Mr. Astrophysicist Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 What is the difference between an inacceleratable object and a immovable object? By the way, the answer is not: Inaccelratable object cannot be accelerated but can be moved, vice-versa. This is somewhat similar or perhaps is the Theory of Relativity.
fiveworlds Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 What is the difference between an inacceleratable object and a immovable object? nothing -1
Mr. Astrophysicist Posted February 22, 2015 Author Posted February 22, 2015 nothing There is indeed a difference.
John Cuthber Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 According to thishttp://www.thekatespanos.com/scrabble-score-calculator/the difference is 21 points vs 18 points if you are playing scrabble.An infinitely massive moving object is moveable so it's not immoveable but it is inacceleratable
studiot Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 Well photons can't be accelerated, but they definitely do move.
John Cuthber Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 Well photons can't be accelerated, but they definitely do move. Last time I checked, gravitational lensing could change their direction, and that's an acceleration.
studiot Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) Acceleration is frame dependent. The geodesic travelled by a photon has zero acceleration in velocity or direction. Edit Actually John, thinking about it, I do believe you are right and photons don't count since they can be stopped by absorption, which must be the utlimate deceleration. So instead I observe that I can move a decimal point, but I can't accelerate one. Edited February 22, 2015 by studiot
Robittybob1 Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 Well photons can't be accelerated, but they definitely do move. They have been slowed down, and that is acceleration.
imatfaal Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 They have been slowed down, and that is acceleration. Not really no. The passage of light through a medium will be slower than that through the vacuum - but photon always move at c. You can think in terms of this heuristic: in vacuo the photons travel at c, in media the photons travel between interactions at c - but in a medium there are interactions which take a finite amount of time; the frequency and time of these interactions determines the refractive index
GeneralDadmission Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 What is the difference between an inacceleratable object and a immovable object? One goes nowhere the other stays somewhere. This is somewhat similar or perhaps is the Theory of Relativity. Agree and the point of the question is which cannot occur as a principal. An object that cannot be accelerated is nowhere and therefore removes itself paradoxically. An object that can't be moved can still be approached and therefore provides space to be examined. 1
GeneralDadmission Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 I believe this should be titled the Zero Degree Paradox. Outstanding. I believe this is the fundamental paradox that illustrates the principals of Occam's Razor as principals of nature and is the most applicable to concisely defining gravitation.
Sensei Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 What is the difference between an inacceleratable object and a immovable object? By the way, the answer is not: Inaccelratable object cannot be accelerated but can be moved, vice-versa. This is somewhat similar or perhaps is the Theory of Relativity. You're probably thinking about photons not being able to be accelerated, but still moving. So answer for difference is: inacceleratable objects are massless. (at least in Standard Model).
GeneralDadmission Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) You're probably thinking about photons not being able to be accelerated, but still moving. So answer for difference is: inacceleratable objects are massless. (at least in Standard Model). This would confine the comparison to defining acceleration as a spatial conformity only. A photon exists in a spectra of energy levels and conditions so confining it's acceleration properties to it's travel between spatial points is only meaningful for defining it's difference to particles with mass.The subject of the question is the nature of mass, not the nature of photons. A meaningful answer to this question must definine what confines the acceleration of mass. It does not automatically follow that defining the confines of the photons state will subsequently define the confines of particles containing mass. Defining the difference between all the particles containing mass has a higher likelihood of doing so, at least. Edited February 25, 2015 by GeneralDadmission
studiot Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) General Dadmission This would confine the comparison to defining acceleration as a spatial conformity only. A photon exists in a spectra of energy levels and conditions so confining it's acceleration properties to it's travel between spatial points is only meaningful for defining it's difference to particles with mass.The subject of the question is the nature of mass, not the nature of photons. A meaningful answer to this question must definine what confines the acceleration of mass. It does not automatically follow that defining the confines of the photons state will subsequently define the confines of particles containing mass. Defining the difference between all the particles containing mass has a higher likelihood of doing so, at least. Please remember that the OP has set the question here. In particular the OP has distinguished between movement (or lack of it) and acceleration (or lack of it). Movement is a more general term that does not imply velocity. I think the question may well be along the lines of the old saw, often called the riddle of the Sphinx. "What has four legs, two legs and three legs?" That is why it is called a brainteaser - it calls for thinking outside the box. Edited February 25, 2015 by studiot
GeneralDadmission Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) Please remember that the OP has set the question here. In particular the OP has distinguished between movement (or lack of it) and acceleration (or lack of it). Movement is a more general term that does not imply velocity. I think the question may well be along the lines of the old saw, often called the riddle of the Sphinx. "What has four legs, two legs and three legs?" That is why it is called a brainteaser - it calls for thinking outside the box. Just because I state something as I understand it doesn't mean I cannot be subequently persuaded otherwise. I was basically only asking Sensei to justify the definition he supplied. Reading both the thought experiments MrAstrophysics posted triggered a bit of an epiphany moment for me. I wasn't trying to restrict anyone to a box. I should learn more riddles. Edited February 25, 2015 by GeneralDadmission
Sensei Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 A photon exists in a spectra of energy levels and conditions so confining it's acceleration properties to it's travel between spatial points is only meaningful for defining it's difference to particles with mass. I don't think so. Are you aware of f.e. pair production and other photon-nucleus, photon-particle interactions?
GeneralDadmission Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 I don't think so. Are you aware of f.e. pair production and other photon-nucleus, photon-particle interactions? Thank you Sensei. Providing some context to your conclusion does allow greater examination.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now