MigL Posted June 7, 2020 Posted June 7, 2020 2 hours ago, farsideofourmoon said: It’s based-on inevitability "Agent Smith: You hear that Mr. Anderson?... That is the sound of inevitability... It is the sound of your death... Goodbye, Mr. Anderson... Neo: My name... is Neo." Inevitability doesn't always work out.
Strange Posted June 8, 2020 Posted June 8, 2020 11 hours ago, MigL said: Inevitability doesn't always work out. You mean ... it's not inevitable?
farsideofourmoon Posted June 9, 2020 Author Posted June 9, 2020 On 5/13/2020 at 6:37 PM, Janus said: The gravitational attraction between masses would exist even in a situation where no gravitational waves were present. We want to use the term “wave” because this best describes this energy in visual terms. In the real world this energy is not a wave that you see crashing into the front of your ship, and then passes along your side fading off behind you. The only reason we even know these particles exist is the ability to see how they react to the local environment. (:-
MigL Posted June 9, 2020 Posted June 9, 2020 No. Re-read Janus' post. Gravitational waves are real ( not just a term we use ), and carry information about the changes of the gravitational field. "The only reason we even know these gravitational waves exist is the ability to see how the local environment ( space-time ) reacts to them." Took the liberty of fixing your sentence. Gravity, as compared to other fundamental forces, is exceedingly weak. The whole planet Earth is pulling down on that rock at your feet, yet you can pick it up with only one hand. ( the example I always like to use ) 1
farsideofourmoon Posted June 11, 2020 Author Posted June 11, 2020 On 6/8/2020 at 9:02 PM, MigL said: The whole planet Earth is pulling down on that rock at your feet, yet you can pick it up with only one hand. ( the example I always like to use ) You can pick it up only so far.,.,.,.,.,.,.,\ and no further (:-
MigL Posted June 11, 2020 Posted June 11, 2020 (edited) Well, you can pick it up at sea level, and carry it to the top of Mt. Everest if you wish. That's almost 30 000 ft, just 6000 ft shy of the height an airliner flies. Is that far enough for you ? Edited June 11, 2020 by MigL
farsideofourmoon Posted June 19, 2020 Author Posted June 19, 2020 On 6/6/2020 at 7:02 PM, Mordred said: We know the limitations of space travel. We also know the consequences of near c velocities. I believe you are misunderstanding the term, “speed of light”. If you begin your speed at “0” zero and then jump to 670,616,629 mph your body would be flatten to a thickness of 0.0000001+/- inches. On the other hand; our solar system is traveling through space at some speed not as of yet calculated because to quantify this speed you have to have a stationary object to compare against the object you are trying to calculate the speed of. At the same time our solar system is also traveling at some unknown speed because of the same reasons stated above. I don’t believe there is a limitation to the speed an object can travel because speed relative to the observer
Mordred Posted June 19, 2020 Posted June 19, 2020 7 minutes ago, farsideofourmoon said: I don’t believe there is a limitation to the speed an object can travel because speed relative to the observer Sorry to disappoint you but the speed limit c applies to all forms of information exchange regardless of what you believe. 1
MigL Posted June 19, 2020 Posted June 19, 2020 You correctly state that all motion is relative, but then you draw the wrong conclusion. All relative motion of objects with mass is limited to less than c .
Strange Posted June 19, 2020 Posted June 19, 2020 8 hours ago, farsideofourmoon said: On the other hand; our solar system is traveling through space at some speed not as of yet calculated because to quantify this speed you have to have a stationary object to compare against the object you are trying to calculate the speed of. At the same time our solar system is also traveling at some unknown speed because of the same reasons stated above. But whatever reference you use, the speed of the solar system is less than the speed of light (because nothing is moving faster than light relative to us). 8 hours ago, farsideofourmoon said: I don’t believe there is a limitation to the speed an object can travel because speed relative to the observer Because the speed of light is not relative to the observer (all observers will see light move at the same speed, regardless of their relative motion) it turns out that the maximum relative speed is the speed of light. 8 hours ago, farsideofourmoon said: I believe you are misunderstanding the term, “speed of light”. 🤣
Janus Posted June 19, 2020 Posted June 19, 2020 12 hours ago, farsideofourmoon said: I believe you are misunderstanding the term, “speed of light”. If you begin your speed at “0” zero and then jump to 670,616,629 mph your body would be flatten to a thickness of 0.0000001+/- inches. On the other hand; our solar system is traveling through space at some speed not as of yet calculated because to quantify this speed you have to have a stationary object to compare against the object you are trying to calculate the speed of. At the same time our solar system is also traveling at some unknown speed because of the same reasons stated above. I don’t believe there is a limitation to the speed an object can travel because speed relative to the observer 670,616,629 mph is just a tad over c, so you can't go from "0" to that speed ( relative to your starting position) The solar system is not traveling through space at "some speed". It's not a matter of it having some real set speed with respect to "space" that we haven't yet been able to determine. It's that it's meaningless to say that the solar system has an absolute motion at all. There are no "stationary objects", as there is no absolute frame of rest for them to be stationary with respect to. You can only measure speeds relative to a chosen reference frame ( which doesn't have to have a physical object associated with it). No single reference frame has any priority over any other, so we are free to choose which ever one is the most convenient for our purposes. So for example, if we were to reduce that 670,616,629 mph just a bit to below c, then if you where to "jump" to this near c speed, someone who remained at your original velocity, would indeed measure you as having undergone a length contraction and see you as "flattened". However, from your reference frame, they are the ones moving at near c speeds, have undergone length contraction, and are "flattened" When it is said that the speed of light is constant, it means that no matter what reference frame you chose, if you are at rest with that reference frame, you would measure light as moving at c relative to yourself. So for example, if you are in a space ship and produce a flash of light, you will measure the flash expanding outward from you at c in all directions. If you were moving past someone moving at 0.5c relative to them when you produced the light, and they produced their own flash of light as you passed them, they would measure that flash as expanding outward at c from themselves in all directions. But not only that, but both of you would measure the same thing for the flash produced by the other person. Each of you would measure both flashes expanding outward from themselves neck and neck. The point being is that the you can never catch the light you produce. Neither can can anybody else, regardless how fast you are moving with respect to them, see you catch that light. But these observers have to measure the light as moving at c relative to themselves. If you never catch the light, this means that you are always are traveling at less than c with respect to them. ( In fact, even for you, in the the space ship, no matter how many times your increase your speed or by how much, you will never be able to measure the speed between you and me as being even equal to c, let alone greater than it. ) This is a result of our living in a Relativistic universe rather than a Newtonian one.
farsideofourmoon Posted June 20, 2020 Author Posted June 20, 2020 (edited) On 6/18/2020 at 8:56 PM, Mordred said: Sorry to disappoint you but the speed limit c applies to all forms of information exchange regardless of what you believe. Below are your links http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/LightCone7/LightCone.html The above link wants you to buy something and has nothing to do with the speed of light http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/main Again, the above link has nothing to do with the speed of light next (:- Edited June 20, 2020 by farsideofourmoon correcting false post
Janus Posted June 20, 2020 Posted June 20, 2020 4 hours ago, farsideofourmoon said: Below are your links http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/LightCone7/LightCone.html The above link wants you to buy something and has nothing to do with the speed of light http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/main Again, the above link has nothing to do with the speed of light next (:- Those links are in his "signature", which means that they show up at the bottom of every post he makes, regardless of the subject of the post. So they were not meant to be part of hs response in this thread.
Strange Posted June 20, 2020 Posted June 20, 2020 7 hours ago, farsideofourmoon said: http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/LightCone7/LightCone.html The above link wants you to buy something and has nothing to do with the speed of light @Mordred It seems that domain has expired. You might want to see if the site has moved elsewhere. Or just remove the link from your sig.
Mordred Posted June 21, 2020 Posted June 21, 2020 Yeah unfortunately I haven't been able to reach the other contributors that owned the domain site. It's too bad it was a versatile calculator.
farsideofourmoon Posted September 11, 2020 Author Posted September 11, 2020 (edited) On 6/20/2020 at 7:54 PM, Mordred said: Yeah unfortunately I haven't been able to reach the other contributors that owned the domain site. It's too bad it was a versatile calculator. maybe this will help https://www.google.com/search?q=calculator+online&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS747US747&oq=calculator&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.6807j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 The power of gravity holds planets in an orbit and that same power holds galaxy's as well weak--- I think not Edited September 11, 2020 by farsideofourmoon
drumbo Posted September 11, 2020 Posted September 11, 2020 On 6/19/2020 at 6:28 AM, Strange said: But whatever reference you use, the speed of the solar system is less than the speed of light (because nothing is moving faster than light relative to us). Because the speed of light is not relative to the observer (all observers will see light move at the same speed, regardless of their relative motion) it turns out that the maximum relative speed is the speed of light. 🤣 I think many people forget to consider that velocity is defined as displacement divided by time elapsed, and we make take its infinitesimal limit as time elapsed approaches zero or calculate the average velocity for the trip. Average velocity for the trip cannot be the same for all observers because of time dilation, but is it the same for all observers in the infinitesimal limit?
MigL Posted September 11, 2020 Posted September 11, 2020 2 hours ago, farsideofourmoon said: weak--- I think not Only the second part of the above is right. You SHOULD think that if you had an excess of 1charged particle per billion, billion, billion, billion particles those planets, stars and galaxies would fly apart. The electromagnetic force exerted by a proton is 39 orders of magnitude than its gravitational force. Hence, weak, in comparison.
farsideofourmoon Posted September 19, 2020 Author Posted September 19, 2020 (edited) The distance between our solar system and the nearest one to ours is distance (X). How far apart in a water molecule is the hydrogen atom to the oxygen atom in a water molecule in (X) amounts? The point is, the further one is to the other the weaker the attractive force, Protons have no force beyond the shell of the atom. Edited September 19, 2020 by farsideofourmoon
Daniel Waxman Posted September 19, 2020 Posted September 19, 2020 On 5/13/2020 at 11:43 AM, farsideofourmoon said: Some day in the far, far future mankind will travel the stars; this is inevitable It is not. It may even be the most likely outcome that humanity will die before leaving the solar system. By the way, we like to say peoplekind, not mankind. Hopefully if we ever travel the stars we'll have learned to stop being sexist, we can't even do that right yet.
pzkpfw Posted September 19, 2020 Posted September 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, Daniel Waxman said: It is not. It may even be the most likely outcome that humanity will die before leaving the solar system. By the way, we like to say peoplekind, not mankind. Hopefully if we ever travel the stars we'll have learned to stop being sexist, we can't even do that right yet. Given you've used "humanity", maybe "humankind" is better than "peoplekind"? https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/man-mankind-or-people And who is "we" anyway? We, meaning me, have not seen "peoplekind" in common use.
Daniel Waxman Posted September 19, 2020 Posted September 19, 2020 55 minutes ago, pzkpfw said: Given you've used "humanity", maybe "humankind" is better than "peoplekind"? https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/man-mankind-or-people And who is "we" anyway? We, meaning me, have not seen "peoplekind" in common use. It has been used by world class politicians. You are free to use language however you wish. Just don't be surprised when people call out your sexism.
MigL Posted September 19, 2020 Posted September 19, 2020 1 hour ago, farsideofourmoon said: Protons have no force beyond the shell of the atom. Electromagnetic forces for like charges repel with a 1/r^2 dependence. Gravitational forces attract with a 1/r^2 dependence. Both are long range forces ( never get to zero ), yet one is a 1000 billion billion billion billion times stronger than the other. Do you still not see the problem with your thinking ?????
zapatos Posted September 19, 2020 Posted September 19, 2020 2 hours ago, Daniel Waxman said: By the way, we like to say peoplekind, not mankind. Hopefully if we ever travel the stars we'll have learned to stop being sexist, we can't even do that right yet. We like to say Earthkind, not peoplekind. Hopefully if we ever travel the stars we'll have learned to stop being speciesist. We can't even do that right yet.
swansont Posted September 20, 2020 Posted September 20, 2020 ! Moderator Note Can we stick to the topic, please? (no responses required)
Recommended Posts