Jump to content

Roger Dynamic Motion

Senior Members
  • Posts

    318
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Roger Dynamic Motion

  1. You only get photons from accelerating the charge. It doesn't require additional energy to maintain linear motion.

    What gives the source of light the gets go on ? how does the momentum gets created ...for every action is a reaction !
  2. I have alway wonder what constitute the full function of a source of light and why space allow light to travel so fast

    My g

    but my main question is <<Is light energy ? transferable to a ''target solar panel'' let say at 15 degrees to the reflection of a mirror at the same distance to the source

    but not in line with it . at 15 degrees (Paralax)

  3. Well, if it's not based on evidence and reasoned investigation, what else is it?

     

    Interesting conversation the other day during a restaurant meal, whereby a friend stated that evolution is false because dogs can't talk! Can't talk, which means they can't and couldn't survive on their own. Can't recall how the conversation got round to such, but I thought it best not to pursue the argument, and changed the subject to the food - which was rubbish!

     

    With those knocking on the door about horses mating with donkeys a couple of weeks ago, for some reason I seem to have attracted a few arguments.

     

    I'm sorry, but magic might be the word.

    why we still belive in a god

    Who is we ?

    why we still believe in a god

    Who is we ? I'm nor a religious but I do believe that God belong to many frames of mind .

  4. The ship has mass and so can't travel at c.

     

    If the ship is traveling very close to c, then the distance they measure that they have left to travel will be contracted. So they will see the light reach the target very quickly, since it's covering a small distance to them. But it will still get there ahead of them.

    yes technically.

    got to go

  5. Perhaps you could clarify why you think this is a great difference.

    its ok if you do not see any difference. Just wanted to make sure

    I will extend previous reply from post #7.

     

    It's very often actually reverse.

    Photon that's absorbed by electron (which is part of atom) is "dying" (disappearing from system), and electron going to higher energy state.

    When electron is going back to ground state, it's emitting photon.

     

    It can take a while to do it.

     

    Such situation is called metastable state.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastability

     

     

    Technetium-99m is widely used nuclear isomer, which is emitting gamma photons.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium-99m

    Nuclear isomer has the same quantity of protons and neutrons as ground state isotope (daughter isotope),

    but has different nuclear spin. When gamma photon is emitted by nucleus, nuclear spin is decreased by 1.

    Nuclear isomer has higher mass-energy than its daughter isotope.

     

     

     

    When gamma photon is emitted by nucleus, nuclear spin is decreased by 1.

     

    so is the energy of the photon .

     

     

     

  6. It is very well known, that adding speeds in a linear fashion doesn't work at relativitstic speeds (i.e. speed approaching the speed of light).

     

    As Halls said, you need a relativistic formula for that. So the ''old'' laws of velocity are not incorrect, they are just unnapplicable for relativistic speeds.

    This is very well known; you're not disproving anything with this.

    ok Thanks
  7. No. The light has traveled 148,800 miles. 46500 miles per sec is the speed at which the distance between ship and target is decreasing. It takes the light(at 186,000 mps) 0.8 sec to travel that far from the ship. In that 0.8 sec the distance between target and ship decreases by 0.8 sec *46500 mps = 37200 miles from its original 186,000 miles, putting it 148,800 miles from the ship. It will take another 148,800 miles/46500 mps = 3.2 sec for the ship and target to meet.

     

    3/4 of a sec isn't anywhere close to the right answer.

    what if the''e ship travels at 186000 miles; they'll arrived a the same time ..right ?
  8. Then there is no way you can have a 3/4 sec time difference between the arrival of the light and the ship.

    Obviously not. If the measurements are being made by someone in the ship, and they turn on the light when they are 186,000 miles from the target, then by their reckoning it will take 186,000/(186,000+46500)*= 0.8 sec for the light to hit the target. They will meet up with the target in 186,000/46500 = 4 sec, or 3.2 sec after the light hits it.

     

    I don't know what you are doing to get 3/4 of a sec with the numbers you have given, but whatever it is, it's wrong.

     

    *The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second and 0.25 c is 46500 miles per sec. For someone in the ship the light is traveling away at 186,000 miles per sec, and the distance between themselves and the target is decreasing at a rate of 46500 miles per sec, and thus the light and target will meet when the target is 148,800 miles from the ship. The light will have traveled this distance at 186,000 miles per sec, which takes 0.8 sec. The distance between ship and target will have decreased by 37,200 miles, which at a relative velocity of 46500 miles per sec takes 0.8 sec to traverse.

     

    decreasing at a rate of 46500 miles per sec

    so the light is already at target after 46500 miles, while there is 3 quarter of second left for the ship to make it to target .
  9. I never understood how one can expect to invent that which one does not understand and yet we see it everyday. :confused:

    insults are never constructive for the bane super-flue.

    Crumble fluttock wimble dosh, cravick blump toots.

     

    (That makes about as much sense as your comment.)

    insults are never constructive for the bane super-flue.

    I never understood how one can expect to invent that which one does not understand and yet we see it everyday. :confused:

    not met for you Sorry!
  10. I'm not sure how you are going to develop a model related to string theory if you don't even understand the real basic schoolboy-level stuff ...

    This is a not a quiz Strange an don't get smart you could be confronted in not with you know but what you understand .

    This is a not a quiz Strange and don't get smart you could be confronted in not with you know but what you understand .

  11. And they are correct. I'm not sure how that is relevant to the question. Apart from the minute gravitational effect mentioned, photons do not attract electrons (as photons have no charge). I think a photon can interact with ("hit") an electron and change its direction. And photons can change the energy levels of electrons in atoms (even knocking them out of the atom, if the photon has enough energy).

     

    But attraction? No.well they say the Earth is attracted by the Sun

    where is the force of attraction comes from ?
×
×
  • 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.