Physics questions!

[Strange]

Interesting though that the epicycles of the planets, would not logically fit the gravity explanation of current?

 

No. Gravity causes the planets to move in elliptical orbits. This was proved by Newton a long time ago.

 

Also I have read about the stars in space, and that astronauts can not see any , or with a camera, but only with a telescope such has the Hubble space telescope that orbits the earth?

 

I don't know where you read that but it is wrong. Chris Hadfield (the astronaut who had the YouTube video singing Starman on the Space Station) has written about how amwazing the stars look from space.

 

If the stars are truly 1000's of light years away, then we should not be able see them at all, so why can we see them at night from Earth?

 

Why shouldn't we be able to see them? From the amount of light a bright star emits, use the inverse square law and work out how bright it will appear from Earth. Easily visible.

 

Doe's our atmosphere, magnify the perspective view?

 

The atmosphere absorbs light and makes stars harder to see. That is why the put telescopes in space.

 

In the video, there is Newton's simple theory of the cannon ball, so how doe's that work with satellites, where does's the momentum come from?

 

The momentum comes from the launch. Most of the energy does not go into lifting the satellite straight up, but into accelerating it to the velocity it needs to stay in orbit.

 

Geostationary satellites maintain a fixed position to Earth co-ordinates, so how do those maintain a fixed position?

 

Their rotational velocity is the same as the Earth's rotational velocity and so they appear to be stationary.

[Relative]

 

No. Gravity causes the planets to move in elliptical orbits. This was proved by Newton a long time ago.

 

 

I don't know where you read that but it is wrong. Chris Hadfield (the astronaut who had the YouTube video singing Starman on the Space Station) has written about how amwazing the stars look from space.

 

 

Why shouldn't we be able to see them? From the amount of light a bright star emits, use the inverse square law and work out how bright it will appear from Earth. Easily visible.

 

 

The atmosphere absorbs light and makes stars harder to see. That is why the put telescopes in space.

 

 

The momentum comes from the launch. Most of the energy does not go into lifting the satellite straight up, but into accelerating it to the velocity it needs to stay in orbit.

 

 

Their rotational velocity is the same as the Earth's rotational velocity and so they appear to be stationary.

So Satellites are launched similar to the cannon ball?

 

''The atmosphere absorbs light and makes stars harder to see. That is why the put telescopes in space.''

 

 

In Earth daytime yes agreed, why can we see them at night from Earth?

 

If we can see them at night from earth because the illumination of the atmosphere is took away, astronauts should be able to see them in space, it doe's not make any sense unless the view is magnified from Earth by the atmosphere, similar to how water magnifies?

[Strange]

So Satellites are launched similar to the cannon ball?

 

Yes.

 

http://what-if.xkcd.com/58/

 

''The atmosphere absorbs light and makes stars harder to see. That is why the put telescopes in space.''

In Earth daytime yes agreed, why can we see them at night from Earth?

 

No, it is the bright sunlight that makes it impossible to see the stars during the day. Just look at how faint the moon is when it is up during the day.

 

If we can see them at night from earth because the illumination of the atmosphere is took away, astronauts should be able to see them in space

 

Are you deaf?

ASTRONAUTS CAN SEE STARS IN SPACE.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Strange

[Relative]

Do we see stars at night because they are in the Earth's shadow?

 

Yes.

 

http://what-if.xkcd.com/58/

 

 

No, it is the bright sunlight that makes it impossible to see the stars during the day. Just look at how faint the moon is when it is up during the day.

 

 

Are you deaf?

ASTRONAUTS CAN SEE STARS IN SPACE.

''ASTRONAUTS CAN SEE STARS IN SPACE.'' the internet wants banning .

Is it only a camera in space that can not pick them up?

Edited August 21, 2014 by Relative

[swansont]

Do we see stars at night because they are in the Earth's shadow?

''ASTRONAUTS CAN SEE STARS IN SPACE.'' the internet wants banning .

Is it only a camera in space that can not pick them up?

 

The Hubble has cameras and takes fantastic pictures of stars and galaxies in space.

 

I think you might be confusing "in space" with "on the moon". On the moon stars weren't visible because it was daytime, and the sun reflecting off the surface was much brighter the stars. Cameras were set to the proper exposure for the bright objects on the surface, not the dim objects in the background.

 

On the ISS, when it's night, people and cameras can see stars just fine.

[Relative]

 

The Hubble has cameras and takes fantastic pictures of stars and galaxies in space.

 

I think you might be confusing "in space" with "on the moon". On the moon stars weren't visible because it was daytime, and the sun reflecting off the surface was much brighter the stars. Cameras were set to the proper exposure for the bright objects on the surface, not the dim objects in the background.

 

On the ISS, when it's night, people and cameras can see stars just fine.

Arr, thank you, you have just fixed my confusion, I see now my error.

In the video, it mentions that science really begun in the 17th century, in Prague, because that is where funding started, my curiousness, then automatically thought, what about before the 17th century?

 

 

By the 17th century time on a clock already existed, and also MPH.

 

 

Very interesting that in the 17 th century they had no means of any land vehicles that have great speed.

 

 

If MPH existed before the 17th century, and also time monitored, how did that derive?

Time on a clock was invented by the Romans?

Or time started to be recorded by the church?

Time is not considered has a thing, where the reality is that time is decay.

 

The light pulses of the Caesium clock, is decay of that singularity.

 

Decay that slows down the further away from Earth, radiation been higher at altitude, because it is nearer the Sun?

 

Less thermodynamic output to a greater Energy level,

I put an house brick in space , the house brick temperature is 100F.

 

 

I do the same on Earth

 

Which one cools down first?

Edited August 21, 2014 by Relative

[Strange]

Do we see stars at night because they are in the Earth's shadow?

 

No, because we are in Earth's shadow. So we are not dazzled by sunlight (and the bright blue sky).

 

''ASTRONAUTS CAN SEE STARS IN SPACE.'' the internet wants banning .

 

You might be right there.

 

Is it only a camera in space that can not pick them up?

 

The Hubble space telescope, for example, is a big camera. Also, many space probes use camareas to find stars so they can use them for navigation.

[Relative]

I add a third house brick in the stratosphere, which one cools first?

 

No, because we are in Earth's shadow. So we are not dazzled by sunlight (and the bright blue sky).

 

 

You might be right there.

 

 

The Hubble space telescope, for example, is a big camera. Also, many space probes use camareas to find stars so they can use them for navigation.

Thank you , I understand that now.

I see time has an infinite random variable....

Decay been of a variable, your time is your life spam.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Relative

[Strange]

In the video, it mentions that science really begun in the 17th century, in Prague, because that is where funding started, my curiousness, then automatically thought, what about before the 17th century?

It sounds like they mean "professional science" where people got paid to do it. Some people say that Francis Bacon (16th century) was the first modern scientist because of his use of practical experiments. Others would put it earlier, perhaps with the Ancient Greeks, or later. It has evolved rather than "started".

 

 

If MPH existed before the 17th century, and also time monitored, how did that derive?

 

Time on a clock was invented by the Romans?

 

Didn't we cover this already? The measurement of time, and division into hours was started by the Egyptians and the Babylonians because astronomy and accurate calendars were very important to them. We get our 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour from the Babylonians as well.

 

 

Time is not considered has a thing, where the reality is that time is decay.

 

Time is considered to be a dimension (like spatial distance). It is incorrect to say that time is decay.

 

 

The light pulses of the Caesium clock, is decay of that singularity.

 

No.

 

 

I put an house brick in space , the house brick temperature is 100F.

I do the same on Earth

Which one cools down first?

 

Hard to say. The brick in space can only cool by radiation. The brick on Earth can cool by radiation, conduction and convection. But it will be cooled less by radiation because the air insulates it. The answer will depend on the temperature and humidity of the air, and how much it is moving.

[swansont]

 

Time on a clock was invented by the Romans?

 

Sun dial, ~ 1500 BC. Egyptians and Babylonians. Which is why that's also the source of time divisions that Strange has already mentioned.

[Relative]

It sounds like they mean "professional science" where people got paid to do it. Some people say that Francis Bacon (16th century) was the first modern scientist because of his use of practical experiments. Others would put it earlier, perhaps with the Ancient Greeks, or later. It has evolved rather than "started".

 

 

Didn't we cover this already? The measurement of time, and division into hours was started by the Egyptians and the Babylonians because astronomy and accurate calendars were very important to them. We get our 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour from the Babylonians as well.

 

 

Time is considered to be a dimension (like spatial distance). It is incorrect to say that time is decay.

 

 

No.

 

 

Hard to say. The brick in space can only cool by radiation. The brick on Earth can cool by radiation, conduction and convection. But it will be cooled less by radiation because the air insulates it. The answer will depend on the temperature and humidity of the air, and how much it is moving.

Time is considered a dimension, but it certainly is not.

 

There is no logic in that what so ever, where decay is logic. Your time for example is from 0 to an average of about 88 years depending where you live.

 

 

An apple falls of a tree,it decays, the apples time is up.

 

Corrosion etc, all decay, all by time,

 

I feel strongly that I am correct.

 

Sun dial, ~ 1500 BC. Egyptians and Babylonians. Which is why that's also the source of time divisions that Strange has already mentioned.

A sun dial based on rotation of shadow, split into segments, yes you have told me this, and it suggests 1 second been equal to 0.277 mile.

 

Where did MPH come from, what century?

I have two pieces of wood, both of the same size and density.

 

One piece of wood I treat with protection.

 

 

I will see that piece time travel and still be there in the future.

 

Where as the untreated wood becomes the past.

You cryo genically freeze me, I time travel into the future.

Buy you can never travel back only forwards in time.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Relative

[Strange]

I feel strongly that I am correct.

 

I'm sure you do. However, science depends on evidence and mathematical theories, not "feelings".

 

 

A sun dial based on rotation of shadow, split into segments, yes you have told me this, and it suggests 1 second been equal to 0.277 mile.

 

No, because the length of an hour varied according to the time of year and the latitude. So there is no fixed relationship like this. (And note that 1 second can only be equivalent to a distance at a particular speed; it can never be equal to a distance.)

 

Remaining nonsense skipped.

Where did MPH come from, what century?

 

This is not a science question but one of history or linguistics. It looks as if "miles per hour" dates from the 18th century, with MPH being much more modern:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=miles+per+hour%2Cmph&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1500&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cmiles%20per%20hour%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bmiles%20per%20hour%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BMiles%20per%20Hour%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BMiles%20per%20hour%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cmph%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bmph%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BMPH%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BmpH%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BMph%3B%2Cc0

[Relative]

 

I'm sure you do. However, science depends on evidence and mathematical theories, not "feelings".

 

 

No, because the length of an hour varied according to the time of year and the latitude. So there is no fixed relationship like this. (And note that 1 second can only be equivalent to a distance at a particular speed; it can never be equal to a distance.)

 

Remaining nonsense skipped.

To me you actually agree without agreeing, yes this -

 

(And note that 1 second can only be equivalent to a distance at a particular speed; it can never be equal to a distance.)

 

 

MPH etc is all based on our rotation speed, all of distance etc, was worked out based on the Earth's spin.

 

 

It was invented and made to fit, it is the obvious undeniable logic.

 

example in the video the Tytos guy invents the triangle shaped thing for looking at the stars etc, then years later, the other guy made maths fit his findings.

 

The maths was invented to fit. They do not predict anything, they only give triangulated co ordinates etc, path plotting.

 

 

There is nothing special about it, agreed the Tytos guy did an extraordinary job for years.

 

But the maths guy, just made things fit.

 

MPh could of never been calculated in those days, there had to be something, i.e 360 degrees split.

Where does MPH come from? I have asked several times, does no one know?

[Strange]

Where does MPH come from? I have asked several times, does no one know?

 

 

This is not a science question but one of history or linguistics. It looks as if "miles per hour" dates from the 18th century, with MPH being much more modern:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=miles+per+hour%2Cmph&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1500&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cmiles%20per%20hour%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bmiles%20per%20hour%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BMiles%20per%20Hour%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BMiles%20per%20hour%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cmph%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bmph%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BMPH%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BmpH%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BMph%3B%2Cc0

 

As you suggest, this probably depends on the development of vehicles fast enough, or measurement tools accurate enough, for the unit to be useful.

 

(Note that most of the world does not use miles anymore.)

To me you actually agree without agreeing, yes this

 

Feel free to delude yourself if it makes you happy.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Strange

[Relative]

I have just found this on WIki

 

1 Mph = 0.000277778 Mps (Miles Per Second)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_hour

 

You are winding me up and already know this?

 

 

This is not a science question but one of history or linguistics. It looks as if "miles per hour" dates from the 18th century, with MPH being much more modern:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=miles+per+hour%2Cmph&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1500&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cmiles%20per%20hour%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bmiles%20per%20hour%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BMiles%20per%20Hour%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BMiles%20per%20hour%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cmph%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bmph%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BMPH%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BmpH%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BMph%3B%2Cc0

 

As you suggest, this probably depends on the development of vehicles fast enough, or measurement tools accurate enough, for the unit to be useful.

 

(Note that most of the world does not use miles anymore.)

 

Feel free to delude yourself if it makes you happy.

How can MPH not be a science question when It is used for everything?

[Strange]

I have just found this on WIki

 

1 Mph = 0.000277778 Mps (Miles Per Second)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_hour

 

You are winding me up and already know this?

 

I had never bothered to do that conversion. I don't know why I would. That is a different number than you have been taking about, anyway.

 

 

How can MPH not be a science question when It is used for everything?

 

Miles are rarely, if ever, used in science. You need to switch to kilometers.

The mile is defined as 1,609.344 metres.

[Relative]

 

I had never bothered to do that conversion. I don't know why I would. That is a different number than you have been taking about, anyway.

 

 

Miles are rarely, if ever, used in science. You need to switch to kilometers.

I was missing out zeros and saying 0.277 mile, that is what google calculator give me, Kilometers would work out the same but a different colour I should imagine, meaning just a different term been kmh.

 

I am confused now, because I thought I had worked out when you already know exactly what i am on a bout. Now I feel rather stupid and uneducated.

[Strange]

Now I feel rather stupid and uneducated.

 

Good. That is progress. Maybe you will be willing to learn now, instead of making things up.

[Relative]

 

Good. That is progress. Maybe you will be willing to learn now, instead of making things up.

Well I did not make anything up, I have never said what I say is fact, although by myself, I worked out the 0.277 mile bit, and only today just after a couple of year did I think to search MPH.

And I am learning , 3 years ago I did not know any science, but now my head is full of knowledge.

 

I argued for about two year on 0.277, and every one said no I was wrong etc, but i was convinced, and wiki just showed me I was correct although it is already known.

 

I can now see maybe why some thought I was a troll, because i was trying to explain what is already known oblivious to me,

 

According to that though, distance is measured by distance, which is incredible stupid.

 

Ok back to the drawing board for me, science already knows that 90% of it is invented to fit and made up.

 

I thank you for your patience and answers.

[Relative]

I like this guy.

 

''Bacon's method is an example of the application of inductive reasoning. By reasoning using "induction", Bacon meant the ability to generalize a finding stepwise, based on accumulating data. He advised proceeding by this method, or in other words, by building a case from the ground up''.

 

''The method consists of procedures for isolating and further investigating the form nature, or cause, of a phenomenon, including the method of agreement, method of difference, and method of concomitant variation.^[1]

Bacon suggests that you draw up a list of all things in which the phenomenon you are trying to explain occurs, as well as a list of things in which it does not occur. Then you rank your lists according to the degree in which the phenomenon occurs in each one. Then you should be able to deduce what factors match the occurrence of the phenomenon in one list and don't occur in the other list, and also what factors change in accordance with the way the data had been ranked.''

What is time?

Time on a clock, a diary, a calender, all ways of recording a block amount of time. Time is infinite.

A year is a very small fraction on the infinite time line.

Time is directional in the sense that it always goes forward, and never goes backwards, from 0 to infinite, 0 been of the big bang.

Infinite, but not infinite for all matter.

Humans for example live blocks of time. A period defined by birth date, and general health been good an average age expectancy.

Time can not be looked at has a dimension, when time is decay. The only time that concerns the Human race, is decay.

The Sun is decaying, the Earth is decaying, the Universe is decaying, and you can not turn back the hands of time on decay.

Facts - Has far as we are concerned, time starts for an individual from when they are born/conceived!.

The beginning of time was the big bang, has far has we are concerned!

Can you argue these two facts has not been truthful statements?

 

In this static picture, there is no movement, no spin, no orbital paths, completely 1d and static.

 

A Sun dial would be useless?

 

Time on a clock could never be invented by using this diagram?

 

But time still exists?

 

Because by time we have decay?

 

 

 

The same diagram except this time, the white circles are atoms!.

 

The atoms are static, but the atoms emit and vibrate?

 

The atoms are in decay?

[Strange]

The atoms are in decay?

 

Most atoms do not decay.

[Relative]

 

Most atoms do not decay.

Most atomic bonds decay?

[Ophiolite]

Decay is not a word that would be used. We might say that atomic bonds may eventually be broken, but that would be because of a change in the environment of the molecule.

 

Decay suggests a deterioration. Any broken bond could just as readily reform if conditions are right.

 

 

If I may venture some advice. You appear to be attempting to learn science through a series of random questions, which are often badly phrased. The result is frequently confusion and misunderstanding on your part. Would you not consider studying some basic textbooks on physics and chemistry, then coming to the forum to clarify specific points?

 

 

Edited to correct three small, but annoying, typographical errors.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Ophiolite

[Relative]

Decay is not a word that would be used. We might say that atomic bonds may eventually be broken, but that would be because of a change in the environment of the molecule.

 

Decay suggests a deterioration. Any broken bond could just as readily reform if conditions are right.

 

 

If I may venture some advice. You appear to be attempting to learn science through a series of random questions, which are often badly phrased. The result is frequently confusion and misunderstanding on your part. Would you not consider studying some basic textbooks on physics and chemistry, then coming to the forum to clarify specific points?

 

 

Edited to correct three small, but annoying, typographical errors.

Thank you for the advice, I do read and watch a lot of on line articles and documentaries.

 

I do admit my learning style is not orthodox and some of my meanings are not understood.

 

Last year I asked about science education in the UK, and for my age etc, there was nothing that I could make work for my situation.

 

I honestly wish there was time travel, I would go back and pass all the exams which I did not take .

 

However, time travel is an illusion.

 

I have looked on line and again I am unable to find any free course of science.

 

I also notice there is little interest in science by the often low hits on youtube compared to say how many hits a fight would get.

 

My first goal in these years I have been studying science, was to improve my spelling etc, and start using correct words.

 

 

I do have a head full of current knowledge, although to portray that knowledge may be lacking .

 

 

I have first learnt Physical process, thinking energy, gases, momentum, etc, all the fundamental elements, not fire , wind , and water and earth,

 

And I am learning from the best minds on forums, which I applaud.

[Strange]

I have looked on line and again I am unable to find any free course of science.

 

30 seconds:

https://www.coursera.org/courses?orderby=upcoming&search=science&lngs=en&cats=physics,chemistry

http://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/science/physics-and-astronomy

 

Of course, you need time and a certain amount of hard work to get the best from these courses. With no one pushing you do assignments or telling you what to do next, you need to be very self-disciplined and motivated.