Jump to content

J.C.MacSwell

Senior Members
  • Posts

    6036
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    33

Everything posted by J.C.MacSwell

  1. sorry I edited, I missed the mass part: 1 kg metre/ second squared
  2. 1 kilogram(?) metre / second squared
  3. My guess is 1 rad. Edit: Can I assume you are not allowed to use 360 degrees divided by 2 pi (which would be trivial)?
  4. You merely need to cut the photons in half. Noone has ever seen a half photon.
  5. LOL, that's the exact way I spell it for my physics links folder.
  6. What I meant was that the signal, traveling along at c, must change it's direction constantly for the vector to "follow" the star/sun if it is in motion in any particular inertial frame. Does that make sense?
  7. The part I bolded seems right, but that would remain the same (no different) from the vector directed at the "old" position (since they are the same). Just trying to gain incite , I know I haven't refuted anything you've said. Now the unbolded part: It's hard to picture how that would work although as long as the star is affected only by gravity then this seems plausible (the field could "anticipate" the future position of the star) For the outside inertial frame/s: So if our Sun was "blindsided" by a high speed collision with a massive object that changed it's position the gravitational vector (sun component) for our Earth would be directed at an imaginary path the Sun would have taken if not for the collision for the next 8 minutes?
  8. And not the position of the star when it affected that curvature and gradient? In some frames what you are saying seems obvious or straight forward while in others it seems wrong. I have to give this some thought.
  9. None I am aware of. But I thought the gravitational vectors being directed at the "old" position of the bodies was the major part of the GR explanation.
  10. Then why is there a perhelion shift for orbits?
  11. Inertial frame locally not any frame.
  12. Thank-you anyway and happy birthday (slightly belated). Another way of looking at this is: How much drag would the CMB cause to high speed space travel? "High speed" of course being relative to the BBT/CMBI frame (does anybody know any other names for it?).
  13. I think (if I'm interpreting you properly) that this is (on average) the "big bang track" or "CMB isotropy frame". Anything on it is at rest in that frame (such as it is; distant objects may be "Hubbling along" at greater than the speed of light in each others "inertial frame" but they are both at rest in the BBT/CMBI frame). Anything "off track" should be somewhat compelled by the anisotropy of the CMB to "tend" toward "getting back on track" or toward rest in the BBT/CMBI frame. Correct?
  14. This reminds me of a question I've had that is somewhat related, to both this and perhaps the speed of light: Is their a maximum acceleration?
  15. Is there a natural "tendency" for objects to "tend" towards rest in the "big bang track" or "the CMB isotropy frame" if undisturbed otherwise? (other than by the CMB)
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.