michel123456

But why is there an orbit in the first place? Why not a line that make the 2 bodies crash together?

It is a joke. A lazy person will not do the job at all. A lazy person will tell someone else to do the job and most often get all the credits by keeping the true worker in the dark.

"think" is not enough. "ponder" is the thing to do.

True. But from this fact to the strep of "Stop the glorification of busy", no. What is the next step? Glorification of lazy?

Right. I made mistakes about that. But what puzzles me also is that the avatar changes even in old threads. It is like transforming the past, I find that weird.

I woke up from a dream and realized this avatar is free now Who wants it?

Just wanted to share this mesmerizing show of Fan Yang. enjoy

Yes, it looks to me Swansont wants to diminish as much as possible the impact of his avatar in order to see whether his comments are enough for convincing. He began the experiment when switching from 007 to Austin Powers. Now he goes even deeper.

I was thinking that the same effect happens when looking in a telescope.

And we are so much accustomed that we are unable to realize how weird it is. I am able to construct geometrically a perspective. I did that for years professionally and I am afraid this technique is getting lost. I am really worried by the wiki article: I am at bullet 1 "Freehand sketching (common in art)" and bullet 2 "Graphically constructing (once common in architecture)".From the answers I got in this thread I understand that fellow members are under bullet 4 "Computing a perspective transform (common in 3D computer applications)" and have no clue about conic sections, nor the way observed shortening happens. It is not simply about objects looking smaller, it is about the relation and position* of these objects. And finally it is about the way you look everyday at everything around you. Even a still picture like the one below corresponds to acceleration. Maybe you find it evident but you are the genius here. ------------------------------- * for example see here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81113-bad-photoshop/

I mean, in the OP I stated that constant speed is not observed as such. That is , because of perspective, lengths are observed as contracted AND also because the time tick remains the same no matter the distance. One could imagine another kind of universe where the time tick is observed contracting at the same rate with observed length: that would produce the observation of constant velocity as a constant.

Father Ted will also explain why time does not seem to diminish when far away?

Does anybody know?

I say that observation is deformed: what you measure as constant motion is observed as if it was accelerated motion. The result is first that all objects in constant motion are seen as if they were expanding/contracting. The same goes for objects that come directly towards you. And that seems acceptably true for all objects, except for light if I have to believe all the other members here.

I am talking about a property of the geometry of space as seen by an observer. i am not talking about the property of light or anything. Since it is a property (or an illusion) created by the geometry, everything must be subordinated to the same effect.

well understood. But this photon comes from far away. From a star or a galaxy. The photon is not born upon your eye. So you see it coming from somewhere.

Constant motion is not under question. If a train comes from 100km away at 100km/h, it will reach you in 1 hour. Nonetheless it will look like accelerating when it comes straight to crush you. I don't know why you think light would be an exception to that. It is an "optical" illusion. Optical: isn't it all about vision?

Interesting. But I see no mention of acceleration. If a rule applies because of geometry there should be no exception. If you make a careful analysis of the light that gets to you, you should find that this light appears like being under acceleration.

I ment When an object comes from far away straight towards you, moving at constant velocity, it will appear accelerating. And that counts for light too: when light comes to you, it will appear accelerating.

Yes I know it is not a simple question and I am also pretty sure there is a much simpler way to calculate it but 1. my skills are reduced to a minimum and 2. when I cannot solve a math question in a few minutes I tend to abandon, it must be a reminiscence of the way my exams were conducted: if you cannot answer immediately, jump to the next question otherwise you are burned. How did you figure that "9^2500 is a 2386 digit number"?

At least it shows directly that the answer has less than 2501 decimals The question resumes to (x-1)^n Maybe through a Pascal triangle ?

=6561^625 =6561^624 + 6561 step back 9^2500 = 10^2500 minus ?what? Right. I corrected my post in the meanwhile.

=81^1250

Correct me if I am wrong but 3^5000 = 9^2500

No debt (public)