Re: [TML] Where the UPP fails me... shadow@xxxxxx (01 May 2020 01:06 UTC)
Re: [TML] Where the UPP fails me... Cian Witherspoon (01 May 2020 01:48 UTC)
Re: [TML] Where the UPP fails me... kaladorn@xxxxxx (01 May 2020 17:53 UTC)
Re: [TML] Where the UPP fails me... Phil Pugliese (01 May 2020 20:12 UTC)
Re: [TML] Where the UPP fails me... shadow@xxxxxx (02 May 2020 10:04 UTC)
Re: [TML] Where the UPP fails me... kaladorn@xxxxxx (02 May 2020 16:16 UTC)
Alderson Discs (was: Where the UPP fails me...) shadow@xxxxxx (02 May 2020 10:04 UTC)
Re: [TML] Alderson Discs (was: Where the UPP fails me...) Timothy Collinson (02 May 2020 10:36 UTC)
Re: [TML] Alderson Discs (was: Where the UPP fails me...) shadow@xxxxxx (05 May 2020 03:06 UTC)
Re: [TML] Alderson Discs Rupert Boleyn (05 May 2020 03:25 UTC)
Re: [TML] Alderson Discs (was: Where the UPP fails me...) Phil Pugliese (05 May 2020 22:25 UTC)
Re: [TML] Alderson Discs (was: Where the UPP fails me...) kaladorn@xxxxxx (05 May 2020 22:58 UTC)
Re: [TML] Alderson Discs (was: Where the UPP fails me...) kaladorn@xxxxxx (05 May 2020 16:01 UTC)
Re: [TML] Alderson Discs (was: Where the UPP fails me...) Jeff Zeitlin (05 May 2020 19:01 UTC)
Re: [TML] Alderson Discs (was: Where the UPP fails me...) kaladorn@xxxxxx (05 May 2020 20:03 UTC)
Re: [TML] Alderson Discs Kelly St. Clair (06 May 2020 01:28 UTC)
Re: [TML] Alderson Discs (was: Where the UPP fails me...) Phil Pugliese (06 May 2020 02:21 UTC)
Re: [TML] Alderson Discs (was: Where the UPP fails me...) shadow@xxxxxx (06 May 2020 18:36 UTC)
Re: [TML] Alderson Discs (was: Where the UPP fails me...) kaladorn@xxxxxx (06 May 2020 19:10 UTC)
Re: [TML] Alderson Discs (was: Where the UPP fails me...) Richard Aiken (10 May 2020 00:38 UTC)
Re: [TML] Alderson Discs (was: Where the UPP fails me...) shadow@xxxxxx (10 May 2020 23:44 UTC)

Re: [TML] Where the UPP fails me... shadow@xxxxxx 02 May 2020 10:04 UTC

On 1 May 2020 at 13:53, xxxxxx@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 9:07 PM shadow at shadowgard.com (via tml
> list) <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> wrote:
>     Ringworlds require unreasonably strong materials. Dyson spheres
>     are worse.
>
>     But Alderson discs take the prize. they need some sort of
>     reinforcing to prevent them collapsing radially into a sphere.
>     Worse, the amount of material required would use up all the matter
>     in quite a few solar systems. Like hundreds or thousands. Probably
>     more than that (I don't feel like doing the math right now).
>
> I recall someone once did an analysis of Babylon 5 station based on
> the mass quoted in the introduction and the dimensions of the station.
> The conclusion: Yes, this is in fact build of Unobtainium. It's way
> too light for its size by orders of magnitude.

That may have been *me* over on the babylon-5 usenet group.

As I pointed out to JMS, the *air* in the station would mass more
than the mass they gave for it.

It's a fairly common sort of innumeracy, caused by ignorance of the
square-cube law.

A one meter cube of water masses a metric ton. A one meter cube of
air masses a kilogram.

A one kilometer cube of water masses a *billion* metric tons. A one
kilometer cube of air masses a million metric tons.

If proportions remain the same, then a change in linear dimensions of
X, results in changes in area of X^2 and volume of X^3.

--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com