therefore a Dyson sphere is inherently stable, but a ringworld
>>>>would be unstable and needs active stabilization against the
>>>>tiniest movements.


>>> A Dyson sphere, or more properly a Dyson shell, is also
>>> inherently unstable just as Ringworld is. See wiki


>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere#Dyson_shell


>>I gladly admit that 'inherently stable' might be the wrong word,
>>but please explain what happens in Dyson sphere, where the sun
>>is off center (and sphere and sun initially not moving against
>>each other) and contrast that to what happens to a ringworld
>>under the same conditions.


> Same thing. The sphere is just a three dimensional version.


Interesting claim. Gravitation only works in 2 dimensions?


> The attraction of the sun does not provide a restoring force
> to center either one.


True.

> When off center there is more sphere
> further away than there is sphere nearer the sun. So the
> net attraction works out to be zero.


For the sphere, yes. Any angle you can find that fills some
part of the closer half will always be filled on the further
half, too.

For the ringworld, no.
Thought experiment: You move one side of the ring world 1/10th
the distance to the sun the other side has. Say the ringworld
is 1000km from upper to lower rim. Pick a square, from the
upper to the lower rim, and also 1000 km wide. From the corners
of the square draw straight lines through the middle of the sun.

Where they meet the far further ring half on the other side:
what happens? Each km is now 10 km, so we have 10,000 km
along the ring ... no problem, there's the ring to fill it.
But the 1000 km height is also 10,000 km high now ... and the
ring can only fill 1000 km, as IT IS ONLY 1000 km from rim
to rim! A sphere fills it all (for any shape, actually and
for any direction), that's why it's stable.

Therefore the ringworld the closer side will accellerate towards
the sun as soon as it's ever so slightly off center. That's why
I called it unstable. The sphere will not, as you agreed.

> Don't take my word for it. Check Google or Wiki.


Please do.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
macros-loop? calling macros X times? Andrew Arro C Programming 2 07-24-2004 09:52 AM
Explanation of macros; Haskell macros mike420@ziplip.com Python 80 11-07-2003 02:22 AM
Re: Explanation of macros; Haskell macros Michael T. Babcock Python 0 11-03-2003 01:54 PM
Re: Explanation of macros; Haskell macros mike420@ziplip.com Python 5 11-01-2003 01:09 AM
Re: Explanation of macros; Haskell macros mike420@ziplip.com Python 1 10-07-2003 04:07 PM



Advertisments