 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote:
>
> > The weight is expressed in Newtons but the mass in Kg :).
> > But you are right for light year this is only for distance,
> > 1 light year is the distance that the light do in 1 year.
> > This is roughly 3*10^8 (m/s)*(3600*24*365)(s)=3*10^8 * 31,536*10^6
> > =9.46*10^15 meters =9.46*10^12 Km.
>
> My calculator gives it as 9,460,528,404,879.4 km
> (3*10^8 is a *very* rough measure (and a year is 365.24 days))
> How come people never use the word megameters or gigameters or terrameters?
Yep but a good physicist can (must sometime) do good approximation to go
to the essence of the problem :)!
But since you like precision, here is
Tropical year (equinox to equinox) 31556925.2 secondes
Sideral year (fixed star to fixed star) 31558149.8 secondes
speed of light 299792458 m/s
So we have: 9,460,895,298,474,208.4 m (for Sideral year) :)
And the error compare to my first result is only about 9.46*10^(-3)%
The calculations are right but I am kidding :)
Fabian.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Juha wrote:
>
> Fabian Brau <fab### [at] umh acbe> wrote:
> : The weight is expressed in Newtons but the mass in Kg :).
>
> Also forces are measured in Newtons.
> An alternative measure for force is kilopond, which is 9.8 newtons.
>
I never doubted about your knowledge :)
Fabian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hey sig. What's up?
I just got this issue tonight.
The article is fascinating and
occupying way too much of my
time. :)
The counterperson (could I *be*
more PC) said that this issue
was selling "like hotcakes."
On a personal note I add this.
My sculpture professor considered
Scientific America an 'Art' magazine.
Pretty cool, in my book.
Thanks again for your post.
Peter Warren
war### [at] hotmailcom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>The counterperson (could I *be*
> more PC) said that this issue
> was selling "like hotcakes."
My only 3D magazine (Computer Graphics World) stopped coming to the store a
few months ago. Apparently, nobody in this friggin' country is into 3D, so
there is no demand for the magazine. The last one was the November 1999
issue. :(
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Warren wrote:
> Scientific America an 'Art' magazine.
^
Hehe! Have you read the Feb. Anti Gravity column or was it just a typo?
Steve Mirsky's column is the first one I read, and he seldom fails to
make me laugh!
sig.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sigmund Kyrre Aas wrote:
> Hehe! Have you read the Feb. Anti Gravity column or was it just a typo?
Was that the one about shattering baseball bats in college games?
--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___ ______________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet>
|_/avid |ontaine <ICQ 55354965>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Scientific America
<flame bait> An oxymoron? </flame bait>
Just a joke, settle down...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TonyB wrote:
>
> >The counterperson (could I *be*
> > more PC) said that this issue
> > was selling "like hotcakes."
>
> My only 3D magazine (Computer Graphics World) stopped coming to the store a
> few months ago. Apparently, nobody in this friggin' country is into 3D, so
> there is no demand for the magazine. The last one was the November 1999
> issue. :(
I get "Computer Graphics", the SIGGRAPH journal.
-Mark Gordon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TonyB wrote in message <389ae922@news.povray.org>...
>Apparently, nobody in this friggin' country is into 3D
You are wrong Oh PovBreath (bad Johnny Carson).
I know of at least one person in your 'friggin'' country
that is into 3D.
That would be you.
Nonetheless,
point taken.
I will be the first to start a "Let's get TonyB some
friggin' 3D mags" group."
Probably this will not get to far but at least you
will know that someone cares.
Peter Warren
war### [at] hotmailcom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm half way thru this article.
I remember SA as being a
little better written in the past
than now.
Maybe it is just me.
Also it seems 'flashier' in general,
but so is all media these days.
Still interesting and I personally
was surprised with it's emphasis
on human skin.
I did not really think of this as an
issue, yet
Peter Warren
war### [at] hotmailcom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
