StrontiDog

Man, when you're right, your right. I could have sworn G was dimensionless. Though if I'd thought about what units Force are measured in, I would have known there was something wrong with that. I bow to your superior knowledge. And yeah, way off subect. With much of it just being semantics. Thanks for setting me straight. Bill Wolfe

The arithmetic is solid, Iggy, but I think you're off a little on the theory. It may be anti-intuitive, but it doesn't matter how big the light source is (the radius of the aperture), not once the measurement is taken at a distance 10+ times the source radius (5+ times the diameter). That's the minimum distance for the source to be considered a point source. Any closer, and you have to use disc or planar formulas to calculate intensity. All point sources 'look' like they are the same size: unless the light is being scattered by some medium, which while reducing intensity, will magnify the apparent size. The formula isn't r/d2 (where r is the radius of the light source) The inverse square formula is: i/d2 (where i is the intensity of the photon flux) I've used this formula for years with gamma and x-ray point sources, and it's a well-tested and verified field tool. And attenuation due to air is ALWAYS a factor. A reducing factor, at that. The whole inverse-square law is based on the point source being a perfect sphere, with the photons spreading out—uniformly—following an inverse 4 pi geometry. The limitation of shining the light through a tube, is a little weird. You’d get a collimated beam, then. And inverse square wouldn’t apply. In so many words: if as in the example, you increase the intensity at the source by 100 times, and reduce the size of the source by ten times, the intensity (from the same distance) will be 100 times higher. The efficiency and refractive capabilities of the detector are moot, it’s the same detector both times. The size of the source is irrelevant—as long as we’re still talking about a point source. And visible stars, as seen from space or from the surface of the earth, are point sources by ANY definition (except our star, of course.) More stars are visible without an atmosphere to block them, they will not look as big from the moon and they will not twinkle. Bill Wolfe

Not at all, Iggy. I might not be able to do this with a space ship, but I can sure do it with a pencil and a piece of paper. Strange, but true. This is not a: how many pints in a ton, question. (pints of what? feathers. . .mercury?) The numbers work. In my example, how else would you write the square of ten miles per hour than (10)2mph, or 100 mph? I'm not really squaring the units, I'm just manipulating the velocity to an exponent. Hey, I'm not the one agreeing that C is dimensionless. We can leave the dimensions out in some equations, but they are important in others. C is still a velocity and that means it has to have units of distance/time. Take a simple kinetic energy equation: E=1/2mv2 If all I ask is: How does KE increase if the speed of a bullet is doubled? Simple answer: 4 times. I haven't used a single unit of mass or velocity or Energy to solve this equation. Does this make all of those 'dimensionless'? My whole point is that C really isn't dimensionless, either. There are only two times when we don't need the dimensions. One is when they are cancelled-out by some other velocity taken to the same exponential level (v2/C2), and when all we’re looking for is a relationship (the bullet equation, above.) Something like G is dimensionless. It is also empirically deduced, not a calculated number, at all. It is a relationship, a modifier constant. And it doesn't matter what the other units for mass and distance are in, it's always the same. All long as you're not mixing miles with kg, that number will never change. Am I missing something, here? Bill Wolfe

(#Emphasis added by Strontidog.) Uhhhh. . .one thing you're forgetting, Akhenaten2, is just how many photons we're talking about, if it's even visible light. You make it sound like a single line of photons hitting one point in a continuous stream. Don't forget, that this is a blanket of photons, basically hitting everywhere. By your definition, if you stepped a foot to the left, the thing would be invisible. And believe me, I understand inverse square law and distance, and the distance is HUGE. One thing to remember is that every time the distance doubles, the intensity of the photon flux reduces by 75%, for a point source. And that works fine for the first few light years, it really gets reduced a lot. But once you've passed a few hundred light years, you have to keep doubling in order for any significant reduction in photon flux density to occur. After a while, it takes millions of light years just to reduce the density to 1/4 of what it was. And that means that from a billion light years to two billion light years, you're still at 25% intensity. So it's still only 1/4 as bright. In some ways, any star you can see with the naked eye is hitting the earth (or the moon) with as encompassing a blanket of visible light photons, just as the Sun does. It can still be seen from any point that isn't blocked, just not so many photons as the closer star. And yes, I know that space isn’t a perfect vacuum, especially at these distances. There’s cosmic dust and other suns and maybe dark matter (which may or may not block photons, the jury is still out on that. . .) There are still plenty of photons to go around. More than enough. Don’t worry, we’ll make more. Do the point source equations, and you'll find out that after a few light years, it takes more and more to reduce the flux density. No, the twinkling would be from the atmosphere. But the attenuation of the atmosphere would reduce the intensity, not increase it. There are fewer photons coming in (but still a blanket, if you will) when you are looking through miles of atmosphere as there are when you're looking from the moon. Size (due to scattering) might be increased due to atmosphere, but brightness would be reduced. It's all in the numbers. Bill Wolfe

But the 'Natural' unit doesn't always work, now does it? Not in every case, anyway. I've seen C expressed as cm/s, m/s, mph, and I think, km/s. All of these will work just fine in every equation, as long as everything else has been converted. No problem, just arithmetic (as opposed to math. . .) Wouldn't the implied units for C be: light-year/year, or even light-second/second? (no, the units do not cancel, a light-year isn't a year. . .) ie: 1C = the speed of light = 1 light-year/year (Which I'm pretty sure is a true statement.) Which is a little like one mile/h, when you think about it. It's still distance over time. Problem is, that arithmetically (if that's a word) you should be able to pose the problem that: If I make a trip to the Andromeda galaxy (~2 million light-years away) at a constant velocity of C3, how long will it take me to get there? You can do the equation easily in m/s, but it makes no sense in light-years/year. All you have to do is to convert light-year to meters. Easy. By the same token, you can't do the equation for a thousand mile trip if you do it at the cube of one mph, but you can do it if you convert to something other than one (say, 5280 ft/h, which should be the same thing.) So I guess the point is, using C, instead of a number with units, works fine as long as you're not raising it to any exponent, of any kind. If you use it as part of a ratio, it works great. That whole one-to-any-power thing, can be a real pain. But where would we be without it? Bill Wolfe

I thought about this after I wrote it. . .(isn't that what we're supposed to do before we write?) And then I started to think about a foot with infinite mass (lightspeed, but not greater). . .impacting an infinitely strong (ie: made of thatsjustsillium) soccer ball. . Wouldn't make much difference, would it? Not entirely sure that the laws of conservation of momentum apply, in this case, but you'd think the ball would have to slow the foot down, a little, wouldn't you? Mental excercises, that's what we're here for. Bill Wolfe

Not for any system, really. It doesn't work terribly well for a system of photons (no mass), Magnetic fields (similar problem) or singularities (too much mass), a flock of angels (nonexistent), or a few other 'exotic' things. You know what E=mC2 means, don't you? It's a relatively simple and easy to use, matter-to-energy conversion formula. It only works for rest mass, until things get relativistic. For rest mass, when you run a nuclear reactor or blow up an atomic bomb, you actually convert a little bit of matter into energy. And I mean a little bit. I think it was Nagasaki where about one gram of matter was converted, which by my handy dandy little E=mC2 converter program would have equaled 21.481 kilotons of TNT, which is pretty close. One gram is the approximate mass of a regular-sized paperclip. It's basically how much energy--in some unit--that a certain mass (in some other unit) of matter, contains. Calling all Purists, yeah, I know it's more complicated, but I'm trying to make it plain. To say it describes any system under observation is a bit of a stretch. It describes a few things about some aspects of some systems, but has no bearing at all on some others. When you accelerate a bit of mass to the speed of light (impossible), you are basically converting that mass into a photon equivalent, which is pretty close to pure energy. And that's why E=mC2 has some relevance, there, as well. (If I missed something on this last one, Purists, please feel free. Too much simplification can be a problem when we deal with these topics, but I think that's accurate.) So while there is some relativistic use for E=mC2, it's mostly a matter-to-energy conversion formula. Try not to use it to explain just everything. Well, the speed the light is a constant, but in many ways, its a simple velocity, with a real number. So no, that is not correct. Velocity effects some kinds of energy (kinetic energy, impulse, etc.,) but it isn't any kind of unit of energy. Is the water more clear? Bill Wolfe

That's because to kick a ball at the speed of light, your foot would have to travel faster. The ball has to slow the foot down--at impact--to the speed of light in order to fly off that fast. The whole premise is silly, but it's fun to think about. Better make sure your shoe laces are tied really tight. Bill Wolfe

There's a little problem of oversimplification in the initial premise, here. It has to do with the medium the mass is traveling through. No matter can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. Is closer to what Einstein said. It's important, because I've seen the blue glow attributed to Cherenkov Radiation many times, with my own eyes. It isn't even that 'hard' to do. This would be matter exceeding the "speed of light" in ultra-pure, deionized water. The term is misleading, and I can easily see how anyone could become confused by it. We should probably call it something else. Since this thread also talks about the speed of light in a medium other than vacuum, I thought it apropos. The best link to explain how light 'seems' to have a different speed in a translucent media, I found here. It is important to remember, also, that some light that goes into the non-vacuum media never makes it out the other side. There is always some attenuation. If the refractive index of the media was zero. . .well, it would be a vacuum. Bill Wolfe

I didn't mean to say Information Theory was sham, but it looks as if I have done so. It seems a useful tool in some applications. But some of the claims like for evolution to be real, information must be increasing, is just plain silly. I remember reading about a species of fern with over six hundred pairs of chromosomes. Why, that must be the most advanced and most evolved species on the planet, then. Silliness, but it's not fair to refute his statements when he's not here to defend himself. But then again, life ain't fair, is it? Bill Wolfe

But we're still talking about a light cone, right? Penrose-Terrell rotation refers only to objects (mass), not photons, the way I interpret it. Do we know that photons distort anything when passing through space? Does their speed affect their size (length?), since they always travel at the same speed. As far as I know, the 'length' of a photon is either the wavelength, or a continuous, straight line segment (through curved space, just for funzies) from the point of origin to the point of absorption. Both of which, of course, depends on how the cat is feeling when you open the box. Just looking for clarification. Bill Wolfe

Well, basically. . .you can't get more out than you put into the system because you're always going to lose some energy to heat or friction. Neither of these 'drags' on your system will come without a cost, in energy. So unless you can remove both heat and friction (including air), you will never balance your system. Without balance you will never have perpetual motion. Let alone a system that produces more energy than it consumes. You have to equal before you can exceed. Nobody has reached equal status, yet. So--by definition--nobody has exceeded the energy input. It's a bugaboo, it doesn't exist without 'free' energy input. Kind of like a Hydroelectric dam where the rain falls upstream (after a lot of evaporation downstream) but it doesn't cost you--as the producer of hydro power--anything to make this happen. It still takes a lot of energy to get those rain clouds upstream from the dam, but it doesn't cost anyone anything to make it happen. Not the same--by a long shot--as perpetual motion, but it works kinda' the same when you realize that all the work of getting the water above the generator is free. Something to think about, once you've given-up on the whole 'free' energy thing. It ain't gonna work. Newton was right. Sorry. There is a reason we call these things 'Laws' instead of 'theories.' Bill Wolfe

One of the limiting factors that a lot of people put forth, in this case, is the speed at which the stuff of space (which some call Higgs Bosons) can 'get out of the way' of a moving object. It's a little like the speed of sound, which until you exceed it, works quite similarly. Of course, the difference is that the speed of sound has been exceeded by human technology since the first bull whip (maybe 10,000 years ago). The 'sound barrier' can be broken (it really can't, but that's a different discussion), the 'light barrier', cannot. They just aren't the same thing. Something to remember is that this mythical object is emitting electromagnetic radiation in ALL directions. . . .including 'behind' it as it travels through space. And that EMR is at the same speed as the emanations in front. It's still the speed of light. It's not like a doppler effect (where you would subtract the 'almost C' from the speed.) but the frequency would be affected, by quite a lot. It would be way down, to an observer who was watching from the rear. Don't forget that radiation can be at just about any frequency, but it's still traveling through space at the same speed. Some folks confuse this, but it's important. Bill Wolfe

Since we were talking about stopping motion, which we can (maybe) do from a physical moving-through-space perspective, I was just seeking clarification of what I thought I was reading. (A few respectable folks seemed to agree that matter would not exist if we did this. . .) That task has been accomplished. If quark angular momentum were to stop, in all or any of the six flavors, I'm not sure that matter would exist. Don't know if it would be a huge explosion, or a fizzle-out, but it's an intriguing idea, isn't it? I know it's only a sidebar to the thread, but it was one of those interesting outgrowths that make this place work. No? Bill Wolfe

Let's face it. . . Information Theory, like a lot of other Creationist 'Science', is just a bugaboo to try and fool the nonscience-oriented public that Evolution is a political issue that is not well understood or well documented. And it works, I have many Creationist friends. They are good people who don't have the time to (or want to spend the time to) sort through all the crap, including the real disagreement amongst the scientific community, so they just vote with their feelings, their beliefs, and their preconceptions. The same thing is happening with climate change. Which is silly, at best. Best argument I've heard for that one is. . . If global warming weren't real, we'd still be in the FIRST ice age. What have we had. . .ten, that we know of? It's real, it's happening. Get a life. The whole point of the whole Creationist movement is to confuse the issue. . .and it works. Good job, by the way. Even thinking people of faith are torn. I assume that was the point. But this place, Dr. Sullivan, is the wrong demographic. Peddle your wares on the Christian Science Monitor Blogs. You'll get tons of folks telling you that you're saving the world for the American Way. As if that was any better than any other. I've been reading your stuff since before you put the "The Fake' before your screen name. You're better than most. You actually know some science, and therefore, we're trying to actually answer your assertions. I don't see you making much headway, though, do you? Bill Wolfe

Actually, not in this case. The x-ray darkens the image when it interacts with the chemicals on the film, and where there's something solid attenuating the x-rays, the image is less dark. If they overexpose the film, all you get is a black image, no matter what was sitting between the source and the film. If they forget to flip the switch and develop film that never got hit by x-rays, it would be all white--or actually, opaque, no color at all exept for the medium. It's not really a negative because the x-rays are not focused through a lense in any way. What we call a negative in visible photography is similar to what an x-ray image is, but it's not quite the same. They are black and not black (not quite the same thing as black and white), but that's just because x-rays aren't in the spectrum we call color. When they make a print, they have the development show the clear parts as white to add contrast. If you exposed color film to x-rays, it would still just turn dark. We use gamma photons for basically the same thing with industrial radiography, taking shots of welds and the like through several inches of metal. Most places don't use actual film, anymore, it's all digital, now. There's a receiver that will display the image on a screen, more or less in real time. Bill Wolfe Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The first is x-rays shooting through your chest and out your back, with the film behind you. . . The obverse for the other. Bill Wolfe

Michel, I made the yoga and had a good breakfast, thinking about your idea and explanations, the whole time. My left hand and my right hand still occupy two different volumes (points) in space at the same time. What separates them is distance. You and your window would seem to be the same. I remain unconvinced, but appreciate the mental exercise that this thread has provided. À bientôt, Bill Wolfe

By that definition, it wouldn't make any difference if you ran into the guy stopped at the stop sign, or he backed into you stopped behind him. I bet the insurance company and the cops would have a different opinion. So motion isn't needed for matter to exist? Michel talked about spin states, and such, and that makes some sense, but that's not what I was getting from this thread when it comes to motion. Thanks for the reality check. Bill Wolfe

Salut Michel, Je suis heureux de faire votre connaissance. I hope that's correct, it's been a few decades since I studied French. My first point, is that ANY spatial spot is defined by an equation from a specific reference point. So there is a way to define a place in space. If you look back at the beginning of this thread, it's part of what we're talking about. When you say: "What you call a meter, I call a millisecond." I don't understand that. Time and distance are measurements to two different things. You have made the statement, but you haven't backed it up with any real conversion. I just reread the whole thread, to make sure. Time is one dimension, and distance is another. Just like height and width, they are still independant. An object can have one without the other. The same thing sure seems to apply to time. Sure, time is a dimension. But it's another dimension as separate from the 3D spatial dimensions as hieght is, from width. You can have hieght without width, and--as far as I can tell--you can have volume without time. Two points are ten meters apart. I can take one second or I can take one year year to travel between these two points. It doesn't affect the distance betweeen them. So yes, I can, indeed, have distance without time. If you've got something that contradicts this statement, please let me know what it is. That's all I'm saying. Au revoir, Bill Wolfe Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Do you agree that if we account for all known motion (speed of galaxy, solar sytem and planet, etc.,) then apply enough force to an object to bring it to rest relative to the whole universe. (And yes, I know how hard that would be, but it's possible. . .) That the dang thing will still exist? Am I beating a dead horse, here? There must be some way to counteract all the known velocities and return an object to zero kinetic energy. i.e.: v = 0.00. And if we can do this, the thing will still exist, won't it? My field is nuclear physics, not astro. . .but I'm really into this stuff. Bill Wolfe

michel123456, Here's the hypothesis; If two points in space are at the same spatial spot (on an XYZ axis) but in different times, Then there should be some way of mathematically describing these two different points. Please show me these two equations. I promise you I can either follow them or study enough simple, 3D Cartesian geometry to do so. And by the way, just putting in a (t + 1) or a (t +n) doesn't really do anything, it's actually nonsense. (Just in case you were tempted to take the easy route.) I look forward to your reply. Bill Wolfe

michel123456, Why? What paper, what research? Where do you get the statement that Time is even in this equation, at all. The distance between two points that are not defined as the same place: X = n y = n Z = n this is the first point. Here's your second. X = n + 1 Y = n + 1 Z = n + 1 They are now one unit apart. Call it a meter, call it a light year, it doesn't matter. There is only so much space between these two points, it does not matter what your reference point is. It could be your big toe. . .no difference. And this amount of space between two points is what we measure using km or cm or inches or miles or leauges (which is difined, I think, as the distance a person or a horse can walk, in an hour.) All of these things work, as long as we all agree how much space exists between these two points. In other words, as long as we agree what the definition of the unit of measure is. If there is some problem here, let's get it out, now. If not, we're fine. If it takes me a second or a week to travel between these two points, the two points are still the same 'distance' apart. Time has nothing to do with it. If you have evidence otherwise, please show it to me. The 'time' between two points is not even a consideration when it comes to how far apart they are. I'm really interested in what you have to say about this subject. Bill Wolfe.

I don't know if there is a language problem here, or not. But when Akhenaten2 said: Some folks seemed to agree, and I don't get that, at all. By inherent motion, I just meant that theoretical 1 kg lead ball that we shot from the north pole is already moving through space along with the rest of the planet and solar system and galaxy, etc. with a significant velocity. Is this the 'motion' that everyone is talking about? Because by expending a fair amount of energy, we could kill all of that velocity and bring that lead ball to rest, completely. I mean zero kinetic energy at all. And I'm pretty sure it would still exist, with mass unchanged. I doubt there is any actual matter anywhere in the universe that is truly at rest, but it should be possible. And as for the whole real point of this thread, that time = distance, I can't see this, either. All dimensions are independent. The height of an object is not affected by its depth or it's width. zero D = a single point in space 1 D = a line 2 D = a plane 3 D = a volume Each less-than-3D object exists just fine without the 'extra' dimensions. The definition of distance is simply how much space exists between two points. There is no conversion between height and depth, just a measurement, like keeping score. Time exists, it's real enough. We can measure it but it's not the same as distance, at all. For one thing, that ticking watch that everybody wants to fling around at 80% of the speed of light that comes back having ticked fewer times than its synchronized twin, you know the one. It's a very popular model. Well, while it was relativistic, it was smaller, as well. Its 3 dimensions were altered the same as the flow of time. When you slow it down, it gets its old size back, but it never gets those 'lost' seconds back, now does it? Why? Cause they aren't lost. That watch has literally existed in the universe for less time than its twin. Time is not something that can be converted to distance. It's a different critter, altogether. I haven't seen any argument on this thread that has changed any of this, for me.

Hear Hear, and thank you, swansont. We think the earth is moving around the sun at somewhere around 29.78 km/s. For simplicity's sake, let's take a kg of lead from the North Pole and shoot it out into space (so we don't have to worry about the speed of the rotation of the earth). The Sun is rotating around the Big Black Hole at the center of the Milky Way at somewhre around 220 km/s. And the Milky Way might be moving, roughly in the direction of the sky that is defined by the constellations of Leo and Virgo, at around 35,000 km/s. If some velocities are off or some reduce others, fine. It doesn't matter, we all know that the entire planet is moving through space with some velocity, I found these numbers here. It should be possible to hook up rockets or ion drives or impulse engines to this one kg mass and push it in some direction or another until we have counteracted all of this velocity. All of it. It should now be 'motionless' in reference to everything else in the universe. If you can think of some other inherent motion, fine. We'll just push the thing a little harder. Are some of you folks saying that this 'motionless' mass will cease to exist? It sure seems like you are. None of these velocities are unattainable, just difficult. And we have all the time we need to accomplish it. If this is what you're saying. . .please tell me where you found this research. I've seen nothing of it. Sincerely, Bill Wolfe

Galindo, Yeah, got it. You've got the knowledge that the Mayans or Olmecs or Amish had. It's a forgotten path to some extant brain function that will allow us to expand our minds, live in harmony with nature and cure halitosis. If. . .and I don't see any evidence of it at all. . . .IF you are 100% correct in every assertion you've made, and we are all living in peace and togetherness after you enlighten us. . . It is still not the 'Next stage in human evolution," which seems to be what you're saying on the occasions when you get back on subject with all the posts in this thread. Simple yes or no answer, please. Do you agree with that last statement? Exploiting an existing (but unused) potential is not evolution. And I have zero idea what you mean by: Owned? If it's a question for me, the answer is: Not anymore, I'm happily divorced. Thank You, Bill Wolfe