IronSmithFE t1_izdilxr wrote

mass, speed and distance all are factors. objects with less mass aren't as heavily acted upon by other objects. objects that are moving quickly will have comparably greater resistance to the inward force. lastly, distance, the further two objects are from each other the less effect their masses have on each other.


IronSmithFE t1_iy1j6a8 wrote

it isn't that important especially if that is the top floor. if it were at all important it would be located under the ceiling joist not parallel with it. that being said, if you want to make sure that you are ok, you can put up some studs underneath the joist along the adjacent wall which you are not cutting away.


IronSmithFE t1_ixbdi8t wrote

> There is new empty space

prove it.

the best you can say for sure is that distant massive bodies are accelerating away from each other. there are a few flimsy theories as to why it is happening, one of which is that there is some kind of dark matter between normal matter which is pushing normal matter around. even if that were the case, the motivation of normal matter would never exceed the speed of light.


IronSmithFE t1_ix9tv1v wrote

> space between matter in the universe is expanding constantly that causes faster-than-light expansion

at best you'd only get 2x the speed of light in expansion assuming objects were traveling in exactly opposite directions at the speed of light. since nothing but photons and gravity waves are traveling at the speed of light and neither are observable parts of the universe as they travel outwards the universe could not have expanded nearly 80 billion lightyears. at best it could have expanded to a diameter of 26 billion lighyears and that would not be nearly true because no matter what we can observe from our vantage point travels nearly the speed of light.

so, if the observable universe is indeed more than 80billion lightyears in diameter the initial hyperinflation would need have been the vast majority of the expansion of the universe and must continue to be the majority of the expansion for the next 27 billion years. now, because i have no idea how or why matter could have expanded faster than the speed of light your "short story" makes no sense to me.

perhaps you could tell me how matter or protomater could have expanded a great deal faster than the speed of light before you expect me to believe your short story.


IronSmithFE t1_ix9sa75 wrote

k, but the stars don't and can't move at near the speed of light and even if they did and two stars were traveling in opposite directions the furthest they could have expanded from each other in the fastest scenario assuming they did each move at the speed of light would still only be 26 billion lightyears. in your balloon scenario, they wouldn't move near the speed of light except in relation to each other and even then they would be unlikely to reach the speed of light in relation to each other.


IronSmithFE t1_iu8yfvj wrote

yes, the handle or cartage is installed wrong.

depending on the handle/brand you might need an allen wrench, smaller flat, head or philips head screwdriver to release a set screw in addition to an adjustable wrench. it isn't all that hard to do but you will need to shut off the water.

it will be easier and cheaper for you to buy the tools and watch youtube tutorials than to hire a plumber or handyman.


IronSmithFE t1_itp0rkn wrote

now that you mention this, he had stated something to that effect as well. of course, supposing a creature had only an exoskeleton but also had lungs, it still seems like it would be limited on size because of rigidity and weight.

the expert, i think, was arguing against the bugs in starship troopers as impossible creatures.


IronSmithFE t1_itom1vl wrote

i was told a long time ago that there is a physical limit to the size of a creature with an exoskeleton because of weight constraints among others. i don't remember exactly what that constraint was but i believe it was something like the size of a football.

according to my source, the internal skeleton model allows for much larger construction. i don't know how this applies exactly but i imagine, if true, that larger creatures with exoskeletons might have needed thinner shells just to remain mobile.