Mike Smith Cosmos Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) It appears we live in a Universe that ' Likes' these two states. Does this indicate some fundamental nature of the Universe? P.s. If we were to take a straight line going from PLUS INFINITY to MINUS INFINITY. And we were of sufficient dexterity or might so as to CURL either end so as to join .. CURL. ( PLUS INFINITY to MINUS INFINITY ) Would it make the most Ginormous Circle , the universe has ever, experienced.? Would this liberate the ultimate value of Pi ? also What happens if the reverse of this process is attempted ? Mike Edited May 8, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos
StringJunky Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Given that spacetime is curved, is there such a thing as truly straight?
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted May 8, 2015 Author Posted May 8, 2015 Given that spacetime is curved, is there such a thing as truly straight? Well , one could ask , what is the type of straight line that Isaac Newton supposed in his laws of motion , and where were the masses going to end up , if they continued their journey , for ever? Mike
StringJunky Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 And what does truly straight mean? Is it possible to make a perfectly straight line. if we got a very long piece of string in space, pulled by two people, would it be dead straight? Note: not straight as in geodesically straight.
studiot Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) 'Straight' is a modern translation of what Newton actually said "In its right line" Which will actually satisfy the requirements of geodesics on in a manifold, which simple 'straight' would not. A straight line in 3D is described by the intesection of two planes and therefore satisfies the equations of both of them simultaneously. There is not one single equation to describe a straight line in 3D (euclidian space), but a pair of simultaneous equations. Edited May 8, 2015 by studiot
StringJunky Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 'Straight' is a modern translation of what Newton actually said "In its right line" Which will actually satisfy the requirements of geodesics on in a manifold, which simple 'straight' would not. A straight line in 3D is described by the intesection of two planes and therefore satisfies the equations of both of them simultaneously. There is not one single equation to describe a straight line in 3D (euclidian space), but a pair of simultaneous equations. OK. I know it might seem terribly pedantic but I've often wondered this.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted May 8, 2015 Author Posted May 8, 2015 Some of these descriptions of ' straight lines ' in space sound , quite correctly very Mathematical . I can do the imagining ! The idea that one could imagine a point on ones right hand side being plus infinity and growing . Similarly a point on ones left hand side being minus infinity and growing . Also one could posit what form of structure would be made if one was able to Curl over ( PLUS INFINITY to MINUS INFINITY) while still growing . One could then imagine the Ginormous circle continuing to grow . A value of Pi could be described in mathematical terms .? Others more mathematically qualified than I , may be able to shed more light on ' straightness ' . Possibly also a related mathematical description of the ultimate in straight lines. Mike
swansont Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Others more mathematically qualified than I , may be able to shed more light on ' straightness ' . Possibly also a related mathematical description of the ultimate in straight lines. ! Moderator Note In another thread, perhaps. How about we stick to the discussion of the OP, and restrict ourselves to flat spacetime.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted May 8, 2015 Author Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) O.k. Flat space time --------------------------------------------------- O.k. But to plus infinity in one direction . Minus infinity in another direction . Then if possible ! Please ! The " opposite infinite ends of the straight lines curled over" , so they meet in a very large circle . And calculate pi. please ? --------------------------------------------- If not . How much of the above ? Is permissible ? Mike STRAIGHT LINE . Accumulation via Energy Momentum via the Mass And Velocity Having gained an original motion , By Newton laws of motion , this Mass , will continue forever, unless acted on by a Force. The action we require is an orthogonal (90 degree ) force to produce a circle . Somewhere along the straight line . The issue here is that at this moment , the mass , with its inertia ,is quite happy going on forever , without any further input of energy , ( if it is in a straight line ) . If however we wish to create a circle , we need to input ADDITIONAL energy , via a force In such an orthogonal direction so as to produce a circle . Namely by changing the direction of the momentum or Inertia . The mass does not like this as ( by newtons laws ) it wants to continue in a straight line . This is a critical junction .... Making some mass move in a direction that is contrary to momentum and inertia.? So there appears to be a battle of wills , forces , going on at this junction . Mike Edited May 8, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos
Robittybob1 Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) O.k. Flat space time --------------------------------------------------- O.k. But to plus infinity in one direction . Minus infinity in another direction . Then if possible ! Please ! The " opposite infinite ends of the straight lines curled over" , so they meet in a very large circle . And calculate pi. please ? Why would it do that? STRAIGHT LINE . Accumulation via Energy Momentum via the Mass And Velocity Having gained an original motion , By Newton laws of motion , this Mass , will continue forever, unless acted on by a Force. The action we require is an orthogonal (90 degree ) force to produce a circle . Somewhere along the straight line . image.jpg The issue here is that at this moment , the mass , with its inertia ,is quite happy going on forever , without any further input of energy , ( if it is in a straight line ) . If however we wish to create a circle , we need to input ADDITIONAL energy , via a force In such an orthogonal direction so as to produce a circle . Namely by changing the direction of the momentum or Inertia . The mass does not like this as ( by newtons laws ) it wants to continue in a straight line . This is a critical junction .... Making some mass move in a direction that is contrary to momentum and inertia.? So there appears to be a battle of wills , forces , going on at this junction . image.jpg Mike Good point. But nothing can come in "from forever" as it all started in the Big Bang only 13.7 billion years ago. Edited May 8, 2015 by Robittybob1
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted May 9, 2015 Author Posted May 9, 2015 (edited) Why would it do that? Good point. But nothing can come in "from forever" as it all started in the Big Bang only 13.7 billion years ago. ..Yes but the Big Bang had to come from :- Somewhere ! Something ! SomeBigone! Sometime! The jury is still out , as to the first second, or within the first second ? Quite what went on , at the earliest moment? If the Somewhere ! Something ! SomeBigone! Sometime? Linked minus infinity to plus infinity somehow in a giant or minuscule circle. Maybe it could go off with a thumping great ginormous mighty Big Bang . , including 'pi ' in the process. Maybe, maybe not ? Mike My only evidence for this is :- When we first sat at our home computers. They were disc operational using .MsDOS And BASIC as a programming language. We played around with simple instructions , like.10 print (x,y ) , 20 GOTO. 30 LET X=X+1, LET Y=Y+1, GOTO 10 . RUN XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX The screen went. Berserk ! And rolled and rolled forever ! Mike Edited May 9, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos
swansont Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 But nothing can come in "from forever" as it all started in the Big Bang only 13.7 billion years ago. ! Moderator Note We aren't discussing the big bang, either. Stick to the OP. And by this I mean the reference to the title, not the postscript. Linear and circular motion.No other deviations. O.k. But to plus infinity in one direction . Minus infinity in another direction . Then if possible ! Please ! The " opposite infinite ends of the straight lines curled over" , so they meet in a very large circle . And calculate pi. please ? Can't do it. Infinities cause problems. Circles have a finite diameter. And this has nothing to do with linear or circular motion.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted May 9, 2015 Author Posted May 9, 2015 (edited) . To me the build up of straight line inertia is the bedrock. . What I am not sure is what it is relative to when working out inertia say in free space . . Nothing else around . Maybe it is traveling very fast , by being shot out of a supernova aeons ago, long lost , nothing else around . Is velocity (v) for the (mv momentum ) given by this long forgotten source ? Or is it based on whatever velocity has accumulated locally? Mike Edited May 9, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos
swansont Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 . To me the build up of straight line inertia is the bedrock. . What I am not sure is what it is relative to when working out inertia say in free space . . Nothing else around . Maybe it is traveling very fast , by being shot out of a supernova aeons ago, long lost , nothing else around . Is velocity (v) for the (mv momentum ) given by this long forgotten source ? Or is it based on whatever velocity has accumulated locally? Mike An object in motion at constant velocity continues that way unless acted upon by an external force.
Robittybob1 Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 (edited) . To me the build up of straight line inertia is the bedrock. . What I am not sure is what it is relative to when working out inertia say in free space . . Nothing else around . Maybe it is traveling very fast , by being shot out of a supernova aeons ago, long lost , nothing else around . Is velocity (v) for the (mv momentum ) given by this long forgotten source ? Or is it based on whatever velocity has accumulated locally? Mike It must be locally for we don't worry about our speed around the Sun when doing kinetic energy experiments on Earth. Without a doubt we have the kinetic energy from the Earth's orbit too but when describe an object's inertia we can ignore speeds like these for we share the same coordinate system. Edited May 9, 2015 by Robittybob1
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted May 9, 2015 Author Posted May 9, 2015 (edited) It must be locally for we don't worry about our speed around the Sun when doing kinetic energy experiments on Earth. Without a doubt we have the kinetic energy from the Earth's orbit too but when describe an object's inertia we can ignore speeds like these for we share the same coordinate system.. Not sure I fully understand what you mean about ignoring earth and suns gravity . I would have thought they are both a fairly significant influence on straight line motion ? Back to root basics : space is not empty , it's full of something , say the Higgs Field . Is that not so ? A mass moving along in a straight line , must be interacting with the Higgs field with the Higgs bosons ( not that I understand how ? ) and presumably there is a preferred direction on going through this field .. ( like grass bending in front of you ) ...Which is Straight... I presume . Perhaps the more momentum a mass has the more it bends the 'hairs ' of the Higgs field down like grass , which spring up behind the mass when it has passed by! Sending the mass on its way ? Straight ? I mean things like a balloon , ( little momentum ) if you moved it forward in a straight line would just ,pretty well stop , when you stopped moving it , in a line . Straight? And if you never started moving it , it would just sit there , on the hairs of the Higgs Field ( so to speak ) ? Unmoving ? Mike Ps I guess your comment about ignoring, sun and moon , are because we are in some form of Frame of reference . Is that what you mean? Edited May 9, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos
swansont Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 Back to root basics : space is not empty , it's full of something , say the Higgs Field . ! Moderator Note Nope. This thread is about motion. I've warned several times now. I am tired of trying to keep it on track. Talk about motion — a first-semester physics discussion — or the thread gets locked (or, for anyone else, a hijack warning). Your choice.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted May 9, 2015 Author Posted May 9, 2015 (edited) Linear motion . Is motion in a strait line where the vectors ( which normally would infer direction sensitivity ) are not used , other than specifying the initial direction of the straight line . See Wikipedia link :- http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_motion So start something off on the rectilinear straight line and it will keep going . We are now ready to add a force at right angles so as to create a curve and circle . Mike Edited May 9, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted May 10, 2015 Author Posted May 10, 2015 (edited) ! Moderator Note Nope. This thread is about motion. I've warned several times now. I am tired of trying to keep it on track. Talk about motion a first-semester physics discussion or the thread gets locked (or, for anyone else, a hijack warning). Your choice. . I do not get it .? How can you discover new speculative discoveries , if you can only repeat , established first semester physics . And are not allowed to Speculate around the subject ? Surely the whole idea of this ' speculation forum ' was " to have a go ! " " put your pet theory/ speculation up " " let your fellows cross examine you , on your theory " WHAT CHANGED ? Mike Edited May 10, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos
swansont Posted May 10, 2015 Posted May 10, 2015 ! Moderator Note If you can make a connection between the Higgs field and linear motion, which complies with the requirements of the speculations guidelines, have at it. If you were going to do that, though, one wonders why you didn't already post it. All you did was pose a bunch of questions.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted May 10, 2015 Author Posted May 10, 2015 (edited) Higgs . Quote from Wikipedia :- Quote " Higgs mechanism In particle physics, the Higgs mechanism is essential to explain the generation mechanism of the property "mass" for gauge bosons. In the Standard Model, the three weak bosons gain mass through the Higgs mechanism by interacting with the Higgs field that permeates all space. " Unquote -------------------------------------------- Link :- http://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field Thus any mass that travels or is stationary , or goes along a straight line , must relate to the Higgs Field . Mike Edited May 10, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos
Strange Posted May 10, 2015 Posted May 10, 2015 To me the build up of straight line inertia is the bedrock. . What I am not sure is what it is relative to when working out inertia say in free space . . Nothing else around . It sounds as if you might be confusing inertia (the resistance to an applied force) and momentum. Maybe it is traveling very fast , by being shot out of a supernova aeons ago, long lost , nothing else around . Is velocity (v) for the (mv momentum ) given by this long forgotten source ? Velocity is relative and therefore so is momentum. The velocity and momentum is given by the original source if that is what you are measuring the velocity relative to. If you know measure the velocity relative to the Earth, then the velocity (and momentum) will depend on how fast it is moving relative to Earth. If you measure the velocity relative to your space probe travelling alongside at the same speed, then the velocity and momentum will be zero. Or is it based on whatever velocity has accumulated locally? What does "velocity accumulated locally" mean? Thus any mass that travels or is stationary , or goes along a straight line , must relate to the Higgs Field . Only very loosely. The Higgs field is only responsible for a small proportion of the mass of matter. And, even though it contributes a tiny amount of the mass of atoms, it is not responsible Newton's laws of motion.
Recommended Posts