Iggy

Yup! Spot on. Jesus! I must have been more than half asleep last night Spot on, Tar

That's not right. In our frame the distance from earth to sun is 150 million km. The time it takes light to move the distance is 500 seconds. Dividing 150 million km by 500 seconds gives the speed of light (0.3 million km/s). In another frame moving .6c relative to us the sun-earth distance is 120 million km. The time it takes light to move the distance in that frame is 400 seconds. Dividing 120 million km by 400 seconds again gives the speed of light -- .3 million km/s. The distance and time is variable, but the speed is invariant.

It must be an intentional strawman.

Broadcast news tends to frame issues with so little context and in such a reactionary way that conservatism and liberalism seem to me like they can almost change core principles overnight. I don't believe military intervention is necessarily a conservative idea, nor turning the other cheek necessarily a liberal one. I think americans tend to forget that the neo-conservative movement grew out of the democratic party -- that people like Wolfowitz came from the democratic party. Before the creation of the Bush doctrine, nation building was often labeled a liberal cause. I have respect for liberals who support the war in Iraq for liberal reasons and conservatives who oppose it for conservative reasons, and it seems like there is a lot more of that in the print media -- like conservative columnist William Buckley and liberal columnist Christopher Hitchens. Too bad the print media, like the examples I chose, are dead and dying With Fox news and MSNBC replacing them, liberalism and conservatism get redefined with each new policy initiative and wedge issue forged for the next election.

I agree, in particular with the part I bolded. I have heard it called the principle of reciprocity. If two things are moving relative to one another with constant velocity then v' = -v. Each calculates the velocity of the other equally. EDIT... Yeah, here is the: reciprocity principle ...EDIT How do you mean "the two velocities"? If everything is from O's perspective then the velocity of O is zero and the velocity of P is some value [latex]v[/latex]. Then, by the principle of reciprocity, from P's perspective O would have the velocity [latex]-v[/latex]. I don't know of any name. I agree it would be mixing frames, and it could have values greater than c so probably is avoided.

I don't know exactly to what you're referring. Simultaneous means "at the same time". Time is relative so whether two events are simultaneous can depend on frame, but that is far beyond the scope of your confusion. If two supernova don't happen at the same time then they are not simultaneous. You need to think of the supernova as an event. It happens at a specific place and time. The observation that we make of the supernova is a separate event. It happens at a different specific place and time. The two events happen at different times. They are not simultaneous.

No. When I say "the energy you get from dropping a kilogram that distance" I mean the difference in gravitational potential energy between the top and bottom of the cliff. You can not get more than 294 joules from moving a kilo that distance downward no matter how things are geared or what mechanical system you are using to convert the energy. That's what mgh calculates. From there it is a simple calculation to find the absolute least amount of rock you would need under the best circumstances (the best gearing -- the least friction -- the best mechanical setup) to get the power you want. Divide the power you want in watts (2 000 000 watts) by the product of gravitational acceleration and height (9.8 * 30). That will give you the mass per second (kg/s) that you need. You get 6,802 kg/s. Or roughly 587,000 metric tons per day. That is the best case scenario. Twenty three thousand dump truck loads of material per day for 2 megawatts. For 2 megawatts you need to unload at least 6,802 kilograms per second. To double that power (4 MW) you would need twice the material. To only get half the power (1 MW) you need half the material (3,401 kg/s). The power and the mass needed to get it are proportional. Does this all make sense?

You are catching yourself in a false dichotomy. Try the analogy that Schrodinger's Hat makes. What is the distance to the earth? I understand that "from the moon's perspective" the distance to the earth is 390 thousand kilometers and I understand that "from the sun's perspective" the distance to the earth is 150 million kilometers, but what is the real universal distance to the earth? You understand and agree that as far as "the distance to the earth" is concerned there doesn't need to be a 'single', 'real', 'universal' value for the universe to be real and objective, yes? The same thing goes for velocity and kinetic energy. The earth doesn't have a single, real, velocity from some godlike perspective. It has one velocity compared to the sun and another compared to the milky way and another compared to the Andromeda galaxy. It doesn't need a universal velocity presided over by god for the universe to be objective. You agree, yes? So why does your mind beg you to say that events need a single universal order? The evidence is overwhelming against the idea and I've heard no reason to even suspect that simultaneity, time, and distance are different from velocity, momentum, and other frame dependent quantities. No -- that is not the definition. If two trains, or two birds, or two rays of light arrive at a location at the same time then they arrive simultaneously. This does not mean that the trains, or birds, or rays of light must have left their points of origin simultaneously. If a supernova happens in the Andromeda galaxy and we observe it here on earth 2.5 million years later no one would say that the star goes supernova at the same time that us earthlings observe it -- that the supernova and the observation are simultaneous. Wherever you got that idea it should be put completely out of your mind. Relativity certainly has nothing like that in mind.

Since the Captain just said this and it can't seem to be reiterated enough... Signal delay, or "photon lag" is not the cause of the relative nature of simultaneity. The existence of a constant speed causes it. It doesn't matter that light happens to travel that constant speed or that we happen to use light to see. It is the invariant nature of the speed itself that leads logically to relativity. If we did not have eyes and all of our measurements about the world came from bouncing solid metal pellets off of things and catching them when they return, we would still be able to derive the fact that simultaneous events in one frame are not simultaneous in another because the velocity of the pellets would add according to the Lorentz transformations. We would be able to find out that there is a constant speed and we would know its true value ([latex]c[/latex]). We would not think that the speed of the pellet is constant just because we use them to see and they take time to get around. "Simultaneous" means "at the same time". That is all it ever means.

A trained physicist (which I am not) should check my reasoning, but... If you are operating it continuously then you should be able to divide the power you want by the energy you get from dropping a kilogram that distance and get the amount of mass in kilograms that you would need to add to the cycle every second. If it is 2 megawatts and 30 meters then divide 2,000,000 watts / 294 J. (294 comes from m*g*h). So you'd need to add 6803 kilograms per second (at least -- you never have perfect efficiency) to get 2 megawatts. That would be 587,779 metric tons per day -- which is... I think... thousands of dump trucks of rock per day. Half the power would require half the material, twice would require twice, etc. Of course, your hole would fill up right quick.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The books I referenced were written as a historical narrative.

and where did you hear that simultaneity is relative to location, or that nothing is invariant, Relativity is nothing like the blithering nonsensical strawman for which you mistake it.

You couldn't have illustrated my point more clearly. Exactly wrong. It isn't a matter that can be debated. Learn to read the diagram. Try this site: http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/events.html The position of the observer is irrelevant. You just don't realize how your lack of understanding shows and how much you would benefit, and your ability to argue the topic would benefit, from learning the basics. It is like Dr. Rocket said way back, "the problem is that you don't know that you don't know"

If you don't want to be taken as a crackpot and troll then try discussing in good faith. You asked the Captain to show that relative simultaneity is a logical consequence of a constant speed of light. He proved exactly that. Have a little decency and either agree, disagree, or admit that you don't understand. A constant speed of light has many undeniable logical consequences. You avoid them with dismissive rhetoric and that is rude, trollish, and childish.

I hope you don't think I'm answering hyperbolically... I can't believe the bible is factual in the same way that I could not make myself believe the Harry Potter books are factual. The age of the earth isn't a great example. The time between the first human and the first Temple, on the other hand, is given in the form of an unbroken lineage with the ages of individuals. I believe you are greatly mistaken. The literary form of the Torah -- the first 5 books -- is historical and legal. The form of the next few books -- Joshua through Kings -- is historical.

it sounds like you would want a pressure sensitive adhesive rather than a glue that dries or sets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure-sensitive_adhesive of course... nothing ever beats duct tape

Did you mean that he could amend his interpretation of the bible to one more consistent with the objective universe? I could understand if he found that an impossible task -- as I would.

In fact, you are at least consistent in your approach. You have made it a frequent argument: Physical things contract. If relativity has "length contraction" then it requires that length be a physical thing. Physical things dilate. If relativity has "time dilation" then it requires that time be a physical thing. Malleable mediums curve. If relativity has "space-time curvature" then it requires that space-time be a malleable medium. You even made the interval argument before... Since I, and many others (ISASS, in spacetime thread) do not accept "spacetime" as a given, as in relativity, using the word as an established fact is not appropriate for a discussion which disputes "spacetime intervals." It assumes a premise in dispute. Guess which logical fallacy it is? I can relate though. When I was young I heard the term "devil's food cake" and it proved in my mind that the devil was a real physical being. How, after all, could he have a cake otherwise?

Hi Chilehed. I'm glad you joined in on that because I think you've forced me to clarify what I may have done a terrible job expressing. My point of contention with Spin is predicated on a couple of things that I think have been established thus far. These things run exactly opposite to your post's resolution to our contention so I think I should set them out more clearly and see if Spin tells me just how wrong I am. We've established, I certainly hope, that we are talking about the way the objective universe is -- not a mistaken impression of it like your tomato example. Things, like you say, that have no false assumptions, no ambiguous terms, no flawed logic, and overwhelming empirical evidence. Also, that our interpretation of the bible, whatever it may be, is not in error. It is not a false interpretation. It is not, as Spin put it, a series of asterisks added to the otherwise obvious meaning of the text (although... and I digress... what Protestant wouldn't describe Catholicism exactly that way?). The premise is that some observable fact (which is well founded by science and is empirically correct) does not agree with some scriptural truth (again, equally well interpreted). Spin's solution to that problem, and the point of my contention, is that there is no need for empirical and objective truth to agree with biblical truth because God transcends logic and materialism. The Catholic position is the exact opposite. Truth cannot contradict truth. The same God who designed scripture word for word designed also the objective universe. Whether one peruses the first with faith or the second with rationalism should be led to the same God and the same truth. This has been the Catholic position going back to the Greek and Latin fathers and I can certainly understand why one is forced to abandon it in this day and age especially if they made any kind of passing grade in any kind of passing school, but The truth is harsh. If you abandon the innate communion between the world and the bible then you have abandoned Catholicism. In my opinion, Spin's friend could do far worse than accepting exactly that fact.

Yes, that follows.

Did I not use the word 'interpret' myself when i first quoted it? Honestly, man -- I understand Catholic guilt more than you might guess, but I'm not the enemy here. I'm telling you what many Popes have said. I'm telling you what has been a Catholic position for over 1500 years. If your friend finds it unsuitable, then let him find it unsuitable! So.. yeah, to drive the point home... you are quite right, If your friend cares to call himself a catholic then he has no business following a theology all his own. It has NEVER been consistent with catholicism to say that 'something reported in the bible can't possibly be correct according to a physical science'. That idea, no matter how much it is diluted, flies in the face of every notable catholic authority who has ever spoken on the subject. Unless you can show me otherwise, and I'm sure you can't, I have no idea what more to say. edit... I wouldn't mind this topic about Catholicism being split.

If you don't see a direct contradiction between the following two statements then there is no point in us perusing this further.

Deep breath... If the science is done properly... if it is what St. Augustine called "clear and certain reasoning" and the Catechism calls "truly scientific"... and scripture is not interpreted wrong, then there can be no apparent contradiction. That is indeed the Catholic position. The option that you introduce -- that God transcends logic and reasoning therefore no apparent confluence between the two is needed -- is dead set against well established Catholic doctrine. I'm sure that is fine if your friend believes that. The Catholic position would be that carbon dating cannot contradict scripture and if it appears to then carbon dating and scripture should both be questioned to find the solution. Pope Leo XIII says what many others have said: Let them loyally hold that God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures - and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself... http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html

Spin, I believe you literally misunderstood everything I said and I would suggest you read my post again. It is not my interpretation. It is the Catechism -- the official text of the Catholic chruch's teachings. Lamaitre and his Pope believed that the big bang was consistent with Genesis. Your friend, according to you, believes that science and objective reality contradict the Bible. It is the latter that I said contradicts catholic doctrine -- not the former. The priest would have to say "The big bang is correct and it debunks the bible" to be on par with your friend and to relate to what I said. I said nothing of that sort. You and I both appear to be weak, or negative, atheists.

The mass of the star I mean. I think everything else you asked is answered here: http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/binary_mass.html