That's an interesting idea, but how would you convince the black hole to move? a large mass in the direction you want using a propulsion system to keep it outside of the black holes event horizon but close enough to use it's own gravitational pull to move the black hole?
In this case I would have the question of how you would stop it from being a closed system. By this I mean if you have the black hole being pulled towards a mass that is using propulsion to keep it ahead, wouldn't the black hole suck in the aftermath of the propellant? In such a case the system is closed and therefore can't result in overall movement.
how would you convince the black hole to move?
That is a good point. Probably accelerating it using gravity. Frame dragging could also work.
An alternative solution is to leave the black hole as a mine when it could not be contained anymore.
Actually, black holes do decrease in size due to quantum. No, seriously, it's called hawking radiation.
I've thought about it some more, and you could actually run an iceberg ship using a lot of liquid nitrogen or other cryogenic fluid. As long as the cryogenic fluid can be contained in a well-insulated tank, and you get frequent enough replacements of fluid, it'd work. Mind, you'd also kill everyone on the ship if the tank broke. Currently, the supply demands would be a nightmare, but with more capacity to create such liquids, it could be done, and a teleporter system would decomplicate resupply.
I saw a really simple workaround used in a book. Aliens kidnap an earthling, and they're discussing the alien's faster than light drive. The earthling says that Einstein proved that it was not possible to travel faster than light. The aliens replied simply "Einstein was wrong." That was the entire explanation for the faster than light travel.
(Doing Therapy)
That type of workaround is actually a lot more common in books than we probably give it credit for, but it's a little annoying in my opinion as I don't see a point in the topic coming up unless the discussion or outcome is interesting, as that's why I read books.
In the above case, the topic addressed is just that human kinds conventional science is wrong. There are many interesting approaches to debunking this in a fictional book, one of the primary and most interesting in my opinion is stating that he was correct under a base assumption, but that assumption isn't universally true. (This leaves a lot of room for picking which fault to find, due to every mathematical and scientific model needing at least some base assumptions) This is really only a small addition to just saying something like "Einstein was wrong" as the alternative could be "Einstein made the assumption that fact x is always true, it's not."
I know this is a small factor, and probably to most people irrelevant in how a writer explains something, but to me this takes an otherwise trivial event in the book and adds some life to it.
This is really only a small addition to just saying something like "Einstein was wrong" as the alternative could be "Einstein made the assumption that fact x is always true, it's not."
I see what you're saying here, but it seems like it would require quite a bit of research to find out what "fact x" might be. I'm sure there is something in there which could be your mythical "fact x" but I wouldn't begin to know where to start researching something like that. "Einstein was wrong" is simple. The other, while would probably make a somewhat better story, would require a lot of research for a single sentence in a book.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
Which, now that I think about it, gives me the workaround for the ice ship. (The ship's designer speaking) "Law of thermodynamics? Oh you mean that theory going around a few centuries ago? No, we go by the law of cold-dynamics now....." There's my workaround.
(Doing Therapy)
I agree that it takes some research, but interesting things like that are why I read science fiction because. I also read fantasy books where I'm ok with the "It just is" explanation, but I have a different set of expectations depending on the book I pick up.
The workaround also gets significantly easier the less sound and fleshed out the scientific theory is. A quick Wikipedia search often gives you 3 or 4 variables that must be assumed for a statement to be true. While this wouldn't be a good enough source if you were presenting a dissertation, it's more than enough in order to write an entertaining book. In the case of thermodynamics I have the advantage that I'm actually in the middle of a thermo class for my major right now, so the assumptions are fresh in my mind. Unfortunately not many assumptions are made for the conservation of energy proof. Entropy has a few more assumptions, which is probably the easier point to prove.
Conservation of energy has the base assumption that the system is closed, meaning that material and heat cannot pass outside what you envision as the system. One way to say this could be false would be to state that we have only observed it in 3 dimensions, 4 if you count time as a dimension and we've observed it transpire over time. Now we could say we're breaking the closed system by shunting heat either forward or backwards in time. Or it could be said another dimension was found, which the heat doesn't naturally follow but if forced will shunt into a parallel system.
If this base assumption is proven to be false the closed system in which conservation of heat and energy is true is now an open system in which conservation of heat and energy is not true for the 3 dimensional system. (This concept could very well be interpreted as a method of matter transference.)
For entropy the entire concept is based that entropy always increases over time. This is supported by proof that it happens this way in every possible occasion people have ever tested it in. The only issue is since the theory is "Entropy ALWAYS increases in a closed system" it can never be conclusively proven.
Of the arguments that seems more agreeable to me, I'd say shifting along another dimensional line is more agreeable than accessing entropy since that allows for science as it is to still exist. Changing entropy means everything known about science of heat transfers is wrong, which seems unlikely. I guess I'm just saying it's hard to imagine that entropy calculations allow me to explain every single type of thermal instance I know of, and for an equation to fit that well and not actually be right is just statistically very unlikely. As to the dimension aspect, I have no way of knowing if there are dimensions I don't interact with.
Well, you could change the existing laws, or work with them. What about adding a law yourself? "It was discovered that if you stuck tab A into slot B at exactly the right point C, then D would happen." A law which doesn't exist. It wouldn't have to make sense, because it's undiscovered. Make up terms that just sound official but don't really mean anything.
(Doing Therapy)
I agree that's possible, it just seems to fit into changing the definition of what it takes to make a closed system as opposed to changing the concept of entropy. Plus trans-dimensional solutions tend to break conventional physics anyway and are really fun concepts to think about. Just to clarify, both the definition of a closed system and entropy are critical assumptions made in thermodynamics. Finding an alternative to either one at all creates an alternative pathway and fundamentally changes the way thermodynamics is understood. Changing the concept of entropy changes a sizable deal more than finding another variable for closed systems.
To my mind being told another dimension exists and what we experience is just a slice of a 4-dimensional picture and we have 3-dimensional senses is much easier to digest than entropy being proven to not always decrease. Why? Because the discovery of this extra dimension through either scientific process or freak accident is about all the rationale I seem to need. For entropy my mind keeps insisting on asking the question "But what variable are they relying on this for that we haven't tinkered with?"
::Interesting side-note:: What you define as event D happening specifically if A,B, and C are is a critical study in thermodynamics of materials. There are huge lists of unique occurrences that happen if you have the right temperature and the right composition that are entirely untrue if you're even a percent off in composition. As such that explanation being applied to prove an exception to a thermodynamic law seems plausible, but my mind is hitting a road block with even thinking of a fictitious reason entropy could be wrong.
Of course, there is always the "unique element" exception. Water is the only substance known to man which has a higher density in a liquid state than a solid state. That's the unique element. So, on this world, there was a unique element exception found that this certain kind of metal remains the same temperature regardless of how much heat energy is applied to it. Impossible you say? On a world where water didn't exist, they would say that liquids are always less dense than solids, and to say otherwise would break the laws of physics.
Water kind of does just what I was talking about. No matter how much heat energy is applied, water cannot go above 212 degrees. I often cook steaks in the water-based marinade. Impossible to burn the steak, and it makes them taste so YUMMY!!!! If you can force the water to stay in a liquid state through containment, it will never go above that temperature. So this metal does that. It never goes above 33 degrees and is perfect for heat sinks.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
In favor of simply saying "Einstein was wrong" it gives an uneducated writer an unbeatable loophole. No matter what his faster than light travel does or does not do "Einstein was wrong" would cover it. About what was he wrong? Whatever you think is wrong with their faster than light drive, that's what he was wrong about.
(Doing Therapy)
First, water isn't the only substance that does that, it's just by far the simplest that is less dense in a solid state. This doesn't really have an important impact on the discussion though.
On the second point, 212 degrees Fahrenheit (For a long time when you were saying that I thought you meant Celsius so I was trying to make sense of it) is the maximum temperature of water in the liquid state at one atmosphere of pressure. The max temperature of liquid water is closer to 280 degrees F. Even then, it's still undergoing a vapor transformation at those temperatures. The process of turning from 212 degree liquid to 212 degree vapor actually takes a lot of energy in and of itself, so you're going to see it stay at that range for a long time, but it is indeed turning into vapor, and once it is vapor it will heat up past that point. The critical temperature for water in the vapor form appears to be around 630 degrees F which is where I would guess they decompose into H2 and O2, which also eats up a lot of heat. The energy in the system remains the same regardless. Unless a system has a format to push heat out of it (dimension idea or similar bound destroying solution) or it's heat is being transformed into something else which would involve extracting it it's going to heat up.
Almost forgot, I used the phase diagram for what I wrote here. http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys4230/phys4230_sp02/images/phase.gif
Interesting.
(Doing Therapy)
The critical temperature for water in the vapor form appears to be around 630 degrees F which is where I would guess they decompose into H2 and O2
About that, I think you meant 647.096 Kelvin. The other thing is it became a supercritical fluid.
I meant Fahrenheit, it was a really rough approximation off of the table I gave. 630 F is around 600 K though so I didn't do the best job reading it, but I was tired and I didn't need any real accuracy past being in the rough vicinity of the answer. Also supercritical fluids don't normally stay supercritical unless they're elemental liquids. It's a highly unfavored mix versus just breaking into the elemental forms.
Did you ever consider, water should burn? Hydrogen is an explosive and oxygen is a fire accelerator. Then again, table salt should be poisonous. Chlorine was the first chemical weapon used in warfare, and sodium is another explosive. Interesting how these mix together, ya know?
(Doing Therapy)
In looking up data to answer John's question I realized my previous statement was incorrect about water. Water ends up being favorably a supercritical fluid for a longer span than I would have expected due to the cyclical cycle it's components would form. Max was 100% right.
As to water burning, water is actually a bi product of burning already. When hydrogen burns it forms water. For water to burn it would have to form H4O2, which as far as I know isn't a favorable combination.
As to the idea that salt should be lethal there is a fundamental flaw in the logic there. The assumption is that ions share the physical and chemical processes that they did prior to becoming ions.
Some other examples are copper ions versus copper element. The copper element has the distinctive copper color while copper ions can be either blue or green tinted depending on whether it's +2 or +3 (I think those are the correct values but it's not terribly important for the train of thought so I'm not going to bother looking it up.) Potassium also burns when in contact with water in it's elemental form yet is a vital nutrient as an ion. It is a really interesting topic though, and if you want to talk about peculiarities found in ions and different percent concentrations I do a lot of work on studying certain aspects of that for metallurgy and polymers and would be glad to talk about it more.
647.096 kelvin = 705.1028 degree Fahrenheit
Thermal decomposition of water occurs when heated to well over 2000 degree Celcius. It can occur at lower temperature with the help of catalyst.
Thermal decomposition
Glantri, what's your real name? I appreciate the offer of explaining that, but it's not needed. I don't have a problem with "It works because I say so" in a story. The explanations as to why it works don't really concern me too much.
Something though, perhaps you could explain this joke to me. I understood the joke, but I can't remember it all. I thought maybe you could piece it back together.
Is hell endothermic or exothermic? One of those means it gives off heat, and the other means it absorbs heat. One of them would mean that hell was expanding faster than the heat could be produced, until Hell Froze Over, and the other would mean that hell was not expanding faster than the heat was produced, and would keep building pressure until All Hell Broke Loose. Does this make any sense? Perhaps you've read the joke? I know it's kind of vague, but see what you can give me.
(Doing Therapy)
My names Mike, sorry for not clarifying that earlier.
I've heard that joke before and there are a couple of variants of it, and while I could probably say most of it from memory I'll just quote a website that had it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
College Essay: Just remember, on tests, B.S. does pay off.
The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry midterm. The answer was so "profound"
that the professor shared it with colleagues, which is why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law, (gas cools off when it expands and heats up when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing with time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.
As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell.
Since there are more than one of these religions, and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell.
With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.
Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell; because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over. So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Ms. Teresa Banyan during my Freshman year--"...that it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you."--and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then #2 cannot be true; and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze.
THE STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A" GIVEN
(Taken from http://www.theblackadder.co.uk/jokes/JokeHellEndothermicExothermic.html)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said earlier Max, I was A) just estimating off a graph and wanted a decent number, I also don't remember what atm I was looking at on the graph and B)I already posted saying I was wrong. Water has an abnormally large tolerance for being a supercritical fluid, while most compounds tend not to.
My earlier post was cross-posted with yours.
The above post reminds me of the discussion about absolute hot temperature.
Glantri's name is Mike.
Concerning the "Einstein is wrong" bit, I agree with Mike that it's a bit annoying; but then, when Einstein published Relativity, it came to saying "Newton is wrong", and Newton's formulas had worked for most things for quite a long time. Problem was, he did not take into account the factor of the ratio of velocity over the speed of light--which at the velocities at which he was working was such a small fraction that his equipment could not measure the difference. There were some other oddities, though--like why certain chemical reactions produced electrical potential.
So Newton was "right enough". It might be that Einstein is "right enough" given all that we know.
And the sci-fi world is full of those "other rules". Star Frontiers uses one by which it was discovered that when you reach 10% of light speed you drop into an empty dimension which reduces distances between spatial dimensions by a huge but consistent factor, and if you are going the right direction and can decelerate at the right moment, you can return to normal space at the target destination. I think Star Trek's "warp drive" is supposed to work by folding or compressing space so that the distances are shortened, but I don't know how it's supposed to do that.
--M. J. Young
Mike, I'd heard it the other way, that the events of a recent night proved that hell was exothermic. More to the point, the proof as stated would be incorrect, because it only proves that the rate of expansion has not outpaced the increased content by enough to substantially reduce the temperature yet, and not that cooling is not occurring at a very slow rate.
But I cross-posted with the other post.
--M. J. Young
I've heard it both ways as well, but I knew I couldn't retell it in the same detail as if I just used an already published copy, and it is indeed a flawed proof, but funny none the less. :)