Recent comments in /f/askscience
[deleted] t1_j68jxj3 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in In the absence of cosmic radiation, would an object placed in space eventually cool to absolute zero? by IHatrMakingUsernames
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j68jm7f wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in In the absence of cosmic radiation, would an object placed in space eventually cool to absolute zero? by IHatrMakingUsernames
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j68jhpb wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in In the absence of cosmic radiation, would an object placed in space eventually cool to absolute zero? by IHatrMakingUsernames
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j68jhe1 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in In the absence of cosmic radiation, would an object placed in space eventually cool to absolute zero? by IHatrMakingUsernames
[removed]
Varsect t1_j68j8hk wrote
Reply to comment by Yaver_Mbizi in In the absence of cosmic radiation, would an object placed in space eventually cool to absolute zero? by IHatrMakingUsernames
Nature doesn't really factor in such stuff where entropy decreases (unless you're freezing stuff like crazy) and energy levels go crazy but uh, sure?
Garbleshift t1_j68j5h7 wrote
Reply to comment by SkriVanTek in can gemstones be melted into a gradient? by Acceptable_Shift_247
The description above still applies to the parts you melt.
The point is that when you heat a rock and then cool it, in different circumstances from those in which it was originally formed, you're making a different kind of rock, with different physical properties. Every atmospheric oxygen and moisture are an issue. And minerals haven't been refined the way industrial metals have, so you don't even really know exactly what you're heating up. The chance of the molten part staying stuck to the part that didn't melt is pretty slim.
MxPunkin t1_j68j3ty wrote
Reply to In the absence of cosmic radiation, would an object placed in space eventually cool to absolute zero? by IHatrMakingUsernames
Energy can neither be created or destroyed, so as long as the object had some heat to it, then it could never cool down to 0k because that initial heat it brought with it would be in the system somewhere. Unless you were to isolate the object, and then remove the energy from the quarantine, then that energy will still be in the system somewhere.
[deleted] t1_j68iz10 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j68irwq wrote
[deleted] t1_j68irs0 wrote
[removed]
Methixsks t1_j68ipoi wrote
Not really an answer to the brief, but you could always look into lab created products that have mixed colors. They're usually either nanosital (a fancy artificial glass that has properties like quartz) or artificial corundum.
Here's one of each:
Yaver_Mbizi t1_j68ilyz wrote
Reply to comment by Varsect in In the absence of cosmic radiation, would an object placed in space eventually cool to absolute zero? by IHatrMakingUsernames
> Nevermind anything below that.
Well, it actually is possible to get below 0 K. It's pretty different to how one might imagine it, though - it's hotter than the hottest temperature, rather than colder than the coldest temperature for starters.
[deleted] t1_j68i7jk wrote
Reply to comment by s00perguy in can gemstones be melted into a gradient? by Acceptable_Shift_247
[removed]
s00perguy t1_j68i3y9 wrote
Reply to comment by CrustalTrudger in can gemstones be melted into a gradient? by Acceptable_Shift_247
Oh sweet Jesus that's some good sourcing.
Hey,while it isn't quite like mixing dyes and creating a gradient, you could grind the gemstones in question and create a resin suspension for a similar effect, assuming none of them react in any way with standard 2 part epoxy. You could grind them fine, mix them into their respective resins, mix them, and let it cure.
Or, if you're more concerned about carrying over the crystal structure of the original stones than getting a strictly smooth gradient, you could polish them to a uniform shape and bond them somehow. Suspending in epoxy is still an option for that.
Just some ideas, idk if that works on all fronts.
[deleted] t1_j68i3s0 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j68hxzu wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in In the absence of cosmic radiation, would an object placed in space eventually cool to absolute zero? by IHatrMakingUsernames
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j68hulc wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in In the absence of cosmic radiation, would an object placed in space eventually cool to absolute zero? by IHatrMakingUsernames
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j68hik2 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in In the absence of cosmic radiation, would an object placed in space eventually cool to absolute zero? by IHatrMakingUsernames
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j68h6ms wrote
[removed]
CrustalTrudger t1_j68gvxn wrote
Reply to comment by torama in can gemstones be melted into a gradient? by Acceptable_Shift_247
Yep, corrected.
julie78787 t1_j68gm4d wrote
Reply to comment by SkriVanTek in can gemstones be melted into a gradient? by Acceptable_Shift_247
You'd likely start getting into issues with the coefficients of thermal expansion being different, as well as thermal conductivity preventing this from happening locally.
VandolinHimself t1_j68ey0h wrote
The best answer is this…. It is angular momentum that plays a role but not quite as described. Because the planet is spinning, it creates a non perfect spherical shape. To put it simply, the area around the equator moves fastest as the planet rotates, and it is this area where more material converges, creating a bulged, subtle saucer or egg like shape. Because of this convergence, gravitational force over the equator is greater than say over the poles. This is an oversimplification, but it’s simple and easier to understand. To elaborate, gravity can be generalized into a single vector or direction as with Newtonian mechanics. The same idea is indoctrinated into relativity, but is expanded on for particular directions (tensor products) which average out to an overall force in a single direction. When considering accretion of rings, you must consider the relativity point of view. The overall force may have a single direction, but this way of thinking is too narrow to describe what happens when rings form. If you consider that the direction towards the equator is greatest, perhaps the same notion that discerns Newtonian mechanics can be used to intuitively understand that the overall force will draw things towards the equatorial plane. More of the planets mass is concentrated there, hence gravity drawing more there. Give a system enough time to evolve and material will collect there.
Ultimaurice17 OP t1_j68el4b wrote
Reply to comment by mfb- in Why do planet's rings match their rotations? by Ultimaurice17
This is likely because they get new moons all the time though right. I'm sure all of the big important moons like titan tritan Europa and such that have been there for a long time have orbits that match the rotation right?
Ultimaurice17 OP t1_j68k6bi wrote
Reply to comment by VandolinHimself in Why do planet's rings match their rotations? by Ultimaurice17
This makes a lot of sense. Essentially things are drawn to the orbit because most of the mass of the body that it's orbiting is around the equator.