BSG--The physics of the Adama Maneuver ("Exodus, pt 2" spoilers)
Ken from Chicago
been the fiery corona around big G like the space shuttle or a rocket coming
in from orbit at Mach 25 experiencing atmospheric friction since the big G
didn't have enough time to reach such speed.
Consider:
For a jet flying at Mach 5, its outer skin can reach temperature 1,000-2,000
degrees Farenheit. If the Galactica jumped in at a speed relative to New
Caprica at Mach 5, that would explain why it would heat up. Review the video
clip and initially, the Galactica is NOT surrounded by fire.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j0cAi8z3t9Q
In the above video, the flash from jumping in occurs about 23 second into th
video. Between that until when Helo gives their altitude at "99,000 falling
like a rock", the bottom of the Galactica really heats up. The vipers launch
and it jumps out at about 1 minute 3 seconds into the video. That's about
right for an object in freefall for roughly 35-40 seconds from Mach 5 and
allowing for some atmospheric bracking and drag from the Galactica's
flattened shap.
The timing works better if some of the video clips had a slight overlap from
one cut to another instead of straight time.
-- Ken from Chicago
First-2-Die
"Ken from Chicago" wrote in message
> The timing works better if some of the video clips had a slight overlap
> from one cut to another instead of straight time.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
>
>
>
Remind me to never get into an argument with you folks about something that
is real. ;-)
Red Shirt
Ken from Chicago
" First-2-Die" <YeahRi...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:A5v%g.14544$Y24....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Usenet posters or science fiction fans?
-- Ken from Chicago
First-2-Die
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6bKdnQbqQPTZHqPY...@comcast.com...
I dunno - I'm sorry. I've been following the debate over the atmospeherics
of the last BG episode and I just cannot help chuckling a little and
thinking of the scene from "Galaxy Quest" when the kid is pestering Tim
Allen's Taggart character to help settle a bet over some esoteric feature of
that's show's starship.
Taggart: "... there is no GD [widget]... because there is no GD ship!"
Red Shirt
christopherbasken
Okay, I'm buying it.
I guess I misheard Helo, I initially thought he said 39,000. Big difference.
Citroen
The main difference is would be that Galaxy Quest and Star Trek mostly
used made up physics and we are trying to see if 3-3 followed real,
known physics. Obviously the staff put an effort in but they don't
have the right back ground so it is interesting to see how close they
came.
-Citroen
Ken from Chicago
"Citroen" <informa...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1161737514....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
My own peculiar defining difference between "science fiction" and "fantasy"
has been on EMPHASIS.
Science fiction and fantasy both tell stories with a "wow" factor that can
bend or break the rules of science as we understand them, however science
fiction has a greater emphasis and a greater appeal on HOW, on the PROCESS,
while fantasy had greater emphasis and greater appeal on the WHY, on the
MEANING.
Thus for science fiction fans, a lot of enjoyment is not just on the
fiction, but on HOW stuff works, what many in the mainstream would consider
the setting or the background. The mainstream might not care so much on HOW
the Galactica could heat up in the 30-40 seconds from jumping in and jumping
out of the atmosphere, but for science fiction fans, that puzzle-solving
aspect is part of the appeal.
Conversely for fantasy fans, they would be more caught up in the WHY certain
events occurred and the meaning or symbolism behind it, why Hera, an oracle,
D'ana finding Hera, Baltar fading into the white, or the deus ex galactica
rescue of the humans. The Galactica literally appears out of the blue, from
the heavens to save humanity with vipers being launched out of the fire.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Meanwhile action fans might be more focused on the fight sequences,
space combat, space fighter scenes, hand-to-hand, ground firefights, etc.
First-2-Die
I guess I would fall more into the WHAT category. It's enough for me that
they show me WHAT things might look like in different societies; either ours
in the future or alien ones of any period. I don't get hung up on the
details but I certainly fall into the category of enjoying the fiction to be
detailed, layered and textured enough to make it believable - but only to a
point. TOS Trek tossed in enough texture (in its day)to sell you on the
story, where TNG oversold it with far too much treknobabble that reduced the
story to - well - like an argument between nerds at a Trek Con. Not my cup
of tea.
If I never hear the $#%#^# phrase "tachyon emission" again in my life - it
will be too soon.
Pet peeve and semi-vent/rant alert. I'll compensate with a Level One
diagnostics - gag, cough
:-)D
I really like it that Galactica shows us WHAT things are like in the
universe of the Colonials without getting too hung up on trying to justify
it or spread it on so thick the story collpases under the weight of it. In
fact, I cannot think of much if any scenes or dialogues where they belabor
the point on a proposed stratagem
in regards to the limits of their technology. Much like professionals in any
industry do not stop to give each other a refresher on quantum physics at
every turn - as was normally the case on TNG.
Red Shirt
Ken from Chicago
>
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Gq2dndrfrMuqTaPY...@comcast.com...
<snip>
That's the mainstream approach, to focus on the fiction, on the story, what
is the plot, what characters are in it, what are their doing, what themes
are there. Fans of the fiction or the drama want a good story and the
backdrop and the settings are only as interesting so far they advance the
story. Too of that and they get distracted from the story and ticked off at
the show.
Of course, in good science fiction, the rules of science may be bent but the
rules of fiction never are. You still need characters to act plausibly,
plots to progress logically, and themes to emerge coherently. Break that and
no matter how well you "world-build", create the background and the context,
you're gonna turn off a large percentage of your audience.
-- Ken from Chicago
christopherbasken
> If I never hear the $#%#^# phrase "tachyon emission" again in my life
> - it will be too soon.
> Pet peeve and semi-vent/rant alert. I'll compensate with a Level One
> diagnostics - gag, cough
Most HOW people were fed up with technobabble a long time ago.
Technobabble was never part of the HOW aspect of Trek. It was just
another special effect -- a verbal one, in this case. Most HOW people
understand physics and know full well how full of crap Trek was
(especially as it progressed).
Trek was much closer to fantasy than science fiction. It treated
technology like magic and even used "hocus pocus" words.
Ken from Chicago
<Christopher Basken> wrote in message
news:2006102506...@news.giganews.com...
I still remember a TNG special hosted by Frakes where he pointed out stories
were submitted to a special guy who added technobabble to the stories--and
Frakes was PROUD of it. I was stunned thinking if you can tell the story
without the technobabble, leave it the frell out.
-- Ken from Chicago
Marcovaldo
Another thing to consider is the size of Galactica. It is orders of
magnitude larger than a rocket or space shuttle. Such a large mass would act
as a huge heat sink and would not heat up nearly as fast as the smaller
objects.
George W Harris
<Marco...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
:
:Another thing to consider is the size of Galactica. It is orders of
:magnitude larger than a rocket or space shuttle. Such a large mass would act
:as a huge heat sink and would not heat up nearly as fast as the smaller
:objects.
What determines how much heat it picks up is the
surface area. The heat is distributed over the surface area.
Unless you're talking micrometeors, size doesn't matter.
--
/bud...@nirvana.net/h:k
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Ken from Chicago
"Marcovaldo" <Marco...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:cTM%g.351518$QM6....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Considering big G normally operates in deep space, wouldn't it be designed
radiate heat with a series of microfins, etc., which would otherwise build
up on nuclear / fusion / tyllium-powered ship.
-- Ken from Chicago
PV
>Another thing to consider is the size of Galactica. It is orders of
>magnitude larger than a rocket or space shuttle. Such a large mass would act
>as a huge heat sink and would not heat up nearly as fast as the smaller
>objects.
I'm not so sure about that. It was descending flat side first - that's a
giant amount of air to push around and get heated up. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
First-2-Die
>> universe of the Colonials without getting too hung up on trying to
>> justify it or spread it on so thick the story collpases under the weight
>> of it. In fact, I cannot think of much if any scenes or dialogues where
>> they belabor the point on a proposed stratagem
>> in regards to the limits of their technology. Much like professionals in
>> any industry do not stop to give each other a refresher on quantum
>> physics at every turn - as was normally the case on TNG.
>>
>> Red Shirt
>
> That's the mainstream approach, to focus on the fiction, on the story,
> what is the plot, what characters are in it, what are their doing, what
> themes are there. Fans of the fiction or the drama want a good story and
> the backdrop and the settings are only as interesting so far they advance
> the story. Too of that and they get distracted from the story and ticked
> off at the show.
>
> Of course, in good science fiction, the rules of science may be bent but
> the rules of fiction never are. You still need characters to act
> plausibly, plots to progress logically, and themes to emerge coherently.
> Break that and no matter how well you "world-build", create the background
> and the context, you're gonna turn off a large percentage of your
> audience.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
>
Very well put - I agree wholeheartedly.
Red Shirt
Inlaw Biker
This is a friendly reminder that the "Fi" in "Sci-Fi" stands for
"Fiction."
Greg.
christopherbasken
Do fantasy literature fans feel threatened when RPG/D&D nuts talk about
Lord of the Rings in game-mechanics terms? I wonder why so many people
can't handle that some science fiction fans enjoy debating the
science...
stoc...@earthlink.net
Christopher wrote:
> "Inlaw Biker" said:
> >
> > This is a friendly reminder that the "Fi" in "Sci-Fi" stands for
> > "Fiction."
>
> Do fantasy literature fans feel threatened when RPG/D&D nuts talk about
> Lord of the Rings in game-mechanics terms? I wonder why so many people
> can't handle that some science fiction fans enjoy debating the
> science...
There really isn't enough information to debate on. The altitude was
99,000, but what are the units? I don't recall them saying. Also
there's no reason that we know of that would prevent Galactica from
exiting the jump with an existing relative velocity. We also can't
depend on the relative timing of the different scenes when they cut
back and forth from Galactica. Maybe some of them occurred
simultaneously, maybe some didn't.
christopherbasken
I would guess 99,000 feet. What other units would make sense? I
suppose 99,000 meters would work. That would put them at about 62
miles up, which you'd still probably see from the ground.
I don't think they use SPACE units in the new show.
IsaacKuo
Marcovaldo wrote:
> Another thing to consider is the size of Galactica. It is orders of
> magnitude larger than a rocket or space shuttle. Such a large mass
> would act as a huge heat sink and would not heat up nearly as fast
> as the smaller objects.
That's irrelevant. It's the hot air which is glowing, not the
Galactica's
cooler hull. The amount by which the air heats up is largely
determined
by how fast the Galactica's going. The fact that Galactica is very
massive actually helps because that means it isn't slowed down
much by air resistance.
Isaac Kuo
Adam Russell
"IsaacKuo" <mec...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161813894....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
The Galactica's ability to act as a sink would be dependent on it's ability
to *transfer* heat, which would be low I think. It's not like a hunk of
iron.
Ken from Chicago
<Christopher Basken> wrote in message
Same as when sf fans grouse that action fans obsess about martial arts
moves, firearms and ammo calibur, or animators dissect the cgi.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
<stoc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1161809700.7...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It works if 99,000 feet if big G jumped in at Mach 5, but at 99,000 meters /
yards, big G could jump in at Mach 10. The greater the initial velocity, the
greater the air friction. Height's important because video clips have big G
jumping in and out in 40 seconds. It's 15 seconds after jumping in that Helo
calls out "99,000 falling like a rock".
If it's 99,000 meters, it's a nice mark since at 100,000 meters even is the
official height on Earth where "outer space" begins.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
<Christopher Basken> wrote in message
On Earth, the official boundary to "outer space" is 100 km or 100,000 meters
up. It was to this altitude a few months back that SpaceShipOne flew up
twice within two weeks to win the Ansari X-Prize.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Adam Russell" <adamr...@sbcglobal.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:4qa6ipF...@individual.net...
15 seconds after jumping in, Helo declares "99,000 and falling like a rock"
and it jumped out about 25 seconds later.
If it were 99,000 feet, then the Galactica could have jumped in at Mach 5
fell like a rock and jumped out in about that time. In Earth's atmosphere, a
hypersonic jet travelling at Mach 5 heats up the air over 1,000 degrees
Farenheit.
If it were 99,000 meters, then Galactica could have jumped in at Mach 10,
fell like a rock and jumped out in time and heated the air to over 3,000
degrees Farenheit.
-- Ken from Chicago
Brad Templeton
More to the point, Galactica would want to have velocity, or if it
couldn't, it would use its fairly powerful engines to get velocity
downward and fast.
One presumes the goal was a surprise attack. Jump in deep enough
in the atmosphere to not be shot at by space attackers, high enough
to not be shot by ground forces, then dive, dive, dive to get
the vipers close to the targets, then jump out.
--
Giant Burning Man Panoramas
http://www.templetons.com/brad/burn.html
Matthias Warkus
> stoc...@earthlink.net said:
>> Christopher wrote:
>>> "Inlaw Biker" said:
>>>> This is a friendly reminder that the "Fi" in "Sci-Fi" stands for
>>>> "Fiction."
>>>
>>> Do fantasy literature fans feel threatened when RPG/D&D nuts talk about
>>> Lord of the Rings in game-mechanics terms? I wonder why so many people
>>> can't handle that some science fiction fans enjoy debating the
>>> science...
>>
>> There really isn't enough information to debate on. The altitude was
>> 99,000, but what are the units? I don't recall them saying. Also
>> there's no reason that we know of that would prevent Galactica from
>> exiting the jump with an existing relative velocity. We also can't
>> depend on the relative timing of the different scenes when they cut
>> back and forth from Galactica. Maybe some of them occurred
>> simultaneously, maybe some didn't.
>
> I would guess 99,000 feet. What other units would make sense?
Metric? Why should they be using Imperial units in that far a future?
mawa
Clell Harmon
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:09:28 GMT, "Marcovaldo"
> <Marco...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> :
> :Another thing to consider is the size of Galactica. It is orders of
> :magnitude larger than a rocket or space shuttle. Such a large mass would act
> :as a huge heat sink and would not heat up nearly as fast as the smaller
> :objects.
>
> What determines how much heat it picks up is the
> surface area. The heat is distributed over the surface area.
> Unless you're talking micrometeors, size doesn't matter.
Women just say that, they don't mean it.
Marcovaldo
news:kp7vj21h089n4vkig...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:09:28 GMT, "Marcovaldo"
> <Marco...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> :
> :Another thing to consider is the size of Galactica. It is orders of
> :magnitude larger than a rocket or space shuttle. Such a large mass would
> act
> :as a huge heat sink and would not heat up nearly as fast as the smaller
> :objects.
>
> What determines how much heat it picks up is the
> surface area. The heat is distributed over the surface area.
> Unless you're talking micrometeors, size doesn't matter.
The mass is also very important, as well as the surface to volume ratio.
christopherbasken
Why did you clip the rest of my post where I suggest they could be
using meters? Although I think you proceed from a bad assumption.
There's nothing inherently superior to the metric system. If the
metric system offered any real advantage, nations wouldn't have to
legislate it into use.
Marcovaldo
news:1161803012.3...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Considering the topic of this thread, let's call it "Science Friction".
Hammer
Since some want to do physics here, maybe you can help with a couple
theoretical questions.
What are they doing with these jumps, are they supposed to be opening
hyper/sub-space windows like other sci-fi or just using a single blast from
jump engines on a straight line?
BSG appeared in the atmosphere exiting a jump if I'm not mistaken, has
anyone theorized what effect that'd possibly have on this topic and for how
long? Could there be some kind of residual energy/force around it for "x"
amount of time?
Adam Russell
<Christopher Basken> wrote in message
I dont think there has been any position made that this is the future
humanity, or that they use either feet or meters.
Matthias Warkus
>>>> there's no reason that we know of that would prevent Galactica from
>>>> exiting the jump with an existing relative velocity. We also can't
>>>> depend on the relative timing of the different scenes when they cut
>>>> back and forth from Galactica. Maybe some of them occurred
>>>> simultaneously, maybe some didn't.
>>>
>>> I would guess 99,000 feet. What other units would make sense?
>>
>> Metric? Why should they be using Imperial units in that far a future?
>
> Why did you clip the rest of my post where I suggest they could be using
> meters? Although I think you proceed from a bad assumption. There's
> nothing inherently superior to the metric system.
Who said there was?
> If the metric system
> offered any real advantage, nations wouldn't have to legislate it into use.
I've got some news for you: *Every* system of measurements has to be
legislated into use.
mawa
Victor Velazquez
news:g%T%g.209454$FQ1.98930@attbi_s71...
Same goes for men (re: chest, waist, hips, what-have-you). :-)
Victor Velazquez
Their society seems to have been influenced by the Greeks (those guys got
*everywhere*). What measurement did they use that would fit in this
context? Cubits?
Lizard
>Do fantasy literature fans feel threatened when RPG/D&D nuts talk about
>Lord of the Rings in game-mechanics terms?
The really lame ones do.
The cool ones have already statted up Gandalf in their favorite
systems.
--
Personal Blog:http://www.xanga.com/lizard_sf
Ranty Political Blog:http://www.pontification.com
Ken from Chicago
"Victor Velazquez" <arr...@soap.fan> wrote in message
news:jNednRFiouvOSt3Y...@comcast.com...
Meters, feet, yards. They use clocks with hours, minutes, seconds, days,
weeks, months, years. They have ties, lapels and collars.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Lizard" <liz...@dnai.com> wrote in message
news:2vk1k29nsr7umkuim...@4ax.com...
Gandalf the Gray or Gandalf the White?
-- Ken from Chicago
Aaron Denney
Men don't say it as often, though lipservice is sometimes paid.
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
christopherbasken
> <Christopher Basken> wrote...
They use our time units. I would guess they use our distance units, too.
christopherbasken
> Christopher Basken wrote:
>>>>> there's no reason that we know of that would prevent Galactica from
>>>>> exiting the jump with an existing relative velocity. We also can't
>>>>> depend on the relative timing of the different scenes when they cut
>>>>> back and forth from Galactica. Maybe some of them occurred
>>>>> simultaneously, maybe some didn't.
>>>>
>>>> I would guess 99,000 feet. What other units would make sense?
>>>
>>> Metric? Why should they be using Imperial units in that far a future?
>>
>> Why did you clip the rest of my post where I suggest they could be
>> using meters? Although I think you proceed from a bad assumption.
>> There's nothing inherently superior to the metric system.
>
> Who said there was?
"in that far a future" implies to me that "because they're so advanced,
it's a given they'd be using the metric system." I see no reason to
think this would be the case. The metric system is a good for
*scientists* but not any better for routine day-to-day use than the
Imperial system.
Now, if your argument was that they would be using the metric system
because they're military... that I can get behind.
>> If the metric system offered any real advantage, nations wouldn't have
>> to legislate it into use.
>
> I've got some news for you: *Every* system of measurements has to be
> legislated into use.
Who legislated that computers use bits and bytes?
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>Why did you clip the rest of my post where I suggest they could be
>using meters? Although I think you proceed from a bad assumption.
>There's nothing inherently superior to the metric system. If the
>metric system offered any real advantage, nations wouldn't have to
>legislate it into use.
I disagree. Canada has laws regarding weights and measures. I
expect many other countries do as well.
What is important is the agreement. If there were no standard
for what a pound (or any other measurement) is, that would cause
trouble. Enforcing something is often a quick and workable way of
establishing the agreement.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Gene Wirchenko
>"Lizard" <liz...@dnai.com> wrote in message
>news:2vk1k29nsr7umkuim...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:59:18 -0400, Christopher Basken wrotC:DRIVE_E
>>
>>>Do fantasy literature fans feel threatened when RPG/D&D nuts talk about
>>>Lord of the Rings in game-mechanics terms?
>>
>> The really lame ones do.
>>
>> The cool ones have already statted up Gandalf in their favorite
>> systems.
>Gandalf the Gray or Gandalf the White?
And Gandalf the Grey, too.
HereoClix has rookie, experienced, and veteran levels for most
figures.: same character, different stats.
smi...@gmail.com
> Who legislated that computers use bits and bytes?
I don't think anyone has. How else could hard drive manufacturers be
saying that there are 1000 bytes in a kilobyte, while RAM manufacturers
say that there are 1024?
--Eric Smith
(Not to mention the exciting histories of architectures that don't have
eight bits per byte.)
christopherbasken
> Christopher Basken wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> Why did you clip the rest of my post where I suggest they could be
>> using meters? Although I think you proceed from a bad assumption.
>> There's nothing inherently superior to the metric system. If the
>> metric system offered any real advantage, nations wouldn't have to
>> legislate it into use.
>
> I disagree. Canada has laws regarding weights and measures. I
> expect many other countries do as well.
>
> What is important is the agreement. If there were no standard
> for what a pound (or any other measurement) is, that would cause
> trouble. Enforcing something is often a quick and workable way of
> establishing the agreement.
Right, but today, there's no real disagreement. I know what a kilogram
is. I know what a pound is. I know what a stone is. Now leave me
alone and let me use the units I want. ;)
Joetheone
"Gene Wirchenko" <ge...@ocis.net> wrote in message
news:8912k2lkrtlc2c9pj...@4ax.com...
> Christopher Basken wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Why did you clip the rest of my post where I suggest they could be
> >using meters? Although I think you proceed from a bad assumption.
> >There's nothing inherently superior to the metric system. If the
> >metric system offered any real advantage, nations wouldn't have to
> >legislate it into use.
>
> I disagree. Canada has laws regarding weights and measures. I
> expect many other countries do as well.
>
> What is important is the agreement. If there were no standard
> for what a pound (or any other measurement) is, that would cause
> trouble. Enforcing something is often a quick and workable way of
> establishing the agreement.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
>
or "meter, "gram", "kilogram", etc. To an international standard.
There's been many instances through history of executions, both by
government and by mob, of people giving false measure.
AttyFinch
rehabbing her knee that he was talking in lbs for force required to
work the pedals of a viper.
Seems to me that says they use Lbs, feet etc....
Also Galactica is heavy not just a little but alot, the bulkheads are
raised from the ship and her exterior shielding can handle direct
nuclear blasts. Ya gotta wonder how thick that hull is as well.
Lastly I am assuming there are no aerodynamics associated with
atmospheric flight for a battlestar so the old girl would either nose
over in a hurry or go ass over tea kettle unless they had some kind of
forward velocity. She seems to be a a little more than a mile in length
closer to 1 1/2, nose to tail
Just my two cents.
Finch
Midnighter
<Christopher Basken> wrote in message
> Matthias Warkus said:
>> Christopher Basken wrote:
>>>>>> there's no reason that we know of that would prevent Galactica from
>>>>>> exiting the jump with an existing relative velocity. We also can't
>>>>>> depend on the relative timing of the different scenes when they cut
>>>>>> back and forth from Galactica. Maybe some of them occurred
>>>>>> simultaneously, maybe some didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would guess 99,000 feet. What other units would make sense?
>>>>
>>>> Metric? Why should they be using Imperial units in that far a future?
>>>
>>> Why did you clip the rest of my post where I suggest they could be using
>>> meters? Although I think you proceed from a bad assumption. There's
>>> nothing inherently superior to the metric system.
>>
>> Who said there was?
>
> "in that far a future" implies to me that "because they're so advanced,
> it's a given they'd be using the metric system." I see no reason to think
> this would be the case. The metric system is a good for *scientists* but
> not any better for routine day-to-day use than the Imperial system.
I don't think that they are that particularly advanced. Aside from the
faster than light and artificial gravity they havn't exhibited anything we
couldn't do.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Midnighter <torture...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>I don't think that they are that particularly advanced. Aside from the
>faster than light and artificial gravity they havn't exhibited anything we
>couldn't do.
>
>
And building self aware AIs..
Though it's not clear they can do that any more.
Ted
Joseph D. Korman
> Matthias Warkus said:
>
>>
>> Metric? Why should they be using Imperial units in that far a future?
>
>
> Why did you clip the rest of my post where I suggest they could be using
> meters? Although I think you proceed from a bad assumption. There's
> nothing inherently superior to the metric system. If the metric system
> offered any real advantage, nations wouldn't have to legislate it into use.
>
How many furlongs in a mile? (8)
How many inches in a mile? (63360)
How many centimeters in a meter? (100)
Which conversions are easier to remember?
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:re...@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| AOL-IM user name joekoreln |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| The International Astronomical Union deplanets |
| Pluto and declare it a Dwarf - Dopey? |
| Don't take any wooden Metrocards |
| Battlestar Galactica was better than |
| the last two Star Treks, but now? |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------
Doug Frisk
news:4541226D...@earthlink.net...
> Christopher Basken wrote:
>
>> Matthias Warkus said:
>>
>>>
>>> Metric? Why should they be using Imperial units in that far a future?
>>
>>
>> Why did you clip the rest of my post where I suggest they could be using
>> meters? Although I think you proceed from a bad assumption. There's
>> nothing inherently superior to the metric system. If the metric system
>> offered any real advantage, nations wouldn't have to legislate it into
>> use.
>>
>
> How many furlongs in a mile? (8)
> How many inches in a mile? (63360)
> How many centimeters in a meter? (100)
>
> Which conversions are easier to remember?
My car gets 18 furlongs to a hogshead and that's the way I like it!
Midnighter
"Ted Nolan <tednolan>" <t...@loft.tnolan.com> wrote in message
news:rf90h.74744$zF5....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
No, I don't think they can... Also, their medical knowledge seems sort
of...rudimentary.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
I wouldn't say rudimentary -- it seems to fit the paridgm of being at
about our level. (Except if you are a main character, being shot
in the chest is not as bad as for us).
Ted
Ken from Chicago
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>"Lizard" <liz...@dnai.com> wrote in message
>>news:2vk1k29nsr7umkuim...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:59:18 -0400, Christopher Basken wrotC:DRIVE_E
>>>
>>>>Do fantasy literature fans feel threatened when RPG/D&D nuts talk about
>>>>Lord of the Rings in game-mechanics terms?
>>>
>>> The really lame ones do.
>>>
>>> The cool ones have already statted up Gandalf in their favorite
>>> systems.
>
>>Gandalf the Gray or Gandalf the White?
>
> And Gandalf the Grey, too.
Here in 'mer'ca! it's "gray".
> HereoClix has rookie, experienced, and veteran levels for most
> figures.: same character, different stats.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
>
> Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
> I have preferences.
> You have biases.
> He/She has prejudices.
-- Ken from Chicago
rap...@netscape.net
Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <Ooa0h.10817$cz.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
> Midnighter <torture...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >"Ted Nolan <tednolan>" <t...@loft.tnolan.com> wrote in message
> >of...rudimentary.
> I wouldn't say rudimentary -- it seems to fit the paridgm of being at
> about our level. (Except if you are a main character, being shot
> in the chest is not as bad as for us).
What was worse was that Apollo received almost the same injury. That
really killed my WSOD ... when he dropped, it took a moment, "Oh, they
meant that to actually be a killing shot".
Chairboy
the end right before he jumped out, I timed the aft-port corner taking
about 1.5 seconds to go from the top of the screen to when it jumped.
I measured the pixels, used an unsubstantiated "4100 foot" figure as
the length of the ship, measured the ship from front to back in the
brief second in that scene where the whole ship is visible, converted
pixels to feet, and in the end came up with it falling at roughly 1,400
FPS which is about 950 miles per hour immediately before it goes FTL.
The number is rough for a bunch of reasons:
1. I hand-timed the sequence 5 times and averaged it, but it's still
hand timed.
2. The viewing angle isn't straight on, so there's some precision lost
there.
3. I'm counting pixels.
4. The actual length of the ship isn't confirmed, as far as I know, so
the 4100 foot figure might be wrong.
On the other hand, even if the length is 5000 feet or 3000 feet, the
results are still not that far off.
Evidence seems to suggest that the ship is traveling at about 1,000 mph
downwards immediately before jump. This has to be above terminal
velocity (unless the FTL drives use neutron star cores) so it was
probably being slowed by the atmosphere instead of accelerating
downwards (as some of the other posts seem to suggest) and this seems
to indicate pretty clearly that it jumped in with downward velocity
already (as others have already said), but the speed is closer to 2
Mach than 10.
The actual entrance speed could be calculated if there were reliable
figures on the mass and some clever soul calculated a drag coefficient,
but it's still probably going to be in the ballpark (+/- 500mph) of
1,000mph.
Someone with a video editor who can count specific frames could
fine-tune the number, but I think it'll be close. I'm not a killjoy,
and I do have a life, it's just that this was a pretty straight forward
calculation and I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone else post
equivalent results. Unless they have and I'm dumb, both very possible.
The flames? Eh... maybe it was... the fierce use of maneuvering
thrusters to keep the keel level, and the exhaust being washed up in
the turbulence? Or maybe it just looked cool? I'm fine with both.
Midnighter
No I don't think so. When Hera was born, the explanation of how she didn't
have a blood type was given. But there wasno questioning of genetics, stem
cells, anything like that.
christopherbasken
> Christopher Basken wrote:
>> Who legislated that computers use bits and bytes?
>
> I don't think anyone has. How else could hard drive manufacturers be
> saying that there are 1000 bytes in a kilobyte, while RAM manufacturers
> say that there are 1024?
My drive uses 1024. You sure it's not just some rounding issue? Has
there actually been a drive tech spec that claims to use 1000 bytes for
a kb?
>
> --Eric Smith
> (Not to mention the exciting histories of architectures that don't have
> eight bits per byte.)
Well, there are always fringes. I'm sure someone still uses hogsheads, too.
Ken from Chicago
"Chairboy" <ben.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161903610....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
The video clip has Galactica jumping in 23 seconds into the clip.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j0cAi8z3t9Q
15 seconds later, Helo reads out "99,000 falling like a rock". That's 38
seconds into the clip.
25 seconds after that, Galactica jumps out. That's a minute 3 seconds into
the clip.
That gives some boundaries. We know it can't be too fast or Galactica would
have crashed. However if it were too slow, Galactica wouldn't have glowed.
Now we know the series uses Earth units for time, seconds, minutes, hours,
days, weeks, months, years, etc. so it would seem like they use Earth units
for distance. Judging from the video clip 3 possibilities stand out.
1) Feet: As in 99,000 feet, falling like a rock. That could work if
Galactica jumped in with a downward velocity of Mach 5. Hypersonic ships
create air temperatures over a thousand degrees Farenheit. That was my
initial assumption, tho you kinda fudge the video clip, assume some of the
cuts are overlaps.
2) Yards: As in 99,000, yards falling like a rock. That could work too, but
felt odd seeing how we don't use that on Earth, plus there's another reason:
3) Meters: As in 99,000 meters, falling like a rock. This works out nicely
if Galactica jumps in at Mach 10. It's a nice high velocity. The air
temperature raises to over 3,000 degrees Farenheit. After 40 seconds,
Galactica would be jumping out about 5 miles up--3 seconds before crashing
into the ground. Plus there's a nice bonus. Helo reads out their status at
99,000. On Earth the official boundary to outer space is 100 kilometers
up--or 100,000 meters.
Here's the math details:
23 secs: 11,147 fps = 7,600 mph, 497,740 ft = 150,830 m = 94 mi
24 secs: 11,179 fps = 7,622 mph, 486,561 ft = 147,443 m = 92 mi
25 secs: 11,211 fps = 7,644 mph, 475,351 ft = 144,046 m = 90 mi
26 secs: 11,243 fps = 7,665 mph, 464,108 ft = 140,639 m = 88 mi
27 secs: 11,275 fps = 7,687 mph, 452,833 ft = 137,222 m = 86 mi
28 secs: 11,307 fps = 7,709 mph, 441,527 ft = 133,796 m = 84 mi
29 secs: 11,339 fps = 7,731 mph, 430,188 ft = 130,360 m = 81 mi
30 secs: 11,371 fps = 7,753 mph, 418,817 ft = 126,914 m = 79 mi
31 secs: 11,403 fps = 7,775 mph, 407,415 ft = 123,459 m = 77 mi
32 secs: 11,435 fps = 7,796 mph, 395,980 ft = 119,994 m = 75 mi
33 secs: 11,467 fps = 7,818 mph, 384,513 ft = 116,519 m = 73 mi
34 secs: 11,499 fps = 7,840 mph, 373,015 ft = 113,035 m = 71 mi
35 secs: 11,531 fps = 7,862 mph, 361,484 ft = 109,541 m = 68 mi
36 secs: 11,563 fps = 7,884 mph, 349,921 ft = 106,037 m = 66 mi
37 secs: 11,595 fps = 7,905 mph, 338,327 ft = 102,523 m = 64 mi
38 secs: 11,627 fps = 7,927 mph, 326,700 ft = 99,000 m = 62 mi
39 secs: 11,659 fps = 7,949 mph, 315,041 ft = 95,467 m = 60 mi
40 secs: 11,691 fps = 7,971 mph, 303,351 ft = 91,924 m = 57 mi
41 secs: 11,723 fps = 7,993 mph, 291,628 ft = 88,372 m = 55 mi
42 secs: 11,755 fps = 8,015 mph, 279,873 ft = 84,810 m = 53 mi
43 secs: 11,787 fps = 8,036 mph, 268,087 ft = 81,238 m = 51 mi
44 secs: 11,819 fps = 8,058 mph, 256,268 ft = 77,657 m = 49 mi
45 secs: 11,851 fps = 8,080 mph, 244,417 ft = 74,066 m = 46 mi
46 secs: 11,883 fps = 8,102 mph, 232,535 ft = 70,465 m = 44 mi
47 secs: 11,915 fps = 8,124 mph, 220,620 ft = 66,855 m = 42 mi
48 secs: 11,947 fps = 8,145 mph, 208,673 ft = 63,234 m = 40 mi
49 secs: 11,979 fps = 8,167 mph, 196,695 ft = 59,604 m = 37 mi
50 secs: 12,011 fps = 8,189 mph, 184,684 ft = 55,965 m = 35 mi
51 secs: 12,043 fps = 8,211 mph, 172,641 ft = 52,316 m = 33 mi
52 secs: 12,075 fps = 8,233 mph, 160,567 ft = 48,657 m = 30 mi
53 secs: 12,107 fps = 8,255 mph, 148,460 ft = 44,988 m = 28 mi
54 secs: 12,139 fps = 8,276 mph, 136,321 ft = 41,309 m = 26 mi
55 secs: 12,171 fps = 8,298 mph, 124,151 ft = 37,621 m = 24 mi
56 secs: 12,203 fps = 8,320 mph, 111,948 ft = 33,924 m = 21 mi
57 secs: 12,235 fps = 8,342 mph, 99,713 ft = 30,216 m = 19 mi
58 secs: 12,267 fps = 8,364 mph, 87,447 ft = 26,499 m = 17 mi
59 secs: 12,299 fps = 8,385 mph, 75,148 ft = 22,772 m = 14 mi
60 secs: 12,331 fps = 8,407 mph, 62,817 ft = 19,036 m = 12 mi
61 secs: 12,363 fps = 8,429 mph, 50,455 ft = 15,289 m = 10 mi
62 secs: 12,395 fps = 8,451 mph, 38,060 ft = 11,533 m = 7 mi
63 secs: 12,427 fps = 8,473 mph, 25,633 ft = 7,768 m = 5 mi
65 seconds, Galactica would be 600 feet in the air.
66 seconds, Galactica would be over 1,000 feet--UNDER ground.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Doug Frisk" <noe...@invaliddomain.con> wrote in message
news:bY90h.44$Rj3...@newsfe06.lga...
That's because your car weighs 71 stones.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Midnighter" <torture...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:H590h.10761$cz.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Cylons.
-- Ken from Chicago
christopherbasken
> Christopher Basken wrote:
>> Matthias Warkus said:
>>> Metric? Why should they be using Imperial units in that far a future?
>>
>> Why did you clip the rest of my post where I suggest they could be
>> using meters? Although I think you proceed from a bad assumption.
>> There's nothing inherently superior to the metric system. If the
>> metric system offered any real advantage, nations wouldn't have to
>> legislate it into use.
>
> How many furlongs in a mile? (8)
> How many inches in a mile? (63360)
> How many centimeters in a meter? (100)
>
> Which conversions are easier to remember?
Your target is 23.4 kilometers north and 13.6 kilometers west. Compute
the hypoteneuse. Would it have been harder or easier if it was 14.5
miles north by 8.5 miles west? Either way, you're probably going to
use a calculator.
In a real world application, you're going to be dealing with numbers
that aren't simple multiples of ten. About the only benefit to using
kilos in the above example is you can then say it's 2,340 meters by
1,360 meters, but that's not any easier to multiply. You could just
make up a 1/10-mile unit called a "decimile" and work with 145 and 85,
then divide the result by 10 again by shifting the decimal point to get
back to miles.
The metric system is a fine system, but it's not superior to the
Imperial system. And Celsuis is distinctly *inferior* in many ways to
Farenheit.
Doug Frisk
news:88-dndqEWaPT29zY...@comcast.com...
>
> "Doug Frisk" <noe...@invaliddomain.con> wrote in message
>> My car gets 18 furlongs to a hogshead and that's the way I like it!
>>
>
> That's because your car weighs 71 stones.
A bit over 250 stone actually.
Now you made me do the math. It gets something like 10,000 furlongs to the
hogshead. That sounds a lot better than 20 MPG.
Joe Bednorz
Finally, leagues, furlongs, rods and perches in the future! ( A rod is
the same as a perch. It is 5.5 yards, or 5.029m, interestingly enough.)
YASID: A story where the alien talking to a human gives a distance in
miles, furlongs, rods and perches.
--
Free SF and more online: <http://www.mindspring.com/~jbednorz/Free/>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer>:
"WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY"
All the best, Joe Bednorz
Ken from Chicago
<Christopher Basken> wrote in message
news:2006102613...@news.giganews.com...
>> Christopher Basken wrote:
>>>>>> there's no reason that we know of that would prevent Galactica from
>>>>>> exiting the jump with an existing relative velocity. We also can't
>>>>>> depend on the relative timing of the different scenes when they cut
>>>>>> back and forth from Galactica. Maybe some of them occurred
>>>>>> simultaneously, maybe some didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would guess 99,000 feet. What other units would make sense?
>>>>
>>>> Metric? Why should they be using Imperial units in that far a future?
>>>
>>> Why did you clip the rest of my post where I suggest they could be using
>>> meters? Although I think you proceed from a bad assumption. There's
>>> nothing inherently superior to the metric system.
>>
>> Who said there was?
>
> "in that far a future" implies to me that "because they're so advanced,
> it's a given they'd be using the metric system." I see no reason to think
> this would be the case. The metric system is a good for *scientists* but
> not any better for routine day-to-day use than the Imperial system.
<snip>
METRIC TIME rules for everyday usage.
1,000 krons = 1 kilokron = 24 hours = 1 day
100 krons = 1 hectokron = 2.4 hours = 144 minutes
10 krons = 1 dekakron = 14.4 minutes = 864 seconds
1 kron = 1.44 minutes = 86.4 seconds
1 decikron = 1/10 krons = 8.64 seconds
1 centikron = 1/100 krons = 0.864 seconds
1 millikron = 1/1000 krons = 0.0864 seconds
Just like with measurements, we tend to use kilometers, meters and
millimeters, so too:
1 hectokron = 100 krons = 1 hecTOKron = 1 "tok"
1 kron = 100 centikrons = 100 cenTIKrons = 100 "tiks".
1 day = 10 toks
1 tok = 100 krons
1 kron = 100 tiks
Thus a metric watch: 0:00:00 - 9:99:99.
IOW time would be DECIMAL.
0 o'tok = 0:00 am = 12 o'clock midnight
1 o'tok = 2:24 am
2 o'tok = 4:48 am
3 o'tok = 7:12 am
4 o'tok = 9:36 am
5 o'tok = 12:00 pm = 12 o'clock noon
6 o'tok = 2:24 pm
7 o'tok = 4:48 pm
8 o'tok = 7:12 pm
9 o'tok = 9:36 pm
People would cook a 2-kron egg, work from 4-7, watch primetime tv from
8-9:50 (10:48 pm).
Then there is METRIC CALENDAR
Instead of 7-day weeks, 10-day tenthnights. (Sunday-Saturday, plus 3 more,
say, Nepday, Uraday, Pluday.)
All months would be 3 tenthnights long. That's right, all months would begin
on the first day of the tenthnight. More 1st, 11th, 21st days of the month
would be Sunday, 2nd, 12th, 22nd days of the month would be Monday, 3rd,
13th, 23rd days would be Tuesday, etc.
All years would be 12 months and 1 yearend long (January, February, March,
... November, December, Yearend).
A yearend would be 5 days long (Sunday-Thursday), except leap year, when it
would be 6 days long (Sunday-Friday).
That's right, all years would begin on Sunday and end on Thursday, the last
day of Yearend, except leap years when it would end on Friday.
Thus calendar dates and math would be made simple:
--March 24, 1943 would be Wednesday because the 24th would always be the 4th
day of the tenthnight, Wednesday.
--V.E. Day, May 8, 1945. Everyone would know it was Nepday, the eighth day
of the tenthnight.
--July 20, 1968 would be Pluday, the day humans landed on the moon, the
tenth day of the tenthnight.
--March 28, 1947 would be 88th day of the year (2 complete 30-day months
plus 28 days of the current month).
--April 8, 1975 would be the 98th day of the year (3 complete 30-day months
plus 8 days of the current month).
--90 days after July 4, 3023 would be October 4, 3023, a Wednesday.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
<Christopher Basken> wrote in message
All your units of measurement are belong to us!
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"AttyFinch" <rpre...@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1161894685.6...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The Galactica could be balanced so that it's heavier at the back end just
enought to counteract the pointy front from tipping forward (since it would
have less drag). Thus the vipers would have a nice level launch.
-- Ken from Chicago
Clell Harmon
> "Clell Harmon" <c.ha...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:g%T%g.209454$FQ1.98930@attbi_s71...
>> George W Harris wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:09:28 GMT, "Marcovaldo"
>>> <Marco...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> :
>>> :Another thing to consider is the size of Galactica. It is orders of
>>> :magnitude larger than a rocket or space shuttle. Such a large mass would
>>> act :as a huge heat sink and would not heat up nearly as fast as the
>>> smaller :objects. What determines how much heat it picks up is the
>>> surface area. The heat is distributed over the surface area. Unless
>>> you're talking micrometeors, size doesn't matter.
>> Women just say that, they don't mean it.
>
> Same goes for men (re: chest, waist, hips, what-have-you). :-)
>
>
What men say that?
Clell Harmon
> "Lizard" <liz...@dnai.com> wrote in message
> news:2vk1k29nsr7umkuim...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:59:18 -0400, Christopher Basken wrotC:DRIVE_E
>>
>>> Lord of the Rings in game-mechanics terms?
>>
>> The cool ones have already statted up Gandalf in their favorite
>> systems.
>>
>> Personal Blog:http://www.xanga.com/lizard_sf
>> Ranty Political Blog:http://www.pontification.com
>
> Gandalf the Gray or Gandalf the White?
>
Chairboy
a couple comments:
1. Galactica would be slowing, not accelerating. It's above terminal
velocity.
2. Your figures assume that everything happens in the same amount of
time as shown on screen.
3. Your chart disregards the visual evidence in the clip that actually
_shows_ how fast its going, that's what my post was about. Look at the
clip, specifically at the 1:03 mark when you see the Galactica falling
in relation to the ground and calculate it for yourself.
Ken from Chicago
"Doug Frisk" <noe...@invaliddomain.con> wrote in message
For a quarter million pesos it better!
-- Ken from Chicago
christopherbasken
I have to say, in the last shot as she leaps away, there's no way she's
going ~8,000mph. I'd say 1,000, max, probably less.
Citroen
Christopher wrote:
<snip>
> And Celsuis is distinctly *inferior* in many ways to
> Farenheit.
Would you expand on that please.
-Citroen
Joseph D. Korman
Yes, but after you do the calculation, it's easier to change the units,
just move the decimal. In the imperial system you need the conversion
factors.
In temperature, why is freezing of water 32? If it were 0 , then the
boiling point would be 180, which puts it on par with circular measure.
That could make Fahrenheit more useful.
Trick question #1, which is colder -40 C or - 40 F?
Trick question #2, what temperature is twice as hot as 20 C?
Doug Frisk
>> The metric system is a fine system, but it's not superior to the Imperial
>> system. And Celsuis is distinctly *inferior* in many ways to Farenheit.
>>
>
> Yes, but after you do the calculation, it's easier to change the units,
> just move the decimal. In the imperial system you need the conversion
> factors.
That's where metric really shines. Moving from inches to feet to miles is a
pain while going from centimeters to meters to kilometers is simple.
>
> In temperature, why is freezing of water 32? If it were 0 , then the
> boiling point would be 180, which puts it on par with circular measure.
> That could make Fahrenheit more useful.
It's all arbitrary
>
> Trick question #1, which is colder -40 C or - 40 F?
Yes.
>
> Trick question #2, what temperature is twice as hot as 20 C?
586.3K.
Adam Russell
> Ken, I read your conclusions the first time you posted them, but I have
> a couple comments:
> 1. Galactica would be slowing, not accelerating. It's above terminal
> velocity.
Depends on what the teminal velocity is at that altitude, doesnt it?
David M. Palmer
wrote:
> "Adam Russell" said:
> > I dont think there has been any position made that this is the future
> > humanity, or that they use either feet or meters.
>
> They use our time units. I would guess they use our distance units, too.
They use our language too. Either that or everything is translated.
--
David M. Palmer dmpa...@email.com (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)
David M. Palmer
<noe...@invaliddomain.con> wrote:
Google rules:
http://www.google.com/search?q=20+mpg+in+furlongs+per+hogshead
christopherbasken
You can sense one degree difference in F. But it can get noticably
warmer and colder before one degree C registers the change. Farenheit
was designed around human sensitivity. To use C for everyday
temperatures, you need to get into decimals, which is more cumbersome
than simply using whole numbers.
Also, for human ranges, Farenheit works kinda like a percentage. Zero
is about the coldest you find in most inhabited areas, 100 is about the
hottest. Celsius is unnecessarily compressed.
Citroen
Christopher wrote:
<snip>
> Celsius is unnecessarily compressed.
I see what you are saying. I've never had to deal with Celsius. I
find metric most useful for dealing with liquids and the weights of
liquids.
-Citroen
Jason Maxwell
> Also, for human ranges, Farenheit works kinda like a percentage. Zero
> is about the coldest you find in most inhabited areas, 100 is about the
> hottest. Celsius is unnecessarily compressed.
>
but it may be a little further down) is about 110.
Jason
Ken from Chicago
It was easier for temperature makers to measure freezing water divide the
range by 32 becase you're simply dividing and subdividing by 2.
> Trick question #1, which is colder -40 C or - 40 F?
32 F = 0 C, 212 F = 100 C
F = C x (212-32)/(!00-0) + 32 = C x (180/100) + 32 = C x 9/5 + 32
Where C = -40: F = -40 x 9/5 + 32 = -360/5 + 32 = - 72 + 32 = -40
Thus -40 C = -40 F.
> Trick question #2, what temperature is twice as hot as 20 C?
Twice the temperature reading or twice the amount of thermal energy?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
<Christopher Basken> wrote in message
news:2006102623...@news.giganews.com...
You can feel a SMALLER degree of temperature change since Farenheit degrees
are 5/9ths that of Celsius degrees?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Citroen" <informa...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1161924347.4...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
It's what you're used to, grown up with. If you grew up with metric
temperatures then you'd know 22 C (71.6 F) is pert near ideal inside
temperature for people, meanwhile, outside:
0 C = 32 F snowing winter day
5 C = 41 F a relatively warm winter day / cold fall day
10 C = 50 F a nice fall / spring day (jacket weather)
15 C = 59 F a warm fall / spring day (windbreaker weather)
20 C = 68 F a pert near perfect spring / summer day
25 C = 77 F a balmy summer day
30 C = 86 F a hot summer day
35 C = 95 F a brutal summer day
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Chairboy" <ben.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161912611.1...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> a couple comments:
> 1. Galactica would be slowing, not accelerating. It's above terminal
> velocity.
Which would be?
> 2. Your figures assume that everything happens in the same amount of
> time as shown on screen.
Yes it does make that assumption--including that initial flash 23 seconds in
is indeed the Galactica jumping in and not a decoy or some kind of
explosion.
> 3. Your chart disregards the visual evidence in the clip that actually
> _shows_ how fast its going, that's what my post was about. Look at the
> clip, specifically at the 1:03 mark when you see the Galactica falling
> in relation to the ground and calculate it for yourself.
Seeing can be deceiving. I've never seen an object move at supersonic speeds
relative to the ground so couldn't judge. If Scifi still had the specs on
the Galactica ships, one could estimate Galactica's height from the
dimensions of the buildings shown as it jumps out.
-- Ken from Chicago
slim...@gmail.com
the battle scene and the filmtography used (i.e "saving private
ryan"style).
First-2-Die wrote:
>
> Taggart: "... there is no GD [widget]... because there is no GD ship!"
>
Adam Russell
Or as most people relate to the word "hot" -- how uncomfortable. Twice as
hot as 20C is 20C since for the human body 20C is about zero or "nice out".
Victor Velazquez
All of the ones I know (to their SOs, anyway).
"Am I fat?" "Of course not!"
"I am so fat!" "I love you no matter what size you are."
"Would you rather I had bigger breasts?" "Don't be silly, what difference
does breast-size matter?"
It's all about convincing someone that size doesn't matter (when we should
be okay with the idea that size does matter but probably not a whole lot and
what are you going to do about it anyway).
Chairboy
> > velocity.
> Which would be?
Less than Mach 10. Terminal velocity for equivelent L/D/R objects is
between 120-150MPH, maybe 200+ if they're more streamlined. Is
'streamlined' an adjective that you feel can be applied to the
Battlestar Galactica?
> > 3. Your chart disregards the visual evidence in the clip that actually
> > _shows_ how fast its going, that's what my post was about. Look at the
> > clip, specifically at the 1:03 mark when you see the Galactica falling
> > in relation to the ground and calculate it for yourself.
>
> Seeing can be deceiving. I've never seen an object move at supersonic speeds
> relative to the ground so couldn't judge. If Scifi still had the specs on
> the Galactica ships, one could estimate Galactica's height from the
> dimensions of the buildings shown as it jumps out.
I suspect that you didn't read my post, and that's understandable,
there's a lot of traffic in this thread. As I said, I produced a rough
measurement by doing a frame analysis, measured the length of the
Battlestar, measured the distance traveled over a measured time,
converted the distance traveled in that time from pixels to feet to
feet per second, then finally MPH. This is an objective measurement,
not a subjective "feeling" about how fast something would look. The
only assumption I made in my calculations was that the length of the
ship was approximately 4100 feet. If the Battlestar is instead almost
six miles long, then your final speed figure is close.
Assumptions in the photogrammetry method:
1. The Battlestar is 4100 feet long.
Assumptions in the timed spreadsheet method:
1. The same amount of time elapses for the characters from jump-in to
jump-out with no overlap for the different locations.
2. The unit of measurement (unspecified) is a standard measurement with
which we're familiar.
3. The Battlestar weighs many of orders of magnitude more than an
aircraft carrier of the same dimensions (this is for calculating the
terminal velocity and taking into account that the spreadsheet reflects
acceleration) to the effect of having lots of neutronium.
Someone smarter than me can take the photogrammetry method and refine
the results down to within a couple miles per hour using a
frame-by-frame measurement.
Joseph D. Korman
>
> Trick question #1, which is colder -40 C or - 40 F?
Both are the same. This is the point at which the two scales cross.
>
> Trick question #2, what temperature is twice as hot as 20 C?
>
You must convert the Celsius temperature to Kelvin, double it and
convert it back:
313.15 C.
Adam Russell
> Joseph D. Korman wrote:
>
>>
>> Trick question #1, which is colder -40 C or - 40 F?
>
> Both are the same. This is the point at which the two scales cross.
>
>>
>> Trick question #2, what temperature is twice as hot as 20 C?
>>
> You must convert the Celsius temperature to Kelvin, double it and convert
> it back:
>
> 313.15 C.
Its questionable whether temperature is a valid measure of heat (hot). For
instance water takes differing amounts of calories input to change one
degree depending on if it is solid liquid or gas. So you can double the
heat contained but the temperature in kelvin wont be double. :)
Bob Kolker
>
>
> Its questionable whether temperature is a valid measure of heat (hot). For
> instance water takes differing amounts of calories input to change one
> degree depending on if it is solid liquid or gas. So you can double the
> heat contained but the temperature in kelvin wont be double. :)
Twice as hot is common parlance for twice the temperature, not twice the
total heat in a body.
Bob Kolker
christopherbasken
> <Christopher Basken> wrote...
>> "Citroen" said:
>>> Christopher wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> And Celsuis is distinctly *inferior* in many ways to
>>>> Farenheit.
>>>
>>> Would you expand on that please.
>>
>> You can sense one degree difference in F. But it can get noticably
>> warmer and colder before one degree C registers the change. Farenheit
>> was designed around human sensitivity. To use C for everyday
>> temperatures, you need to get into decimals, which is more cumbersome
>> than simply using whole numbers.
>>
>> Also, for human ranges, Farenheit works kinda like a percentage. Zero
>> is about the coldest you find in most inhabited areas, 100 is about the
>> hottest. Celsius is unnecessarily compressed.
>
> You can feel a SMALLER degree of temperature change since Farenheit
> degrees are 5/9ths that of Celsius degrees?
Sorry, brain fart. I meant Celsius is unnecessarily expanded. I can
feel a C change, but I can feel the actual temp change before C
registers the change in whole-number degrees.
Farenheit seems to work basically one-for-one with my ability to sense
temperature changes. If I'm in a room and you slowly change the
temperature and time when I seem to notice, you'll probably see that I
notice it about once every whole degree F (although as the temp moves
away from my skin temp, I'm sure my accuracy will drop). I'll notice
it with almost twice the "fidelity" of C, which means that you need to
get into fractions of C degrees for it to be useful on a day-to-day
basis. At least for me, but from what I understand, F was designed
around human sensitivity while C wasn't.
Adam Russell
"Bob Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4qer5gF...@individual.net...
But then in common parlance 20C is not at all hot.
Mark Nobles
It's room temperature - too hot for beer.
Shawn Wilson
> The video clip has Galactica jumping in 23 seconds into the clip.
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=j0cAi8z3t9Q
For some reason that clip craps out on me at 7 seconds, no matter how
many
times I try it. Is there any way to 'fix' it or another source? I
don't
have cable right now and I *really* regret missing this episode.
Shawn Wilson
aburk...@gmail.com
Actually, the guy that invented farenheit thought that 0 degrees was as
cold as it could get and 100 was as hot as a human normaly was. It was
not based on humans temperature sensitivity.