21–30 of 79 posts
I'm getting an error when I try to load it. The cache is still alive, though: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sclient=psy&...
One family of orbits is parallel to a face of the cube, if I understand the paper even a little.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not? The most important thing about a round planet in this case (and, in fact, the reason planets tend towards roundness) is that it means gravity is (roughly) equal at every point on the surface (and, in fact, at every point on any planet-shaped shell inside it, as well). On a cube, this is entirely gone. The centers of the faces would have the strongest gravities; the corners would have the weakest. For localis…
I took the question (which I thought was rather absurd) and rationalized (and imagined it) this way: this cubic planet will not rotate, or it will not be cubic then. I took out gravity as we know it, and imagined I could just "walk" in it. We walk on a sphere shaped planet, yet we do not "slide down" if we stand on the North Pole, yes? Same with a cubic one, as I imagine, the 90 degrees angle will be crossed without…
"Ask a Physician" has something to say about this: http://www.askamathematician.com/?p=6657
A physician is a medical doctor. A physicist studies fundamental laws of our universe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not? The most important thing about a round planet in this case (and, in fact, the reason planets tend towards roundness) is that it means gravity is (roughly) equal at every point on the surface (and, in fact, at every point on any planet-shaped shell inside it, as well). On a cube, this is entirely gone. The centers of the faces would have the strongest gravities; the corners would have the weakest. For localis…
I took the question (which I thought was rather absurd) and rationalized (and imagined it) this way: this cubic planet will not rotate, or it will not be cubic then. I took out gravity as we know it, and imagined I could just "walk" in it. We walk on a sphere shaped planet, yet we do not "slide down" if we stand on the North Pole, yes? Same with a cubic one, as I imagine, the 90 degrees angle will be crossed without…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not? The most important thing about a round planet in this case (and, in fact, the reason planets tend towards roundness) is that it means gravity is (roughly) equal at every point on the surface (and, in fact, at every point on any planet-shaped shell inside it, as well). On a cube, this is entirely gone. The centers of the faces would have the strongest gravities; the corners would have the weakest. For localis…
I took the question (which I thought was rather absurd) and rationalized (and imagined it) this way: this cubic planet will not rotate, or it will not be cubic then. I took out gravity as we know it, and imagined I could just "walk" in it. We walk on a sphere shaped planet, yet we do not "slide down" if we stand on the North Pole, yes? Same with a cubic one, as I imagine, the 90 degrees angle will be crossed without…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not? The most important thing about a round planet in this case (and, in fact, the reason planets tend towards roundness) is that it means gravity is (roughly) equal at every point on the surface (and, in fact, at every point on any planet-shaped shell inside it, as well). On a cube, this is entirely gone. The centers of the faces would have the strongest gravities; the corners would have the weakest. For localis…
I took the question (which I thought was rather absurd) and rationalized (and imagined it) this way: this cubic planet will not rotate, or it will not be cubic then. I took out gravity as we know it, and imagined I could just "walk" in it. We walk on a sphere shaped planet, yet we do not "slide down" if we stand on the North Pole, yes? Same with a cubic one, as I imagine, the 90 degrees angle will be crossed without…
Well, if you throw out ALL the rules....
> On spherical earth the horizon on average is a little over three miles away. I read (long time ago) that the horizon is 29km on a seashore. In other words if you see a ship disappear on a horizon, it was 29km away. And so his 3mi vs my 29km is a bit of a discrepancy. Can anyone set things straight here?
The "distance to the horizon" is strongly dependant on how high the viewer is and how tall the object being observed is. If you put your eyes pretty much down to the ground the horizon will be pretty darn close. If you are standing 6 feet tall the horizon will be 3 miles away. If you're standing a bit higher up on the shore and looking at the top of a tall ship then 29 kilometers is easy to achieve. I'm providing a l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I took the question (which I thought was rather absurd) and rationalized (and imagined it) this way: this cubic planet will not rotate, or it will not be cubic then. I took out gravity as we know it, and imagined I could just "walk" in it. We walk on a sphere shaped planet, yet we do not "slide down" if we stand on the North Pole, yes? Same with a cubic one, as I imagine, the 90 degrees angle will be crossed without…
Most likely you're losing karma because you come across as trolling. In case you're not, picture "down" as towards the center of mass. On the surface of a sphere, that means perpendicular to the surface. At the edge of two faces of a cube, "down" is through the edge (between the faces), with the faces 45 degrees off-vertical. Like on a mountaintop.
Yes, I can picture it as you describe it.
Reminded me of Cyberiad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cyberiad "The Highest Possible Level of Development civilization. A gravely injured hermit comes to Trurl's house and tells Trurl of Klapaucius's adventure: Klapaucius wanders across an old robot, who tells him that he has logically deduced the existence of a civilization that reached the highest possible level of development (hence "HPLD"). He has inferred th…