Janus

23 hours ago, exchemist said:

 Yup. A very familiar timewasting technique, I think. 

It reminds me of one of "sovereign citizen" videos where they show up in court, ignore everything the judge says, and just keep repeating the same phrases from their "script" over and over again. 

2 hours ago, jv1 said:

I am claiming that time is point 
and it cannot have dilation 
Mathematically we calculated time dialtion 
but it actually dilation of electromagnetic wave - light
in one second electromagnetic light 
from sphere with diameter 4x10e-12
is dilating to sphere of size with diameter 
3x10e8
When both observers do not move there is no time dilation 
if signal is sent (light bulb) it will travel at speed of ligjy
And time needed to racy is 1 second 
time dialtion - or dilation of wave will be infinity.
at distance of radius infinity is circle or in 3D 
sphere with diameter of 3x10e8
In this set up theory of realty is the original electromagnetic range finder.
when objects move they BEND the buble (electromagnetic wave 

everything else in theory of relativity is perfect 
This is the overlook I am talking about .

The infinify for circle with radius r=3x10e8 is infinity 

 

This is nothing but a bunch of half-baked ideas based on misconceptions, and all it shows is that you don't have the faintest understanding of Relativity.

The issue with time dilation descriptions like the one with the train and embankment is that they often miss a critical point, since they generally focus on the embankment observer alone.

So let's consider both observers.

We start with two colocated light clocks, 1 stationary to our reference frame and one in motion.  In these animations, the yellow dot is the pulse of light bouncing between the mirrors.  The expanding circles are radiating outward at c, and act as reference showing that each pulse is moving at c relative to the frame of reference.

Animation 1 is the from the frame in which the red clock is stationary.

As can be seen, the red light clock ticks faster than the blue clock.  If, for instance, the round trip for the red clock takes 1 micro second, it takes longer than that for the blue clock to complete one round trip.   But what if there were someone  "riding along" with the Blue clock? What would be happening according to them? This is what Animation 2 shows

Since light travels at c in all inertial reference frames, In this frame, it is the Blue clock that takes 1 microsecond per round trip, and the red clock that ticks slower.

Keep in mind, we have changed nothing from the previous animation other than switching observers. And there is no reason to prefer Red's perspective of events over Blue's or vice-versa.  Both are equally valid.  The two frames just measure time differently. This is the essence of Relativity.

1 hour ago, toucana said:

Why there you may ask ? Well it’s quite simple. The predicted path of the solar eclipse will pass over at least six places called Nineveh (modern day Mosul in Iraq), which is an ancient city mentioned in the bible where the prophet Jonah once preached against the wickedness of its inhabitants, and called for its total destruction.

 

  Someone else fact-checked this, and determined it was actually only 2 (of the 7 in the US). So maybe the world only has a 2 in 7 chance of ending tomorrow.

12 hours ago, MigL said:

Was supposed to be clear skies in the Niagara Region allowing for three to four minutes viewing time, and the city of Niagara Falls has practically called a state of emergency due to the number of eclipse chasers/tourists expected.
But now we're looking at better than even odds for cloudy skies.
Then again, not like the weather forecasters haven't been wrong before.
Keeping my fingers crossed.

I also heard about at least one hotel in the path of totality pulling the same stunt that some pulled during the last eclipse, canceling reservations that had been made well in advance once they realized how much people were willing to pay for a place to stay in the eclipse path.  In this particular case, it was a travel agency that had been booking "Eclipse packages", and had been making arrangements with this hotel starting 2 years ago.  Suddenly, and just recently, the hotel informed them that they were canceling the contract.

I missed the '79 eclipse due to clouds(even though I lived in the path of totality), and almost missed the one in '17 due to fog/low clouds(we had a lucky encounter with a sanitation worker who told us that by driving up a certain street and up a hill, we could get a clear view.)

1 hour ago, jv1 said:

We can say  time dilation is caused by

ONLY ANE ONLY by change of distance between emitter and receiver .
T

The very delicate spring gear assembly is calibrated to push clock hand with certain mass at speed of 
6 degrees per second .

When another clock with the same calibration is moving at speed -V1 
The momentum of clock hand 
increases.
The momentum of gears inside the clock mechanism is increased.
Finally tuned force on clock wound spring is not capable to push clock hand at speed of 6 degrees per sec.
The hand of clock moves slower.
There is no relativistic mass .
There is only mass and angular and linear momentum.



The speed of light is the fastest speed possible in universe because the amount of energy given to all universe is given to us by big bang.
We are moving at frictionless nothingness, and the biggest speed 
Will have the object with the smallest mass.
Any object with bigger mass will have smaller speed .
We can theoretically calculate the amount of energy needed to push mass at speed of light or over.
But it will be only theoretical possibility .
In reality big bang energy is all we got.

 

Point 1 is wrong.  Time dilation is not due to a change in difference between emitter and receiver. Such a difference change produces a Doppler shift, which is a separate effect.  Time dilation is where two reference frames measure different time intervals between two events.  So, for example, if you had two emitter/receiver setups. Each with a constant and equal distance between each respective pair, and these two setups were in motion, Then an observer at rest with respect to either of the setups would note that the time intervals between transmission and reception would differ between the setups.

Point 2 is also incorrect. In such a mechanism, the purpose of the wound spring to to counter losses due to friction.  It doesn't take any force to keep something moving at a fixed angular speed.  If you were to remove friction from the example, the hand, once moving, would just continue to rotate on its own without any further input of force. This would not change due to the overall motion of the mechanism.  The clock hand would be measured as moving slower by someone that the mechanism is moving with respect to, but this is due to their measuring time intervals differently, and not due to some mechanical effect acting on the mechanism.

Point 3 is, again, incorrect. c is the "speed limit" in the universe because it is an invariant speed. If something ( like light) is moving at c, then everyone measures the light as moving at c with respect to themselves, regardless of the relative velocity differences between those doing the measuring the light.  A universal speed limit equal to this invariant speed automatically follows due to its mere existence.

18 minutes ago, Gian said:

MOONTANMAN

O.1% of the sun's light??? So essentially it's about as light on the surface as a starry night here on Earth. I think Prof John Zarnecki (of Huygens Probe fame) said it would be like a deeply overcast day here on Earth, which given the distance I was surprised at. 

I think it's probable cloud cover is total on Titan, so future space tourists won't be able to see Saturn hanging in the sky.

I'll see if I get in touch with one of the Huygens scientists to find out then report back here.

Cheerz

GIAN🙂xxx

 

Direct sunlight ~100,000 lux

0.1% of that 100 lux, which is equivalent to an heavily overcast day, and brighter than that of the hallway lighting of a typical office building. A moonless clear night is ~0.002 lux

On 3/12/2024 at 1:27 PM, Photon Guy said:

Ants are extremely strong for their size. Apparently ants can lift over 1000 times their body weight. As such, Im wondering how ants would be on planets with really high gravity, much higher gravity on earth. They would probably do just fine I would think. 

Ants can do this because of something called the square-cube law.   When you increase the size of something by a given factor you increase its surface area and the area of its cross-section by that factor squared, and it volume (thus its mass) by that factor cubed. The strength of limbs are dependent on the area of their cross-section.  Which, as the size increases increases at a slower rate than the mass/weight of the animal.

Increase an ant to the size of a man, and it wouldn't even be able to support its own weight. Conversely, shrink a man down to the size of an ant, and they'd put a ant to shame in terms of strength.

So in terms of higher gravity, this just means that smaller animals would generally fare better.

TIL that I was born on a continental divide.  I was born in the Mesabi range in MN, which I learned is part of the Laurentian continental divide.( a dividing line between which way water flows to the ocean.) It is one of 6 in North America:

Great, Arctic, St. Lawrence, Laurentian, Eastern, and Great Basin.

In addition, where I lived was also where the St. Lawrence divide meets up with the Laurentian divide.

22 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Unfortunately that hasn't lead to a very strong approval rating.
 

Approval ratings in today's political climate are a bit meaningless.  How many disapprove because they think he's "too far to the Left?" and how many because they think he's "too far to the Right" How many give him a poor rating based on just one single issue? etc.

3 hours ago, jajrussel said:

So there is a distinction there is F=ma     push

then there is F=GMm/R²      pull

F =ma seems incomplete as a formula because it only accounts for how m is affected by acceleration, but what it seems to me doesn’t matter, because then, who? I think it is credited to Einstein, says acceleration is the same as gravity. So if F= ma then gravity can not be a force because you have to multiply acceleration which is the same as gravity times mass to get what is called force, so gravity and force can not be the same thing. Is this why it is said that gravity is not a force?

 

Again, F=ma merely gives a relationship between force, mass, and acceleration.    It does not have anything to do with push or pull.  It gives the magnitude of the force required, and isn't concerned as to the nature of, or how this force is provided.

Here is another equation : F= mv²/r

It tells you how much force is needed to constrain a mass to moving in a circle with a radius of r if it has a mass of m and has a speed of v. It makes no difference as to how that force is applied.  It can be by a rope anchored at the center of the circle, a rocket engine mounted on the mass applying inward thrust, by the gravity of a central mass, or by the friction between a car's tires and the road.

1 hour ago, jajrussel said:

Okay, I was thinking for the first question that if both ma and GMm/R² equaled force I could write it F=ma=GMm/R² . Which is not exactly how I wrote it the first time but I borrowed the shorthand from swansont for the latter portion. What I thought I was writing is force equals mass time acceleration ,and force equals G times mass one times mass two divided by the radius squared. Since force is described as equal to both expressions. I assumed it would be okay to write F=ma=Gmm/R²  since the expression on each side of the equal signs I presumed to be equal. 
As for the second question.

Are you saying that by canceling mass out, force and acceleration are shown to be the same?

It is really important to grasp what the variables mean in each equation.

In F=ma,  we are talking about the amount of force needed to give a mass of m an acceleration of a

With F = GMm/d^2 we are talking about the gravitational force acting between masses M and m at a center to center distance of d.  To make this clearer, F is often written as F_g

Now if we were considering how much acceleration mass m would undergo as the result of gravitational attraction between m and M_, Then we we are saying that F_g is assuming the role of F in F=ma

or that F=F_g

thus we can substitute ma for F_g to get

ma = GMm/d^2

cancel m on both sides of the equation and get

a = GM/d^2, which tells us that the acceleration of m due to the gravitational attraction is independent of the magnitude of m's mass.

24 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

This is where I got the word lift. Not arguing just saying. Not certain if I added this picture correctly? Guess I have to hit submit to find out… note it is not a link, just part of a screenshot.

As I already noted, 28,437 kph falls a bit below that for even a near surface orbit.   To be lifted off "into space", using the Kármán line (at 100 km altitude) for the boundary of space, you would need to be moving at 28,498.5 kph.  In which case, you would rise to a height of 100 km (the apogee of your orbit), and then drop back down to perigee at the surface, rise up to apogee...

To leave the Earth's vicinity entirely, you'd need to be moving at 40,253 kph ( escape velocity)

15 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

I read that Earth would have to spin at 28,437 km per hour to cause us to lift off the surface. I’m assuming at that point we would  effectively be weightless.  Seemingly throwing a wrench into F=GM₁M₂/R²  , so what effect would it have on the moon?

1.  It is meaningless to say "spin at 28,437 km", as rotation needs to be measured as angular velocity. (deg/hr, rad/sec. etc.)

I know that it is common to express this in terms of tangential speed( in this case, at the equator) But it is sloppy and can lead to misunderstanding. For example if the Earth had a tangential speed of 28,437 kph at the equator, then at 45 north latitude it would only be 20,105 kph

As swansont has pointed out there is a speed where the centripetal force (the force required to keep an object moving in circle) and the gravitational force balance out. This would result in the object going into orbit around the Earth.   Gravity is still in play. In fact it is gravity that would prevent someone standing on the equator from just shooting out into space at in a straight line instead of just hovering over the Earth. And by the way, your number is a bit low, the equatorial speed would need to be 28463 kph

And because of what I alluded to earlier, only someone on the equator would even go into orbit.  People elsewhere will feel lighter, and the ground would seem to tilt a bit under their feet ( And even this is an over simplification which assumes the Earth maintains its present shape.  If the Earth was indeed spinning this fast, its very shape would change, making it much more of an oblate spheroid. 

9 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

I don't know about "GOP" but that asshat is still ahead in the polls (and always ahead when I check, which is why I usually don't check) https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/

I wouldn't place too much faith in the polls; as of late, they have been shown to be highly unreliable.  Right up to the '22 midterms they were predicting a "Red wave" with Republicans making large gains in the House (60+ seats). In the Ohio election dealing with the Republicans attempt to change the requirements to alter the state constitution, the polls said it was close and could go either way, while in the election it was overwhelmingly rejected.  And most recently, a Democrat won in Florida in a red district when polls showed him losing.

A lot of this can be put down to the polling methods not keeping up with the times and thus oversampling certain segments of the population and under-sampling others.

16 hours ago, TheVat said:

Taft required a special bathtub installed in the WH.  Not sure what could be installed there in 2025 to remedy Trump's cognitive handicaps. Perhaps a trapdoor.  Biden I'm less worried about - maybe because I know his choices of veep, cabinet and support staff are sound and informed by decades of political experience.  

While Trump will be sure to fill his administration with yes-men who's only qualifications are a sworn fealty to Trump. What little reining in and push-back he got last time will be nonexistent.

2 hours ago, kacenty said:

ddt = dt/sqrt(1-GM/(r1*c^2)) - dt/sqrt(1-GM/(r2*c^2))

for:

dt = 86400 # seconds per day
r1 = 6.36e6 # distance from center to surface of Earth
r2 = 2.66e7 # distance from Earth's center to GPS

ddt = +45.7e-6 # GPS clock gains 46 microseconds per day

for:

dt = 86400 # seconds per day
r1 = 6.36e6 # distance from center to surface of Earth
r2 = 1 # 1 meter from Earth's center

ddt = -386 # clock at 1m from Earth's center lags by ~6.5min per day relative to surface

 

Talking about time dilation and frequency shifts while there seems to be simple clock rate change.

--- Edit 4 Feb 2024, 14:10:59 UTC ---

One can ~force chat-gpt-4-1106-preview to admit that choosing between those three (time, freq, clock rate) shifts is a matter of concept.

That would only be applicable if you were shrinking the Earth in order to keep all of its mass contained within a sphere with a radius of r as r decreased.

As you move towards the center of the Earth this is not the case, as the amount of material within r decreases as you do so and thus M is not a constant throughout the trip. So while at the surface of the Earth Gravitational potential is -GM_E/r_E, at the center, it is -1.5GM_E/r_E 

Thus the difference in gravitational potential between the surface of the Earth and its center is smaller than that between the surface and an infinite distance, and so would be the time dilation factor difference.

16 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Last year in Colorado, our state passed a law banning "ghost guns" that are 3D printed or sold as kits, which are untraceable. There's only one main reason somebody would want to own one of these: they don't want the gun traced back to them, so you'd think it's a no-brainer to ban them, right? Lawsuits have been filed against the state by gun lobbyists and shooting clubs who want the law struck down on principle. It's another "If we give you an inch, you'll take a mile" argument from inhumans who don't much care about mass murder and children dying in school.

What kind of responsible gun owner would want unregulated, untraceable firearms being manufactured by anyone with an inexpensive printer?

The argument you so often hear is that gun regulations won't stop gun violence.  It's the all or nothing approach; that if a regulation doesn't prevent all gun deaths of innocents, it shouldn't be enacted.  Saving 10 lives a year isn't worth it, nor is saving 100 or, 1000...

18 hours ago, Photon Guy said:

None that I can think of, but the point is that just because the lightspeed barrier can't be broken by conventional means doesn't mean it can't be broken period. 

As pzkpfw alluded to, If it requires a new, now unknown, physics to allow for FTL,  then it is pointless to speculate about what would happen, because we have no idea what rules we'd have to adhere to in this new physics.

37 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think I read the other day Trump doesn't want the border fixing, he wants that to be his election issue. This seems to be why the GOP are in disarray; conflicting directions. 

The Republicans have been playing this game with the border for years.  They have no interest in dealing with it, as fixing it would give them one less thing to complain about, and all they have to run on are grievance issues.

Agreed,  the..

18 hours ago, graybear13 said:

notion of some primeval atom  from which everything (billions of galaxies) sprang forth in a split second

is a silly one. Good thing for the big bang model that it doesn't claim this.

On 1/13/2024 at 3:57 PM, Capiert said:

 

Why would
 the Babylonians
 use 60 divisions,
 e.g.
 for minutes
 & seconds;
 & (=but) then (suddenly, break that pattern, &)
 divide the day
 into (only) 24 hours?


 

 

 

They didn't.  The Babylonians divided the circle in 360 degrees. They then defined a "degree of time" as how long it took the Sun to travel 1 degree in the Sky, which they then divided into 60 minutes of 60 seconds each( we still see this in the practice of measuring angles in degree, minutes, seconds.) Thus the Babylonian minute and second were not the same duration as our modern one. 

The division of the day into hours was an invention of the Greeks. It wasn't until the middle ages that the two systems were combined, making the hour divisible in the same way that the Babylonian degree of time was.

So, there is no mystery, as it is the result of cobbling together two different time keeping systems.

On 12/27/2023 at 6:17 AM, William.Walker39 said:

According to Relativity, two inertial moving observers will see each others space contract and time dilate. This is a complete contradiction and a physical impossibility if the effects are real. Objects and the passage of time can not be both small and large at the ""SAME"" time for the ""SAME"" observer. The only possible explanation is that the observed effects are an optical illusion.

It is not a contradiction, it just isn't compatible with the Newtonian model of time and space. And at its heart, Relativity uses a completely different model for these. In Relativity these measurements are not absolute but frame dependent.

An analogy would be these images of two lines:

The same set of lines, just viewed from different perspectives.  In the first image the red line is "taller" than the green, and in the bottom image the green line is "taller" than the red.  The point being that in Relativity, time and space are measured more like the "height" of the lines in the images and not by their absolute length.

And considering that the magnitude of High-Low tide cycle coincides with the phases of the Moon, as does the varying time period between successive low and high tides (which can vary a fair amount to either side of 12hrs), It seems a bit silly to brush away the influence the Moon has on the tidal cycle.

On 11/24/2023 at 11:56 PM, Bjarne-7 said:

Even a hen can find a nugget of gold

 

But, does the hen recognize what it has found, or is it just a shiny rock that attracts it attention? And for the hen's purposes, a nugget of gold is less valuable than a small rock.  Chickens ingest these small rocks to hold in their gizzards, were they serve in lieu of teeth.  The contractions of the gizzard use the rocks to grind up the grain, etc. into small digestible  bits.  Gold, being a soft metal, serves as a poor substitute for common rocks.