 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in General Chat. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - General Chat - Random question for the science-minded. |
New poll |  |  |
| Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Kutske                 Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6644 days Last view: 6644 days |
| ||
| While pondering the physics of a constructed world that I've recently begun to realize, I began to wonder if the entire world is actually submerged under liquid. Unfortunately, I am not very keen on issues of pure science, so I have a duo of questions. Please, if you know the answers, share them with us...
1) What are the properties of ultralow density liquid, as they relate to human-like organisms? Say perhaps, a liquid which was less than 1/1000th the density of fresh water at room temperature. Would the humanoid sink or float especially quick? Is it remotely feasable that this liquid could be infused with oxygen to the point where air-breathing humanoids would be able to effectively "breathe" while fully submerged in this liquid? 2) Conversely, what are the properties of ultrahigh density liquid as they relate to human-like organisms? This time, suppose the liquid were 1000x more dense than fresh water at room temperature. The same questions (sink, float, breathing) apply as above. Assume that any impurities in the hypothetical water/liquid are unimportant. Also keep in mind that I don't have a firm grasp of density -- it may be physically impossible for a liquid to be 1/1000 or 1000x the density of fresh water at room temperature for all I know, I just pulled the number "1000" out of thin air for the sake of argument, just to emphasize that I'm wondering about a liquid that was vastly less or more dense than water. |
|||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite.     Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| I can answer #2 directly.
You'd float and sufficate. If you had gills and had a higher density than the liquid, you would sink and probably be able to breathe. As for #1... You'd sink, it'd almost be just like normal. You might, might, be able to breathe it in, assuming that since it is so undense that it couldn't pass through the air you breathe out. I'm not sure if you could get oxygen actually into your lungs or not though. |
|||
Squash Monster Bouncy Since: 11-18-05 From: Right next to myself. Last post: 6304 days Last view: 6298 days |
| ||
| Yes, you'll float in the super-dense one and sink in the super undense one.
With such a huge diference in density as the one you describe, a human probably wouldn't be able to tell the liquid from air or concrete, flotation-wise. If you were inside the super-dense liquid, it'd likely crush you before you floated out. Trying to breathe it would be a very bad idea. If you were inside the undense liquid, your ability to breathe would depend on a number of factors. Firstly, and obviously, the liquid would have to be very nearly inert and completely non-toxic, and you'd have to fill around 20% of it with oxygen gas. Since the liquid would presumably be heavier than nitrogen (the usual 70% of your air) (didn't actually check), you'd have a lot of dificulty breathing, and would probably need to focus on your breathing a lot (or die). Even with a weight similar to that of air, you'd likely be having difficulty breathing, as liquids are just harder to pump around. |
|||
Young Guru Snifit  Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6303 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| The only difference between solid, liquid, and gas is density (in the most basic of sense). Basically, if a collection of particles is sufficiently dense they will hold a sold state that cannot be changed to fit the shape of the container. If they are sufficiently dispersed then they will not have bonds strong enough to keep them bound together like a liquid and will therefore become a gas. | |||
|
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6644 days Last view: 6644 days |
| ||
| I see, thanks for the heads-up. While on the subject - and keeping in mind that fans (of the likes of Star Trek and Star Wars) with too much time on their hands find ways to prove inertial dampers and Force shields scientifically plausible - what would you suppose the scientific basis is behind LCL in the anime Evangelion? It's a liquid, presumably artificial, which the pilot is submerged in while controlling the Eva. The explination they give is that "oxygen is supplied directly to the lungs," but that doesn't sound very well-thought out ("Time travel? Uhh...chronitons. Yep, that's it."); it operates more on suspension of disbelief than anything.
But then I got thinking -- fetuses in the womb during the third trimester are basically ready to come out and live in our world, but they obviously don't breathe air. Do they breathe at all? I would suspect that it's more likely that their blood is oxygenated by the mother, rather than the placental fluid being oxygenated and them breathing that. However, I just found this on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_breathing The major problem with liquid breathing seems to be that it's easy enough to supply oxygen to the lungs with a fluid, but it's more troublesome to remove the carbon dioxide produced in what would normally be exhalation. Also, another problem exists in that liquid fluids are considerably more viscous than air, which means it's more difficult to breathe the liquid in and out, and the heart has to work harder for the same effect it would get while breathing air. But then I took into consideration superfluids, which have absolutely no viscosity...but those bring on a whole new host of problems, and I'm not that familiar with the subject, so I'll stop here. In short, LCL; what's the scientific basis for it? |
|||
Jilkon Cappy  Since: 11-27-05 From: Teh Sweden Last post: 6378 days Last view: 6327 days |
| ||
| Well the EVA pilots are special in some way right? It might be that their bodies are better adapted to the.. uh.. breathing of that stuff. And don't babies have some sort of gills when they're in mommy. | |||
|
Young Guru Snifit Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6303 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| babies get their nutrients through the umbilical cord, which means that they do not have to worry about breathing. They get everything, including their blood and oxygen from their mother. When they get more developed in the womb they begin to retain their own blood but still recieve oxygen from the mother. And it would be possible to breath liquid if we had a different lung system. Basically our lungs extract oxygen from the air through a filtration process that would need ot be modified to work with liquids, but the concept is definately possible, just a little bit of modification to our organ systems. | |||
mattp Red Paratroopa Since: 03-04-06 Last post: 6561 days Last view: 6561 days |
| ||
| There is a science fiction that you can fill your lungs with a liquid so that you can breathe more effeciently/not have your lungs collapse underwater.
I'm pretty sure its not true but you never know what science will come up with. A super-low density liquid would be a gas. |
| Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - General Chat - Random question for the science-minded. |
| |
