Delling's Thread

[Yonkey]

A vacuum is space without any matter in it. You know what a siphon is right? It's basically a function of a simple pressure differential, but it's caused by the presence of a vacuum. The phase of matter we call gas is actually a bunch of really tiny gas molecules at high speeds being driven by their internal energy or heat through what is largely empty space, a vacuum.

Ok, so I still don't see why a black hole isn't considered a perfect vacuum, because it sounds like you're describing one pretty well.

Titanium is elemental and thus Ti: some of its compounds according to Wikipedia are handy too. Diamond is a form of pure carbon: I think it's C-14 (14 carbon atoms in a particular arrangement).

Ok, you're getting closer, let's go further.  What is the molecular makeup and structure of Titanium and a Diamond (you can use pictures too).

[Delling]

Because a vacuum is massless and black hole isn't. A black hole has an enormous mass concentrated at its center while a vacuum has nothing at all.

A vacuum is a pressure differential caused by the absolute lack of any "thing" whatsoever: a difference in pressure concentrated at one place because there's nothing in that "place." So, for equilibrium to be established, gases or liquids or what ever gets pulled in. A black hole is a massive object of small size that thus has an immense gravitational potential. They operate on completely different principles.

There are plenty of vacuums in space. However, the long held perception that space is (to quote Serenity) "...a vasty nothingness..." is not actually true. There's stuff out there. It's mostly particulate (itty bitty chunks of dust) or bigger chunks of bigger things... To be a perfect vacuum as I described before all that is required is that there be nothing there. Pressure is a macroscopic phenomenon of a fluid filling a space. Gravity is a force exerted by one mass on another that reduces over r². They operate on entirely different principles.



Titanium is an elemental metal... if we aren't talking about a crystal of some kind then... I would assume that like most metals it's a bundle of nuclei in an electron sea... I'd have to look up the arrangement and I have class now... tonight though... I'll get back to you...


EDIT (By Yonkey): Fixed image

[Yonkey]

Because a vacuum is massless and black hole isn't. A black hole has an enormous mass concentrated at its center while a vacuum has nothing at all.

Hmm... I think you're right about them not being equal.  According to Newton, m = F/a and a = F/m.  If a vacuum is massless, it would make m=0, F=0, and a undefined.  However, both a vacuum and a black hole have a negative force that pulls, so there's no way F can be 0, meaning a "perfect vacuum" neither pushes nor pulls...

There are plenty of vacuums in space. However, the long held perception that space is (to quote Serenity) "...a vasty nothingness..." is not actually true.

When I said space, I didn't mean outerspace.   I meant space in general, as defined by the 3rd dimension.

I'd have to look up the arrangement and I have class now... tonight though... I'll get back to you...

No problem, and thanks!

[Delling]

Because a vacuum is massless and black hole isn't. A black hole has an enormous mass concentrated at its center while a vacuum has nothing at all.

Hmm... I think you're right about them not being equal.  According to Newton, m = F/a and a = F/m.  If a vacuum is massless, it would make m=0, F=0, and a undefined.  However, both a vacuum and a black hole have a negative force that pulls, so there's no way F can be 0, meaning a "perfect vacuum" neither pushes nor pulls...

This is true of every vacuum. The suction comes from the fact that since there's literally nothing there, there's no source of pressure. Gases flow from an area of higher concentration to lower. The way siphoning gasoline out of a car works is that the pressure from the gas and air in the tank is less than the vacuum formed in the tube by sucking out the air.

The force of the vacuum is normative: it arise from the physical interaction of matter. The force of a black hole is elementary... that is to say one of the 4 basic forces of our understanding of the universe... gravity. The black hole has a gravitational force because it has mass (a lot of it in a very small space).

A vacuum does not have a force of its own: it is rather it's lack of force and mass that gives it power (not the physics term power as that would attach it to the wrong thing... mass that moves into the vacuum does the work, not the other way around).

There are plenty of vacuums in space. However, the long held perception that space is (to quote Serenity) "...a vasty nothingness..." is not actually true.

When I said space, I didn't mean outerspace.   I meant space in general, as defined by the 3rd dimension.

Well, that's a bit of an oversimplification. Our little 3-space here either contains matter or doesn't. Where it doesn't, that's a perfect vacuum.

PS- gracias por ayudarme con la foto

[Say]

PS- gracias para ayudar me con la pictura

*reads geekiness *

* 20 minutes later*


It should be "Gracias por ayudarme con la foto"; "para" and "por" is like the similar debate with prepositions and when it comes down to translating you shouldn't translate word by word because they have different uses/meanings in different languages (specially English and Spanish); every single time you use "me" should be used as a prefix of a subjunctive mode of the verb, not as a separated word in this case (I hope that sort of makes sense, lol); aaaaaand "pictura" is not a word in Spanish

Yes, I'm bilingual
And please don't hate me for being a geek correcting your last sentence

 [/end of geeky grammar correction]


 Yay!

[Petra Rocks]

I think Delling was speaking in Latin. 

[Say]

Oh well, Latin is the mother of all those



Now you all just learnt something new

[Delling]

PS- gracias para ayudar me con la pictura

*reads geekiness *

* 20 minutes later*


It should be "Gracias por ayudarme con la foto"; "para" and "por" is like the similar debate with prepositions and when it comes down to translating you shouldn't translate word by word because they have different uses/meanings in different languages (specially English and Spanish); every single time you use "me" should be used as a prefix of a subjunctive mode of the verb, not as a separated word in this case (I hope that sort of makes sense, lol); aaaaaand "pictura" is not a word in Spanish

Ah! I looked it up to find out what happened. I was thinking of pintura which is painting... which is dead wrong...thinking way back to vocab in 11th grade is not a good idea...

I actually had por and looked it up to try to be sure, but I had to use an online dictionary that wasn't very clear about usage in its models for por and para.

"every single time you use "me" should be used as a prefix of a subjunctive mode of the verb, not as a separated word in this case (I hope that sort of makes sense, lol)"

I assume you mean suffix as that's its usage hear... and if my shaky memory is right in a usual sentence the direct object pronouns precede the verb as an independent word. It's not a subjunctive usage of the verb; however, it's a verbal usage of the verb's infinitive as a noun: ayudar is the infinitive acting as the object of the preposition por. But, yes, I understand what you're saying. 

"when it comes down to translating you shouldn't translate word by word because they have different uses/meanings in different languages (specially English and Spanish)"

I never do translate word for word. There are 1:1 relationships in languages, and then there are things like por vs. para and ser vs. estar or for another example saber vs. conocer where there are strict usage rules governing which word you use. In the case of the latter and in matters of idiom, I try to be observant, but there's only so much that can be done without experiencing the language firsthand.

Yes, I'm bilingual
And please don't hate me for being a geek correcting your last sentence

 [/end of geeky grammar correction]

Me... hate THE Say?... never

Yay!

Yay, indeed! 

I think Delling was speaking in Latin. 

No, I was writing in Spanish since I said I would thank people in different languages. In Latin...

Ionki, tibi multas gratias ago propter iuvare me cum pictura.

(very liberally making Yonkey= Ionki... which would be a third declension noun)

[Say]

Yes, I'm bilingual
And please don't hate me for being a geek correcting your last sentence

[/end of geeky grammar correction]

Me... hate THE Say?... never

I'll take that as a complement!

[Yonkey]

No problem, Delling.   What's your real first name, by the way?

And yeah, it's agreed then that the perfect vaccum = space.

In the case of the latter and in matters of idiom, I try to be observant, but there's only so much that can be done without experiencing the language firsthand.

I agree, and even within a language there's more than one meaning to a word or phrase.

Anyway, once you get a chance to post the Titanium structure, go right ahead.

[Delling]

No problem, Delling.   What's your real first name, by the way?

Brandon.

In the case of the latter and in matters of idiom, I try to be observant, but there's only so much that can be done without experiencing the language firsthand.

I agree, and even within a language there's more than one meaning to a word or phrase.

Indeed, for instance, the vocab sections in Wheelock (the collegiate standard in Latin from which I taught myself) often read more like a table mapping a Latin verb to reasonable approximations.

Anyway, once you get a chance to post the Titanium structure, go right ahead.

According to the Cambridge report that I found this image in, "At about 890^oC, the titanium undergoes an allotropic transformation to a body-centred cubic β phase which remains stable to the melting temperature." As such, I've provided α (alpha).



If you go to this site, they actually have it rotate to show off all its structure.


EDIT- added stuff below

Yes, I'm bilingual
And please don't hate me for being a geek correcting your last sentence

[/end of geeky grammar correction]

Me... hate THE Say?... never

I'll take that as a complement!

It was intended as one... I should have put a  followed by several  .

[Yonkey]

Nice work, Brandon!

Ok, so you said that Titanium and Diamond are earth's most indestructable substances, unfortunately both of them can be destroyed very easily, due to their chemical structure.  So, really the strongest substance both inside this world and out is that which can both strengthen and weaken both of these things.  What is it?

This you should be able to figure out without even needing a science background.

Hint: It is stronger than any black hole, and also the basis to which all things are based on.

[Delling]

Well... we come now again to this issue of what do you mean by "strength."


I hope you're not looking for the answer of graphite because the very argument this links to has a loop in its logic which contradicts itself: the author does a little magic hand wave over the fact that the bonds in graphite are weak. We can actually know "strength" for those bonds because there's a mathematically solvable magnitude. The strength of the bond actually does somewhat obviously mean more than the length of the bond. Though I think he was trying to indicate a certain futility in scientifically defining strength.


There's nanotubes which I recently read here are fairly "strong" or indestructible (though I was looking them up to get a better grasp on their applications in superconductors).

If you want something indestructible, an electron is still thought to be indestructible (quark theory applies to hadrons (nucleons)).

Or perhaps you're looking for the gluon field: the force field that holds the nucleus together and is thought to be a particle (a gluon) though has never been observed. Theoretically, breaking these supposed particles has the same result breaking the forces they're associated with would have: that of a nuclear bomb.

Both the electron and the theoretical gluon are both extremely basic concepts capable of very powerful results. I suppose that either could strengthen or weaken the substances already discussed.

Ok, so you said that Titanium and Diamond are earth's most indestructable substances...

...except I didn't...

As far as the most indestructible substance, I'm still not sure I'm getting this quite right... diamond is the standard for testing hardness... and titanium tops some scale or something... I think it's hardest metal or some such...

Diamond is actually what is used in the presses for testing a given substance's hardness because it is the standard of comparison at the top of Moh's scale.

Titanium is the hardest elemental metal. (that excludes alloys and unnatural allotropes)

...
Other than that... I'll get back to you tomorrow.

[Yonkey]

Diamond and Titanium were the two substances you named when I asked you what is the most indestructable substance on Earth.  You actually could have named anything else and use whatever definition of "strength" you like, but it would all lead to the same conclusion.

And nanotubes and gluons are still too theoretical, I'm more interested in the practical and obvious.  But you're very close, keep in mind the hint I gave.

[racx_00]

Nice thread!

I hated physics in high school, but this thread has been really interesting so far, more interesting than the lessons were.

[Rosella]

I really liked the Physical Science course I took in 8th grade, so even though I have no clue what's going on, I REALLY like this thread.

[Yonkey]

Hahaha, yeah, I really loved Grade 12 Physics, but OAC Physics felt like I missed something, or maybe the teacher just didn't like me.   First Year Physics in Engineering was even worse, because I seriously had to struggle to understand the theory, yet the labs were so amazingly easy that everyone did well in them.

So, that's pretty much why I'm asking Delling these questions now, because my teachers and textbooks just forced me to learn formulas and theories but never really said why they exist.  Now, I have a pretty good understanding, but it's still kewl to hear different interpretations of what people believe to be true.

[Delling]

But you're very close, keep in mind the hint I gave.

Yes, well, I'm not particularly fond of the hint: for one thing, it's redundant "basis on which all things are based"= "basis of all things" and as for "stronger than any black hole," well, there's some definite issues there as a consideration our galaxy is most probably held together by a large black hole or super dense black hole cluster (which would probably be an unstable arrangement anyway and probably just collapse into a single black hole).

The point is that the question--"what is the strongest substance anywhere?"--is not scientific. Science requires that we be able to work in a quantifiable mathematical way (which is akin to saying: "We must have repeatable results." though in this case, repeatability doesn't apply). It is due to this restriction that what someone else might consider strong a chemist considers weak, a physicist inconsequential and engineers (in general at Tech at least) really don't care anyway.

Getting back to the hint, the electron is electrodynamically a reasonable basis of everything (as all charges are an integer multiple of the electron's charge). Beyond that, hydrogen is the basis of everything: it's behavior is fundamental, it forms strong bonds, and it is in no way theoretical. I suppose a practical combination of these two ideas would be water because it employs hydrogen bonding which comes about because there's a slight dipole moment on the hydrogen caused by a shift in the electrons around the nucleus.

So, yeah, something like that... *brain putters out on thinking about the "strongest" substance*

             *blurts out* "spider silk" *runs away*

[Yonkey]

hydrogen bonding

Bingo!   I won't explain why, because unfortunately someone else beat you to it.

So, yeah, something like that... *brain putters out on thinking about the "strongest" substance*

             *blurts out* "spider silk" *runs away*

Heh, it's definitely not spider silk, because I actually just squashed 3.

Thanks for answering my questions.

Dude, you're getting a Dell!

[Delling]

hydrogen bonding

Bingo!   I won't explain why, because unfortunately someone else beat you to it.

I was going to let this go at that... the better part of me still would very much like to, but I'm quite batty... which makes my better part battier etc....

Hydrogen bonding as stated in the very post you quoted is an electromagnetic phenomenon. In fact, it's a manifestation of the electromagnetic force: it's not a substance. Do you mean a hydrogen bomb or hydrogen itself?

...hydrogen bonding which comes about because there's a slight dipole moment on the hydrogen caused by a shift in the electrons around the nucleus....

...However, after this, I'd like to deviate from science stuff for awhile... I have an e-mag test to prep for and I'm gonna need some recovery time.