Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 75

Thread: ...not necessarily!

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,595

    Arrow ...not necessarily!

    Argue for the sake of arguing.

    Somebody posts a statement. That statement is countered, and then a remark about the counterargument is added. The next guy starts with countering that remark, etc.

    Ok, kick-off! We start with:

    A recent classic being a beautiful, though confessed-to-be-photoshopped picture of a full harvest moon and the setting sun in the same area of the sky, a few degrees off from each other. Both pictures used were taken from the same spot under similar weather conditions.

    And all I said was:

    "Wow, too bad that can't really happen."
    Guy 1:

    ...Not necessarily! With a strong enough flashlight aimed at the moon, it can.

    (the photon recoil of said flashlight might be a bit of a problem though)

    Guy 2:

    ...Not necessarily! You could fix the flashlight firmly to the ground, or even use two and fire the second beam in the opposite direction making it recoiless.

    (you would create so much light polution you wouldn't be able to see a thing in the sky though)

    Guy 3: [hit the reply button!]
    Last edited by Nicolas; 2012-Mar-08 at 02:36 PM.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Lost among the 160,000+ members
    Posts
    8,002
    Not necessarily! The nuclear power plant you would need to generate enough power would also be large enough to affect the moon's orbit.
    Trigger warning - this post may contain information that some members disagree with. It might also end sentences with prepositions.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,595
    You forgot the self-criticism part to which others have to reply. I'll do it for you this time:

    (the material to build the powerplant would come from the earth itself though, so it would just be a shift of mass that would mainly wobble the moon rather than change its orbit)

    ...Not necessarily! You could for example hollow out a mountain and create the power plant from the mined materials at the same spot. Then there wouldn't be any shift of mass to disturb the moon's orbit. Then if you'd use giant LASERs instead of flashlights, you'd solve the problem of stray light pollution as well.

    (However, the laser beam would destroy any satellite that crosses it.)
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Mytho-poetic dreams.
    Posts
    11,944
    ...not necessarily!

    The moon is made of green cheese after all!

    Wait a minute. That's not right. But if it is, well gosh -- we wouldn't want to blow up the moon and then have green cheese meteors pummeling the Earth!

    (did I do this right?)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,595
    More or less right. The green cheese doesn't negate the bold self-criticism part, being lasers destroying sats. Your reply should be aimed at that bold self-criticism. But I'm not hoping for reasonable arguments anyway.

    ...Not necessarily! If there were a major shortage of green cheese on earth, it would be a great way to solve that problem. In fact, it could solve all the food problems of the world!

    (though without a moon, we wouldn't have tides which would have a major impact on nature as well.)
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,021
    Not necessarily! All the green cheese would land on the same side of the earth, which would produce high tides when that side is in line with the sun and low tides when it's at right angles!

    Well, unless all the cheese landed in the Pacific Ocean, in which case the entire ocean would wind up on dry land.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,595
    ...Not necessarily! The first bits of water would wind up on dry land. After that, the land would be wet anyway so there wouldn't be a problem.

    Well, except for the everpresent smell of salty green cheese in the sun. That smell would kill the polar bears.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,021
    Not necessarily. Seals happen to smell a lot like salty green cheese, as you would know if you had ever smelled a seal up close. Or the moon.

    However, to evaluate this proposition, we have to go back to the original proposition of illuminating the dark side of the moon. Given the time it woulod take to get such a project underway, polar bears may heve developed more of a taste for humans than for seals.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,595
    ...Not necessarily! Given the time it would take to get this project underway, we'd likely have had a polar shift along the way. This would make it more likely for polar bears to develop a taste for penguins.

    However, if polar bears would develop a taste for penguins, they'd be repelled by the smell of guano and consequently starve.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    3,359
    ....not necessarily, if Polar Bears developed a taste for all penguins, they could survive on the chocolatey, biscuity goodness.

    Although, they might have problems getting the wrappers off with their big paws.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Lost among the 160,000+ members
    Posts
    8,002
    Not necessarily, the wrappers could easily be removed by scraping those paws along the edge of ice holes.

    Although, the presence of all those wrapper might tip off the seals to which ice holes are frequented by polar bears.
    Trigger warning - this post may contain information that some members disagree with. It might also end sentences with prepositions.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,595
    ...Not necessarily! The polar shift would have totally disturbed the Gulf Stream, and the wrappers would end up everywhere thereby totally confusing the seals.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,595
    I saw one in another post that may be a good starting point for a new one!

    "Air Force declares great accomplishment as X37B completes 50th year in orbit."

    [Yeah, yeah, I know, the current orbit would decay, blah blah]
    So...from this point we start with the orbit decay remark.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,595
    ...Not necessarily! The photon pressure of the giant flashlight aimed at the moon would give the X37B regular orbital boosts.

    (though it would slowly eat away the heat shield, limiting the lifespan of the X37B)
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Lost among the 160,000+ members
    Posts
    8,002
    Not necessarily! The same photon pressure could be used to lift a new heat shield into orbit and onto the X37B.

    Although, trying to get the orbits of the craft and the heat shield to match might be tricky.
    Trigger warning - this post may contain information that some members disagree with. It might also end sentences with prepositions.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Madison, AL, USA
    Posts
    1,788
    Not necessarily, you just need a deus ex machina generator.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,595
    (Although that deus ex machina generator may consume too much energy, leaving the flashlight underpowered)
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Lost among the 160,000+ members
    Posts
    8,002
    Not necessarily, it will just take a lot longer.

    Although if it takes too long, there might be a supernova that changes everything.
    Trigger warning - this post may contain information that some members disagree with. It might also end sentences with prepositions.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    260
    Not necessarily, a Dyson sphere could collect the energy from the supernova and redistribute that energy into a very powerful flashlight and a slightly less powerful sun.

    Although converting all those heavy metals back into hydrogen might be a small issue.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Lost among the 160,000+ members
    Posts
    8,002
    Not necessarily, what with all the strange discoveries like accelerating expansion and the like, perhaps entropy reversal will make it simple.

    Although the same thing might happen to the components of the flashlight.

    (Bugger, this thread is going to get moved to ATM now )

    (And double bugger, got the IP-banned message maybe 40 or 50 times trying to post this )
    Trigger warning - this post may contain information that some members disagree with. It might also end sentences with prepositions.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,595
    ...Not necessarily! The flashlight might be componentless as it is imaginary. A 5 trillion lumen third eye.

    Then again, in that case Photoshop might be the better way to go.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    260
    Not necessarily, if a Mac was being used, CorelDraw might provide just as many options for graphic manipulation

    Of course, no software in the world can change physics

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,082
    Quote Originally Posted by Extrasolar Flapjacks View Post
    Of course, no software in the world can change physics
    ...Not necessarily! A bug in word processing software might change all textbooks to be printed in such a consistent way that students of physics would never notice something's odd.

    (Of course, professors still teaching with old textbooks might catch the error)

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Lost among the 160,000+ members
    Posts
    8,002
    Not necessarily, everyone will just assume they are senile, or too beholden to the establishment to change.

    Of course, once of the thousands of students of physics might actually conduct an experiment.
    Trigger warning - this post may contain information that some members disagree with. It might also end sentences with prepositions.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    4,778
    This might not necessarily be a bad thing, maybe said student will manage to figure out a way to make a gravity generator to bend light, making it thus easy to make the apparent position (the image) of the full moon a few degrees from the sun.


  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    721
    Not necessarily, the poorly trained student would likely test the gravity generator before deployment, rendering himself a permanent part of the apparatus.

    Of course, this assumes that gravity exists at all.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    721
    Order of hectopi!!

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Lost among the 160,000+ members
    Posts
    8,002
    Not necessarily, plenty of elements did not exist naturally, but were created in the laboratory. So why not gravity?

    Of course, once gravity is generated in the laboratory, it might escape and become established in the wild.
    Trigger warning - this post may contain information that some members disagree with. It might also end sentences with prepositions.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,082
    Quote Originally Posted by Coelacanth View Post
    Of course, once gravity is generated in the laboratory, it might escape and become established in the wild.
    Not necessarily, if one of the people working on anti-gravity succeeds it might provide us with a tool to contain that rampant force of gravity.

    Of course, the resulting chaos might be so powerful as to simply wipe us out, making the entire effort in vain.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Lost among the 160,000+ members
    Posts
    8,002
    Not necessarily, the meeting of gravity and anti-gravity might result in equal parts of chaos and anti-chaos.

    Of course, Hawking radiation may result in the evaporation of anti-chaos as it composes back into gravity and anti-gravity over time.
    Trigger warning - this post may contain information that some members disagree with. It might also end sentences with prepositions.

Similar Threads

  1. Why would blind cave fish necessarily lose their eyes?
    By Click Ticker in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 2008-Feb-14, 10:10 PM
  2. Are particles necessarily three dimensional?
    By Grey in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 159
    Last Post: 2005-Sep-03, 02:59 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •