Jump to content

swansont

Moderators
  • Posts

    52587
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    255

Everything posted by swansont

  1. Generally speaking, using it. Doing work means heat flow and generation of entropy, and that's a measurement of whatever is causing the breakdown. The change in entropy from natural decay (outside forces) is happening anyway. This assumes that you aren't doing maintenance, which shifts the increase in entropy to somewhere else so the local entropy is stable or possibly decreases. Using your example of a house — the house will wear out if you aren't painting and cleaning it, etc., on some regular basis. The difference isn't just between use and disuse, it's between maintenance and no maintenance. Many things not used but well-maintained will stay in pretty good shape.
  2. If it had zero initial speed, it wouldn't go anywhere. No force, no acceleration.
  3. An object can have a color because it emits light, rather than reflecting it. What color is a neon light?
  4. He does only age slower when viewed from an outside frame, as long as he stays in that frame. But once he accelerates, he changes reference frames.
  5. I don't know. I wasn't there, doing the experiment, so I have no idea what rigorous tests were done and if it was repeatable. For all I know it was air currents. Photons are an example of classical vs. quantum. Not a contradiction, per se, but a restriction the applicability of classical theory. Of course, anyone with a BS in physics already knows this. The internet falls under Sturgeon's Law: 90% of anything is crud. Don't believe it just because someone posted it on a website.
  6. A mole is Avogadro's number of a substance (6.02 x 10^23) A gaseous atom is one that is normally a gas under the stated conditions (usually STP), e.g. Helium, Argon for monoatomic examples, or Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide for molecules. You ionize an atom by removing a single electron, and repeat until you've done that for 1 mole. The energy it takes to do that is the first ionization potential.
  7. P=IV You need to know the current. That will tell you what the motor is drawing. The output will be somewhat less (maybe 90%)
  8. Post has been copied into the previously linked thread. Discussion should go there.
  9. No, it's not. You have assumed that a half-shell behaves this way, ironically, to show that shells do not behave this way. All you've shown is that a half shell does not behave as if all the mass is located at its COM. You are taking a weighted average (as it were) dependent on r^2, so this isn't going to work. The theorem only works for spherical symmetry.
  10. I agree it's not based on logic. What you need to do is explain how relativity has passed numerous tests and the bending of the light agrees with the prediction of GR, and yet GR is wrong on this one point, AND how your proposal actually predicts this will happen. i.e. what mechanism do you propose actually causes the light to bend, and how could you test it?
  11. You have an obligation to answer questions put to you. There will be little tolerance for shifting of the burden of proof. That's all that I was trying to say. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This is not functionally equivalent to the shells. What allows you to say that a half-shell should act the same as a point mass located at its center-of-mass?
  12. Thread reopened. Tentatively. Stay on topic, people, and within the rules. mooeypoo linked to the speculations policy above. Follow it. Um, no. I don't think anyone here has made any such claim, nor is this present in the standard literature. It's a false dichotomy to conclude that since time doesn't cause motion that motion must cause time.
  13. I have a hard time reconciling this statement with the claim that you have a degree in physics. Surely someone who has a degree in physics has learned that electrostatics and magnetics are related in Maxwell's equations and through relativity.
  14. This suggests that you think there is some "real" length, and then the object gets crumpled, like it's a mechanical effect. That's not how it works. I have an object, which I measure to be 1m long. Another observer, moving with respect to it, measures it to be 0.7m long. Yet another observer, moving even faster relative to it, sees it as 0.5m long. All the while, I am standing next to it and nothing is happening. What is the length of the object? That question has no validity. One must specify the frame in which you are measuring the object. Klaynos correctly said it was a physical effect, but I don't think you mean physical the way he did. It is not a mechanical effect, just as a clock slowing from time dilation is not due to some defect in a clock. It is not a mechanical compression. It is "simply" that length is not preserved when you transform to another frame of reference. Much like how kinetic energy does not transform, but less intuitive.
  15. You'd need to know what the losses are, because no force is necessary to maintain momentum. You just need to counteract the other force (or torques) in the system. If you had an ideal system, multiplying the torque and the time will give you the momentum, if the torque is constant.
  16. Let us be very clear that you are making claims here, and must address questions put to you. Asking questions of others is OK as long as you are doing that, but if not, it is simply shifting the argument, and will be considered trolling.
  17. Nobody will be injured from relativistic effects. All of this is a consequence of the speed of light being a constant in all frames — length and time are not invariant quantities, i.e. it depends on who is making the measurement. You cannot say an astronaut is 2m tall, and you cannot say a certain amount of time has elapsed. You can only make those statements as someone in a particular frame of reference. The values will be different to someone in another frame. Since the physics works exactly the same in all of these frames, each observer can claim they are at rest, and everyone not in that frame are the ones who are moving. No frame of reference can lay claim to the "real" value of any of these measurements. Things moving relative to you are length-contracted. Clocks moving relative to you run slow. They will say the exact same thing about you. How much the lengths contract and how much time dilates depends on the relative speed.
  18. It is important to note that the length contraction seen by the astronaut is observed only by him, in his frame. Observers in other frames will measure different contractions. Observers at rest on earth see no contraction. Length and time are not absolutes. It depends on what frame you are in when you make the measurement.
  19. And Leedskalnin would be wrong. Electrons have a dipole moment, and moving charges create fields. This is all well-established physics. Pick up a textbook and read it.
  20. Sure. Flywheels mean rotation, and so you want angular momentum, L. [math]L = I\omega[/math], where I is the moment of inertia and omega is the angular speed. Compare that with linear momentum, p=mv. Mass changes to the moment of inertia, which takes into account the mass distribution. You can see why this matters by looking at another equation. [math]\vec{L} = \vec {r}\times \vec{p}[/math], so a particle farther from the axis of rotation has more angular momentum than an identical particle moving at the same linear speed, but closer to the axis. IOW, the placement of the mass matters to the angular momentum.
  21. Magnetic fields are the result of moving charges. Magnetic fields appear when you take an electric field and transform into a coordinate system that's moving.
  22. I'm sure some people find argument from incredulity and argument from ignorance convincing.
  23. Science does explain things, but if all you have is an explanation, you don't have science. Science is not ad-hoc.
  24. You've had the benefits of dozens of posts explaining relativity to you. Perhaps you should reread some of them.
×
×
  • 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.