991 reputation
823
bio website ericmenze.com
location Minneapolis, MN
age 30
visits member for 3 years
seen 3 hours ago

I'm a Computer (Web) Programmer/Analyst based in Anchorage, AK and Minneapolis, MN. I use (among other things) ASP.NET, C# and SQL Server.

I build things. Bicycles, computers, websites, guitars, cars, motorcycles, sound sytems... lots of things.


4h
comment Is it possible to generate energy by the moon orbit?
It's possible that you could use the Moon to harvest the energy from Earth's rotation instead, which may end up adding to the moon's orbital energy (causing it to escape Earth's gravitational sphere of influence).
Apr
17
comment Why is the singularity of the Big Bang not considered to be the center of the Universe?
Or did the original $1m^3$ volume somehow vanish or disappear onto a different dimension?
Apr
17
comment Why is the singularity of the Big Bang not considered to be the center of the Universe?
Are you saying that the big bang happened in a fourth spatial dimension? If not, I think the balloon analogy falls short. At one point, the universe occupied $1m^3$. Then it expanded to $10m^3$, while fully encapsulating the volume of the original $1m^3$. Why is it not accurate to find 'where' this original $1m^3$ was in relation to the current universe, and call that the center?
Apr
8
comment Is there any difference between fusing and smashing particles?
I was referring to stellar fusion with H + H => He, and did not specify the isotope. Or were you saying that the 'stable' qualifier is incorrect?
Apr
8
comment Is there any difference between fusing and smashing particles?
It is not just about stability. Two nuclei => hundreds of stable Hydrogen nuclei is still not fusion. Put simplistically, you're either combining nuclei (Fusion), splitting nuclei with neutrons (Fission). Smashing things together can do either of those, or neither (energy production, misses, breaking nucleii with momentum).
Apr
8
comment Is there any difference between fusing and smashing particles?
In short, though perhaps not without some exceptions, the 'products' of Fusion will be more massive than its 'reactants'. The products of a Particle collider, if there are any stable products (it could in theory be 100% energy), are less massive than the 'reactants'.
Apr
5
comment Why is the sky of the moon always dark?
Indeed! I meant 7% / 0.07, not both.
Mar
29
comment Why is the sky of the moon always dark?
However, where landings happen the duller dust is stirred up and moved; and the angle of incidence to the camera is not perpendicular to the surface. Check out this page with a reproduction on earth with a soup can: www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/fillit.htm
Mar
29
comment Why is the sky of the moon always dark?
I can't find many good measurements of lunar surface albedo near landing sites, but it does have an overall average of 0.07% to 0.11% (0.12% including earthshine), comparable to worn asphalt on earth. This would put it quite low compared to snow and deserts, see this chart on the Albedo wiki page.
Mar
28
comment Why is the sky of the moon always dark?
Rovers have, and they have cameras.
Jan
20
comment Would cosmological redshift be present in the following situation?
What's a better way? I was hoping to pin it down to this (preposterous) example to nail down specifically what I'm having a hard time understanding; which is the two planets are fully stationary with respect to each other.
Jan
20
comment Would cosmological redshift be present in the following situation?
If it's viewed that way, then the cable stays perfectly taut and doesn't flex during said 'movement'? I'm not sure I'd consider that movement.
Jan
20
comment Would cosmological redshift be present in the following situation?
That last part confused me more. Which is it? If it is actually a property of expansion of space, then why wouldn't the situation pictured above experience redshifted planetary light?
Jan
20
comment Would cosmological redshift be present in the following situation?
Ah - so if we knew true velocities, the entire redshift would be simply due to relativistic doppler effects using said true velocity? I think that answers my question.
Jan
20
comment Would cosmological redshift be present in the following situation?
Why is it initially blueshifted?
Jan
20
comment Would cosmological redshift be present in the following situation?
I guess the fundamental part I'm asking is whether or not the cosmological redshift happens as the light travels through expanding space, or just due to observer velocities, peculiar or proper.
Jan
20
comment Would cosmological redshift be present in the following situation?
But... the universe HAS expanded (even if the planets have not receded), and thus $a(t_0)$ would be != 1, and thus redshift, would it not? Let's say they're REALLY far apart, and the universe has doubled in size since the light was emitted from one planet. Would that not mean $\frac {\lambda} {\lambda_0} = \frac {1} {2} $ ?
Jan
20
comment Would cosmological redshift be present in the following situation?
Why would they have 'peculiar velocity' toward each other, if they are at rest to each other? By the definition of peculiar velocity in the wiki article, would that not mean a peculiar velocity of $0\ m/s$?
Jan
20
comment Would cosmological redshift be present in the following situation?
So according to this, then, the planets would see redshifted light, as the energy density of the space between the planets has diminished from the expansion of the space between them. So - the planets would see somewhat redshifted light from the other?
Jan
20
comment Would cosmological redshift be present in the following situation?
And or the main point, why distinguish between peculiar and non-peculiar velocities, then, and have some distinction between 'doppler redshift' and 'cosmological redshift'? Why not just consider the vector sum of the two velocities as the doppler effect redshift?