Sub Question

beavis240 · February 2005

hey im trying to decide if i should sell one of my MM12's in the enclosure for some much needed cash but i wanted some imputs first on my situation.

i have 2 MM12's hooked up the C300.2. What would be the sound difference from 2 MM12's hooked up to that, or 1 MM12 hooked up to the amp that is bridged??

any input or opinions on this would be awesome. thanks.

MacLeod · February 2005

It would actually get louder. Right now youve got 150x2 (300) but if you bridged the amp to a single sub, youre up to 450x1.

Ive always favored single sub setups myself but Im more about SQ and dont care much for a whole lot of bass.

I would say go for it.

neomagus00 · February 2005

try it? as long as your subs are in isolated boxes (i.e. with a solid divider between them, or in separate boxes) you can just rewire and give it a shot. if they're in a linked box, i'd go with what mac sez with one exception: if you're driving the pair you have to the limit right now, you will not get the same amount of volume. if you're being relatively gentle on them now, you'll get good results with only one.

MacLeod · February 2005

Dude!! Where the hell you been?

neomagus00 · February 2005

school, homework, parties, life... good times.

figured i'd check in on you kids, make sure you're not gettin in too much trouble

spwuinmk67 · February 2005

Originally posted by neomagus00
school, homework, parties, life... good times.

figured i'd check in on you kids, make sure you're not gettin in too much trouble

Us? Get into trouble? Surely your mistaken:D

neomagus00 · February 2005

say what? remember this?

spwuinmk67 · February 2005

But of course, while I did read a good portion of it, I did not particiapte though. But yeah...

MacLeod · February 2005

Ahhh, the good old days.

Well, its good to have ya back Neo.

neomagus00 · February 2005

until the weekend

so, did i miss anything big and fun while i was gone?

MacLeod · February 2005

Not really. Vinnie (PoweredByDodge) has been sticking his head in from time to time but other than that its been pretty quiet.

exalted512 · February 2005

so are you in college now??
i had a physics test yesterday, im guessing i made a low 70...wasnt happy at all. i shouldve had a high b/low a on that test...
calculus test tomorrow....i think ill do pretty good on it though.
usually its the other way around, im better at sciences that math..
-Cody

neomagus00 · February 2005

yeah, me too... i'm a physics major at carnegie mellon u, in PA

exalted512 · February 2005

great, im PMing you when i need help:D
-Cody

MacLeod · February 2005

OK. Pop quiz.

If Im in a car moving at the speed of light and I turn on the headlights, will they shine in front of me?

If Im in a train moving at the speed of light and I walk from the rear to the front, am I moving faster than light?

Which is stonger, gravity or electromagnetism?

Thats about all the physics I know.

exalted512 · February 2005

no, yes, and depends...literally
-Cody

MacLeod · February 2005

On the first two Im 99% sure its -1- yes they will shine in front of you and -2- no you wouldnt be moving faster than the speed of light.

However I am sure of the 3rd. Of the 4 forces governing the universe; gravity, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and electromagnetism; gravity is the weakest with strong nuclear force being the strongest (ala nuclear explosion).

My understanding of physics is limited to the very basics of astronomy and even then its very, well, basic.

exalted512 · February 2005

2 im 100% sure is yes if you are comparing it to the same thing you are comparing the train too. I could prove it with vectors if you'd like. Speed is relative, so if you want to get technical, you can be standing still relative to earth, but relative to space, youre moving quite fast. same thing as if you have a ball in your hand when youre driving and throw it up. the ball is moving just as fast as the car is. if you were on a bus and threw a ball from the back to the front, the ball is moving faster than the bus.
-Cody

neomagus00 · February 2005

actually, this is what einstein did, and why it was so revolutionary - NOTHING goes faster than light, no matter how fast you're going. say you're in a light-speed car, shining your headlights, and cody is standing on the sidewalk. cody will measure both your car and your light to be going c (the speed of light, 300 million metres per second). you, however, will measure your light to be going c in front of you - and cody to be going c away from you... trippy, eh?

so it's 1) yes, 2) no, and 3) electromagnetism.

and mac, some numbers for ya - say the strong force has a strength of 1; then EM is 1/137th of that (a very unique number, very cool - shows up all over the place in physics... so important that the director of fermilab's address is 137 something). The weak force is 10^-13 and gravity is a whopping 10^-39.

There's way more where that came from, if anyone's interested

MacLeod · February 2005

So I was right!

neener neener!!

I think this stuff is cool as hell, especially quantum mechanics. I mean the uncertainty principle is mind boggling and Schroedinger's Cat is, well, REALLY mind boggling. You can be both dead AND alive at the same time?!?!?!?

I like it tho cause it stretched my brain.

The thing I am most interested in tho is stars and black holes. Black holes in particular are just effin' cool (for lack of a better word). I can read stuff on them for hours.

AustinKP · February 2005

Originally posted by neomagus00
actually, this is what einstein did, and why it was so revolutionary - NOTHING goes faster than light, no matter how fast you're going.

Neo, that was a pretty good explanation, but you got two things wrong.

1. There are things that go faster than the speed of light. For example, the U.S.S. Enterprise could do something like Warp 9.

2. Ok, there was actually only one.

Austin

exalted512 · February 2005

so was i right? because i know mathmatically you can add two vectors together, one being the speed of light, the other being the speed at which your walking. much like a boat going with the flow of the current and such...
-Cody

neomagus00 · February 2005

yep... with the vectors, it takes care of itself quite neatly: say you're going c. If you were to measure the distance from you to anywhere else, you'd get a very strange result - 0! That is, from the light's point of view, it takes zero time to get from anywhere to anywhere. Analagously, from the light's point of view, the speed at which you are walking is zero, so everything adds up neatly to c.

and yeah, black holes are pretty trippy, especially once you cross the event horizon

.

oh, and austin, #3 - tachyons... basically the same as electrons, cept imaginary mass and their LOWER speed limit is c - they can't get any slower than that. (as far as i know, these are theoretical still, none have been found; they also have some interesting problems with infitinities that lead most physicists to conclude that they probably don't exist).

AustinKP · February 2005

Do Muons travel at the speed of light, or are they faster or slower? Also, admittedly, I don't know much about black holes, but from what I understand, their gravitational pull is so great that even light is sucked in. What I don't understand is how light is affected. Light isn't matter, it's an electromagnetic wave, right? So since it has no mass, how does gravity affect it? Actually, I might remember something about light being particles or something, so gravity maybe would affect it. This stuff just serves to confuse me!
-Austin

MacLeod · February 2005

Light travels as waves AND particles.

Every planet, star and moon has an escape velocity. The speed in which you need to achieve in order to escape that particular gravity. For earth, its 25,000 MPH. Now if you shrunk the earth down but kept the same mass (kind of like balling up a sheet of aluminum foil) the escape velocity would increase.

A black hole is a super massive star that has collapsed in on itself. Think about something 1000's of times more massive than our sun and millions of miles wide being shrunk down to a point less than a mile wide but still have the same mass. Or imagine something the size of an atom having the mass of Mt Everest! It would literally tear a hole in space/time. Something this dense has an escape velocity way beyond the speed of light (186,000 miles per second) and so light goes in but cant come back out.

Now theyre pretty sure virtually every galaxy has a super massive black hole in its center keeping everything together.

neomagus00 · February 2005

wow, you're better at this than you've let on, mac. yeah, everything he said is exactly right.

muons are normal particles; they're part of the leptons, which include electrons and tau particles, as well as three flavors of neutrino (cool little things - if you've ever heard about giant detectors being built in mountains or mines, this is what they're for).

and light, like everything else, can be thought of in two ways, as a wave or as a particle (the term wavicle is popular here). Generally, one thinks of light as a wave and a book as particles, but the converse description of both is perfectly valid - light is an interaction medaited by photons (massless, light-speed particles) and a book's atoms follow the solutions to an equation that describes waves (the Schrodinger wave equation).

black holes are often visualized in the following way: imagine that spacetime is a huge, flat, frictionless sheet of rubber. if you stick a bowling ball on it, it bends, right? now set a marble going on the sheet - if you shoot it off right, like a planet, it will orbit around the bowling ball. this is how einstein described spacetime - matter warps space, inducing changes in the path of other matter, and time is compressed. a black hole is like a very small marble with very large mass - it will create a dip in the rubber sheet that is so large that even light doesn't have enough energy to climb that steep of a wall (the steepness of the rubber sheet is analgous to the escape velocity - the same mass in a smaller space will make the sheet bend more locally, increasing escape velocity). the hole it creates (not actually a hole, cause it's not infinite, just ridiculously deep) is known as a potential well, another common term.

last, mac's right on again with the supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies. it's fairly conclusive that we have one at the center of our galaxy, and nearly as conclusive about the majority of other galaxies too.

two interesting tidbits: search for recent news of a magnetar (aka neutron star) releasing a huge amount of energy that was detected very recently... this thing is about 50,000 light years away, but if it were only ten light years away - more than twice as far as the nearest star - it very well may have caused a mass extinction on earth. as is, it was powerful enough to overload nearly every gamma ray detector in orbit, and messed with quite a few other communications etc. satellites.

tidbit 2: if you thought relativity is weird, research or ask me about d-branes... they're an interesting proposal that could solve the 'dark matter' conundrum and the big bang 'singularity' problem in one fell swoop (with other, more esoteric things being solved too, like certain superstring problems)!

LittleCar_w/12s · February 2005

Wavicles...
I'll have to remember that one!

As far as D-Branes... I've not heard PM if you get the time.

MacLeod · February 2005

Neutrinos are cool. They have vitrually no mass and travel close to the speed of light. They can travel thru sheets of lead thousands of miles thick!! We're having to build traps for them miles beneath the earth so they will have to travel thru miles of dense rock and then thru lead just in order to SLOW THEM DOWN (!) enough to get a look at em.

Gamma Ray Bursters are the things that intrigued me a bunch. For years we didnt know what they were. Bursts of energy beyond imagination. So intense were these bursts that they violated E=MC2. Eventually we figured out it was the birth of a black hole. When the super massive start collapsed the remaining gasses were sucked down into the singularity. They started whirling around the poles like water around a drain, going nearly the speed of light and heating up to millions of degrees. This sent out an unreal amount of gamma radiation that traveled BILLIONS of light years (1 light year = 6,000,000,000,000 miles) and were still visible when they reached us!

AWESOME!! Kind of makes the MTX 1501D look kind of weak huh?

neomagus00 · February 2005

yeah, just a wee bit

the implosions you're referring to can actually cause 'sound' on a galactic scale... they've found entire nebulae and galaxies that are being compressed and rarefied due to the shockwaves from these collapses... now, it's in the 10^-10 Hz range, or thereabouts, but it's sound nonetheless!

MacLeod · February 2005

I didnt think there could be sound in space due to the vacuum. Nothing for the soundwaves to travel on.

Or are they just calling the shockwaves "sound"?

neomagus00 · February 2005

yeah, pretty much... the waves are pushing through galaxy-sized clouds of interstellar dust, compressing and rarefying them just like air, so they're half-jokingly referring to them as sound waves (in the most technical sense, i suppose that they are...)

Sub Question

Comments