Bird11dog

Honest, good post.I have given up trying to convince anyone because there are to few with any reasoning powers.

A hydrogen atom falling into a black hole should have the velocity of c when it reaches the event horizon. Will it's relative mass be infinite?

Swan, here you talk like you understand but in other threads you sometimes don't.

Your right, I don't understand you.

We are not allowed to discuss reasons for things that science can't explain.

We are not allowed to discuss reasons or the how for things that science can't explain.

Vibration involves acceleration, which is not uniform linear motion.

Any change of direction must include acceleration. Come on Swan, have I done something to you?

Any change of direction must include acceleration which produces thermal radiation regardless of uniform motion. Come on Swan, have I done something to you?

 

 

Atoms don't radiate at rest, which is part of the quantum revolution — atoms have stable configurations wherein they don't radiate (where would the energy come from?). And any inertial motion can be treated as if the body is at rest. That's part of relativity.

Where does thermal radiation come from? I could have sworn it was from the vibration of atoms and molecules.

 

 

You will not normally detect a charge outside the atom. Atoms in uniform motion do not radiate because of that motion.

Would you mind pointing to your source. I must have missed it in my own studies.

 

 

They are also neutral, and not radiating in the way that's under discussion.

 

Sure. Two charged particles traveling in opposite directions in an accelerator ring will definitely see radiation (i.e. cyclotron or synchrotron) from each other.

The electrons and protons are not neutral and they are moving.

 

 

Sure. Two charged particles traveling in opposite directions in an accelerator ring will definitely see radiation (i.e. cyclotron or synchrotron) from each other.

Sure, but what if they are accelerating in the same direction?

The atoms in your body are not stationary.

No evidence but your right everything is in motion wr to everything else ie, everything must radiate. An interesting experiment, two objects of equal mass under equal acceleration. Can one object detect radiation from the other?

You can't radiate in one frame and not in another. I agree, I'm saying that any motion wr to another will produce radiation even after acceleration.

 

 

You can be in motion relative to me, without you having undergone an acceleration. Even if you are the one accelerated, and have a net charge, you will not radiate once you are in uniform linear motion.

I'm not sure that I wouldn't radiate. The radiation would have wavelengths so long they would be undetectable..

Jackson's is what made me think about it.and his drawing of an accelerated charged particle.

I don't agree with this statement.

 

There is frequent discussion within appropriate segments of the scientific community. Interstellar travel has little scientific relevance to most scientists. Interstellar destinations would be mightily relevant, but the means of getting their is quite unimportant. There are several thousand hits in Google Scholar for Interstellar Travel - I don't see how that equates to scarcely spoken of.

 

I strongly disagree with this statement. The decision to leave the planet is a political and social decision, not a scientific one. Scientific knowledge and engineering expertise may inform the decision, but it is not a scientific decision and therefore scientists have no more part to play in discussing it than any other human.

 

This is questionable. We currently employ a hughely wasteful approach to supporting a material and energy intensive culture. Use of renewable energy and effective recycling can be great solutions in this regard. After that we have a whole solar system at our disposal. The reasons for interstellar travel are twofold:

1. Don't put all your eggs in one basket

2. I wonder what is on the other side of the hill.

 

These are different from - and, I think more important than - your proposed motivation.

 

Yes, but rather difficult. Generation ships, using hollowed out asteroids seem the easiest route. Or a combination of von Neumann devices, AIs and frozen embryos.

 

We are doing that already. Within twenty years we will have positively identified likely candidates. Within a millenium the first interstellar colonies will be established.

Within a millenium there won't be any humans to make the trip.

What is really going on when we accelerate a charged particle? A charged particle has an electromagnetic field that is always propagating away from it at c so when we accelerate it that field must start propagating away from it in a new position in space. The difference in those two positions could be construed as a photon. Something like the perpendicular part of a square wave with the angle of the perpendicular part being determined by how much acceleration is used to accelerate the charged particle. That angle being the wavelength.

It is Impossible to move an object without acceleration and if it was accelerated it emits photons and all objects are made of charged particles. Come on guys or gals, it was a serious question that deserves some thought. Why is it that every time someone asks a question that isn't in a text book we treat them like their an idiot?

As we all know a charged particle has an electromagnetic field that propagates away from it at the speed of light. If we move/accelerate that charged particle it's field starts propagating away from it's new location in space. Could we say that the difference between it's old position and new position is a photon that displays exactly the energy required to make that move?

But you don't need a citation?

 

 

It isn't obvious to me. (It is not obviously wrong, either.) And there is no such thing as "the universal clock".

 

Also, remember it is a theory of relativity: you can compare two clocks at different gravitational potential. But you can't compare a clock in the past with one now.

 

Also, even if you are right it has no bearing on the speed of light, as swansont says.

If the average clock rate for the Universe in the early Universe is slower? v = d/t ?

Does the average strength of the Universe's gravitational field get weaker as it expands? I'm pretty sure that is obvious. If true then the Universal clock must be speeding up.

Yes, was the average mass density higher or lower in the early expanding Universe? My post should be self evident in an expanding Universe.

Is the average gravitational field strength for the Universe weaker now than in the early Universe? Yes. Does time speed up in a weaker gravitational field strength? Yes.Then time was slower in the early Universe therefore the speed of light was faster in the early Universe. v = d/t

Why is it we always look at an object near c and never out from an object near c?

We could consider the fields generated by the electrons and protons of the Universe as the OP's Aether.

THE PROBLEM i SEE WITH THE ARGUMENT IS THAT WE ARE USING OUR FRAME OF REFERENCE TO MEASURE c. If we are on the ship traveling at .9999c and we measure how fast we are moving we find Our velocity to be much faster than c.