Cool physics page
-
Interested in Einstein and Relativity? Considering building an FTL drive? Check this out![^] I'm incorporating the changes right now into my Einstein-Crafton quantum condensate drive.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
I've always thought this was strange from the time I first read about it when I was about 17. The constancy of the speed of light relative to all observers[^]
Kevin
-
Interested in Einstein and Relativity? Considering building an FTL drive? Check this out![^] I'm incorporating the changes right now into my Einstein-Crafton quantum condensate drive.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
Jim Crafton wrote:
Considering building an FTL drive?
Pre-BSG (the new series) this used to be called a Warp Drive. Post-BSG, it's now an FTL drive. Ah, a pillar of the 60's-70's finally falls in the language of the common man. ;P Marc
-
I've always thought this was strange from the time I first read about it when I was about 17. The constancy of the speed of light relative to all observers[^]
Kevin
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
I've always thought this was strange from the time I first read about it when I was about 17. The constancy of the speed of light relative to all observers[^]
What never made sense to me (and still doesn't) is why there should be particles (or whatever they are at any given moment) that just happen to move at the speed that is supposed to be "the fastest speed there is". That really Does Not make any sense, so we're still missing something from the equation. And black holes? I've been arguing against their existence for over 25 years -- with Physics professors, not one of whom has managed to prove (even mathematically, with any real conviction) that they do exist. The truth is probably stranger than the fiction they teach in universities, these days -- but it's probably not so blindly stoopid.
-
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
I've always thought this was strange from the time I first read about it when I was about 17. The constancy of the speed of light relative to all observers[^]
What never made sense to me (and still doesn't) is why there should be particles (or whatever they are at any given moment) that just happen to move at the speed that is supposed to be "the fastest speed there is". That really Does Not make any sense, so we're still missing something from the equation. And black holes? I've been arguing against their existence for over 25 years -- with Physics professors, not one of whom has managed to prove (even mathematically, with any real conviction) that they do exist. The truth is probably stranger than the fiction they teach in universities, these days -- but it's probably not so blindly stoopid.
We can see the effects a black hole has on various stars. If there is no black hole then what is causing the behaviors observed. If there is something there we should be able to "see" it radiate some kind of signal. Or it could be that the object there is a black hole which accounts for the behavior of the system and why we can not detect the object. Also if you don't believe in a black hole then you can not believe in the concept of space-time.
-
Jim Crafton wrote:
Considering building an FTL drive?
Pre-BSG (the new series) this used to be called a Warp Drive. Post-BSG, it's now an FTL drive. Ah, a pillar of the 60's-70's finally falls in the language of the common man. ;P Marc
Ahh, I was wondering what a FTL drive was. I was kind of hoping it was a really nifty new hard drive. A warp drive engine will do though. Can it be scaled to fit under the hood of an old Chevy Nova? :-D
-
Ahh, I was wondering what a FTL drive was. I was kind of hoping it was a really nifty new hard drive. A warp drive engine will do though. Can it be scaled to fit under the hood of an old Chevy Nova? :-D
-
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
I've always thought this was strange from the time I first read about it when I was about 17. The constancy of the speed of light relative to all observers[^]
What never made sense to me (and still doesn't) is why there should be particles (or whatever they are at any given moment) that just happen to move at the speed that is supposed to be "the fastest speed there is". That really Does Not make any sense, so we're still missing something from the equation. And black holes? I've been arguing against their existence for over 25 years -- with Physics professors, not one of whom has managed to prove (even mathematically, with any real conviction) that they do exist. The truth is probably stranger than the fiction they teach in universities, these days -- but it's probably not so blindly stoopid.
You're thinking in terms of space and time, not space-time. Instead of thinking of a particle as moving at the speed of light, look at it this way. All particles have the same energy, it's just that some distribute it as mass. If a pasticle has no mass it must, by defenition, move at the speed of light in order to compensate for the lack of mass which would otherwise take up it's energy. A Particle with mass can never actually reach the speed of light because it has mass, and by defenition cannot reach the speed of light without removing from it's mass. ------------------ As for black holes, i too doubt they exist. As gravitational sinks they do of course exist, as has been noted we can see their effects. The reason it is though there may be a singularity is to do with pure maths, not physics at all! A mathematical singularity is something you cannot get away from with the formulas you are using. In the appolo space programme they had issues with Gimbal Lock. This isn't a real issue, it has to do with the method they used for representing orientation and rotation. these days the maths is more refined, and Gimbal Lock has gone away! If you look at black holes in terms of imaginary numbers, the mathematical singularities go away. For proof of the problems with classic black holes, google for black hole evaporation...(thats right, they eventually evaporate away to nothing!!!!)
-
FTL is what it says on the elastic waistband of my boxer briefs. What does that have to do with quantum physics and/or driving? :confused:
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, For you are crunchy, and good with mustard.
it just means you own the most technologically superior boxers of all time dude, i am way jellous!
-
Ahh, I was wondering what a FTL drive was. I was kind of hoping it was a really nifty new hard drive. A warp drive engine will do though. Can it be scaled to fit under the hood of an old Chevy Nova? :-D
CodeAddiction wrote:
Ahh, I was wondering what a FTL drive was.
Yeah, it took me a few seconds to figure that one out. Faster Than Light :) Marc
-
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
I've always thought this was strange from the time I first read about it when I was about 17. The constancy of the speed of light relative to all observers[^]
What never made sense to me (and still doesn't) is why there should be particles (or whatever they are at any given moment) that just happen to move at the speed that is supposed to be "the fastest speed there is". That really Does Not make any sense, so we're still missing something from the equation. And black holes? I've been arguing against their existence for over 25 years -- with Physics professors, not one of whom has managed to prove (even mathematically, with any real conviction) that they do exist. The truth is probably stranger than the fiction they teach in universities, these days -- but it's probably not so blindly stoopid.
Mark Wallace wrote:
I've been arguing against their existence for over 25 years -- with Physics professors, not one of whom has managed to prove (even mathematically, with any real conviction) that they do exist.
:confused: Mathematics is the easy part, just plug the right mass into the Schwarzchild solution of GR and you get a black hole.
This blanket smells like ham
-
We can see the effects a black hole has on various stars. If there is no black hole then what is causing the behaviors observed. If there is something there we should be able to "see" it radiate some kind of signal. Or it could be that the object there is a black hole which accounts for the behavior of the system and why we can not detect the object. Also if you don't believe in a black hole then you can not believe in the concept of space-time.
longbowaj wrote:
We can see the effects a black hole has on various stars.
No, we can see the effect of gravity on stars -- at least, we can on the occasions when indeed we can. Ask any astronomer how reliable the calculations are that compensate for the effects of gravity of other (visible and non-visible) objects between the observer and the object observed. Everyone seems to think that astronomy is a dead-on, balls-accurate science, but it's nothing of the kind. Sure, when we "see" (without using the visible spectrum) a bright object, we get a general idea of its composition (which could be completely wrong, of course, because the light that reaches us passes through God-only-knows-what on the way here), but there is no way of knowing for sure even as much as whether the object is, say, 120 billion or 150 billion light years away. So we give it our best (computer-assisted) guess about the millions-to-billions of years old light, and mark it down as fact -- which everyone believes as Gospel, because almost no-one appreciates the problems involved. Best guesses are good enough, though, no matter how hugely incorrect they are, because it's pretty damned doubtful that anyone will prove them wrong in the next several lifetimes, if ever. It's the assumptions that are piled on top of these best (but probably hideously inaccurate) guesses that are laughable. Looking through a telescope at a star is absolutely nothing like looking through a telescope at a nearby mountain, no matter how many "speculative thinkers" want to believe it is.
longbowaj wrote:
Also if you don't believe in a black hole then you can not believe in the concept of space-time.
Oh, absolutely. I know nothing.
-
Jim Crafton wrote:
Considering building an FTL drive?
Pre-BSG (the new series) this used to be called a Warp Drive. Post-BSG, it's now an FTL drive. Ah, a pillar of the 60's-70's finally falls in the language of the common man. ;P Marc
I'm gonna have to say Bah on that. Lots of people called it FTL drives, mostly because it doesn't specify the technology used to achieve it. "Spooling up the FTL drive" however is a new and shiny from the new Battlestar Galactica tv series (what guy doesn't like supermodel-nympho-cylons?)
-
You're thinking in terms of space and time, not space-time. Instead of thinking of a particle as moving at the speed of light, look at it this way. All particles have the same energy, it's just that some distribute it as mass. If a pasticle has no mass it must, by defenition, move at the speed of light in order to compensate for the lack of mass which would otherwise take up it's energy. A Particle with mass can never actually reach the speed of light because it has mass, and by defenition cannot reach the speed of light without removing from it's mass. ------------------ As for black holes, i too doubt they exist. As gravitational sinks they do of course exist, as has been noted we can see their effects. The reason it is though there may be a singularity is to do with pure maths, not physics at all! A mathematical singularity is something you cannot get away from with the formulas you are using. In the appolo space programme they had issues with Gimbal Lock. This isn't a real issue, it has to do with the method they used for representing orientation and rotation. these days the maths is more refined, and Gimbal Lock has gone away! If you look at black holes in terms of imaginary numbers, the mathematical singularities go away. For proof of the problems with classic black holes, google for black hole evaporation...(thats right, they eventually evaporate away to nothing!!!!)
barney_parker wrote:
You're thinking in terms of space and time, not space-time.
Sorry, but I'm afraid I'm not.
barney_parker wrote:
Instead of thinking of a particle as moving at the speed of light, look at it this way. All particles have the same energy, it's just that some distribute it as mass. If a pasticle has no mass it must, by defenition, move at the speed of light in order to compensate for the lack of mass which would otherwise take up it's energy. A Particle with mass can never actually reach the speed of light because it has mass, and by defenition cannot reach the speed of light without removing from it's mass.
The above is all mathematical conjecture, based on concepts that have not been categorically proven. Statistics is another field that is based largely on mathematical conjecture.
barney_parker wrote:
The reason it is though there may be a singularity is to do with pure maths, not physics at all!
Precisely. The problem is that it's the same kind of mathematical thinking that "proves" an expansive spring will expand in direct proportion to the weight applied to it, all the way to infinity. The imaginary numbers concept does have a lot going for it, but beware of calculations that seem to make perfect sense of something we know so little about.
-
Mark Wallace wrote:
I've been arguing against their existence for over 25 years -- with Physics professors, not one of whom has managed to prove (even mathematically, with any real conviction) that they do exist.
:confused: Mathematics is the easy part, just plug the right mass into the Schwarzchild solution of GR and you get a black hole.
This blanket smells like ham
Andy Brummer wrote:
Mathematics is the easy part, just plug the right mass into the Schwarzchild solution of GR and you get a black hole.
Indeed. just dump 300 billion kilos on a four-inch expansive spring that expands precisely one inch per kilo, and it will expand precisely 300 billion inches. Nothing is simpler than wrong mathematics.
-
FTL is what it says on the elastic waistband of my boxer briefs. What does that have to do with quantum physics and/or driving? :confused:
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, For you are crunchy, and good with mustard.
tsdragon wrote:
FTL is what it says on the elastic waistband of my boxer briefs. What does that have to do with quantum physics and/or driving?
I really don't think you want to mention such speeds in the context of your your boxers.
-
Interested in Einstein and Relativity? Considering building an FTL drive? Check this out![^] I'm incorporating the changes right now into my Einstein-Crafton quantum condensate drive.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
-
Andy Brummer wrote:
Mathematics is the easy part, just plug the right mass into the Schwarzchild solution of GR and you get a black hole.
Indeed. just dump 300 billion kilos on a four-inch expansive spring that expands precisely one inch per kilo, and it will expand precisely 300 billion inches. Nothing is simpler than wrong mathematics.
Mark Wallace wrote:
Nothing is simpler than wrong mathematics.
The physics are wrong in your example, but there is no problem with the math.
Mark Wallace wrote:
just dump 300 billion kilos on a four-inch expansive spring that expands precisely one inch per kilo, and it will expand precisely 300 billion inches.
:confused:, garbage in garbage out I guess. Anyway, so you don't believe in GR? Personally, I consider black holes to be likely, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were eventually supplanted by some other phenomenon given how little we understand about quantum gravity. However, there are tons of observations of objects which can only be described by black holes using classical general relativity.
This blanket smells like ham
-
Personally, I think Einstein had a great sense of humor and pulled the greatest hoax of all time. We did, fortunately, luck out on the atomic bomb. Lilith
If that's true Dirac and Schrodinger are the real pranksters, fortunately we did luck out on semiconductors. :sigh:
This blanket smells like ham
-
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
I've always thought this was strange from the time I first read about it when I was about 17. The constancy of the speed of light relative to all observers[^]
What never made sense to me (and still doesn't) is why there should be particles (or whatever they are at any given moment) that just happen to move at the speed that is supposed to be "the fastest speed there is". That really Does Not make any sense, so we're still missing something from the equation. And black holes? I've been arguing against their existence for over 25 years -- with Physics professors, not one of whom has managed to prove (even mathematically, with any real conviction) that they do exist. The truth is probably stranger than the fiction they teach in universities, these days -- but it's probably not so blindly stoopid.
Mark Wallace wrote:
What never made sense to me (and still doesn't) is why there should be particles (or whatever they are at any given moment) that just happen to move at the speed that is supposed to be "the fastest speed there is".
What's even more surprising is that there are particles that don't move at that speed.
Mark Wallace wrote:
The truth is probably stranger than the fiction they teach in universities, these days -- but it's probably not so blindly stoopid.
It sure seems to do a good enough job. We definitely have some pretty cool technology based on the fiction that they teach. :|
This blanket smells like ham
-
barney_parker wrote:
You're thinking in terms of space and time, not space-time.
Sorry, but I'm afraid I'm not.
barney_parker wrote:
Instead of thinking of a particle as moving at the speed of light, look at it this way. All particles have the same energy, it's just that some distribute it as mass. If a pasticle has no mass it must, by defenition, move at the speed of light in order to compensate for the lack of mass which would otherwise take up it's energy. A Particle with mass can never actually reach the speed of light because it has mass, and by defenition cannot reach the speed of light without removing from it's mass.
The above is all mathematical conjecture, based on concepts that have not been categorically proven. Statistics is another field that is based largely on mathematical conjecture.
barney_parker wrote:
The reason it is though there may be a singularity is to do with pure maths, not physics at all!
Precisely. The problem is that it's the same kind of mathematical thinking that "proves" an expansive spring will expand in direct proportion to the weight applied to it, all the way to infinity. The imaginary numbers concept does have a lot going for it, but beware of calculations that seem to make perfect sense of something we know so little about.
unfortunately your argument against what i have said is pretty poor. The problem with science is it can never prove 100% that anything is true. There are some pretty interesting theory's on it... Your argument seems to come down to "well if you cannot absolutely prove it, it's just not true." I do absolutely accept that just because millions of experiments have not contradicted the theory, you may of course be right, however in order to dis-prove a theory, you must provide some kind of information other than "no, it's not true" Common sense dictates an expansive spring won't and couldn't expand infinitely, so i assume you're talking about an incomplete theory. Both General and Special relativity are incomplete, as Einstein himself said. In fact he spent the later part of his life trying to disprove alot of the results. We could of course go with the the classic theory that says there is a mystical being that we call "God" who made everything, and things only happen according to his "will" but of course that is just phylosphical conjecture... PS, what have statistics got to do with this? or was that just a way of proving your non-existant point?