View Full Version : Your Natural Science Lesson for the week (Split from smoke of doom)
sound is energy
you hear sound as it reverberates in your ear drum, on your internal ear recrepicles(hairs), you classify sound as energy you hear (but it is actually what u feel.
There are many types of energy (all part of the spectrum), consider microwave energy, technicially this is also sound but as its frequency is at gigahertz and not megahertz (like radio frequency) it is not audible.
Therefore the only difference is frequency, so if a sonic boom had the appropiate frequency it would have an affect of microwaves thus atomising an item and creating smoke,
There is your example!! and as all energy travels in waves all energy can be deflected, oceanic waves is the easiest way to think about this, and so "sonic blasters" can and should be deflected-realigned. and actually size does not reflect mass as whats relevent is atomic mass-a big item with a small atomic mass can be much lighter than a small item with big atomic mass.
size matters not yoda was actually a phyisist
you can consider the sonic BOOM to be made up of photons (as this is the most common form of energy (asuming relativity applies to genosian's galaxy)
it would be easier to deflect his than a small rock the size of your fist.
hmmm i seem to have rambled......well anyway sound can make smoke
(afterthought espcially if the exploded sonic boom met withanother form of energy already in place.....say specific to the genosian world...ie sun or radiation!) :cool:
Sound is a physical wave, it needs particles to vibrate to be transmited. Microwaves are another type of waves (electromagnet i think, but i'm not sure), which don't need a physical medium to be transmitted.
Waves can be used to send energy (ie: radio waves, if you only changed frequency you wouldn't be able to have different volumes), and that's what those sonic blasters are supposed to do, don't ask me how, send a ball of vibrations which explodes on contact with something dense enough, sending vibrations in all directions creating a sort of explosion.
Complaints to my physics teacher at college :P
I meant it as in sending complaints about my explanation to him :P
Sound is a physical wave, it needs particles to vibrate to be transmited. Microwaves are another type of waves (electromagnet i think, but i'm not sure), which don't need a physical medium to be transmitted.
Waves can be used to send energy (ie: radio waves, if you only changed frequency you wouldn't be able to have different volumes), and that's what those sonic blasters are supposed to do, don't ask me how, send a ball of vibrations which explodes on contact with something dense enough, sending vibrations in all directions creating a sort of explosion.
Complaints to my physics teacher at college :P
Man more than complaints.........your getting expelled for that reasoning...
Sound is a phiscal wave????? so u cant walk thru it??? Needs particles to vibrate??????? What are photons...?????? electromagnetic radiation....radiation beeing energy of the spectrum<>same energy as sound!!yes.
Dude if not expelled u shoud be suspended and sent to the library
Chairwalker
13-09-2004, 09:19
err i'd rather not get involved in this fascinating discussion, but sound is indeed a "physical wave"
But a better way to say it would be that sound is just vibrating matter. be it air, water, or whatever the hell your ears might be in when you hear something.
Wich is why you cant hear jack if you're in space (vacuum = nothing that can 'vibrate')
But then how can the Geonosians create a gun that shoots weird bubbles of vibration? They're aliens , thats how.
Frankly i dont give a **** how a weapon works, as long as i can kill stuff with it.
ok chair some good points but i feel obliged to correct u
sound is just vibrating matter.....
Wrong (but only slightly)
Sound causes matter to vibrate.
A tru vacum (not space) nothing can penetrate...because u can see in space and travel thru it means it is not a complete vacumn.
That said if something makes a sound in a vacum (we'll say space cos its pretty close) and you cant hear it doesnt mean there was no sound it just means ur insulated from it/(by the vacumn).
So sound is not a physical wave......it can however create a physical wave.
Reference newton, energy cannot be created or destroyed, its can merely change form.
Therefeore sound can become a wave oscillating at a certain frequency that we can feel,
and no alesh frequency doesnt affect volume, that comes down to amplification and relies on resistor and transistor control...i think there u were getting confused between sound volume and sound intensity which refers to amplitude.
edit: i wonder has this gone off topic.
=Profcorron=
13-09-2004, 11:55
edit: i wonder has this gone off topic.
Yes lol. But to me it doesn't matter as its enjoyable to watch you depate the way a geonocian blacster could work.
So Geonosian blaster wont work if u have speakers off?
ya pretty much, its like the way i need to replace my monitor ech time i play MB as jedi, those CRT's just cant take a good beating from a lightsaber.
However mazoon if you wore a space suit and attached a vacum pump to your house and created a vacum around your comp/speakers, you could probably play with the speakers on and use the blaster, but you prob wouldnt hear any taunts
:D
by the way isn't :o a bit porno'ish
Were going into zen from physics, the one handed clap and all that...
Well deegs, the concept of sound is only the way we percieve some vibrations (vibratin matter within certain frequency and amplitude limits), it the effect of vibrating matter rather than the effect. When somebody speaks or a speaker is working it doesn't produce "sound", it makes the air vibrate, then we can hear that.
And er... what was all that about anyway? Geonosian weapons? I think they were more like sorta yellowish than greenish, and would be worth new effects rather than using the noghry stick ones, no matter how they work.
PS: space travel doesn't rely on it having some stuff floating around, it's the fuel itself which is the mass against which the rocket pushes. And i didn't say frequency changes volume, i said only by changing frequency we can't change volume.
PSS: 5 mins between pressing reply, reading other forums, actually replying, talking in msn...
If i may.....
the concept of sound is only the way we percieve some vibrations (vibratin matter within certain frequency and amplitude limits), it the effect of vibrating matter rather than the effect.
When somebody speaks or a speaker is working it doesn't produce "sound", it makes the air vibrate, then we can hear that.
We cant hear vibrations, sound is an energy, sound travels thru mediums by use of co-resonating materials including solids(walls) and gases(air), we dont hear this what we do is percieve what our recepricles feel in our ears.
And er... what was all that about anyway? Geonosian weapons? I think they were more like sorta yellowish than greenish, and would be worth new effects rather than using the noghry stick ones, no matter how they work.
Thats just mad
PS: space travel doesn't rely on it having some stuff floating around, it's the fuel itself which is the mass against which the rocket pushes. And i didn't say frequency changes volume, i said only by changing frequency we can't change volume.
Actually it does, to quote newton again=for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
Think about it, when the fuel ignites how does that work, the force of the explosion PUSHES the craft forward......in order to push there has to be something to push against (it cant push against itself or the fuel as its relative).....if there was nothing then it wouldn't move. thats why the force is so strong needed to move rockets. but in space with little friction it is in fact easy to move (depending on close planets and newtons universal law of gravitation)
Example if you want to jump you push of the ground. (upward force acting on downward force)
Example2 if a car is to move it cannot do so without gravity pulling it down against the earth and hence friction! (momentum acting on downwardforce/gravity) if no friction or gravity it would just float with wheels spinning.
So there has to be someting in space in order to move AND in order to see.
Very interesting comments tho and a great debate
;) :D
We don't "hear" vibrations of course, they collide with whatever you said is in the ear, making it vibrate, and that's what we percieve. The wave is what transports the energy, the energy is what makes the vibrations happen. But saying the sound is energy is like saying a thought is energy, it might be produced by electrical impulses in our brain, but in itself it isn't energy. (of course there's always various ways of seeing things like Obi says when Luke asks him why he lied about his father :P)
About the rocket, as you said, action/reaction, the explosion pushes the rocket AND the remaining matter after combusting, what is true is that the remains of the explosion gain more velocity, but as you said with the almost non-existant friction in space the push is enough to move the rocket.
And don't get relativity into it or we'll go into the ship in futurama which moves the universe instead of itself! :P
=Profcorron=
13-09-2004, 23:05
About alesh geonocian blaster effects. Yes Its been done for Cotrmod. (new affects :D)
Bring on the screenies to pimp the mod! :P
Dingo Dave
14-09-2004, 00:16
Alesh is right about the rocket and deegs is wrong - also light and sound are completley different. One is transverse and the other longitudinal.One is EM radation the other is motion.
If we put a geonosian class in we should make it fire brown noise so its interactive!
I don't remember the exact definition of sound (I'm in bio this year, who needs physics right?), but Deegs... that sounds wrong...
Ok this is going nowhere fast, this shall be my last input on this topic.
SOund is a form of energy, thought is not
Alesh is right about the rocket and deegs is wrong - also light and sound are completley different. One is transverse and the other longitudinal.One is EM radation the other is motion.
What alesh is right and deegs is wrong! are u insane
Of course there different or u would hear light and see sound!!!! and its not as simple as saying one is transverse and the other is longitudinal, anyway i was refering to light as an example cos they both fundamentally operate the same, diffraction, constructive/destructive interference
Anywho to bring it back (a little but its still veeeeery offtopic)
Give me an example as to when sound creates smoke....
So i did, lets end this......the parties over :mad:
Sound waves are produced by cinetic energy and carry it themselves, sound is just a word for certain physical vibrations which can be perceived with ears.
If you want a bit of explanation on the rocket thing, think about this: the void (assuming some point of reference so we don't mess with relativity), no gravity, two guys in there (yeah they should be dead but we'll skip that ok? :P), one pushes the other. Both will move, the one with less mass will gain less speed, but both will move. In a much larger (and with more mass diference) scale that's what happens with the rocket.
i said i wouldnt but i will,
If they were both in a void and not dead, 1 couldnt push the other as neither would be capable of motion, he couldnt even move his hand to push, or any other part of him........
But then if he was a push whore.......whoa thats taking this debate way too far.
Sound is a form of energy
Ps (Kinetic)
Why shouldn't they be able to move? (aside from the fact they should be dead as i said) I was assumming they were near enough for one to push the other of course, if they were too far for that and without anything nearby they wouldn't be able to get near true (unless they chewed their legs off and pushed them or something).
Ok I’m beginning to see what u don’t,
K, when ur on earth u move pretty easy, when ur on the moon or “in space” its harder to move and slower this is because there is considerably less gravity. If you are in a gravity free zone then it would be impossible to move-hence my initial comment about the rocket (using a force{gravity) to push against enabling motion).
You move cos u act on something, i.e a force (for example), gravity!
That is where my opposite force comes into play.
Ever hear the expression “if the world stopped spinning we’d all fall off” this is true.
What causes gravity?? When a body turns it creates 2 forces acting complete harmony canceling each other out! Cenrepical force/acceleration and centrifugal force/acceleration (apologies if I didn’t spell it correctly) anywho centripical acceleration tries to push u off and centrifugal tries to pull u in. hence giving the illusion of gravity (depending how far u are from the center)
So for push pull to work correctly we actually need something to push against, in this case we use gravity (also my point the spaceship also uses gravity to move/push against). If like u said there was no gravity there would be nothing to push against and we would therefore just be helpless and unable to move any part of our body! Like what would happen if the world stopped spinning.
I think that (on a very basic) level sums it up
This is getting interesting now.
Gravity doesn't depend on spinning, but spinning combined with gravity is what makes that statement true.
All matter has gravity, even a single electron attracts other electrons... but it has a mass so small it can't be noticed. (i'll post the formula for the gravity between two masses if you want it :P)
It isn't harder to move without gravity, it's the opposite, that's the reason people in space stations have to exercise, else their muscles would atrophy.
On my exaple, the idea is that one of the guys pushes the other without any friction, and they would both move. It would also work with a fart (dirty example i know), since gas has a mass too (it would also be more similar to the rocket). It's all a matter of F=m*a, you have to remember when something aplies a force to something else, they both recieve that force (action-reaction), so both will gain a certain a depending on their mass (unless something else prevents them from moving).
Gravity doesn't depend on spinning, but spinning combined with gravity is what makes that statement true.
Thats incorrect alesh :-(
All matter has gravity, even a single electron attracts other electrons... but it has a mass so small it can't be noticed. (i'll post the formula for the gravity between two masses if you want it :P)
Thats also incorrect, i presume u mean, the force of attraction, namely charge, if so they are both negatively charged anyway.
If you do mean universal law of gravitation u are in fact correct, if not post the equation please:) but only with 2 or more bodies. sa as u say all matter has gravity, thats wrong, but when 2 bodies, who have mass, are there then gravity occurs on both
It isn't harder to move without gravity, it's the opposite, that's the reason people in space stations have to exercise, else their muscles would atrophy.
wrong again, velocity is easy without gravity (coming to perpetual motion later) acceleration is what is difficult.hence the whole pushing arguement
On my exaple, the idea is that one of the guys pushes the other without any friction, and they would both move. It would also work with a fart (dirty example i know), since gas has a mass too (it would also be more similar to the rocket). It's all a matter of F=m*a, you have to remember when something aplies a force to something else, they both recieve that force (action-reaction), so both will gain a certain a depending on their mass (unless something else prevents them from moving).
right and wrong, you cannot push without friction, its impossible.
and u correctly state newtons second law, but using that generally u need to vector the downward force (using acceleration as acceleration due to gravity) acting on the person as in order to apply another force in an oposite direction as u said! so u do need friction (or the downward force)
:cool:
Dingo Dave
14-09-2004, 22:45
Anything with mass is affected by gravity - so alesh is correct deegs - you have a basic grasp of physics - its almost GCSE - sorry it had to be said.
I only meant friction as in air friction, not as in ability to touch the other guy.
Electric attraction is not the same as gravity, but yes if we talk about two electrons then one thing would override the other, so even if gravity pulls them together the electrical field woul push them farther away.
The formula i mean was something along the lines of: F=m1*m2*G/d^2
Where G is the universal gravity constant (or whatever it's called in english :P), m1 and m2 are the mass of the body 1 and body 2 (also any mass will be a body, what's true is that gravity wouldn't be noticed unless there are at least two bodies), and d is the distance between the two bodies.
Accelerating is a matter of there being a force and it not being countered by another, so gravity will make it easier (ie: falling) or harder (ie: climbing) depending on the direction you try to push stuff to. In my very void and simplistic example there's no other gravity other than the one each guy produces, which is a force very small compared to the force one of them can do with his arm (unless they are very weak of course :P), so I'll put it again and try to have everything in place:
- 2 guys "floating" at less than arm's lenght in a totally void place, no air, or any other thing in the middle, no other body nearby aside from those two, and some little thingie which won't be touched and would serve the purpose of seeing their relative positions, without having any effect (think an hipotetical massles minisun).
- One of them pushes the other with an arm, or kicks the other's butt... one applies force to the other.
- Result acording to what i've been thaught in physics class: Each of theem recieves an equal force in opposite directions, thus gaining an acceleration of F/m while the force is in effect, then traveling at whatever speed they reached until gravity (the one between them) finally stops them (maaaaaaaany years past).
If you choose the buttkicking chances are one will be travelling in a straight pattern while the kicker spins around.
EDIT: damn my posts are getting longer :P
damn dont u sleep
i think what you saying is correct and VERY Hypotethical, try to see what mass is need to produce a force of 1 newtons, and see how heavy your guys in the void need to be! Its so heave u would consider their mass to approxinate 0 and therefore the force of attraction will be 0! so no gravity between them and no friction!
Therefore no push, anywho, newetons universal law of gravitation (universal gives it away) was meant to imply bodies of all sizes-yes but realistacally only bodies of moon/planet size will be capable of producing a less than negligable force.
So it would take bout 5 years for 1 man to work up the force u reckon is needed to push another man in a void, but thats hardly what u meant is it.
Anyway i'm tired perhaps a further response in the morning, and u can confirm my ideas with ppl/lectures at college tomorrow!
Err... from what i know my arm's muscles work, be it in earth gravity, moon's or none at all, that's what pushes, there's no gravity involved in that.
And no, i don't sleep... (much :P)
=Profcorron=
15-09-2004, 00:42
Gravity is the Force that Holds us down (all agree)
It is formed when something spins at a high velosity (but thats not the only way to form gravity,just the only one we know of)
And space You don't have anything to push so Unless there you were close enough to touch the other person you could get to them. Thats why all people in space (wearing space suits) and not using rockets have a teather to the base/shuttle. They can then use the teather to move around and if they loose thier grip they can get back to the Base/shuttle.
Rockets work when combustion is produced, and it pushes against tiny particals, (dust, rock) but sometimes it takes time to it to push against something.
Thats why if you can the Space Shuttle would create an orbit around a planet then push of from it still retaining thier momentom. (the apolo 11 did this to get back from the moon)
very good prof, you seem to be getting the hang of this conversation/debate/arguement/battle.
However
-gravity is ONE of the forces that hold us down.
-This occurs at ANY velocity of any turning object (as a matter of principle a turning object cannot be commented with velocity as the direction is always changing its reffered to as a constant acceleration)
-rockets work<>close explanation but fundamentally they are pushing against atomic particles atoms/electrons and the friction they cause from gravity etc but we know what u meant.
Alesh, of course your muscles will work-you just wont be able to move them! :D
ha ha ha
very funny :p
nice
I went ahead and split this thread off of the green smoke of doom. Feel free to continue your discussion.
Anything with mass is affected by gravity - so alesh is correct deegs - you have a basic grasp of physics - its almost GCSE - sorry it had to be said.
Dude cmon on dont flame, what makes u feel you can comment on my qualification? Are u in fact an expert.
Anything with mass is affected by gravity - so alesh is correct
Ohhhhhhh riiiggggggghhhhttttt now u put it that way with such excellent back/proof up to your claim your right i am in fact wrong! NOT
My following post after yours explains gravity a bit further, Anything with mass is affected by gravity-yes, but things with small mass are negligable.
Dingo YOUR grasp of physics seems to either come from the university of google or from som1 telling u the earth is flat. :D
but things with small mass are negligable.
which is why scientists can cause water to run up hill in small beads. :)
And yall can stop on the personal attacks on intelligence and continue with intelligent discussion. Thank you.
no keshire that is called capillary action!
Wow an intelligent discussion, and my folks said it would never happen!
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/space-electronics-01a.html
no keshire that is called capillary action!
Its been awhile, since I got into a physics discussion. :)
Ya interesting, but its still based on capillary action which in fact should be in the chemistry thread!
:cool:
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/feb98/887637827.Ch.r.html
chemistry thread!
So I need to rename the thread yet again! :rolleyes:
The amount of knowledge by those on this board astounds me sometimes.
It wasn't long ago that Ren and Jawa were arguing about the efficiency of Java.
CerberuS
15-09-2004, 11:51
So I need to rename the thread yet again! :rolleyes:
Just call it "Your Natural Science Lesson for the week" and you'll be set ;)
Just call it "Your Natural Science Lesson for the week" and you'll be set
Sounds good to me. :D
lets just call it ask deegs,
I can handle all the natural sciences including geology, and we can have a personal prob thread also!
(note that was sarcasam) :confused:
Well i haven't done much chemistry so i'll have to skip those :P
Anyway if gravity depends on rotation that little formula i've posted must be wrong since it doesn't have rotation anywhere.
no gravity doesnt depend on rotation.
Who said that!
newtons law of gravitation still stands as u said (however this is only an approximate considering einsteins theory of relativitly, and proven by mars orbit) the point made was when a body is spinning the centripical force is gravitational........... as compared to a ball spinning on a string here the centripical force is mechanical.
As stated when a body is spinning there are 2 forces acting on it both an inwards force and an outwards force, in the case of planets this inwards force just happens to be gravity! that means for a planet the centripical force is dependant on gravity, and not the other way around.
Prof did, back in page three. About spinning thingies... i remember there being two forces, yes, but since i studied it several years ago and don't remember a thing... i'd better not go into it :P
It is formed when something spins at a high velosity (but thats not the only way to form gravity,just the only one we know of)
sorry alesh, i dont think thats what he meant (maybe it was), like i said i reckon he was referring to centrip force, any way he said there were other ways so perhaps we should wait for him to reply........then beat him senseless :D :D
just kidding prof ;)
Dingo Dave
15-09-2004, 21:08
I'm sorry deegs, the only thing that gets me is your direct comparrison of elctromagnetic radiation and sound waves - which are completely different.
Ahem... Asked my brother (studies theoretical physics second year in university) and he confirmed: If there is a void, with no gravity and no friction, and two fellas floating there, close to each other. If the other one kicks the other, which he can do because... Umm... (How to translate it)... Force is also the opposite force? Is it right? Do you understand the point? Well, if he kicks the other, both start floating in different directions, unlimitedly, because theres no force to stop them.
And, moving without gravity and friction... The only thing what is different, is that nothing pulls u anywhere, so u can move around only if u can touch something static. But of course u can move ur arms, they already touch ur other body, which gives the opposite force.
*Translations are maybe not accurate, translating physics from finnish to english isnt too easy*
Dingo Dave
15-09-2004, 21:18
Thats one of Newtons laws
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
=Profcorron=
15-09-2004, 22:29
Nice Quote Dingo Dave,
And yes I was refering to the gravity froming while spining, (read it in my science paper) But yes the thing needs a pushing force, and a pulling force to holdu on the ground, (on earth its gravity *pulling* and the Spin [earth rotation] *pushing*, But on the ball u tie to a string and spin around your head, the twirling movement *pushing* and the string *pulling*)
And that also apliese to the orbits.
I'm sorry deegs, the only thing that gets me is your direct comparrison of elctromagnetic radiation and sound waves - which are completely different.
dingo you are being ignored, as i compared the abilities not them!
If there is a void, with no gravity and no friction, and two fellas floating there, close to each other. If the other one kicks the other, which he can do because... Umm... (How to translate it)... Force is also the opposite force? Is it right? Do you understand the point? Well, if he kicks the other, both start floating in different directions, unlimitedly, because theres no force to stop them.
dude thanks for joining in, and congrats to your bro, thats and excellent choice of course, but your point actually disproves your point
unlimitedly, because theres no force to stop them.
sorry maz, commiserations to your bro but if there aint no force to stop them there aint no force to start them!!!!!!!!!! Velocity is perpetual in a void acceration aint. but good first attempt!
Thats one of Newtons laws
No **** sherlock
lol
n1 prof,
Iam kinda tipsy on fine spanish wine, excuse spelling errors if any
=Profcorron=
16-09-2004, 01:51
actually i think mazoon has a point. If they CAN touch something (eg. the other person) they can use that other person to push off. And becuase thiers no friction when they move away. They'll continue to move.
But then there the nature of the VOID, as there are many different types of voids, eg. Pressure void, when preasure a is smaller then preasure b then preasure b will pull preasure a. (like in a submerine, as the airlock is opened then the person gets pulled into the ocean as the presure is large there.) Air void (means thiers no bearthable air, *like space* but there are things to push against its just very small.)
And on the moon where there is LESS gravity then earth but still a tiny amount eventually it'l pull u down, the Sun creates gravity and therefore there is some gravity in space, so eventually you'd stop but it may take an extreamly long time.
Well my example was purely hipotetical, with nothing but the two guys and some way to determine position which before the push isn't moving from the guy's point of view.
Just a thing, even if it'd take... well hundreds, thousands or millions of years they should stop eventually because of the force which makes them attract each other (of course since the farther away the lesser the force that's be pretty slow).
|_maPex_|
16-09-2004, 09:45
Man more than complaints.........your getting expelled for that reasoning...
Sound is a phiscal wave????? so u cant walk thru it??? Needs particles to vibrate??????? What are photons...?????? electromagnetic radiation....radiation beeing energy of the spectrum<>same energy as sound!!yes.
Dude if not expelled u shoud be suspended and sent to the library
Before insulting someone take a physics class.
*EDIT* This statement was not an insult. It was simply a declarative statement that deegs needs to brush up on his physics and not mouth off others who disagree with him unless he knows for certain. No offense was intended.
Sound is NOT an electromagnetic wave like microwaves/radiowaves/xray/light/ultraviolet/gamma rays. It is a physical wave which requires a medium to go through like the electrocmagnetic waves, however. Consider this - you cant see light if a brick wall is separating you from a lightsource, but you can hear sound from across the wall. Sound waves are being traveled through vibrations in molecules like in air and then through the walls/floor as well. Hence why the floor tends to shake when you up yer subwoofer a hell lot. Sound can travel through water which is also a molecular based medium. However, since water is more massive than air as is a brick wall than air sound tends to get muffled/slowed down. 340 meters/sec is the speed sound travels in air, and its slower in everything else due to Snell's law which I believe can be applied to sound, if not its only for light refraction. In any case, sound waves are physical waves.
*ADDITION* Mazoon is correct. If two people are in space where there is no friction and let's say there are no planets or stars that can cause gravitational forces to pull on the people. They are just nonmoving in the middle of nothingness. If one kicked off the other both would go opposite directions, possibly at the same speed, and never stop moving b/c no friction can slow them down and no gravity can pull them to a body of mass.
*ADDITION #2* Alesh is correct in that eventually the gravitational force between the two people should attract them - it is strongest when they are close to each other and weaker as they go further away, however the force keeps them both from going too far away and ideally they should stop.
*ADDITION #3* The formula for gravitational force is:
Fg = G * m1 * m2 / r^2
Fg = Force sub g
G = gravitational constant (look it up)
m1 = mass of gravity source (the earth for example)
m2 = mass of object (a person on ground, a spaceship in orbit)
r = distance between the two masses
Nothing to do with rotation - only thing that rotation plays a role in (in high school physics and medium level college physics) is angular momentum (rotation = Hz = cycles per unit time).
Yes I have too much time on my hands, but I love physics, and I love when physics is correct.
Before insulting someone take a physics class.
I beleive I already gave warnings about politeness.
Edit: Damn you...You invalidated my quote by placing a discalimer! ;)
I think i remember about the rotation now, it's not that when something rotates it creates a force inwards, it's outwards, BUT if something is rotating and the stuff on the surface isn't going outwards, then the things on the surface are under the effect of the force which pushes outwards, and the one pulling in.
You can think of the ball at the end of a string example, there's a knot or something at the end of the string which prevents the ball from flying away, that is aplying a force to the ball, and it wouldn't if it wasn't rotating. That happens because to rotate without flying away there MUST be something to pull the stuff together, in the case of a planet it's gravity which makes everything stay together, if the planet stopped rotating i guess gravity would be higher if anything, since there wouldn't be any force pushing outwards.
Before insulting someone take a physics class.
Mapex, that wasnt an insult! {ask alesh if you care to), whats the point of telling me to take a physics class......really!
actually i think mazoon has a point. If they CAN touch something (eg. the other person) they can use that other person to push off.
Nah that wouldn't work dude, its like saying as my leg touches my torso, i can push off from it. say they were touching, there is still no force to push of from.
One thing everyone needs to consider, lets keep this conversation factual and not hypotomise. Granted there is a tiny force between all bodies, but really the universal law of gravitation only applies to planet size bodies. Yes it may be true that there is a teeeny weeeny gravametric force between 2 ppl, and yes maybe after million of years you may notice it, but i dont think that experiment has been tried...;-)... anyway this is what scientists call negligable, they write off that as being non existant as being too small. so lets not use it.
Sound is NOT an electromagnetic wave like
well done! this was already stated some pages back. ie. if it was it may be possible to see!
Sound waves are being traveled through vibrations in molecules like in air and then through the walls/floor as well.
No sound is energy, energy changes form, ie the energy is being dissapited thru the walls floor, not travelling it-i.e thats why it coume theu muffled, cos it has lost some of its energy
Sound can travel through water which is also a molecular based medium
I believe you'll find with the exception of sub atomic particles everythin in this universe is a molecular based medium
since water is more massive than air
Can u explain this more clearly, its a bit confusing.
Snell's law which I believe can be applied to sound
Yes it can and usually is!
*ADDITION* Mazoon is correct. If two people are in space where there is no friction and let's say there are no planets or stars that can cause gravitational forces to pull on the people. They are just nonmoving in the middle of nothingness. If one kicked off the other both would go opposite directions, possibly at the same speed, and never stop moving b/c no friction can slow them down and no gravity can pull them to a body of mass.
LOOK BELOW
VI. As the order of the parts of time is immutable, so also is the order of the parts of space. Suppose those parts to be moved out of their places, and they will be moved (if the expression may be allowed) out of themselves. For times and spaces are, as it were, the places as well of themselves as of all other things. All things are placed in time as to order of succession; and in space as to order of situation. It is from their essence or nature that they are places; and that the primary places of things should be movable, is absurd. These are therefore the absolute places; and translations out of those places, are the only absolute motions.
Newton just called mapex absurd!! lol :D
*ADDITION #3* The formula for gravitational force is:
Fg = G * m1 * m2 / r^2
this is like the third time that formula has been posted, why is yours better!
Nothing to do with rotation - only thing that rotation plays a role in (in high school physics and medium level college physics) is angular momentum (rotation = Hz = cycles per unit time).
jez, dude read the past posts, When a planet rotates the cenripical force is considered to be gravametric! so it is entwined with rotation.
-rotation also playes a part in, torque, moments, and acceleration to name a few!
Yes I have too much time on my hands, but I love physics, and I love when physics is correct.
Yes physics is good, but perhaps with all your spare time it in fact u that should take the physics lesson!
{again it seems we are now allowed to say that to ppl!}
EDIT: oh and, offense was taken mapex, as u truely implied
I think i remember about the rotation now, it's not that when something rotates it creates a force inwards, it's outwards
nope actually the inward force is real, and so is the outward
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0811114.html
or check out centripical and centrifugal force on google
Check my example, i said the same thing it's said there. I didn't say it doesn't exist, rather it's a condition for something to rotate, but it's not created by the rotation (ie: the sun has gravity, and it attracts planets, no mater if the planet is orbiting the sun or not, but if the sun had no gravity the planets wouldn't be able to orbit it unless there was some other force to do gravity's work; a really big string or whatever :P).
And you can push yourself off more or less... or rather, parts of yourself. Try using a foot to kick the other, you'll notice the other will react.
Why is it gamers often turn out to be physics master :confused:
You guys are hurting my brain.
And you can push yourself off more or less... or rather, parts of yourself. Try using a foot to kick the other, you'll notice the other will react.
thats not what i meant, of course 1 leg can push the opposite, gut your right leg cant push your right ankle! :D
=Profcorron=
16-09-2004, 22:29
thats not what i meant, of course 1 leg can push the opposite, gut your right leg cant push your right ankle!
True, but if there are 2 people then they can touch eachother. it would be difficult to touch another person in space, (becuase theres nothing to align to, [u know that in dancing the balarinas use a handrail to keep balence while thier moving, on earth the balence is gravity, but in space thier isn't a thing to balence on so that its difficult to move NOT impossable] so its the acseleration thats difficult, but its easy to coast once the momentums up. Thats why the apollo 11 orbited the moon to pick up momentum before coasting back into earth. (after it ran out of some fule).
So u could push the other person, but it would be hard.
But prof in me second previous post, i said that it would be impossible to do that for 2 reasons.
First you could never build up the acceleration needed to move in the first place (as ales said something bout millions of years) so we discount that!
Secondly, from newtons quote, in the same post he said that for an place in space to move its absurd. If that place (or in this case the place where some1's hand was) were to move, because it was a void there would be nothing to fill that place.
You know like convection, air and all that, hot air rises cold air rushes in. there would be nothing to fill in the place of the hand! if there was no cold air the hot air couldnt rise!!! cos it would be surrounded by hot air.
SO IT IS IMPOSSIBE TO MOVE IN A VOID (considering of course the mere fact that u were in a void would imply it was therefore no longer a void)
:cool: :D
EDIT: just reading ur post again prof, alesh and i were talking about a true void...maybe u are referring to space in general:)
Why is it gamers often turn out to be physics master :confused:
You guys are hurting my brain.That's because we're not only gamers... we're a bunch of geeks and nerds! :P
About moving in the void I'd say it's possible, from my interpretation Newton says it's not possible to bend space as it's not possible to bend time (i think that was actually proved to be false... of course it might be proved to be right again so...), it doesn't reffer to the matter itself, but to the "position", I really don't know how to explain that (it'd be hard enough in my native tongue :P), so i'll hope you understand what i mean. Also remember there's void everywhere, after all the space between atoms no matter how small is still there.
What would be impossible (because it would require infinite force) would be moving from void into "something", think two "bottles" connected by a tube, and trying to move a ball which has the same diameter as the tube, with one of the bottles void and the other full of air.
That's because we're not only gamers... we're a bunch of geeks and nerds!
How do you think Havok got started. :)
That's because we're not only gamers... we're a bunch of geeks and nerds!
Hey, i aint a nerd!
What would be impossible (because it would require infinite force) would be moving from void into "something"
N1 alesh, not for the first time you issue a point to disprove me but only end up disproving urself, {he he}
And vice versa to your quote eh! therefore that is part of the reasoning for not moving in a void. If your hand moves from a position- A)where does it move to (what does it displace/replace or occupy), and b) and what replaces the place where your hand was.
I may have gotton your intentions wrong but i really didnt understand what you were saying in the second paragraph :( but i guess its a lot easier for me as i was thought in english! and your emglish to date is excellent! :D
How do you think Havok got started. :)
??? Havok????
RenegadeOfPhunk
17-09-2004, 15:35
OK - I'm weighing in :D
If the Earth stopped spinning, we would not all fly off into space!
The force which keeps us attracted to this Earth is gravity. Gravity is a product of an objects 'mass'. Whether it is spinning or moving can mean other forces can affect it and anything on it, but it does NOT affect the gravity that object exerts on other nearby objects
...that is unless you start moving that object near to the speed of light - at which point all kinds of funky stuff can start happenning!
...but for the purposes of our discussion, we can discount those kinds of effects. If the Earth stopped spinning tomorrow, we would remain grounded. If anything, we would actually be stuck down even harder, because the centrifugal force acting in the opposite direction against the Earth's gravity (I'll get to centrigual and centripital forces in just a sec) would not exist. It's relatively small compared to the Earth's gravitiational force, and so I doubt we'd really notice much of a difference anyway... If any, I think the differnce would be seen in tidal patterns.
I'm also assuming having no centrifugal force affecting us would have some very noticible effects on our weather systems. Although I think we'd actually be far more concerned with the fact that one side of the Earth was constantly baking away, and the other freezing like a popsicle..! :cool: )
Deegs, I'm not totally sure whether your implying that the Earth's gravity is caused by it's rotation, or it's rotation is a result of it's own gravity - but it doesn't matter. Neither is correct.
The Earth spins because the formation of the Earth was due to countless bits bumping together over billions of years.
...every single impact caused the 'clump' to spin - or added some angular momentum. The particular direction the clump would end up spinning in would totally depend on:
a. It's existing angular momentum before the given impact
b. The mass and velocity of the impacting debris in question
c. The point at which the debris impacted on the main body of the developing Earth.
If you'd like an analogy, imagine two kids on either side of a roundabout. They are both told to randomly kick the roundabout in opposite directions every now and again totally randomly. They are to ignore the current state of the roundabout's rotation, and are to ignore each other's actions.
...let them go at it for 10 minutes and then stop them both and check the state of the roundabout. What would the chances be that the roundabout wouldn't have 'some' remaining angular momentum in either direction?
...the answer - pretty damn small. For the roundabout to not be spinning at all, both kids on either side would have had to impart exactly the same energy in either direction...
The same is true of the Earth. It spins in a particular direction because all the impacts which went into making it in the first place caused it to start spinning - and the chances of all the impacts on one 'side' having exactly the same force as the impacts on the other 'side' (i.e. all cancelling each other out) was infentesimal.
...i.e. the Earth was BOUND to start spinning, because of the way it was formed.
...so why does it continue to spin after all this time? Because there is nothing now which affects it's spin.
...ok, this is not strictly true. For example, any asteroids which manage to survive past the journey through our atmosphere and make an impact on the Earth would be affecting it's spin. But the effect would be so infentesimal, that I think we'd have a real hard time quantifying the effect to any reasonable degree...
So, the Earth will continue to spin until something comes along to stop it spinning. It does not spin because of it's gravity, nor is gravity in any way generated by it's spinning.
Well, I suppose if you wanted to try and be a smart-arse, you could argue that the only reason all the bits of the Earth collided together in the first place is because of their gravity - and so indirectly the spin of the Earth was caused by gravity.
...but I'd just accuse you of being pedantic ;)
Also, centripidal forces dont' have anything to do with the Earth spinning on it's axis. As explained earlier, that's to do with residiual angular momentum left behind from the impacts which made the earth.
However, a centripidal force does keep the Earth orbiting the sun, caused by the Sun's gravity. And there is an opposite centrifugal force felt by the Earth because of that. Exactly what effects this centrifugal force has is an interesting question. I'd be interested in knowing if it has any effects which are disernable to us.
I have realised that what I've said above is slightly innacurate
...it's actually the other way round. It's the Sun which feels the effects of the centripital force which keeps the planets in orbit.
...this causes the Sun to 'wobble' a tiny bit as the planets pull the Sun this way and that along their orbits. And this now makes total sense. I remember now that one way to identify stars with planetary systems at a long distance is to watch for a 'wobble' from that star...
BUt there is NO centripidal force causing or being generated by the Earth's rotation on it's axis. A centrifugal force is felt on the Earth and everything on it (including us) because of it's spin - a force which would actually cause us to travel OFF the Earth, rather than towards it...!
..but fortunately for us, it's tiny compared to the gravity of the Earth, which keeps us grounded. And if the Earth was to stop spinning, we WOULD stay firmly on the ground.
OK - now onto being able to move in a void. While you woudln't be able to 'swim' in a void (like you can in water - since to swim, you need water to 'push' off of..), you COULD move your arm, since your arm moves not off the air around you, or gravity or anything else. Your arm moves because the muscles in your arm expands and contracts against the bones they are connected to.
i.e. you can move your arm by moving it against your own body.
I'm also fairly certain you could give yourself angular momentum through just your own movements. I'd need to investigate a bit to be 100% sure, but I feel perfectly confident with that claim.
...and if one person in a void were to push against another person within a void within arms reach, both bodies would start moving away from each-other. Assuming the push was introduced into the middle of the body, so that force was not used up adding angular momentum to the push-'ie', and the push-'er' made sure his force was given at a straight angle (i.e. he didn't grab the other body by his [I assume spacesuit] and pulling upwards, which would rather than sending him away, would just send him - and the pushie spinning...) then the force used to push would be halved between the pushing body and the pushed body. To work out how fast each body would travel away from each other (ignoring friction effects of any 'rubbing' against the other body etc.), you would use the following formula:
ke (kenetic energy) = 1/2 mv^2
=> 2ke = mv^2
=> 2ke / m = v ^ 2
=> (2ke / m) ^ 0.5 = v
So to find out how fast the bodies would travel away from each-other. take the force applied by the push, double it, divide the result by the mass of their combined weights, raise the result of that to the power of 0.5 and hey presto, you have the velocity each would reach in meters per second.
The bodies can travel away from each other because they have each other to push away from...
Noticed I'd made a mistake in my kenetic energy forumla stuff. Should have been 2ke on the left, not 0.5ke :eek:
RenegadeOfPhunk
17-09-2004, 15:37
A)where does it move to (what does it displace/replace or occupy), and b) and what replaces the place where your hand was.
I'm interested in knowing what acknowledged and proven principle of physics or any other scientific principle specifices that 'something' HAS to occupy every single avaliable 'part' of this universe...
CerberuS
17-09-2004, 16:54
You guys are hurting my brain.
I agree :p
I'm with ren.
*pats cerb's three heads* There there... just keep biting the spammers :P
RenegadeOfPhunk
17-09-2004, 18:30
I've been looking back over this thread, and it seems - to name a couple of examples - that Mapex and Alesh have been pretty on the money with their comments.
...however, I do wanna pull one thing up which you said Mapex:
*ADDITION #2* Alesh is correct in that eventually the gravitational force between the two people should attract them - it is strongest when they are close to each other and weaker as they go further away, however the force keeps them both from going too far away and ideally they should stop.
This isn't really correct.
Let's go back to the example of two people in a void and one person pushed the other - and they both start moving away from each other.
...any gravitational attraction they had when they were right next to each-other would be infentesimal for two human bodies.
...I'm not sure how many years upon years it would take for this infentesimal gravitational attraction between the two bodies to actually move them together - from an arms distance apart and neither body having any initial momentum...
...I imagine you would be counting it in thousands of years ... at least.
Anyway - now one body pushes the other and both fly apart.
Now remember that the influence of gravitation in relation to distance is an 'inverse-square' law.
i.e. once these two human bodies had increased their seperation distance by two times (i.e. two arms lengths), the gravitaional attraction between the two (which was already infentesimal to begin with) is divided by 4!
Assuming it was a reasonably strengthened push (i.e. one guy didnt' just poke the other!), there is NO way that any gravitational attraction between the two bodies would EVER generate enough force to counter the force generated by the initial push. They would have slowed down because of it, but the amount would be SO SO SO SO small, you would never notice it.
...those two bodies would continue to fly apart for eternity, unless there was other matter or some other energy 'somewhere' which altered their course. But if those two bodies were all that existed, then that would be it. (Assuming they weren't super-humans ;) ). They would never stop moving apart - and would certainly never meet each-other again...
btw Cerb - might be nice to have a specific 'Off Topic Discussion' room for these forums... :)
Theres only one thing I can say.
Dont you have something better to do with your time? :rolleyes:
*Cough* MB *Cough*
RenegadeOfPhunk
17-09-2004, 18:58
Just one of the natural by-products of an education actually Walker ;)
I can think of many things I'd rather be doing then typing out a few physics essays. Some involving beer, others involving women - and most involving both!
heh - or even MB. Although I'm not sure that matches up to my first 3 ideas...
...but when your stuck at work on a Friday afternoon - this will do...
Some involving beer, others involving women - and most involving both!
And marmite.
Hi guys, thanks for the input ren, you are in fact incredibly wrong on many fronts. I hope to point these out to you tomorrow.
I just forced my wife to read these posts and she thinks we are all feckers that should consume less caffine filled products {she says hi too}.
I'll disprove ye all tomorrow
note; (most of rens arguements against me are covered in this post i submitted http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0811114.html also look up newtons manuscript de gravition (based on gravity) and his arguements on voids/space,) see ye tomorrow
StonewallMcGee
18-09-2004, 01:11
Im sure thats some awesome crap you said back there ren, but sweet jesus, soooo many words... cant read it all... :p
Anyway, wow, good luck disproving that deegs (if you read all that deegs, or any1 else...i like ur ability to stay on task that long! :rolleyes: )!!!!
Stonewall :cool:
RenegadeOfPhunk
18-09-2004, 01:33
I just forced my wife to read these posts and she thinks we are all feckers that should consume less caffine filled products {she says hi too}.
Heh - she's probably right ;)
And hi to the missus from me...
I'll disprove ye all tomorrow
note; (most of rens arguements against me...
I guess my comments can't come across as anything other than agressive to you, because I am disputing you. I hope your not taking me as being overly aggressive here, cos that certainly isn't my intention...
I look forward to your reply, but I hope your not gonna take any of this too personally...
(most of rens arguements against me are covered in this post i submitted http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0811114.html also look up newtons manuscript de gravition (based on gravity) and his arguements on voids/space,) see ye tomorrow
The link you have provided doesn't clash with what I posted earlier.
If you read what is on the page you've linked to carefully, you will notice the analogy used is a planet orbiting the sun - not a planet rotating on it's axis.
..these are two different instances of motion. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but what you seem to be confusing here is an object which is 'travelling' in a circular motion (e.g. a planet round the sun) and an object rotating on it's own axis (e.g. the individual planets spinning).
The orbits of the planets around the sun is indeed caused by the centripetal force of the Sun's gravitational influence on the planets.
...but the Earth's rotation is not caused by - what I assume you believe is - a centripetal force caused by ... it's own gravity?! I'm sorry if I'm getting your argument wrong - I may have. But I think that is what you are saying...
I assure you that the rotation of the Earth is not caused by it's gravity, nor is the Earth's gravity in any way affected by it's rotation. The rotation of the Earth is caused by the way it was created - as I explained earlier...
I guess if your still going to continue insisting that the Earth's rotation has something to do with it's own gravity, then your going to have to explain an inconsistency in your argument...
Why isn't the speed of rotation of the planets in proportion to their mass and hence their gravitational pull?
..for example, the Earth - of course -rotates in approx. 24 hours.
The Earth has a mass of approx. 5.98E+24 kg.
So if the spin really did have anything to do with the Earth's gravity (and hence it's mass), you would expect the planet with the nearest mass to Earth in the solar system - that being Venus (4.87E+24 kg) - to have a fairly similar rotational speed when compared with the other planets... would you not?
...wanna know how long Venus takes to rotate on it's axis...?
...240 days!! That beats all the rotation times of all the other planets put together - by quite a ways infact!!
So - Venus rotates at a really slow arse rate. WHy is this, if it's mass is only a fraction (relatively) smaller than the Earth?
...would you infer that Venus has a much smaller gravitational pull than any of the other planets, and hence rotates so much slower? ...cos that would make you the only person I know of on this (realatively speedily rotating) planet who would try and make such a strange claim...
..but if that is truly what you think - I'll listen to your argument as fully as I can - and try my best to take you seriously I guess...
I have realised, though, that I did make one small error - after re-reading the page you linked to. I stated that the centrifugal force caused by the centripital force which keeps the Earth in orbit around the Sun would be felt by the Earth - although I said I wasn't aware of what impact this had on the Earth.
...it's actually the other way round. It's the sun itself which feels the effects of the centrifugal force. (In the same way that a hammer thrower 'wobbles' as he is rotating his hammer around him - building up momentum for this throw...)
...this causes the Sun to 'wobble' a tiny bit as the planets pull the Sun this way and that along their orbits. And this now makes total sense. I remember now that one way to identify stars with planetary systems at a long distance is to watch for a 'wobble' from that star...
So thanks. That link has reminded me of that fact...
|_maPex_|
18-09-2004, 11:15
No offense deegs 75% of the stuff you said is incorrect. I know for a fact that most of my statements were correct (I would bet money, and I never bet) I know some were incorrect but its 2am after a party night give me a break.
Anyway, quoting Newton don't mean jack cuz I don't even know wtf that quote said. Physics can be explained in English :P At any rate, I'm with Alesh and Ren. Ren my scenario was where the two bodies were the only two things in space. Eventually I believe the gravitational force should slow them down, granted it would take a long time (Someone, if not Alesh, said 700K years which I think is kind of high) but eventually they would have to stop. deegs, pushing off your torso w/ your legs wont achieve anything because 1) it would probably feel awkward and/or hurt and/or eff up yer body so no woman would ever be naked in front of you ever again (3rd and/or was a joke :P) 2) you would be pushing off a body of mass that is yourself...we are talking two diff people and they push off. Think about it this way. Two bodies of mass in space - you in a spacesuit and a spaceship. Kick yourself off the spaceship - you will fly away unless u have that cool space jetpack thing or if you are connected by a strong cord to the shuttle. The shuttle may move a tiny bit but since it is in orbit thanks to Earth's gravity it probably won't mean anything. Subtract the Earth and then I think mass would have something to do with the spaceship speed - you would fly for sure I think the spaceship would fly in the opposite direction but much slower b/c the force you exerted kicking off it wouldnt be enough to accelerate the spaceship much (simply, F = ma and m is gonna be huge) In the case of two people, the m is gonna be much smaller so the other person will fly in the opposite direction u will fly in.
RenegadeOfPhunk
18-09-2004, 11:50
Eventually I believe the gravitational force should slow them down, granted it would take a long time (Someone, if not Alesh, said 700K years which I think is kind of high) but eventually they would have to stop.
Honestly Mapex, this isn't true. They would be slowed down, although by such a small amount, neither body would be concerned by it.
...and they certainly would not stop. I can assure you of that...
One object escaping the gravitational influence of another object is known as the escaping object reaching 'escape velocity'. Think of rockets which leave this Earth and fly up into space.
...if you dont' give the rocket enough velocity, it will not manage to escape the gravitational pull of the Earth, and it will fall back down.
...to try it yourself, throw a can in the air. You didn't give that can any where near enough velocity and so very quickly any energy you imparted to that can (in the form of kenetic energy) was quickly swallowed up by the force of the gravitational pull of the Earth, and it fell back down.
...but, build a rocket and stick a bloody great big booster on it, giving it a constant level of immense thrust, and you can give a rocket enough velocity to 'escape' the gravitational pull of the Earth.
...and now here is the important part. As the rocket get's further away from the Earth, the less velocity it woudl need to keep away (assuming it didn't decide to change course). So at a certain point above the Earth (known as Geo-synchronous orbit) that rocket doesn't require any more force to stop it moving towards the Earth - ever again..!
...Read that last bit again carefully Mapex. It is perfectly possible for an object (e.g. a rocket) to have a certain amount of force applied to / on it which starts it moving away from another given object - no matter how strong it's gravitational effects are -and NEVER be pulled back towards it.
...if this wasn't true, then orbits plain woudln't work...!
...the simple fact is that as you move further away from the object, it's gravitational effect is getting weaker. As long as the escaping object still has enough kenetic energy left to counter the (by now very very weak, once it's far away) effects of the other object's gravitation pull, the escaping object will continue to have enough energy to never by troubled by that object again, and continue on it's merry way regardless...
So now - consider smaller planets, or the moon. The escape velocities you'd need to reach to escape those bodies would be smaller. No, you couldn't just chuck a can into the air and have it fly off on the moon. It's still too big for that. But you'd need a far less powerful rocket.
...but now go out to the asteriod belt and find a relatively small asteroid and stand on it (or rather tether yourself carefully to it ;) ). Now take a can and throw it up (up being away from the asteroid). Hey presto. You've just given that can enough kenetic energy to escape the gravitational effect of the asteroid you are standing on / tied to.
...The fact is it wouldn't take much more force for you to be flung off it too... (which is why you'd better be tied down..!)
...so now we are back to considering two human bodies a meter or so apart. If I can throw a coke can off an asteroid and achieve escape velocity (ok, a small asteroid but still - considerably larger and more dense than a human!), how much energy do you think it's gonna take to give each human body the escape velocity they need to achieve escape velocity with each-other?!
...the answer? Actually an infentesimal amount. Because we already know that the gravitational force between them is infentesimal - due to their relatively small size.
...A simple push is all it would take.
...I'm not sure if you know about the possibilties of the universe either being pulled back in by it's own gravity, or continue flying apart forever (or an inbetween where all objects in the universe are gradually slwoing down to the point of not moving..), but this is all based on the same basic principles...
..if you WERE correct Mapex, then the possibility of the universe flying apart forever wouldn't exist at all! And yet it is a generally accepted fact that this is indeed a possibility. In fact, as far as I'm aware, the general concensus right now is that it is most likely that all matter in the universe IS going to keep flying apart forever...
CerberuS
18-09-2004, 13:46
btw Cerb - might be nice to have a specific 'Off Topic Discussion' room for these forums... :)
Ok, there you go ;)
*runs away as he notices which thread he got into to prevent another headache*
Must be nice to get back into a debate Ren. What since AOTCTC offtopic forum is pretty much dead. :)
RenegadeOfPhunk
18-09-2004, 14:49
Heh - yeah, it's quite nice Kesh ;)
Mapex - the more I think about it, the more I think I realise what it is your missing which is causing you to think the two bodies eventually will have to stop moving apart...
Your not really taking into account - fully - the fact that the gravitation between them is getting continually weaker as the distance between the two bodies increases
I mean - I think you do know this, don't get me wrong. But I don't think your taking the consequence of that fact fully into account in this situation.
If the gravitation between the two objects was not affected by distance, then you would be absolutely right. Eventually, the infentesimal amount of gravitational attraction between the two would eventually build up and build up until it was having enough of an effect to slow down the objects until they stopped. It would take thousands upon thousands of years for that to happen, but it would happen - eventually...
...BUT - that isn't the case. As the two objects move apart, the gravitational attraction between them get's less and less.
So - let's use some figures to try and help make things clearer. OK - these figures I'm gonna make up are going to be purely made up. I have no idea how accurate they are to the reality. They are only to demonstrate the idea..
OK - so let's imagine a standard human 'push' equates to - I donno - 1000 kilojoules of evergy. I have no idea whether that's accurate or not - it probably isn't, but it's just a reference figure.
..ok, so what is the energy generated by the gravitational attraction between the two bodies? Well - we can safely say it's infentesimal compared to the push energy. The 'human push' force creates enough energy to cause the bodies to disernably move apart in seconds, whereas the gravitational force isn't gonna move the bodes disernably for thousands of years!
..le'ts make it - say - 0.0001 KJ per minute. Again -totally innacurate. It would actually be many many many more times smaller than that compared to the push energy. But again, it will do for the purposes of this exersise.
OK - so subject A pushes subject B - generating 1000 KJ of kenetic energy.
The gravitational force acts and drains 0.0001 KJ of energy in a minute, leaving the combined energy on both subjects as 999.9999 KJ.
(It would actually be greater than 999.9999 KJ's after one minute because the KJ's being drained per minute would be decreasing as the distance between the two woudl be increasing. But suffice it to say it couldn't be any lower than 999.9999 KJ's after one minute)
OK - the gravitational force is going to be continually draining the kenetic energy of the two subjects. Once the distance had doubled between the subjects, the gravitational effect is quartered (inverse square law) so by this point only 0.000025 KJ / minute is being removed from the overall kenetic energy of either body.
...now, what I think your argument is based on is 'Well look, there is always going to be a bit of energy taken off no matter how far apart they are, and so given an infinate amount of time, that energy is going to be used up and the bodies will stop moving apart and will in fact start moving towards each-other again'.
...but oh contraire - you haven't taken into account the fact that the amount being taken off is continually moving towards 0.
When the bodies were 1 meter apart, the energy being removed by gravitational effects was 0.0001 KJ / minute.
...when they were 2 meters apart, the energy being removed was 0.000025 KJ / minute
4 meters = 0.00000625 KJ / minute
8 meters = 0.0000015625 KJ / minute
16 meters = 0.000000390625 KJ / minute
32 meters = 0.00000009765625 KJ / minute
ok - so only after 32 meters of distance, any 'drag' effect gravity is having has been reduced from 0.0001 KJ / minute to 0.0000001 KJ's / minute!
..this is because the gravitational effect is getting smaller and smaller.
In summary, as fast as the gravitational influence can try and make any attempt to slow the objects down, the influence it's actually having in the first place is fading away!
...and once you start talking about infinity, guess what the eventual outcome of this drag energy will be...?!
...effectively 0! For all intents and purposes, there will be NO drag caused by gravitational effects anymore at infinate distances, because they are just too far apart to care about each other anymore...!
They'd probably take longer to stop than the age of the universe... hell stars have more mass and they're still moving... IF the gravity formula is strictly correct and nothing else interferes my guess is they'd stop... with the slight delay of lets say... billions of years? Probably more.
On rockets and orbits, remember they have been orbiting/flying away for a finite ammount of time, and they aren't only affected by a single gravity, and as you said they slow down at a negligible speed.
EDIT: If i recall my math classes it'd depend on the force done by the two and their masses, the combined force of gravity given an infinite ammount of time would be a real number (it's a 1/n^2 progression), so as long as the needed force was lower than that they'd stop, if it was higher they'd never stop, if equal they'd stop in an infinite ammount of time.
RenegadeOfPhunk
18-09-2004, 16:36
IF the gravity formula is strictly correct and nothing else interferes my guess is they'd stop... with the slight delay of lets say... billions of years? Probably more.
Alesh Alesh... :D
..your not really listening to me.
This is not about guessing. THis is about facts.
...as long as two objects are given enough energy, they can continue to move apart forever - regardless of any gravitational attraction between them.
You can say you 'guess' otherwise, but it doesn't make a difference to the facts of the matter...
so as long as the needed force was lower than that they'd stop, if it was higher they'd never stop, if equal they'd stop in an infinite ammount of time.
...but after an infinite amount of time, the objects will be an infinite distance apart. And as I've just shown, two objects with an infinite amount of distance between them have NO gravitational attraction at all. So all that's left is the energy that was causing them to move apart in the first place...
...believe me Alesh, I am right about this... Look it up...
THe fact as to whether the universe is eventually gonna pull itself back in, or if the matter of the universe is going to keep flying outwards forever (and this possibility is accepted FACT in physics Alesh - again look it up...) depends NOT on the time scale your looking at, but whether the amount of mass in the universe is enough to pull back on itself, given the current expansion rate of the universe...
We are fairly sure about the expansion rate, although less sure about the total mass of the universe.
...but the possibility that all matter could all fly away from each-other and NEVER be stopped, let alone pulled back in is generally accepted fact
RenegadeOfPhunk
18-09-2004, 16:58
Ok - just re-read the last part of your previous post - and you've actually said what I've been trying to explain all along!
so as long as the needed force was lower than that they'd stop, if it was higher they'd never stop, if equal they'd stop in an infinite ammount of time.
yes - exactly. if....
needed force was lower than that they'd stop
to be more accurate, they'd end up pulling back together again. i.e. a rocket or a coke can falling back to Earth because it wasn't given enough energy to reach escape velocity...
if equal they'd stop in an infinite ammount of time
This is basically what being in orbit around a planet is - you are for all intents and purposes at a stand-still. NO - your not at an absolute stand-still (nothing really is). It would take an infinite amount of time to reach 'complete' standstill (at least in relation to moving towards or away from the Earth. Of course your still not standing still cause your hurtling around in orbit, but that's another matter...) But for all practical purposes - dependning on your point of view - you are stopped.
if it was higher they'd never stop
And there you go! You'd just said it. If the energy you give to the objects is high enough - they will NEVER STOP!
...notice the word never. That means that even on an infinite time scale, they would still be moving apart - IF you gave them enough energy to start with...
...so since you've just stated this, why are you disagreeing with me?!
RenegadeOfPhunk
18-09-2004, 17:18
Right -I can't really think of much easier ways to explain what I just have, but I'm gonna give it a go.
Imagine you've got a box of building blocks. And you start stacking them one on top of the other...
Now imagine that you have an infinite amount of building blocks. And you keep stacking them up for an infinite time.
...what height is that stacked up pile of building blocks going to reach? Yes of course - it's going to be infinitely tall!
Doesn't matter what the actual size of the blocks are. They can be house-sized or pea-sized. Doesn't matter. Both block sizes would reach an infinite height when infinitely stacked. The only important detail is that all the blocks are the SAME size.
...right. So we all know, comprehend and understand that I assume. Well done - have a cookie...
OK - but this isn't the kind of thing we've been talking about...
The gravitational effect we are talking about isn't constant. It's getting smaller as the objects move further away
To represent this, we will say that - yes - we have an infinite amount of building blocks, but each block you get out is going to be smaller than the last one (this accurately represents the combined gravitational effect between two objects moving away from each other over time...)
OK - so the first block you get out is the size of - I donno - a TV set. And you chuck it on the floor.
Ok - you get the next one out. And it's a quarter of the size. So I donno - a home loudspeaker size.
The next one is quarter of the size again. So maybe a shoe-box
The next one is quarter of the size again. So maybe a rubix cube.
You keep stacking these things on top of each-other. Pretty soon your stacking sugar cube sized blocks. And Pea-sized blocks. And Electron-sized blocks.
...you think this tower is gonna get to infinite size?! NO f**king way! Hell, it might not have reached the ceiling - even when you've been stacking them up for an infinite amount of time!!. Because even though you've stacked up an infinite amount of blocks, they've also been getting infinitely smaller as you've done so.
In conclusion the height of our second tower - even though we can keep adding blocks for an infinite time IS NOT AN INFINITE HEIGHT. In fact it is heading towards a VERY finite height. Exactly what the eventul height would be is determined by the size of the first block, and how much smaller each consecutive block is. (And how your stacking them if they aren't cubes ;) )
...this isn't really a hard concept, but you need to get this if your to understand why two objects in a void can be pushed apart and CONTINUALLY move apart, even though there is 'some' gravitational attraction between them...
...I COULD start talking about different levels of infinity, but I think that's going too far right now. I'll stick to the basics first ;)
..but suffice it to say you need to be very careful when throwing the word 'infinite' around. People use the word infinite, and suddenly anything is possible! ...that isn't the case at all...
Chairwalker
18-09-2004, 18:08
I'd hate to interrupt the fascinating discussion here (wich is mostly based on people misinterpreting the other's post) but since everybody's wearing their smarty-pants here, i figured i could ask you to answer a question that's been bothering me for a while:
Light can be bent, broken and absorbed. But can it be slowed down?
Can light travel at any speed other than the speed of light?
I thought of this when i read an article about the infamous black holes and their 'light sucking' abilities due to their high gravital force.
Because if this were true (light being sucked in by gravity) then in theory you could apply huge amounts of gravity to light in such a way that the light would stop.... wich would be pretty cool.
from http://www.fact-index.com/s/sp/speed_of_light.html
"Slower-than-light" (i.e., slowing light) experiments
In 1999, a team of scientists led by Lene Hau were able to slow the speed of a light beam to about 17 m/s. In 2001, they were able to momentarily stop a beam. See Bose-Einstein condensate for more information.
In 2003, Mikhail Lukin, with scientists at Harvard University and the Lebedev Institute in Moscow, succeeded in completely halting light by directing it into a mass of hot rubidium gas, the atoms of which, in Lukin's words, "[behaved] like tiny mirrors" (Dumé, 2003), due to an interference pattern in two "control" beams. (Dumé, 2003)
RenegadeOfPhunk
18-09-2004, 18:22
Right, well before I answer your question Chair, a small disclaimer. THis is the generally accepted understanding.
...in 20 years time, what I'm about to write might be laughed at ;) But that's ok. I'd be in good company, along with Einstein and Hawking...
but anyway
...no - light cannot be slowed down. And this forms the entire basis for general relativity.
..it can however, have it's velocity altered, but you most remember that velocity is not just an objects speed, but it's speed and direction.
We all know that light can be bounced around all over the place. And you dont' need black holes to do that. You see the world around you becuase of light reflecting off it all... If there was no light reflecting, then you'd see nothing - i.e. nighttime ;)
But the 'speed' of light IS constant - at 299,792,458 meters per second to be precise...
What happens 'inside' a black hole is very much on the frontiers of scientific thought. I know many scientists think they are getting close to understanding what could be going on inside them, the real truth is we can't tell. Because past the event horizon (the distance from the centre of a black hole from which light cannot 'escape'), all our known laws of physics break down. We have no idea what's going on in there. Sure - light could be slowing down. Up could be down. The future could be the past. 2+2 might equal 5 in there for all we know...
...but at and outside of the event horizon - no - light cannot be slowed down. It's path, however, can be curved. At the event horizon of a black hole, it's curved to such an extent that it simply travels round the edge of the black hole constantly - neither falling into it, nor flying away... ie. the light becomes 'trapped' at the event horizon.
If light manages to fall into the attraction of a black hole but escape, it won't have lost any speed, but will have been 'majorly' diverted from it's original course....
..hope that answers your question - somewhat.. ;)
Ohh - apologies. Didn't get it quite right. I'd been forgetting some quite important stuff :o
Gravitational effects don't slow down light, it does just divert it. So what I said about the effects of the black hole on light is correct...
But light IS slower depending on the medium it is travelling through. For example, light travels slower through glass then it does through air - which of course is why a rainbow of colours appears as sunlight passes through a prism - and this is also how such things as telescopes and eyeglasses work...
The figure given earlier for the speed of light is for light in a vacuum...
RenegadeOfPhunk
18-09-2004, 18:26
Tom - those experiments you speak of are very recent and - as far as I'm aware - their implications are unknown.
...sure, it's possible they may have slowed down light, in which case a lot of general relativity has to be re-written.
...but I don't think the eraser is out quite yet. I don't know how many people accept those experiments at face value. There are a LOT of variables and technicalities to consider.
...as far as I'm aware, at this point in time, it is not a generally accpeted fact that any experiment has 'definelty' slowed down light. Maybe it has appeared so, but I think further proof is being required by many...
i agree totally
tho im no scientist at all
i think the speed of light & absolute zero
r the only absolute things in this universe
i just posted that link so Chair had something to reference and make his own idea
wheter if it is possible or not
RenegadeOfPhunk
18-09-2004, 19:11
Ohh - apologies. Didn't get it quite right. I'd been forgetting some quite important stuff :o
Gravitational effects don't slow down light, it does just divert it. So what I said about the effects of the black hole on light is correct...
But light IS slower depending on the medium it is travelling through. For example, light travels slower through glass then it does through air - which of course is why a rainbow of colours appears as sunlight passes through a prism - and this is also how such things as telescopes and eyeglasses work...
The figure given earlier for the speed of light is for light in a vacuum...
=Profcorron=
18-09-2004, 23:22
..if you WERE correct Mapex, then the possibility of the universe flying apart forever wouldn't exist at all! And yet it is a generally accepted fact that this is indeed a possibility. In fact, as far as I'm aware, the general concensus right now is that it is most likely that all matter in the universe IS going to keep flying apart forever...
There are 2 theries of how the universe is formed, (thats are possable to belive on a scientific front)
The Big Bang Theory suggests that all matter of the Universe was once collected at a central point. About 10-20 billion years ago, enormous heat and pressure inside the huge ball of matter, caused it to explode. The fragments of mattar travelled rapidly outwards, forming the expanding universe as we know it today.
The Steady State Theory suggests that the galaxies and stars are spread thoughou the universe, and that there was no explosion to form the universe. This theory suggests that new matter is forming all the time which in turn forms stars and galaxies, to fill in the enlarging spaces between the galaxies as they move outwards.
The big bang theory allows Us to find why the universe is continueally moving apart. Its becuase of the explotion at the centre. The gravity for the Big collection must have been huge. but with the explotion anough force was removed to get it out of the area. Now after 99999999(99999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 in those little things abouve maths letters) years the gravity from the Central part of the universe hasn't brought it back yet. And it never will.
Another way to see this affect in action.
Get an elastic rope, tie a ball around it. then throw the ball (holding onto the end of elastic NOT tied to the ball) and when it reaches the end of the pul it'll fly back, (and hopefully not hit anyone in the head) -this is simmilar to what happens when something doesn't have enough volosity to escape atmosphere.- the other sort is tie a peice of plastic woven string onto a ball, and do the same, when it this time reaches the end of the string its fall to the ground, -abit like a satalite going into orbit- and the Third thing to do is tie another peice of rope to a ball then pick up another ball and tie it to the first ball with abit of tisue paper, Again toss the ball (the one tied on, and the other ball tie with tisue paper to that ball) and the first ball will reach the end of the string, and the second ball SHOULD fly off as the tisue paper -gravity- brackes. (hope it wont hit anything on the head this time eather) -this is liek what happens when something escapes the gravity of something, and the little bit of tisue paper tie onto the ball wil slow the ball down but not in a big enough way to do anything but get it caught in a tree, but it doesn't do anything for bringing the ball back to the other part of the tisue paper.
btw the reason theres 2 balls with the last part is so its easyer to tie it on, AND it acts abit like what happend to the old rocket parts. When they were used up while escaping the earths velosity.
So to repeate this experiment get 2 frinds to hold 2 balls tied to each other (or a stick in the air) with tisue paper (though tolet paper probibly easyer) and get your 2 friends to throw the ball at the same time. the gavity will get less and lest after the link brakes, and the small remaining part will decrease drag as it is pulled of by trees .....
So some practical things to go with our minded ideas.
Chairwalker
19-09-2004, 00:14
...get it caught in a tree.... the reason theres 2 balls with the last part is so its easyer to tie it on....
old rocket.... get 2 friends to hold 2 balls tied to each other (or a stick in the air)...
get your 2 friends to throw the ball....it is pulled off by trees .....
So some practical things to go with our minded ideas.
Your experiments frighten me.
Ren:
Notice i edited the post, i don't like deleting stuff i said, but i disagreed in that it would always be the case, IF the relations between masses and force aplied in the push were the right ones they would stop, that's what i tried to say; the r^2 in the formula can be calculated in the [0, infinite) range, so it would only be a matter of comparing the total of that with the ammount necessary to make them stop totally.
ok i'm back in
Firstly, god damn ren u need to chill {dont worry nothing is taken personally} your posts go on and somtimes 3in a row.....your scaring ppl of this topic, and your hurting their eyes! confession i skimmed thru ur posts to get the jist but there is soooooo much there and to be honest a bit too much with off topic trains of thought (and that is hard in an off topic thread).
SO i suggest EVeryone
1) sticking to 4/5 paragraphs max, if u cant say it in that chances are ur not saying it right.
2) use links to relevent material to back up your arguement, dont try to explain and waste space when some1 elsewhere says it better
3) Keep it factual <>
-dont "guess" be sure and prove
- dont say i'm pretty sure be sure
- read all previous threads and comment accurately (dont presume anything)
- dont quote ur brother/ aunt/uncle / dog/ religous leader!
4) dont question deegs rightness!
5) If something is neglibale forget about it. To argue over how many millions of years it may take for an event to happen is a waste of time. Gravitation forces between 2 humans in any place is negligable and ignored by modern science..........DROP IT!
OK ren way too much to quote and disprove, i'd have to write a novel, so i'l go with ur more later posts
...as long as two objects are given enough energy, they can continue to move apart forever - regardless of any gravitational attraction between them.
Incorrect ren, what u come close to describing is perpetual motion. This would only work if there was no friction acting on the objects/(or if it was a constant energy acting on it with no other forces acting on it forever)....friction being a force acting on them, a force being anything u can and will imagine.
Tru if there is no gravity acting on them, and no other force that would be correct but it aint as simple as saying without gravity they could move indefinately
no - light cannot be slowed down. And this forms the entire basis for general relativity.
wrong.....
Chairwalker reference this article it explains perfectly what u seek.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00745.htm
Essentially it is considered there are 2 definations to the speed of light
"speed of light" means two things:
(1) G-d's magical "speed limit of the universe"
(2) the speed that electro-magnetic ripples go at a given place.
"Relativity is relative!!!and therefore unique to each and every1 of us at different times i.e if light travels from the sun at X, and u travel directly away from the sun at y the actual relative speed of light is x+y. however ren standing at the side not moving would have the spped of light relative to him at x. simple explanation but accurate.
BTW its also proven that light speed changes thru different mediums but einsteins Constant speed of light is relative only to a given example! as ren said a "vacumn"
disprove ye all 2morrow laters
..it can however, have it's velocity altered, but you most remember that velocity is not just an objects speed, but it's speed and direction.
Thats wrong dude speed and velocity are the same, distance travelled over time! As u also pointed out below "meters per second"
But the 'speed' of light IS constant - at 299,792,458 meters per second to be precise...
We all know that light can be bounced around all over the place. And you dont' need black holes to do that. You see the world around you becuase of light reflecting off it all... If there was no light reflecting, then you'd see nothing - i.e. nighttime ;)
Actually during nitetime (as we now it) there is always light! did u know ur body emits light!
The only way to get a pure state with no light is to take a trip to alesh's void :D (no pun intended--!!$$%%^ where the sun dont shine^&*()$$ god iam a geek)
What happens 'inside' a black hole is very much on the frontiers of scientific thought. I know many scientists think they are getting close to understanding what could be going on inside them, the real truth is we can't tell. Because past the event horizon (the distance from the centre of a black hole from which light cannot 'escape'), all our known laws of physics break down. We have no idea what's going on in there. Sure - light could be slowing down. Up could be down. The future could be the past. 2+2 might equal 5 in there for all we know...
...but at and outside of the event horizon - no - light cannot be slowed down. It's path, however, can be curved. At the event horizon of a black hole, it's curved to such an extent that it simply travels round the edge of the black hole constantly - neither falling into it, nor flying away... ie. the light becomes 'trapped' at the event horizon.
If light manages to fall into the attraction of a black hole but escape, it won't have lost any speed, but will have been 'majorly' diverted from it's original course....
random ramblings of a mad man!!!!!
In a black hole energy is just changed, hawkins recent turnaround at the recentdublin convention stated that information is rereleased from the hole overtime
http://space.com/news/hawking_bet_040716.html
this leads further to the point that light/matter travels in get confused and is radiated back out.
Also the black hole - pre hawkins 2004- and post states that "ALMOST" all light is suked in and radiation is emitted "radiation being light"
Unless God comes and posts i think we'll hardly see any facts... consensual beliefs at most :P
And deegs please, read all the posts, ren reworked some of his stuff in later posts... you've disproved some points he already said he messed up :P
Ok let's try to see what we have so far...
- Gravity doesn't depend on rotation.
- Sound is a type of physical vibrations within a certain frequency range and carries energy. (like this one deegs? I'd say the sound is our way of perceiving that but i'm no linguist... :P)
- Can you move in a total void? Most say yes, deegs still said no in last post.
- Those two pushing guys in the void might or might not get together again depending on their masses and force aplied in the push. (assuming they can push of course :P)
- Light's speed can change.
- Hawkins likes black holes and making theories about them.
Anything to add/correct?
Unless God comes and posts i think we'll hardly see any facts... consensual beliefs at most :P
Jez dude, a fact is ez to find, thats what science is based on not religion!
- Gravity doesn't depend on rotation.
true (but fundamentally the arguement still stands as electrons rotate)
- Sound is a type of physical vibrations within a certain frequency range and carries energy. (like this one deegs? I'd say the sound is our way of perceiving that but i'm no linguist... :P)
Too messy alesh use this "the particular auditory effect produced by a given cause" or "the audible part of a transmitted signal" from http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/sound
- Can you move in a total void? Most say yes, deegs still said no in last post.
Ok i'm sick playing around with this idea, fact if you are in a void it is no longer a void.....this is ur arguement alesh, and its impossible, u CANNOT ever BE in a void, cos then it wouldnt be a void and if it aint a void motion is possible! (oh and every1 else) in a true void movement is impossible....lets drop this void thingy
- Those two pushing guys in the void might or might not get together again depending on their masses and force aplied in the push. (assuming they can push of course :P)
see above
- Light's speed can change.
Correct
- Hawkins likes black holes and making theories about them.
True
-Deegs is usually right
Also true
and for the other thing, i reckon i got the jist of what ren was saying if i didn't i'm sorry, but i dont think any1 can blame me...........alll those letters
Anything to add/correct?
admit ur wrong :D
Assume i meant a void EXCEPT the two guys...
About facts, i meant science is a bunch of theories which seem to work, but can be proved wrong later, thus it's not a fact.
And i already admitted i could be wrong by adding that question didn't i? :P
RenegadeOfPhunk
19-09-2004, 13:42
Ok deegs, please - I'm not getting 'worked up' or 'over-excited' about this. If I may suggest so, your the only one here which seems to be getting overly 'wound up'...
I'm just making sure I'm being thorough and covering all the angles. I talk about this stuff a lot because I'm interested in it and I like talking about it...
And I don't know why you presume you can tell me how to post on my own forums :confused: I have certainly never told you how to post... :/
And if anybody isn't following the conversation, then maybe the conversation isn't for them...
It's a shame that you've already admitted your only 'skimming' my posts sometimes. I've made sure I've read all your posts thouroughly and several times over so that I make sure I understand where your coming from. I dont' like to mis-represent people...
and for the other thing, i reckon i got the jist of what ren was saying if i didn't i'm sorry, but i dont think any1 can blame me...........alll those letters
If you can't stand the heat, I suggest you remove yourself from the kitchen...
And if you don't like reading a lot of words, I'm startled you've managed to read the physics books / texts nessesary to understand these principles in the first place :confused:
random ramblings of a mad man!!!!!
I'm disappointed in you Deegs. At what point have I ever gotten personal with you to deserve this response? Again - I put it to you that your the one getting worked up over all this - not me...
(...but if you really want me to 'take the gloves off' so to speak, I'm more than willing to oblige you...)
I was aware that radiation can end up being emitted from a black hole - due to particle / anti-particle wierdness on the event horizon I believe (stuff I won't pretend to fully understand).
I wasn't aware, however, that this implies that we CAN get information from inside the black hole. This is indeed new to me. So I thank you for providing me with that link...
Thats wrong dude speed and velocity are the same, distance travelled over time! As u also pointed out below "meters per second"
Err no - heh 'dude' - actually I am correct. (Maybe this is another case where you started reading about something, but then couldn't be arsed to finish...)
...and since you seem to need weblinks:
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/1DKin/U1L1d.html
I must warn you, there are quite a few words on this page. Hopefully you can read to the end before you get bored. Otherwise you might not understand it right...
...there is a helpful man making it plain for you on that page - a few paragraphs from the top...:
'Velocity is speed with a direction'
...and if that isn't enough for you to understand, here's a quote from the bottom of that page:
In conclusion, speed and velocity are kinematic quantities which have distinctly different definitions. Speed, being a scalar quantity, is the distance (a scalar quantity) per time ratio. Speed is ignorant of direction. On the other hand, velocity is direction-aware. Velocity, the vector quantity, is the rate at which the position changes. It is the displacement or position change (a vector quantity) per time ratio.
You can consider velocity and speed as equivalent if your not interested in the direction - true. But that's only to do with the perception you choose to take - what I stated is correct. Speed is a 'scalar' value which doesn't take direction into account, whereas velocity does take direction of movement into account...
You were wrong on this point, but I don't expect you to admit it. That's not your 'style' it seems...
If it was your style, you might even - at some point - admit that there is not one point of truth in this post: http://www.moviebattles.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15404&postcount=23
The entire thing is nonsense and totally untrue - from beginning to end...
Tru if there is no gravity acting on them, and no other force that would be correct but it aint as simple as saying without gravity they could move indefinately
We are talking about a 'theoretical' situation. i.e. a situation which you woudn't nessesarily be able to 'reproduce' in reality. (But once you had come to a conclusion to the theoretical, you can then try and apply that to the reality...)
'Theoratical' situations are created and worked on all the time in physics to help us come to a proper understanding of physics principles.
...I think every other person involved in this discussion understood that the two bodies are in 'a void'. Now it seems your argument revolves around what defines a 'void'. A void is where there is nothing.
When we say something is 'in' a void, we mean there is nothing else 'except' for that body, those two bodies etc.
...all perfectly straight-forward...
And 'theoretically', it is perfectly possible to 'imagine' two people in a 'void' - and what would happen if they pushed off each-other.
If they were in a true void, then there would be no friction effects (except any friction at the point one pushed the other...). There would be no other objects to pull them in other directions.
...the idea of the 'theroetical' exersise is perfectly sound. Everyone else got it, and was able to contribute... except you it seems... :/
It's a shame to have to say it, but it's fairly obvious your trying to find any way possible to 'alter the meaning' of earlier statements using pedantic technicalities about voids...
Ok i'm sick playing around with this idea, fact if you are in a void it is no longer a void.....this is ur arguement alesh, and its impossible, u CANNOT ever BE in a void
Again - part of your apparent 'word games' involving 'voids'. When we say a human body is 'in a void', we mean there is a human body and there is nothing else but that body. That's all. Nothing more complicated than that...
You'd have to assume he was wearing a spacesuit to stay alive etc. But whatever - that's not the point. The parameters of a body in a void is a perfectly suitable situation for a discussion on matters of physics..
And while I would agree that only one human body in a void would not be able to alter his 'velocity' (as far as I'm aware at least...), I'm fairly sure that he / she would be able to alter their angular momentum without needing another 'body' to push against...
...and your earlier claim that you wouldn't even be able to move your arm in this situation is absolute nonsense. There is NO truth to it whatsoever...
...and please don't ask me to prove it. Because I can - with a very simple example. In fact it's so simple it's going to reflect very badly on yourself. Which is why I'm not going to bring it up unless you force me to...
...I'm willing to give you a chance to do the right thing and just admit you got it wrong first...
Perpetual motion in a 'void' is a perfectly aceptable and logical situation. This is because of one of Newton's basic laws...
'Once a body is in motion, it wants to stay in motion'.
Once a body is set in motion (no need for a 'constant' force - a finite amount of force would do...) and there is nothing there to stop it (friction, other bodies etc.), that body will continue moving forever...
...do you really wish to dispute this?! This is very basic stuff...
If your argument for disuputing this is 'but there will always be something to stop it', then this whole thing is down to you not accepting the theoretical situation that the rest of us have been working to!!
You're not telling us anything we dont' know deegs! We all know that space is not a 'true' void...!
And besides all that, it is very likely that perpetual motion is a reality as we speak. According to current data, it is most likely that ALL matter is going to be flying apart from all other matter forever. (i.e. the universe is going to continually expand on an infinite time scale)
...if that's not perpetual motion, I don't know what is...
...and that's not coming from me! That's coming from the best scientific minds on this planet - including Hawking (you know, the guy talked about in the website you linked to earlier...).
So I trust you'll excuse me - considering the circumstances (I have both Newton and Hawking on my side...) - if I find your personal disbelief in the possibility of perpetual motion (in practical terms) perfectly irrelavent...
To argue over how many millions of years it may take for an event to happen is a waste of time. Gravitation forces between 2 humans in any place is negligable and ignored by modern science..........DROP IT!
With all due respect, we weren't arguing about how many years it would take. We were 'discussing' whether the two bodies would ever stop moving apart - even over an infinite time scale.
And this stuff is of interest if your actually trying to understand how this all works. If not - well, I guess your only interested in 'sounding' smart - and hopefully convincing a few gulliable subjects that you know what your talking about along the way...
Actually during nitetime (as we now it) there is always light! did u know ur body emits light!
The only way to get a pure state with no light is to take a trip to alesh's void (no pun intended--!!$$%%^ where the sun dont shine^&*()$$ god iam a geek)
Heh - ok. I'll allow you the technicality against me. I was aware that there is of course 'some' light at night. I was only trying to illustrate a point...
although I'm interested in our bodies giving off light. I'm honestly not trying to disupte you in this instance - for all I know your right. I'm just interested in how that works...
-Deegs is usually right
Also true
:) A little bit of humour goes a long way... ;)
=Profcorron=
20-09-2004, 01:08
lol acidus
And About newtons law, "when a things in motion, it wants to stay in motion"
You can try this experiment. Get a Scate board. A Tin of oil(or anything with a low friction rating) pour the Oil over a place that it won't sink in. place the scate board on one side of the oil patch. Then push it. Its'll continue to move EVEN after your've let go of it. ITs will roll to a stop as soon as enough Friction has built up, BUT while it was moving it would have been dificult to stop with your foot, (expeically on the slipery oil, your move likely to hurt your self. ) but it will stop. (but thats becuase unlike a PURE void it has friction.
Now Voids.
A void means: Something that is missing something.
So if you want an air void go to an airless planet, (don't try that, becuase u couldn't breath)
A PURE void is missing EVERYTHING. And therefore we can't talk about it becuase of a funny law that I heard awile ago. A PURe void is impossable becuase for it to be PURe it must not have a void. (just a little joke)
But by using law you can disprove (or prove) anything. It'll just take awile.
So in a pure void you couldn't move becuase YOU couldn't go into as pure void. But for the Fact that we're Hipothsising, (spelt wrong but it means we're making an educated guess) and for that Level we can imagin a Void that we can go in, and in that void we can move around in, IF we can push against something. Eg. another person who's in this Void of Friction .
So our Void is Void of Friction. But it has gravity. And in this void of Friction that has gravity we can Push agsainst something and move, But becuase neather thing is atached to anything (other then thier miniscule gravity) they'll start moving away from each other. and therefor will keep on moving becuase the gravity gets smaller the further away they go. And therfor they'll fly through the void till they hit the edge of it (which there isn't becuase our void is made of Infinity.)
And as for Infinity, The Hitch hikers guied of the Galexy is a very Good (well if not good but entertaining) It says that the Univers is really big. And that becuase it goes for Infinity there Are therefor No Populated planets (infinite number of populated planets divided by infinite3 (yes the 3's suppost to be there) = 0 (actually 0 / 3 but it'll do) and therefor that there's no people money, and other things.
So its funny what you can come up with and dispove everything with maths.
(hope no one got in the least bit confused with that post)
Chairwalker
20-09-2004, 02:21
This void. Does it have a lightsource?
'cuz if there isnt one, the two spacemen wouldnt know what direction to push in ;)
And if there were one, would the light have any influence on the spacemen's eternal journey?
Ooh, then there's that crazy 'String theory' wich would also add complications
(alternate realities and their 'leaking' gravity affecting the spacemen)
Bah, Before you can predict whatever happens after the push, you need to establish wich theoretical reality this void has.
But its 2 am and i dont have the time to even think about that.
I'm probably not making much sense anyway.
CerberuS
20-09-2004, 09:15
Thought I'd just add something about the credibility of weblinks.
The earth is flat. See, I have a proof: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatWhyFlat.htm ;)
RenegadeOfPhunk
20-09-2004, 11:36
So our Void is Void of Friction. But it has gravity. And in this void of Friction that has gravity we can Push agsainst something and move, But becuase neather thing is atached to anything (other then thier miniscule gravity) they'll start moving away from each other. and therefor will keep on moving becuase the gravity gets smaller the further away they go. And therfor they'll fly through the void till they hit the edge of it (which there isn't becuase our void is made of Infinity.)
Bah, Before you can predict whatever happens after the push, you need to establish wich theoretical reality this void has.
Well, these are good points really...
...I'll be more specific... ;)
This 'void' we talk about is a void of both matter and energy. IF any matter and energy did happen to exist anywhere (surrounded by a void), then all the known laws which would govern matter and energy (Newton's laws, gravity etc.) would function as normal for the existing matter and / or energy.
So it is NOT a void of any laws. It is just a void of matter and energy.
..ok - now we place a human body (or two human bodies, depending on the senario) protected in whatever fashion (spacesuit, whatever. Use your imagination) into this void. (Again - doesn't matter how.. and 'in the void' means nothing exists outside of the body) so that that body is at a state of rest (i.e. no momentum or velocity).
The only matter in existence is that human body. (Well, to be more accurate, the human-body and the spacesuit). The only energy in existence is contained within that human body (and the spacesuit)...
...that's it. Trying to analyse past that is over-complicating the issue and missing the point. This theoretical senario isn't about discussing how one man would push another man without a light-source. It's also not about how you'd get that body into the void in the first place...
THat's all irrelavent to this senario.
...the only reason to bring up these irrelavant side-issues is to draw attention from the actual issue actually at hand:
* What are the implications of Netwons laws in any given senario...
...of course the most important thing to remember in this whole senario is....
...cake IS good :D (assuming it existed of course. Maybe the spaceman kept some in his spacesuit. When your travelling to infinity, your bound to get a little peckish on the way..)
OMG I can't read this whole thread... too many... long... loooooooong... 11 pages... posts :eek:
ren thats very harsh, and a kinda aggressive and mean.
You can take my posting out of context and manipulte to make me look bad and i guess as owner you can, but that doesnt really make it fair!
Perfect example you scrutinise and degrade me over my point that velocity and speed are the same, i only referred them to the point (as you also quoted) that they are both measured in metres per second! metres being distance and seconds being time.
Basically i dont see any1 else attacking me over my posts, and im a bit disappointed that something that started as a laugh between me and alesh and prof has now become a battle between me and ren, i dont really want part of it.....like the way u are threatining me, like im some sorta kid, offering to take off the gloves.
The random rambling comments was a joke to alesh implying u but also me.
And i didnt presume to tell u how to post on your forum, (but u kinda seem to want to hang me out to dry over that) i was noting how ppl (including myself) have probs with long threads and suggested a way to move forward as the thread was getting bigger.
I just dont get all the agro, which frankly i doubt any1 really wants
You think thats bad Deegs. You should check out the religion threads over at AOTCTC. Ren ripped them apart. I think he's taking it easy on you myself.
I wouldn't take anything personally though.
And keep it civil, or I'll kill this thread.
CerberuS
23-09-2004, 11:40
And keep it civil, or I'll kill this thread.
Moderators scare me :eek:
RenegadeOfPhunk
23-09-2004, 11:59
Ok deegs, well if this thread was 'truly' meant to be just a 'laugh' as you put it, then I'll leave, and you lot can get on with it.
...you can continue saying whatever you like.
But I dont' know why you think it's OK for you to call me 'incredibly wrong' on several occasions - even going so far as to call me a 'madman'! at one point - and then think that your the one being hard done by when I - shock horror - defend my arguments?!
..hmm - double standards in action me-thinks ;)
..it's ok for you to be as aggressive as you like towards me (apparently) but not the other way round..?! How does that work?
I'll leave it to Alesh and Mapex to state whether they were just 'messing around' because - as far as I can see - they were trying their best to explain to you where you were getting it wrong (something you still - even at this point - can't admit).
For example:
You can take my posting out of context and manipulte to make me look bad and i guess as owner you can, but that doesnt really make it fair!
Perfect example you scrutinise and degrade me over my point that velocity and speed are the same, i only referred them to the point (as you also quoted) that they are both measured in metres per second! metres being distance and seconds being time.
No - I didn't take you out of context to make you look wrong, you got it wrong -period. Why do you find this so hard to admit?!
I've made 2 solid mistakes in my discussions in this thread.
a. Centrifugal force between Sun and the Earth felt by the Earth, when in fact it is felt by the Sun (not a big mistake really, just applied the force in the wrong place)
b. Light can't be slowed down. THis was a biggie really. I should have remembered that the density of the material light is travelling through causes the speed of light to slow down.
(It should be noted that I corrected both these mistakes before anybody needed to tell me I was wrong though...)
...But anyway, I'm not gonna whine and try and cover up my mistakes by accusing people of 'taking me out of context etc.'
I'm a man. I have nads. So, I take it on the chin and admit I got it wrong...
I strongly suggest you do the same...
...unless the whole point of this thread what to - as you say - just have a laugh and make up any old s**t you like - in which case I'm sorry for dragging down your flights of fancy with the boring 'facts' and for interrupting your fantasy discussions on physics. I'll step out and you can continue...
...just out of pure morbid curiosity, what's the next topic gonna be? Why the moon IS in fact made of cheese?!
Once a body is set in motion (no need for a 'constant' force - a finite amount of force would do...) and there is nothing there to stop it (friction, other bodies etc.), that body will continue moving forever...
...do you really wish to dispute this?! This is very basic stuff...
Do you know that on star wars and start trek - they have tech guys that they consult on this kind of stuff, its not un heard of that these kinds of arguments are debated.
For example inertia
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/u2l1b.html
Now in star trek they installed inertial dampeners which are apparently to stop the occupants of the star ship from being squashed when they travel at high velocities, and to make the slowing down procedure easier. (I don’t recall Star Wars making any explanation for how they combat that effect)
I suppose this comment isn’t too relevant to the rest of this post but - what the hell...
Basically i dont see any1 else attacking me over my posts
Thats because most people are just scratching their heads at this thread.
=Profcorron=
23-09-2004, 13:32
*Runs Out with a Wistle*
Break it up break it up.
If he's a mad man u need to prove it useing Logic, Maths, Quotes, AND A Food Group. (and of course 5-10 posts disousing the issue) And this hasen't Happend Why Becuase Your too busy taking it personally. And I Personally Would like to get this thread back on FUN, Science Discoussions. And Not Personallity PRobielms like Mad men, LLyresm And Chickens And Cake. (all but Cake are real personality probilems but lier is spelt wrong, as he's lieing,,...., btw I'm not impliing the ROP (ren) is a madman i'm just using it as an escuse to break in. )
So please keep it about the Science's Not relating to peoples personality.
And Who can be the most grouwn up of the 2 fighters and say thier sorry.
Acidus I agree Most people are avoiding this thread.
Now who can tell me the volosity a Computer Running MB2 will fly through Space, and how much gravity it'll generate in prober gravity and people adiction.
Now i want this proven with MAths, Quotes, Logic, and Lots of cake.
hey guys i'm all for the fun but conflict is good too, keeps us on our toes...
(#plucks up corage for next part of the post#)
Right.
I replied earlier to put any flaming to bed, you obviously want to continue so fine.
Consider my gloves of and i just slapped them accrossur face! DO YOUR WORST!
IF YOU REREAD my post i said the comments (madman etc) was in jest NOT the thread. Am i right in assuming u want alesh and mapex to reply saying the whole point of this thread is to disprove me???? I thought it was about natural science!!!!
And that is hardly double standards dude, but i can do double standards if thats what ur after. Implying you were just "Defending your arguements" while saying iam having a fantasy discussion is certainly double standards no!
What exactly do you want me to admit wrongness to, please provide a point u need me to explain!
In terms of velocity and speed, do u really need an explanation!!!!! i will however humour you!
Velocity and speed are the same thing, both of them are measured in meters per second SI units implying they are the same. The only difference if you would call it that is the way they are used.
You travel with a velocity, but u travel at speed.
Speed is used to denote the distance traveled in a given time relative to the moving object.
Velocity is used ONLY with vectors to denote the distance traveled in a given time relative to the any object.
Example, 2 cars hitting each other.
In terms of speed car a is traveling north at 2metres per second and car b is traveling south at 10metres per second.
In terms of velocity relative to a non moving point directly behind car a, car a is traveling north at 2metres per second and car b is traveling north (actually south but relatively speaking) at -10metres per second.
This is used to determine resultant vectors, assuming both cars have the same mass the resultant velocity is -8metres per second. When dealing with vectors we need the ability to produce a negative result and as speed cannot have a negative value that is where velocity comes into play.
example you throw an apple into the air, it travels at x m/s it reaches a point and falls back down at y m/s, in velocity it would travel with x m/s and fall at -y m/s, probably using a relative spot like the ground.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
To keep the same arguement that velocity is speed in a given direction, whilst ignoring everything else, is paramount to saying speed is not in a given direction, which is unreal.
To assume speed is not realtive to direction is just crazy. If speed is constant and you are moving in an arc u are in fact in a constant state of acceleration as the direction is changing...example rounding a roundabout. Speed HAS to be in a given direction also.
Just what exactly do you find wrong with this ren!!!!!!!
And i aint taking this personally, i just thought a higher standard should be shown to younger members.
In terms of your body emiting light, yourbody gives of heat, which is radiation, which is in the sprectum (classed as light) which enables, infared reception, and night vision glasses to function.
RenegadeOfPhunk
23-09-2004, 14:17
Well, let's establish first of all that the force of cake is VERY real.
And with an infinite supply of cake, you could concievably continue playing MB2 at extreme velocities for quite a while..!
..and with an 'infinite' supply of cake - well, the time avaliable to play MB2 would be just as infinite...
as far the velocity of the computer itself - assuming a PIV processor - I would imagine it being directly proprtional to the ferocity of the current gameplay.
..i.e. camping out on Tanitve right by the final door would probably not cause a disernable momentum.
...but running head first into the oncoming rockets of 5 Mands would create a force so intense, I estimate an eventual velocity / speed / thinngamybobby of 'very fast' to the power of 10. (approximately..).
..heh - that fun enough for you? ;)
RenegadeOfPhunk
23-09-2004, 14:27
Well, as you can see guys, I did try to take this thread into a more 'fun' direction, but deegs can't back down apparently.
..and you've started the whole 'crazy' thing again - which, heh - is fairly amusing to say the least...
But I don't find much fun in kicking a man while he's down. And besides, I think everybody who's been really folllowing this knows who's in the right here and who is wrong. (I dont' mean getting angry and such - I'm talking about the simple facts of the matters we've been discussing).
As was clearly explained to you earlier, speed and velocity have 'distinctly' different meanings. This is fact.
Speed is a quantity which does not take direction into account. This is fact.
Velocity is a quantity which takes direction into account. THis is also fact.
But I'm going to follow the fairly sensible rule of 'dont' argue with a fool' - and not post in this thread again.
...enjoy your fantasy physics lessons from Prof. Deegs guys ;) Have fun.
anyway ren if you want an accurate defination
speed=distance travelled per unit time
velocity=distance travelled per unit time
look up a dictionary or a physis dictionary!
:D and you stay cool, ya hear
Just looking back and want to make clear, i'm not trying to disprove u ren i'm just saying that i aint wrong! and i am confused as to what he wants me to admit too
actually
You can consider velocity and speed as equivalent if your not interested in the direction - true. But that's only to do with the perception you choose to take - what I stated is correct. Speed is a 'scalar' value which doesn't take direction into account, whereas velocity does take direction of movement into account...
Speed doesnt take direction into account?????
actually i am disproving u arent i!
RenegadeOfPhunk
23-09-2004, 14:43
Ok - 1 more post. Just 1 more honest.
Sorry to go back on my promise, but stupidity (especially stubborn stupidity) just annoys me too much to ignore it:
look up a dictionary or a physis dictionary!
..your wish is my command...
from http://dictionary.reference.com/
...emphasis added by me...
speed
The rate or a measure of the rate of motion, especially:
Distance traveled divided by the time of travel.
The limit of this quotient as the time of travel becomes vanishingly small; the first derivative of distance with respect to time.
The magnitude of a velocity.
...emphasis added by me...
velocity
A vector quantity whose magnitude is a body's speed and whose direction is the body's direction of motion.
To summarise - speed is just distance travelled per time frame (notice the word 'direction' is not mentioned ONCE in the definition of speed)
Velocity is distance travelled AND also the direction of travel.
Please deegs - grow some nads and take this like a man - for your sake, not mine...
jez ren u accuse me of ignoreing my past posts and trying to cover up any issues/errors/failings i had.....
My point is as i quoted u above, u said speed doesn't take direction into account.......then u have the audacity to post a defination for speed stating what i posted
Distance traveled divided by the time of travel. or as i put it
distance travelled per unit time.
how can u travel a distance in a straight line without crossing some traveling in some direction
your doing ur self no justice buddy! but its all good fun, please dont leave this thread on my account, and seriously i do look forward to u proving me wrong,
but theres no excuse for blatently calling me stupid, if it were any1 else a mod would have stepped in.
RenegadeOfPhunk
23-09-2004, 14:54
Read this page. PROPERLY read it. And understand it.
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/1DKin/U1L1d.html
The distance 1 meter tells you nothing about direction.
The speed 55 mph tells you nothing about the direction you are travelling 55 mph in. (You could be driving along a road, flying straight up into the air, floating between two planets or doing doughnuts in your backyard [the NET distance of nowhere!]. All could be instances of travelling at a 'speed' of 55 mph...)
55 mph is a speed.
55mph - on it's own - is NOT a velocity. (Because it gives no information regarding the direction of movement..)
55 mph north is a velocity.
55mph North is not a speed value. (Dont' beleive me? Look at the speedo. Does the speed scale have directions ANYWHERE on it? No - of course it doesn't. It just has mph values. My God - how childish do I have to treat you?!)
There is no simpler way of explaining it.
Reminds self to not argue with a fool.
OK - I'm out... (oh and I'm not leaving directly because of you Deegs. Don't flatter yourself. I'm leaving because others seem to be getting distressed because of our 'conflict' - if you can call it that.
And I am personally finding it distressing to watch a 24-year old having childish tantrums because he's being shown - very clearly - he's wrong on many points. I prefer to debate with grown-ups tbh...)
and seriously i do look forward to u proving me wrong,
No need to look forward to it. It's already happenned. It's just all gone way over your head...
..you might as well try and explain to a child that the Earth is round and have them say back to you 'Oh yeah?! If that's true then why is the ground flat?!'. Laughing, the child thinks it's outfoxed you. All you can do at that point is give that child a pat on the head and say 'OK -whatever' :D
...the point has gone completely over their head - they simply don't have the ability to comprehend the concept... the same is true with you...
CerberuS
23-09-2004, 15:00
if it were any1 else a mod would have stepped in.
This thread scares me - reading it lags my brain. So I stay out of it :)
Although I'd like to advise everybody to stay cool and not getting personal (anymore) or - quoting Kesh - I'll kill this thread.
Example of speed:
15 m/s
Example of velocity:
(5,7,3) m/s (ie: 5 m/s in the x axis, 7 in the y axis and 3 in the z axis, or ijk if you preffer those)
alesh as far as i know velocity can only be in 1 direction,
If you know the angles for these 3 vectors i reckon the resultant will be the velocity u are fererring to!
if they are all right angles the resultant velocity is 9.11m/s in xyz quadrant (+1 i think)
OK - I'm out... (oh and I'm not leaving directly because of you Deegs. Don't flatter yourself. I'm leaving because others seem to be getting distressed because of our 'conflict' - if you can call it that.
And I am personally finding it distressing to watch a 24-year old having childish tantrums because he's being shown - very clearly - he's wrong on many points. I prefer to debate with grown-ups tbh...)
K ren what ever u want but u kept insisting i was wrong
U page 9
Right, well before I answer your question Chair, a small disclaimer. THis is the generally accepted understanding.
...in 20 years time, what I'm about to write might be laughed at ;) But that's ok. I'd be in good company, along with Einstein and Hawking...
but anyway
...no - light cannot be slowed down. And this forms the entire basis for general relativity.
..it can however, have it's velocity altered, but you most remember that velocity is not just an objects speed, but it's speed and direction.
u made the point in relation to light speed.
i argued this point, you admitted u were wrong but kept expecting me to say I was wrong ??? wtf
I then went on again and again how my comparision was based on SI units (essentially argueing ur point when u said light SPEED cannot change but velocity can-which u later admitted u were wrong)and i also pointed out AGAIN how velocity is used in vector form. and yet u still want me to apologise. How many times do i have to go over it, and how many times do u have to go over it.
I aint crazy, i aint a fool, i aint stupid, i dont live in a fantasy world, i aint throwing a tantrum, i not being shown up cos u already said ur arguement for the speed of light changing was illfounded (which is where U brought in velocity.
Jez if u can say all that to me, (and much much more) and still say
Reminds self to not argue with a fool.
then hell, in future i gotta remind myself not to argu with an arrogant, deluded 30 yearold kid who thinks he should be compared with einstein.......
...in 20 years time, what I'm about to write might be laughed at ;) But that's ok. I'd be in good company, along with Einstein and Hawking...
get over it!
i,ve no probs with a debate i just dont like attacks
RenegadeOfPhunk
23-09-2004, 16:31
OK - I'm going to give this one last shot Deegs. We each admit where we got it wrong and then we move on...
...I'm game if your game...
...I'll start...
I said that speed could not be slowed down. I was wrong (as I've already said) - it can be slowed down depending on the density of the medium it's travelling through. (I admitted this almost straight away. No-one had to correct me. Maybe you 'think' you corrected me here, but the fact is I had already corrected myself before you had the chance. Whether you still want to count that as 'you' correcting 'me' I'll leave up to the needs of your ego...)
I then said that speed can have it's velocity altered but not it's speed. This IS - again - not correct when looking at light travelling through dense mediums, but it IS true when viewing what effect gravitational forces has on light. THis is what I was refering to...
Black holes do not SLOW DOWN light. They 'bend' it's course... Because gravity does NOT slow down light - it 'bends' it...
..so technically, the second statement was still wrong. But when viewed in the context of talking about black holes and light (which is what I was moving onto), it is actually correct. But I'll let you choose on this one... you can call it a mistake if you really want to... (although - to be picky - you'd just be counting the same mistake twice..)
Then I explained that speed doesn't take direction into account, but velocity does. This is perfectly correct. No misake whatsoever. THis statment is truth. End of story. You can argue against it all you like. Doesn't make a difference. It is fundementally true.
...ok - if you want me to go over the other mistake (putting the centrifugal force in the wrong place) I can if you'd like. But there is not much to it. I just applied it opposite to how it should have been.
...and again, I didn't require anybody else to correct me. I corrected myself.
...OK - now your turn. Please look back over your posts and explain clearly where YOU got it wrong. (As clearly and as honestly as I have just done)
If you don't want to, I'll take the liberty of doing so (again)...
jez dude, i never expected u to say all u got wrong, i wasnt trying to point that out, i just didnt get what u wanted me to admit my wrongness to. after i posted ur velocity error alesh told me u already said it was wrong (i think that was the issue)
I never intended this to become a who's more intelligent, or who got more things wrong i just didnt know what u thought i got wrong.
I aint being arrogant, but i pretty much stand over all i've said, if u do want to point out what i said wrong (ensuring the correct context) go for it dude, i wont take it to heart!
Thats what this thread is all about, some1 says 1 thing it gets disproved/answered and we meander on. If i was wrong point it out( but i really dont think i was) Although i fully expect a full list within the next few hours, probably from everyone - look forward to it
:cool:
You guys are attempting to redefine the word 'geek' ?
RenegadeOfPhunk
23-09-2004, 17:06
You guys are attempting to redefine the word 'geek' ?
Not really. More making clear who actually has an A-level in physics and who reads a few science news items on the odd website...
I aint being arrogant
I believe you - I don't see much reason for you to be arrogant...
if u do want to point out what i said wrong (ensuring the correct context) go for it dude, i wont take it to heart!
OK - 'dude' (we in 'Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure' or what?!) you said it so I'll do it. And here's hoping you dont' take it to heart.. (I certainly didn't take my mistakes to heart - I learned from them. Here's hoping you can do the same...)
All that you said that I'm posting below is - in fact - incorrect:
If they were both in a void and not dead, 1 couldnt push the other as neither would be capable of motion, he couldnt even move his hand to push, or any other part of him......
This section below isn't just wrong, it's a little bit funny too...
Ok I’m beginning to see what u don’t,
K, when ur on earth u move pretty easy, when ur on the moon or “in space” its harder to move and slower this is because there is considerably less gravity. If you are in a gravity free zone then it would be impossible to move-hence my initial comment about the rocket (using a force{gravity) to push against enabling motion).
You move cos u act on something, i.e a force (for example), gravity!
That is where my opposite force comes into play.
Ever hear the expression “if the world stopped spinning we’d all fall off” this is true.
What causes gravity?? When a body turns it creates 2 forces acting complete harmony canceling each other out! Cenrepical force/acceleration and centrifugal force/acceleration (apologies if I didn’t spell it correctly) anywho centripical acceleration tries to push u off and centrifugal tries to pull u in. hence giving the illusion of gravity (depending how far u are from the center)
So for push pull to work correctly we actually need something to push against, in this case we use gravity (also my point the spaceship also uses gravity to move/push against). If like u said there was no gravity there would be nothing to push against and we would therefore just be helpless and unable to move any part of our body! Like what would happen if the world stopped spinning.
Sidenote:
Actually, we could have an interesting discussion concerning what would happen if the Earth's rotation were to:
a. Suddently stop
or
b. gradually slow down to a halt over time
...cos we (and everything else on the Earth) would be affected very differently in these two situations. Of course, we'd have to discard the possibilities of the Earth breaking up under whatever force was slowing down it's rotation...
[rockets] are pushing against atomic particles atoms/electrons and the friction they cause from gravity...
...this next bit isn't a statement so isn't in itself correct or incorrect. Im including it though, because not only is the question itself non-sensical, the answer to this question is not relavent to the argument being addressed (movement of a body if there is no other matter or energy in existence)
If your hand moves from a position- A)where does it move to (what does it displace/replace or occupy), and b) and what replaces the place where your hand was.
Thats wrong dude speed and velocity are the same, distance travelled over time! As u also pointed out below "meters per second"
- Gravity doesn't depend on rotation.
true (but fundamentally the arguement still stands as electrons rotate)
The argument doesn't still stand - cos electrons rotating has nothing directly to do with the argument being addressed. THis is one of your 'get out of jail free' attempts...
-Deegs is usually right
Also true
..their's possibly a couple of things I've missed. But that's enough to start with I reakon...
i just didnt know what u thought i got wrong.
All the stuff you said above. I made it pretty clear before this post too...
Ask me to prove to you why it's incorrect, and I'll be happy to. I already have for most of it infact, but I'll do it again if needs be...
Ok - now we are all square. If you want to debate further and keep the personal comments down, then I'm good to do that too. It's up to you now...
Chairwalker
23-09-2004, 17:13
There's only one way to settle this.
We must hire hookers to fight to the death... in the nude...
Its the only way.
Also, let me remind you what has been accomplished in this thread...
The most important scientific rule in all the universe!
If A equals Cake, and B equals goodness. then A => B
Now.. Bring forth the hookers!
RenegadeOfPhunk
23-09-2004, 17:46
There's only one way to settle this.
We must hire hookers to fight to the death... in the nude...
Its the only way.
...yes - I think your right there Chair!
..it IS the only way!
..I bagsie the blonde :D
(to fight for my corner of course - not for anything else... *looks up and whistles*)
ah man, u say we'll be mature and move on, but u make snyde remarks about a-level's and science articles (despite the fact we dont have those exams in ireland.......but i guess if u mean thats ur quals, ok then)
I cant admit i'm wrong on those points as i still stand over them, in future give me some idea/arguement/proof that i am wrong and not just cos' REN says so.
Despite the fact that if 2 ppl are in a void then it is a void no more. My arguement stands, motion/movement is indeed impossible in a void. For a very near (almost) void granted it would take millions of years to move, and its well stated the reasoning ye use to justify movement in a (near), based on newtons universal law of gravitation, is completly negligable for anything other than a planet sized body (including asteroid sizE)
Spinning world stoped yes we would fall off! I think i said earlier a spinning planet has centripical force that is gravitational (i.e acceleration due to gravity on a planet is due to the planet spinning), spinning yo-yo has centripical force that is mechanical and a spinning electron has centripical force that is electrical. No rocket science there.
Rocket science here! A rocket does in fact push/pull against its own thrust, assuming that the thrust occupies/displaces something, in a void it could not occupy anything and couldnt move, in space thrust pushes against space itself, and gravitational forces and a jet plane pushes against air and gravity.
My quote about the hand moving in a void is complimentary to my other posts taken from newtons manuscript, stating how "absurd" it is to contemplate motion in a void-for if an object moved from a place what would fill the other place. (look up "de graviton" and then time and space.
this is over kill on the velocity/speed issue, my quote implied that they are measured the same way...... metres per second and are fundamentally the same,,,as the quote says, there is no point arguing this as you know my views on it and i posted it without knowing u changed it, it was in relation to how can velocity change and speed stay the same when they are measured the same way......do we have to go into it again, i dont think we can bring anything new to the discussion.
i've already said about gravity and a planets rotation, gravity doesnt depend on rotation, but a rotating planet creates gravity (the centripical force)
newtons universal law of gravity does however apply to electrons (i know i said earlier it applied to planet sized masses, but the 1 exception in physics is atomic, as the relative mass and relative distance between....i didnt invent that!)
Oh while we are on about moving forward
Black holes do not SLOW DOWN light. They 'bend' it's course... Because gravity does NOT slow down light - it 'bends' it...
..so technically, I was wrong here. But when viewed in the context of talking about black holes and light, it is actually correct. But I'll let you choose on this one...
I think (although i could be wrong! hehe) light cannot be bent this would destroy all the concepts in the galaxy, it may however have the illusion of bending.
In the case of a black whole light is suked in correct, but the way it is suked in is similar to how a fibre optic cable works, you can bend the cable giving the illusion of light bending but if you were able to look thru the cable the image at the end would look like it was right in front of you,
Therefore light cannot be bent,
before any1 argues about it being bent with snell or diffraction in different materials thats different again, not partly because when light is suked into a black whole its still traveling thru space (which is also being suked in) until it gets destroyed,
and again, lets move on and dont lower yourself to insults about my education.
Chairwalker
23-09-2004, 18:50
...yes - I think your right there Chair!
..it IS the only way!
..I bagsie the blonde :D
I'll hire the Russian ex-KGB one with hooks for hands.
Im into that sorta thing
And about the Light bending, I remember something about the bending of light when it passes by a star or anything else with considerable mass.
Or would that be the illusion of bending?
cerb, ban them both
Reason: Excessive science talky talky and handbag bashing.
Chairwalker
23-09-2004, 18:59
cerb, ban them both
Reason: Excessive science talky talky and handbag bashing.
They can take our science talky talky... but they can never take...
our handbags!
2 reasons for illusion of bending light,
Diffraction and gravitional pull
For difraction this is how light appears to bend around objects, like the way light seems to bend around a door, use the classic spectrometer and diffraction grating experiment....(i guess every1 did this at school)
gravitational pull as explained above,
In the case of a star, i'd say its gravity that appears to pull the light around.
But i dont have a hand bag, its a man-satchel for gadgets! and ur still not getting it!
Do you know that on star wars and start trek - they have tech guys that they consult on this kind of stuff, its not un heard of that these kinds of arguments are debated.
For example inertia
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/u2l1b.html
Now in star trek they installed inertial dampeners which are apparently to stop the occupants of the star ship from being squashed when they travel at high velocities, and to make the slowing down procedure easier. (I don’t recall Star Wars making any explanation for how they combat that effect)
I suppose this comment isn’t too relevant to the rest of this post but - what the hell...
acceleration compensators
http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/xwing/?id=eu
OK - 'dude' (we in 'Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure' or what?!)
Hey D U D (FECKING) E, dont mock other peoples colloquial sayings, if they have no reference from where ur from thats doesnt make it wrong for me to say it.
can i do anything without you insulting me ren!
Are the insults forthcoming for a givin time period or indefinately!?
Dingo Dave
23-09-2004, 20:43
Thats a tad bit uncalled for.
Chairwalker
23-09-2004, 20:50
Chill man, i say dude all the time and people sometimes mock me for it. Its funny :)
It wasnt really an insult anyway, dude.
So are you picking a hooker to fight for your cause or what?
*OT*
Yeah, the spectrometer thats what i was getting at.
(Its the thingy with the tiny slit that keeps getting tinier untill the light that goes trough it 'bends' right?)
You say that its an illusion. How does that work?
I mean, if you see the light bend, then it cant be an illusion to begin with. Because you see (as in detect the light with your eyes) it bend.
Also if a star's gravity can bend the light that goes past it, then why cant a black hole bend it in a way that the light orbits it kinda like the moon orbits the earth (Thats what you meant, right Ren?)
was what i said uncalled for or what ren said.
What i think is uncalled for is persucating me not only for what i say (past threads) but now how i say it also.
This threads about science. :mad:
RenegadeOfPhunk
23-09-2004, 21:00
How do rockets work
--------------------
http://engstudent.lboro.ac.uk/pdf/em_newton3.pdf
Go to the bottom and look at Q2 and A2...
Rockets don't work because they 'push off' against ground, air or gravity. They work because combusted fuel get's ejected out the back and the counter force (Netwon's third law) thrusts the rocket forward.
http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/34/34.html
From this site:
Rockets do not move because they are pushing against ground or air. After all, they function in the vacuum of space where there is nothing to push against.
This page explains it all very clearly. Read it from beginning to end
http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/space/teachers/liftoff/newton.html
Why does the Earth spin?
------------------------
This site is VERY clear. Read it and understand please.
It also gives specific reasons why people sometimes misconcieve that the Earth's rotation is caused by it's own gravity. Maybe you'll find the reason for your particular 'flavour' of misconception mentioned:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99x82.htm
From the site (emphasis added by me)
If the Earth were not rotating relative to the stellar background, its gravitational field would be unchanged.
Notice no mention of the Earth's gravity...
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/961107a4.html
Going back to the point about Venus (which you never answered btw).
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_kids/AskKids/venus_spin.shtml
..if Venus spins not only far more slowly and in the opposite direction, does this imply (according to your theories - wherever you get them from) that Venus not only has a far weaker gravitational pull than the Earth, but a 'backwards' one?!
THis site talks about why Venus spins backwards. (Notice again - it has nothing to do with Venus' own gravity)
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q50.html
http://www.chabotspace.org/vsc/talk/astronomyFAQs.asp?selected=10#bookmark10
From this site:
The rotation of the Sun and the revolution of the planets around the Sun is motion (angular momentum) persisting from the gas cloud's original spin. The rotation of the planets on their axes also comes from that original rotational motion.
The Earth, and the planets, all rotate today simply because nothing has stopped the original motion. Just as a top or a gyroscope, once set into motion, will "coast" in its spinning for a while, so do the planets
Bending light
-------------
http://www.bam.ie/bambrat/gravity.htm
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMKOUXO4HD_index_2.html
http://caos.creol.ucf.edu/seminars/Measurement,%20Relativity,%20Einstein%20and%20Ever ything%20Else.ppt (goto slide 16)
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae661.cfm
As far as this whole insulting thing, I'm not getting involved. Deegs has thrown plenty of insults my way over this thread, and yet seems to think none should be directed his way.
I dont' get this personally, but hey - I'm past it now. No more insults Deegs. I'm just gonna lay out the facts for you plain...
I'm gonna post in more evidence as I collect it. The trouble, unfortunatly, is that Deegs often reads one thing and comes to a conclusion that wasn't intended -so I have to take my time and find evidence which is VERY clear, and can't be misunderstood easiely. (A difficult job, since Deegs has already stated he sometimes doesn't finish a piece of text if there are too many words in it...)
Case in point - speed and velocity. Because he saw that speed is measured in meters per second, and that the magnitude of velocity is also measured in meters per second, he quickly jumped to the conclusion that meant speed and velocity were the same things - and told me I was wrong when I said they mean two different things.
...And as many times as I try and explain the truth, it doesn't seem to be making much impact against this initial misconception...
...I can only take a horse to water. I can't make it drink...
Chairwalker
23-09-2004, 21:01
****, guys.
Im trying to steer the discussion ontopic (and into a hooker fight) but i'ts fecking hard if you all keep going on with this vicious circle of 'What did you say, biatch?!'
Dont make me pull out a "omgzorz would a lightsaber work IRL?!!111" or "Did Greedo shoot first?" question.
Not only do they hurt my brain but they also... hurt.. brain.. big...
*edit*
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae661.cfm
/\ that one explains it all to me
Hmm... Time for me to say a word.
Photon.
If u have no idea, WTF is "Photon", use google.
And deegs, please stop triple posting, it looks so annoying.
Edit: And here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void
acceleration compensators
http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/xwing/?id=eu
Dude thanks for that Dude
now I know dude lol
Rocket science here! A rocket does in fact push/pull against its own thrust, assuming that the thrust occupies/displaces something, in a void it could not occupy anything and couldnt move,
Thats what i said essentially the point you are trying to make, it pushes against its own thrust..... were all clear no need to probe this one u obviously agree ren!
there are 5 types of centripical force ren, 1 of which is gravity, PLEASE read and UNDERSTAND my point, in a rotating planet the centripical force IS gravitational......... i NEVER said that was the reason the world was spinning
http://www.physics.isu.edu/~hackmart/152notesc2.PDF
there is also good info there on velocity,
I notice u arent arguing the other points, maybe u GET what i was saying now!
Having looked at what u posted u didnt GET my arguements................
In future just ask, it'll solve a lot of headaches.
So NO i am not wrong....i'm im trying hard not to insult u (you gotta notice that) but its hard when u say things like
particular 'flavour' of misconception {in ur opinion}
Deegs often reads one thing and comes to a conclusion that wasn't intended {thats not really fair or accurate}
A difficult job, since Deegs has already stated he sometimes doesn't finish a piece of text if there are too many words in it {that was ajoke and only implied ur posts not factual articles}
I can only take a horse to water. I can't make it drink {nice, thanks}
and the whole speed/velocity thing is all about an arguement that u later agreed incorrect and should have ended there, as we both agreed u were wrong!
All forgotton, and u know what i think this incident has brought me and ren closer together,,,,a kind of bond has developed, sniff sniff, ah shucks......Dude :(
oh and sith j dude, no prob dude :D
RenegadeOfPhunk
23-09-2004, 22:39
Rocket science here! A rocket does in fact push/pull against its own thrust, assuming that the thrust occupies/displaces something, in a void it could not occupy anything and couldnt move,
...your still not seeing the error in your statement are you?!
The thrust does not have to occupy or displace ANYTHING except it's own fuel! And in a void (where the rocket was the only thing that existed) it would be able to alter it's velcoity just fine because it doesn't need to push off anything other then it's own fuel...
...look - I'll make it plain for you. I'll remove the bit of your above statement that is innaccurate and hopefully you'll get it...
Rocket science here! A rocket does in fact push/pull against its own thrust
...if you had left out the last bit, you would have been correct.
...but this is getting totally farcical... you can't teach this stuff to someone who isn't willing to learn. It just ain't possible...
sorry dude but who asked u to teach, this goes back to my previous arguement about motion/movement in a void......
It cant be done, i've said that earlier, and u didnt argue the point i thought u GOT it.
read this then come back to me, please and UNDERSTAND
go to de gravition, read chapter5.2 paragraph 6 (or VI) as its written
edit: ops forgot to post the link
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/#4
note its on philosophy, but its all relevent
so after all your complaining this is the only thing u can get me to admit im wrong over......and im not. I reckon u should be very careful about what u write or insinuate against me in future. or just kiss and make up!
\ :D
Damn it! I use hours of my free time to read this whole thread with all the triple posts, i give u nice links to nice stuff (ESPECIALLY PHOTON, IT WILL EXPLAIN THE BENDING LIGHT) and nobody reads them. *Weeps.*
Ill join the cake club instead. But still, apple pie is better than cake. :p
sorry sorry i forgot about this dousy,
appologies for the double post!
- Gravity doesn't depend on rotation.
true (but fundamentally the arguement still stands as electrons rotate)
The argument doesn't still stand - cos electrons rotating has nothing directly to do with the argument being addressed. THis is one of your 'get out of jail free' attempts......
No it aint a get out of jail free card, READ again and PLEASE UNDERSTAND
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/05/13/space_vortex_theory_einstein_and_tewaris_cartesian _universe.htm and go to Fields in electron structure, universal constants (Gravitational, Coulomb's, Dielectric, Planck's)
The origins of electrostatic field, gravity field, magnetic field are quantitatively derived from the space vortex structure of electron.
oh and ur posts are just very nice maz, thanks for reading and contributing. However i'm more of an apple and blackberry pie man meself.......mmmmmm
And chairwalker, btw i reckon lightsabers could work, the only thing would be how to stop/reflect the light at the tip! otherwise it may just be a high powered laser :D
Dingo Dave
24-09-2004, 00:02
What i think is uncalled for is persucating me not only for what i say (past threads) but now how i say it also.
In the end, if you feel like this maybe you should stop posting?
High powered lasers don't collide with each other... or anything for that matter, they'd just cut/burn anything in range.
CerberuS
24-09-2004, 08:36
cerb, ban them both
Reason: Excessive science talky talky and handbag bashing.
D**n you, Acid, for dragging me into this thread again ;)
And their science talk doesn't really disturb me - y'know, as long as my feet stay on the ground and my car drives at the speed and where I want it to, 'tis all good - no matter how it works :p
In the end, if you feel like this maybe you should stop posting?
dave really?
Alesh, i didnt actually say it is possible, or lasers are exactly the same as lightsabers, what i did say was unless u could put a cap on it it would only be like a laser, which it would.
I reckon if u couldnt stop the light emitting at 1 metre, you would have no way to pack it up with enoughdensity to resemble a solid object.
I may be wrong (hehe), but i really dont know how to build a lightsaber, if i could bounce a signal(light so ya maybe laser) 1 metre, find a way to stop it at the top or return it, i reckon you could do this for a magnituge of several thousand if not more with VERY short wavelenghts, and u could resemble a lightsaber. This could cut thru anything and the only thing it couldnt cut thru was another lightsaber, of course the other lightsaber would have to have the same wavelenght and frequency, amplitude, which may be hard as there are so many different colours.
But then again the different colours are said to come from different crystals, so maybe the wavelenght etc could be the same, but i'd say the wavelenght would be different.
So ur dead right alesh a light saber aint a high powered laser, but thats not what i was saying! :D
i say dude all the time and people sometimes mock me for it
Deservedly so.
RenegadeOfPhunk
24-09-2004, 13:11
note its on philosophy, but its all relevent
This statement explains everything.
...here I was explaining the facts of physics, and here you were explaining a philosophy!!
...your need to beleive in philosophy over science (which is now obvious to me) explains fully your confusion over the very basics of physics - leading you to non-sensical ideas...
...ideas like if the Earth's spin were to (somehow) slow down to the point of stopping, we'd all 'fall off' (let me guess, you were joking when you said this ;) ), and rockets having to push against gravity to move (Again fantasy - they actually push against NOTHING BUT their own fuel, as has been clearly shown) demonstrate your confusion very clearly...
Pulling random quotes from scientific sites doesn't add to your knowledge, it only leads you down wider paths of confusion and misdirection, because you need to learn to walk before you can run...
Those of us who have a firm understanding of the basics (Alesh, Mapex, Dave, Mazoon's Brother etc.) can see your errors and misconceptions clearly.
...others (sadly) may be fooled, but only because they can't (or can't be bothered to) follow the conversation and see the contridictions for themselves...
(...or maybe their just more interested in the more important matters of cake ;) )
...I'm out. Believe whatever philosophy you wish. Doesn't concern me anymore...
...others (sadly) may be fooled
Dont worry, even I knew the rocket thing was wrong, and I've barely been reading this thread.
jez, can u not just drop it!!!!! you cant even argue my points so u just lead to Philosophy as an argument,
Philosophy comes into science where it is factually impossible to determine a result! FACT. Like ppl couldnt determine how the early science worked in ancient times so they philosophized (or as u like to put it theorized) and eventually from that the science came out. like the earth being flat. philosophy can lead to science.
It is impossible to have a scientific discussion on an absolute void as there is no history of 1 ever been created, or any proof that such a thing can exist, you and alesh both said it was theoretical right,
Theorizing in a make believe void, attributing unreal feats such as ppl or objects in that said void can only end up theorizing the possibilities of what could happen. Not what will or should happen. so no1 can be right or wrong.
Many of the original ground breaking physicists, were also philosophers, yes Newton included, but also going way back to aincient times like plato! or even van Goff, kepler, plank, or even einstein.
The main fact is by Newton philosophizing on the theory of absolute void (and absolute time) this lead to einstein rufuting the possibilities of absolute anything......this is all due to relativity, for anobject to observe a void they themselves in validate that void. this is waht i was saying about the ppl in a void would only ensure the actual void didnt exist.
Those of ye with a firm understanding of the basics, continued to philosophize about "what would happen in a void" ye started it not me.
so i argued newtons point about a make believe void, and admitted einsteins point that voids are impossible........ so what is ur point ren. if a void doesnt exist then how can u be right or wrong about what happens there.
All my other points still stand, and u have been unable to prove them wrong.
Please stop however, getting so worked up and agressive, it just shows ur frustration!
Oh just in case u want to argue further about philosophy and science read this
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/
cos they go hand in hand when talking bout theoritical physics.
By the way i try to get all my weblinks from universities or accredited physics sites
oh acidus, how exactly is the "rocket thing" wrong? Just curious.
ok.....i am saying this cos i value what ren says and want him to continue, even if he still really doesnt like me.
I am sorry for all the insults i passed ur way, i meant no offence but understand how u took it. I wont insult u again no matter if u do me.
I am interested in what u think would happen (as you made your interest known before) if a) the world suddenly stopped spinning and b) it slowly stopped spinning.
I still think we'd all fall off if it suddenly stopped like if i was sitting on the roof of a car on a roundabout and hit and the car suddenly stopped.
Rockets provide their own thrust, so if anything the lack of gravity and friction would/does make them work better.
ya your dead right acidus, so how does that make me wrong!
Originally Posted by deegs
Rocket science here! A rocket does in fact push/pull against its own thrust, assuming that the thrust occupies/displaces something, in a void it could not occupy anything and couldnt move,
You say it couldnt move, which is incorrect.
CerberuS
24-09-2004, 14:52
Oh no, they got Acid :eek:
Let him go!
no read it again.
I do say it push/pulls against its own thrust......we agreed
But only if it has something for the thrust to push/pull against(occupy) ie air/space/water/gas etc. I presume u read everything as this was posted about the whole void issue.
So is your arguement about motion in a void (its gotta be cos we both agree on motion everywhere else)
if so try to explain/prove that motion is possible in a void then that will prove me wrong(on that point at least) otherwise its just repitition and we are in agreement
what u laughing at cerb, yor 3rd on the hitlist to be assimilated
Okay, seems like nobody tries to open the links. Here it is then.
In layman's terms, photons are the building blocks of electromagnetic radiation: that is, a photon is a "particle" of light, although, according to quantum mechanics, all particles, including the photon, also have some of the properties of a wave.
PARTICLE OF LIGHT, PARTICLES ARE AFFECTED BY GRAVITY==>LIGHT IS AFFECTED BY GRAVITY
Which means: Light can be bent. This happens most often with black holes, quasars (thats how it spelled?) and other big stars. (They bend the light which comes behind them)
Apple pie is good especially when you eat it with some sauce (vanilla) or ice cream.
CerberuS
24-09-2004, 15:08
what u laughing at cerb, yor 3rd on the hitlist to be assimilated
Haha - no way. Resistance is not futile.
Can we close this thread, ending on a snappy comeback to the tune of 'STFU GEEKS'.
?
RenegadeOfPhunk
24-09-2004, 15:52
Einstein's 'philosophies' often got in the way of his rational thinking.
Case in point - he was presented with evidence for quantum physics.
..he dismissed it at first - saying 'God doesn't play dice'. i.e. he didn't believe any part of physics had any 'random' elements in it.
But since he was a scientist as heart, he evenutally let his rational brain over-ride his religious / philosophical side and ended up accepting the undisputed evidence for quantum physics.
...i.e. he eventually accepted fact over 'mysticism'.
Moral of the story? Scientists come up with bad philosophy as well as good philosophy. What really matters are the facts, not mysticism...
Your ideas that when you move something, something has to 'occupy' that missing space, or you can't move it at all - is also a 'mystically' based idea, and not based on any evidence...
...but dont' feel too bad Deegs - one of the greatest minds in history let philosophical meanderings ruin their sound judgement (for a time at least) -so it's hardly surprising your doing it too.
As far as discussing more actual proven physics with you, I can't. Because you won't except the actual proven physics I'm presenting to you. (And several others are trying to present to you also)
You prefer your unproven philosophies it seems...
Until you can admit your past errors, our 'scientifically-based' conversation is over.
Seems i didn't understand it the way you meant, no prob then :P
About the void, i think both ren and me know the two guys turn it into a non-void, but it seems the best way of explaining there's NOTHING more in it besides the two guys (no small particles flying around or anything). It was just a way to show you how rockets work without relying on air or anything else, since the fuel has mass it has some intertia, thus the rocket pushes itself, of course the fuel moves a lot faster than the rocket because of the mass diference, but the rocket is pushed too.
About the philosphy thing... maybe we should make another thread... theories on why does the universe exist and all that :P
Einstein's 'philosophies' often got in the way of his rational thinking.
sorry but are u actually claiming to know how he was thinking,
But since he was a scientist as heart, he evenutally let his rational brain over-ride his religious / philosophical side and ended up accepting the undisputed evidence for quantum physics.
...i.e. he eventually accepted fact over 'mysticism'.
OMG he was both that is invariably why he was the genious he was.
But its funny to read what u said
He didn't let any side win him over (he didnt even see star wars then :D ) he came to the final conclusion not for any 1 part of his brain but for all, like anyone working on a problem--it may take some time but eventually u can solve it. Cmon ren, are u saying einstein was a schizophrenic........
Your ideas that when you move something, something has to 'occupy' that missing space, or you can't move it at all - is also a 'mystically' based idea, and not based on any evidence...
tru but then we were hypothezing, cos there was no proof....right a bit like u saying a void exists and 2 ppl can occupy it, u started theorizing, so i quoted newton who was also theorizing whilst pointing out einsteins theory on SR which he said the absolute void doesnt exist!!!!
so are u also a mystic>?????
...but dont' feel too bad Deegs - one of the greatest minds in history let philosophical meanderings ruin their sound judgement (for a time at least) -so it's hardly surprising your doing it too.
gimme me a break, questioning things nomatter how u question them lead to answers, but at least now u are comparing me to great minds....like u compare urself....
...in 20 years time, what I'm about to write might be laughed at But that's ok. I'd be in good company, along with Einstein and Hawking...
As far as discussing more actual proven physics with you, I can't. Because you won't except the actual proven physics I'm presenting to you. You prefer your unproven philosophies it seems...
lol thats really very funny (u did mean it as ajoke didnt u) as u were the one arguing about the VOID. oh ya dude thats proven physics....lol :D
Until you can admit your past errors, our 'scientifically-based' conversation is over
OMG to this date u cant find any of my past errors and prove me wrong so how can i admit to them, how bout u admit U were wrong to think i was wrong, how bout you stop hassling me for wrongness i didnt make and fix your own....
- Gravity doesn't depend on rotation.
true (but fundamentally the arguement still stands as electrons rotate)
The argument doesn't still stand - cos electrons rotating has nothing directly to do with the argument being addressed. THis is one of your 'get out of jail free' attempts......
sure>>> *whistle*
anyway
alesh, its cool, void and all but i'm glad u are clear on the void thing, i reckon ren still thinks thats proven physics that 2 ppl can be in a void sheesh.
BTW there is no such thing as a void...so a rocket could not move there ;)
But ya if you want philosophy on life etc put it in another thread, however if ur questioning the galaxy lets keep it here
note to ren<>philosophy in websters dictionary
http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/philosophy
2. A particular philosophical system or theory; the hypothesis by which particular phenomena are explained.
4. Reasoning; argumentation
kinda like how we hypothesied bout the void!!
if u cant explain science matters by science,like the universe you try the best way u can. this all goes back to U and Ur void. dont blame me!
[/QUOTE]
RenegadeOfPhunk
24-09-2004, 16:42
sorry but are u actually claiming to know how he was thinking,
Yes - because he admitted himself afterwards he got it wrong because he 'assumed' there were no truly random elements in the universe. And this belief came from his religious thinking...
...I didn't assume anything - he said it himself.
..you use what is proven in reality (physics) to determine what would happen in the theoretical - not the other way round :rolleyes:
..oh - and more word games on voids! How original...
..oh - and more word games on voids! How original...
word games, as i've said from the begining if u have a point to make make it, and back it up with an arguement/fact/proof
i cant remember who said, in this thread,....if u cant stand the heat.....something bout removing ones self form the kitchen
assuming the kitchen isnt in the void< :D > otherwise it would be imposible to remove ones self from it!!!
:eek:
oh and assuming there is no said pie/cake in that kitchen!!!
..you use what is proven in reality (physics) to determine what would happen in the theoretical - not the other way round :rolleyes:
right so how did ppl remove the idea the earth as flat, did they actually know it was proven in physics to be round!!! hmmm maybe they just forgot! :rolleyes:
CerberuS
24-09-2004, 17:15
The earth is flat. See, I have a proof: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatWhyFlat.htm ;)
Who removed the idea that the earth is flat? It is.
RenegadeOfPhunk
24-09-2004, 17:32
right so how did ppl remove the idea the earth as flat, did they actually know it was proven in physics to be round!!! hmmm maybe they just forgot!
Many people knew very early on that the world was round. In fact most early greek Mathmeticians and other 'thinkers' [i.e. people who cared about such things] did...
...and it was due to sensible, non-mystical evidence- often involving nothing more than simple observation -which told them this. Not philosophy...
http://www.geod.nrcan.gc.ca/index_e/geodesy_e/whatis-01_e.html
So just in the same way that their evidence told them the truth of something they couldn't see directly with their own two eyes (until they had sailed all the way round, or seen it from space) currently proven physics can tell us if a rocket would be able to move if the rocket (with a payload of fuel) was all that existed in the universe. (I won't use the word 'void' so that you can't get your knickers in a twist over it).
The answer is the rocket WOULD be able to alter it's velocity in this situation - since all it needs to alter it's velocity is the fuel it carries. Doesn't need anything else to push off - including gravity. Plain and simple.
You can say it's not true because of some 'mystical' reasons you hold dear. But really - you can believe as you like - doesn't alter the facts...
Who removed the idea that the earth is flat? It is.
Heh - maybe your 'philosophy' tells you that's true :) In which case I'm not gonna argue with you ;) (j/k)
nice post ren, its very interesting, coupla of things tho.
thing is Eratosthenes himself was not only a mathamatician but also a philosopher
see his bio below, he many other things besides dircover the size of the earth and how it is round.
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Eratosthenes.html
secondly he was born in 276BC
now, your posted weblink (i'll use that to base my argument to ur error) stated early philosophers such as plato, homer and pythagoras were allready thinking about wether the earth was round/flat or rectangular...
plato was born circa 427BC
homer was born circa 800BC (i think??)
And good old pythagoras was born around 596 BC
Now given that they were discussing the earths shape hundreds of years before Eratosthenes was even born, couple to that he was actually thought by famous philosophers; scholar Lysanias of Cyrene and the philosopher Ariston of Chios who had studied under Zeno, the founder of the Stoic school of philosophy. you gotta reckon in this case the philosophy came first and then science followed!
Nice try tho
and many ppl didn't know the earth was round...they thought it was proof came many hundreds of years later
and if a rocket was ALL that existed in a universe it still couldnt move (lack of voidness duely noted ;)
but then u just stated it and didnt really make an arguement-so neither will i (other than state it above)
cerb i found arguements with that article, although i wont post it as i hope ur joking. its funny tho
RenegadeOfPhunk
24-09-2004, 18:16
Sure - philosophy came first and science came after! ...why would I argue with that?
Philosophy is about asking the question in the first place.
...but science is the thing that can actually answer questions.
And science just answered the question 'What would happen if a rocket (and it's fuel) was the only thing which existed in the universe and it tried to move'.
...your just not listening to the answer...
but then u just stated it and didnt really make an arguement
Of course I just stated an argument. Are you blind?!
..here it is again...
The answer is the rocket WOULD be able to alter it's velocity in this situation - since all it needs to alter it's velocity is the fuel it carries. Doesn't need anything else to push off - including gravity. Plain and simple.
If something is already answered, you don't need to philosophise about it anymore! :rolleyes:
Many people knew very early on that the world was round. In fact most early greek Mathmeticians and other 'thinkers' [i.e. people who cared about such things] did...
...and it was due to sensible, non-mystical evidence- often involving nothing more than simple observation -which told them this. Not philosophy...
dont try to change the point u initially tried to make......
You said science told them the earth was round..... i said they would never have come to that conclusion had there been no thinkers/philosophy
..you use what is proven in reality (physics) to determine what would happen in the theoretical - not the other way round
u imply u use what is proven to determine what is theoritical, thats wrong.
If it is proven how the hell can it be theoritical.....
i.e if u KNEW the earth was round, how the hell can u hypotocise that it is flat. You use the theoritical to determine what will later be proven.........cmon ren, thats common sense, for whats not proven is only hypotosised.
can u stay with 1 arguement, and stop calling all philosophers mysticians.
look ren UR missing the answer, the arguement that for a rocket to be the only thing in the universe, and then push itself is just crazy,
This goes all the way back to Einstein says such matterless places are impossible, but if u want to philosophise about it newton calls u absurd, saying somthing moving in absolute space is crazy. I happen to agree with them. So not only are u trying to prove me wrong but ur also trying to prove 2 of the greatest minds in the galaxy wrong..........
Can we just drop the ppl/rocket in void debate, as wehter u like it or not u cant prove me or my 2 boyo's wrong!
RenegadeOfPhunk
24-09-2004, 18:40
I'm not changing any points.
u imply u use what is proven to determine what is theoritical
I'm not implying it - that is what you HAVE to do if you want know what is going to happen in a theoretical situation.
...you can try and solve a theoretical situation with more theory if you really want to, but you'll get closer to the truth if you use as much 'real-world' evidence as you can.
Case in point - 'philosophers' ask the question - what shape is the Earth.
Do you
a. Talk about all the possibilities without looking around you for clues... (pure philosophy)
b. Talk about the possibilities but also consider all the evidence avaliable to you (science)
Those philosophers who - sure - came up with lots of ideas BUT ALSO considered the evidence around them were most likely to come to the right conclusion...
look ren UR missing the answer, the arguement that for a rocket to be the only thing in the universe, and then push itself is just crazy,
There you go with the crazy again. It's not crazy - far from it. It's scientific fact. The only reason you think the rocket wouldn't move is for mystical reasons which have no rational basis.
This goes all the way back to Einstein says such matterless places are impossible
Who was talking about a 'matterless place'! Did you miss the rocket and it's fuel?!
Plus your ignoring the fact that Einstein philosophised against quantum physics and was wrong.
The reason I call it 'philosophised' against quantum physics instead of 'argued' against is because he didn't even bother to offer any evidence to counter quantum physics. He just didn't want to believe it, because it went against his 'philosophy' of how the universe worked.
...exactly the same way YOU won't except the rocket in the senario we've been talking about COULD move because of the 'philosophy' YOU hold about the universe...
The evidence for the rocket moving in the stated senario is because we know a rocket needs nothing else to move but it's own fuel (which exists in the rocket in the senario). No philosophy needed. That's proven fact.
Your reason for believing it won't move is based on a philosophy which has no evidence to back it (no matter what it's source).
I'm not changing any points.
a. Talk about all the possibilities without looking around you for clues... (pure philosophy)
b. Talk about the possibilities but also consider all the evidence avaliable to you (science)
Pholosophy IS a natural science, and philosophers do (or classic ones at least did) use maths and science, how on earth can u say pholosophiers didnt look 4 clues, what it sounds like ur describing is a bunch of stoned hippies talking about the "man".
i'm sure when einstein was about 3 he probably said the opposite of his current theories......what is in question here is his final ideas.
The only reason you think the rocket wouldn't move is for mystical reasons which have no rational basis.
there u go with mystics again :0
right u seem to be running around in circles with this matterless/only thing in universe/void/absolutevoid/absolute space issue.
Maybe i was a bit sneaky to use it.
To argue about using universal physics in a theoritical situation the situation must take place within the universe.
Firstly if u want to argue a rocket can move in a void. you are wrong because its widly accepted by the worldwide scientific community that einsten was correct in special relativity and that such a place cannot exist.
secondly if u want to hypotomise that such a place does exist then our laws of physics may or may not work there and again u cannot be correct and i cannot be wrong. as u dont know what kind of laws work there.
Thirdly, you cannot just make up a place, make it a void of everything and put a rocket there apply a few rules u hope will apply and say i'm wrong (this isnt mapping ;) )
fourthly, if u are taking about a rocket moving anywhere within this universe, then we are in agreement, it pushes from its thrust. and as all areas contain matter/forces the thrust in return acts on this matter/force.
U cant win drp it! drop it quicker than a hot cake ;)
The evidence for the rocket moving in the stated senario is because we know a rocket needs nothing else to move but it's own fuel
yes within this universe, which there is matter/gas/forces etc everywhere
Your reason for believing it won't move is based on a philosophy which has no evidence to back it (no matter what it's source).
ya ur right but i dont need proof, ur saying it can move in an imaginary (dare i say mystical place) its u that needs the proof.
Tell me where this fabled place is, then me what great phyasist/philosopher describes how this place works and then hand me the proof that a rocket works there........
This is like the genosian discussion talking about the sonic blasters we left it because we we unable to apply our physics there as none of us were experts on genosian physics......ya get it now!
;)
RenegadeOfPhunk
24-09-2004, 19:17
it pushes from its thrust. and as all areas contain matter/forces the thrust in return acts on this matter/force.
Well, over the course of this thread - finally - you've managed to come to the right conclusion (with our help along the way)
...cos look at what you were saying earlier (these are your words)
[rockets] are pushing against atomic particles atoms/electrons and the friction they cause from gravity...
Heh - feel free to explain why these two things actually mean the same thing? (Since - apparently - you havent' made an inaccurate statement yet [according to you that is])
..what exactly is 'friction against gravity'? btw? This another term to do with your 'philosophy'?
..please give us a credible link which describes the effects of 'gravitational friction' :D
yes within this universe, which there is matter/gas/forces etc everywhere
And yet we know that the rocket needs nothing else to move except it's own fuel. So these are relevant how..?
it pushes from its thrust. and as all areas contain matter/forces the thrust in return acts on this matter/force.
Well, over the course of this thread - finally - you've managed to come to the right conclusion (with our help along the way)
...cos look at what you were saying earlier (these are your words)
[rockets] are pushing against atomic particles atoms/electrons and the friction they cause from gravity...
Heh - feel free to explain why these two things actually mean the same thing. (Since - apparently - you havent' made an inaccurate statement yet [according to you that is])
OMFG DUDE<DUDE SIR DUDE
is matter not made up of atomic particles namely, atoms/electrons and soory bud but isint gravity a force................am i missing something, or are u just tired........i said exactly the same thing and now u think the arguement is settled........and u take credit for me sayingTHE SAME THING
ha ha ha ha
classic,
u really are a piece of work ren
ha ha ha ha
N1,
now apologise cos u didnt understand it first time and apologise u thought all my earlier posts were wrong,
ha ha ha ha
great
RenegadeOfPhunk
24-09-2004, 19:23
I'll expect the definition of 'gravitational friction' on my desk first thing monday morning Deegs ;) Thx.
Friction is something experienced between two 'objects' - not between objects and forces...
And what's with the manical laughter?
please give us a credible link which describes the effects of 'gravitational friction' :D
no need dude ur driving a car.
the cars velocity (u like that) is a force sending u forward......
gravity is a force pulling u downward,
the cars wheels heat due to gravitational friction, the friction due to gravity.
do i get an apple for early submission
but if ya want a weblink lok here
http://www.nscl.msu.edu/~thoennes/personal/phy231/p231_notes3.pdf
then look under centripical force (remember our discussions on that where u tried to say i was wrong about the earth spinning)
or put "gravitational friction" into any search engine
RenegadeOfPhunk
24-09-2004, 19:27
Perhaps you didn't read my request right.
..I said give the definition of 'gravitational friction' from a reputable source, not from the realms of your delusional, philosophising mind!
the cars wheels heat due to gravitational friction, the friction due to gravity.
This has got to be the funniest line in this whole thread yet! If nothing else, your a hell of a comedian!
CerberuS
24-09-2004, 19:28
..I said give the definition of 'gravitational friction' from a reputable source, not from the realms of your delusional, philosophising mind!
lol - you guys crack me up :p
hey, delusional i'm hurting,
look at my post again and look it up for itself, its all "real world" "proven" physics and as u can see from the PDF its introductary, so u must have studied it for ur A-levels
DUDE if u cant GET it dont knock it..................it is physics even if u dont believe it.
Now apologise for not understanding..........
and for everything else u put me thru this last week.
I'm really a bag of nerves
RenegadeOfPhunk
24-09-2004, 19:41
So far you've described wheels experiencing friction against 'the road'. Friction happens between two objects:
http://www.cord.edu/dept/physics/p128/lecture99_12.html
Check the definition for friction. And dont' get it confused with 'interactions' (forces)
..now, you said:
[rockets] are pushing against atomic particles atoms/electrons and the friction they cause from gravity...
How is friction being caused between these particles and gravity, when gravity is a force, not an object?! Friction only occurs between two objects -as clearly stated...
..sorry Deegs, your report got an F for not demonstrating a clear understanding of the word 'friction'...
friction
A force that resists the relative motion or tendency to such motion of two bodies in contact.
ok ren, this is so simple i cant believe u dont get it,
Remember centripical force, in a rotating planet it is gravitational, in a spinning ball its mechanical, in a electron its electrical.
Basically force has many guises, the most common being gravitational, electrical, mechanical and electromagnetic.
Now again i'll use ur post to prove u wrong
Friction = A force that resists the relative motion or tendency to such motion of two bodies in contact.
We agree on that. so friction is a force and can be gravitational. and is static or kinetic(dynamic).
As friction is a force, its impossible for u to say dont regard interaction, and think those rules will just go away!
K when ur car stops on the road cos u had a blowout from driving excessively, the friction (force), acting between ur tyres and the road was gravitational friction, after u crashed into my beamer, i was rightly pissed off and went to ur door and grabbed ur jumper hauling u out, u scraped ur leg on the door that was mechanical friction, when i took u over to my bonnet (which was hanging off) i threw u on the battery, where u got shocked on ur neck, the burn marks on ur neck was caused from electrical friction.
any way friction has many guises as i said as it is a force, things have to make a force happen as i've said.....u know action/reaction so its not simply saying friction is between 2 bodies....something has to make those 2 bodies move to generate the friction hence the different types of friction.
But if u want a more relative description, how bout a space........u like them dont u
http://www.earth.rochester.edu/ees201/id25.htm
Other heat sources - heat of accretion, gravitational friction, radioactive decay
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/scitech/display.cfm?ST_ID=248
Weaver admits this sinking black hole idea is speculative, but it is not without its theoretical base. As early as the 1970s, Scott Tremaine of Princeton University suggested that the gravitational friction created when globular clusters pass background stars could cause the clusters to lose their orbital velocity around the galaxy and spiral into the core. Such a process, called dynamical friction, could form a 50 million-solar-mass core in 10 billion years
http://www.swas.org/swasarticle3.htm
At a recent gravitational symposium it was stated, said Mr. Eberhardt, that for mankind to explore the vastness of space in practical human terms a vehicle will have to be constructed that will travel in excess of the speed of light. "Sounds impossible," he said "But by defying gravity," he claims, "the absence of gravitational friction will enable a vehicle such as SWAS to travel at such speed."
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0954-3899/20/4/005/
If the sum of the energy density rho and thrice the pressure rho is negative, then a Robertson-Walker universe can inflate or even oscillate. But we show at the one-loop level that in a generic grandly unified theory rho +3 rho cannot be negative at the absolute minimum of the finite-temperature effective potential. We discuss the implications of this result for inflation in two grandly unified theories and speculate on the effects of gravitational friction and anti-friction
I reckon my point is made.
Now listen i apologised to u ren for insulting u.
Are u man enough to apologise for insulting me and to apologise for hassling me about being wrong when i wasn't!
I hope so
NOOOOOO!!!!! Right after i realize i really know some facts about bending light and photons, U STOP DISCUSSING IT!! Theres something behind this! Ur both secretly allied against every sund... friday scientist!
LIGHT CAN BE BENT.
Done. Too bad heres not apple pie around.
RenegadeOfPhunk
24-09-2004, 20:59
so friction is a force and can be gravitational.
Wrong yet again.
http://www.cord.edu/dept/physics/p128/lecture99_12.html
No-where in the definition of friction does it mention friction can be gravitational, or friction can be even 'considered' gravitational.
In fact it's very clear. (So clear you can't miss it unless your intending to miss it)
We do know that it arises from the electromagnetic forces between atoms and molecules at the surfaces of objects.
Therefore - if you had to define what type of force friction is - it is in fact electromagnetic, NOT gravitational in ANY WAY, SHAPE or FORM. It is very clear your philosophy can make up any concept it likes to back it's claims...
Well, since it is clear everyone else on this forum has lost interest in what is being said here, I suggest we take this to MSN - and you can explain the mysteries of your philosophy to me there. (My address is in my profile).
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.0 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.