Good use for enderchests.

erma32 · 2012-05-27T09:03:51.873451+00:00

I think part of it is that part of it is the sense of accomplishment associated with doing a project. It feels good to have to gather your own resources, transport them to a place and then build (or whatever you want to do).

That's why I'm happy with the large biomes feature, it means more effort to get certain resources. It 's also why I'm disinterested in the enderchests, I think they take away from some of the risk and challenges in the game.

From my point of view, survival mode should make things hard to accomplish. If I wanted to build something straight away I will use creative mode.

divinesleeper · 1 day

As said elsewhere, both photons and electrons are fundamental particles. An electron has charge and so if accelerated can cause "ripples" in the electromagnetic field. These ripples are quantised and it turns out that the ripples are photons.

Electrons and positrons (anti-electrons) can come together and annihilate, creating at least two photons (two because momentum has to be conserved, which can't be done with just one.)

The annihilation doesn't imply that electrons are made of photons.

Willspencerdoe · 7 days

Do you think your question could be rephrased as does it take finite time for an object to fall to the centre of a black hole? I believe the answer is yes (bearing in mind that the properties of spacetime change going through the event horizon).

Willspencerdoe · 7 days

(stationary) Blackholes have a kind of radius called the Schwarschild radius which is the distance at which light cannot escape.

Other than that I'm not sure what you mean by radius. Within the blackhole the interpretation of coordinates gets complicated but I don't know what you mean by falling in all directions at once.

If you mean the singularity, that doesn't have a well defined radius (as far as I'm aware)

Papina · 7 days

I don't think it is necessary to be so pedantic. It is reasonable to assume that a layperson is referring to animalia, and the scope of answers they are expecting is something like: disease, killed by other animals, starvation, environment.

We can roughly divide environments, so that may a good place to start. What is the most common cause of death in the ocean, in the desert, the rainforest etc. or you divide by size: most large animals die of <blank> while most small animals die of <blank>.

Start somewhere, a lot of questions in this subreddit are vague, but appreciate that this person doesn't understand much about the subject matter.

I am interested in the answer to this question so I hope you update your answer.

Zaboom · 19 days

I agree, plus they're being gentlemanly enough to restrict the map size by themselves to increase the chances of encounters.

In my opinion, the UHC games should be as simple and vanilla as possible, at least until it appears to be exploited in some way (eg a single strategy that everyone is forced to adopt).

Every season it seems like different strategies win everytime. At the start, people wanted to go to the nether, but it became too risky. Then it seemed like dogs were the way to go. But using bows reduces the danger of dogs. Now it seems like the netheris viable again given how close Guude was to getting the gold he needed. I think next season people will try to enchant their equipment. But there may be another strategy that wins out in that case.

/ sorry, went a bit off topic there. Conclusion, format is fine atm

taloton · 19 days

Finding the velocity during the collision requires deformation of the objects. I'm not sure what kind of game you are making but I would try to make the physics as simple as possible, trying to make it too accurate can easily lead to bugs and glitches.

I'm assuming that you will have a time step in your game. If the collision time is comparable or less than the time step, don't bother worrying about the velocity during the collision and use the methods suggested by everyone else in the comments.

If the collision times are long, then you're in the realm of soft-matter physics and you may need to model things with springs. I'm not aware of a general way to get the velocity during a collision.

NeoPlatonist · 20 days

We have no reason to expect that being in outer space should have any effect on those experiments.

If there was an effect, well that would be quite a shock. It would question the relationship between spacetime and electromagnetism.

(Also, I don't know whether those specific experiments have been performed in outer space . However, we have electronic devices and cameras in space and they work fine)

the32ndpie · 21 days

Energy field doesn't really mean anything. Light only interacts with charged particles (which have mass) so I don't think that anything that light can interact with can go at the speed of light.

Antka · 21 days

You can look at this from two points of view:

Observer on Earth. This person is watching you travel to a planet far away (eg. 100 Light Years):

From this point of view, you are moving close to the speed of light, so it will take at least 100 years for you to arrive at the planet. However, from this point of view, you will also appear to be aging more slowly (time dilation) so by the time you arrive at the planet you have not aged by 100 years.

Your point of View. From your own point of view, you are still and the planet is approaching very fast. What also happens is the distance between you and the planet appears to be shorter (length contraction). So the planet is going fast and has less distance to go. So from your point of view, it takes less than 100 years to arrive at the planet.

AnonymousAutonomous · 21 days

The statement "everything is relative" has no context and is so vague that it's meaningless.

The aspect of physics where this would make the most sense is motion of objects relative to each other. For the most part one can say all motion is relative.

aperson · 25 days

I'm relatively new to Minecraft so I'd like to ask, is there any point to Testificates? Or will there eventually be a point to them?

NeilyG · 27 days

To clear up misconception: Plank length is not supposed to be the smallest meaningful length. It is (supposedly) the length at which both general relativity and quantum mechanics have significant effects. The problem at this point is that we don't have an adequate theory to describe what's going on

Aubron · 1 month

Funnily enough 3,4, and 5 all use the same song for the intro, 4 just uses a different part of the song.

Anyway, I liked the season 4 intro music, it was pleasantly chaotic.

ghostlyman789 · 1 month

The universe is expanding but it has no edge, so the question has no proper answer.

The universe is not expanding like a sphere with us on the inside. A better way to think of it is it is like a balloon expanding and we are confined to the surface of the balloon. If we measure distances then we find that distances between points are increasing. But there is no edge.

The balloon analogy simplifies down to two dimensions which we can visualize. In reality it is our three dimensional space that is expanding. And unlike the balloon which is embedded in three dimensions, our universe need not be embedded in a higher dimensional universe, but in many ways it can be treated like it is. It is difficult to explain this any further without getting into the maths (which I'm not familiar with)

candytime9 · 1 month

Yes, but I was addressing the original comment claiming that mass turning into energy reduces the gravitational pull. It doesn't, even if what happens in the aftermath does.

stract · 1 month

True, but even in an idealised case where the detection method doesn't disturb the particle, this should happen. Knowing the particle's position with great certainty necessarily means that it will have an unknown component of momentum. So next time the position is checked, it is somewhere else

stract · 1 month

(Ignoring Quantum Field Theory)

On the quantum scale "seeing" is more difficult. The main reason is that photons have enough momentum on that scale to knock other particles about. Imagine throwing a basketball at a football as your method of seeing.

From this point of view, from each individual photon that bounces off the particle, the particle appears to be jumping about.

To abstract the idea, every time you want to check the position of the particle you need to interact with it somehow. The more precisely you want to know the position, the more the particle gets kicked. So over successive detections the particle appears to have a jittery motion.

Bottom line, seeing an object kind of loses it's meaning on the quantum scale. You can get an idea of its position at times you choose but doing so disturbs the motion.

clburton24 · 1 month

That's the escape velocity to escape the solar system from the corresponding distance from the Sun

clburton24 · 1 month

wikipedia has a list

Escape velocities are determined by the strength of the objects gravity. Specificaly it is the speed you would obtain if you were to fall from infinity to the object due to gravity

tboy4 · 1 month

I think there would be a negligible effect of one atom just appearing. It would be hard to predict the effects it would have on local electromagnetic fields because those assume that charge is conserved and comes from somewhere. It would cause discontinuities and I'm guessing a short pulse of high energy EM waves due to the sudden change of the fields. But the overall magnitude of the effect should be small.

I think it would be similar for a baseball just appearing. Bearing in mind that both atoms and baseballs are electrically neutral so they don't have a large effect on electromagnetic fields. The pulse that I'm guessing should appear would be stronger in this case.

candytime9 · 1 month

To clarify, radioactive decay does not change the gravity of the system. The matter of the nuclei turns into other particles and those still have the same net gravitational pull.

The hydroelectical energy is probably the best example of energy being extracted from gravity.

justsciencequestions · 1 month

Ok, I see where the problem is. dU = dQ -pdV is a specific expression for gases/fluids. The general expression is dU = dQ + dW, where dW is the work done on the system.

Considering the system as a whole, dU = 0. If you consider the objects individually, Then there is a change of energy for each object, but it occurs as some combination of dQ + dW. For a general system we don't know how the energy change is distributed between dQ and dW. All we can say is that the internal energy of the object has changed.

Bottom line, the kinetic energy of the system has decreased, the internal energy of the colliding bodies has increased. How that internal energy manifests itself is unknown unless more details are given.

justsciencequestions · 1 month

I still don't understand how an increase in volume should account for the energy change.

If two bodies stick together then the total kinetic energy is less than the initial kinetic energy. The rest of the energy is converted to some kind of internal energy in the combined body. The form the internal energy takes depends on the system, usually heat. Volume by itself doesn't account for energy

justsciencequestions · 1 month

I don't understand why you are using pV in this problem.

To address your original question, if kinetic energy is not conserved, then the energy has gone somewhere else and the collision is inelastic. In your setup you have excluded pretty much any way for the kinetic energy to be dissipated. I believe this makes your setup unphysical.

man-vs-spider

TROPHY CASE

man-vs-spider

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login