# losfomot

Senior Members

323

## Posts posted by losfomot

### Gravitational Lag Thought Problem

But the synchronization was not part of the question, they are assumed to be synchronized.

How can it not be part of the question... or at the very least part of the answer? The OP brought the equidistant observer into the discussion him(her?)self in post #13. I don't think the assumption of synchronization is possible when talking about relativity.

During acceleration they are out of sync, but each would also see himself turning off the engines first.

I agree.

### Gravitational Lag Thought Problem

Ok, so lets remove the base stations and make the projectiles true spacecrafts with engines. They are located in parallel directions a distance apart and at rest with each other. At exactly the same moment they accelerate equally and then turn off their engines and coast in freefall.

Exactly the same moment according to whom? This is why we need an observer equidistant between the two.

Before the launch one pilot looks out through his side window, did he see the other spacecraft perpendicular to his back-front direction?

Yes... but what about as they are accelerating initially? Each would see himself blasting off first.

If the spacecrafts are convertibles and the pilots are holding a rope taut between them, what will happen when they ignite their engines?

If they start exactly at the same time, accelerate equally and also turns off their engines exactly at the same time, so that they can be considered to be at rest with each other as they were before the launch, then why would they appear to be at different locations after launch?

Again... all of this 'exactly at the same time' stuff must be relative to some observer... if it is relative to the observer equidistant between the two ships, then the ships will see something different.

Here is a topic I started years ago that deals with, essentially, the same issue. This could be the thread J.C. was referring to.

### Gravity 1 & Gravity 2

I have a newer theory, if you fly out to space, after a few miles you float in your spaceship once you leave the pull of earths gravity, so theres little/zero gravity in space, but yet the moon which is 200,000 times further away goes simply around.

So the question is, is there two types of gravity?

If you fly out to space, after a few miles you cut the engine... and you float! However, you are also falling back to the Earth. (edit- I should point out, as others have mentioned, that it only seems like you are floating inside your spaceship because both you and the spaceship are falling at the same time). There are ways to cut the engine... float... and not fall back to the Earth... one is to put yourself in an orbit around the Earth so that, as you fall, you keep missing the Earth. Another is to find a position where gravity is neutralized by competing massive objects (lagrange points).

Or is mass relevant to gravity, things of different mass fall at different speed/force, but looks the same on earth because you drop something at such a short distance, they "apear" to fall at the same speed/force.

Mass is relevant.

### What is an approximate volumetric photon density per cubic meter on an "average" day on earth?

Yes, and there are a number of phenomena that use the effect. With a perfect reflector, to accelerate 1 kg at 1g requires about 1.21 GW of optical power.

1.21 Gigawatts? That happens to be exactly the amount required to power my time machine.

### I can die for my own sins

Er, no, Abraham came before Moses; the Commandments didn't exist yet.

My mistake... it has been a few years since I read the OT... but the question remains.

It makes significantly more sense when not taken as a literal account of historical events; it demonstrates the kind of absolute obedience to God that is demanded of His children.

I don't agree that it makes more sense when not taken literally. Actually, how can it not be taken literally? Do christians in general not take it literally? Do they not take the entire OT literally? But the NT is to be taken literally? or also not? Are all these stories just made up as metaphors?

I apologize that this is getting off topic.

### I can die for my own sins

Because the one thing God requires is obedience and faith,

Then why not create us that way... I do not understand the point of giving us free will just to see if we give up that free will and do exactly what he wants anyway. It seems we are not given free will outright, we are instead given a choice... obey God or exercise your free will and burn in hell.

Because the one thing God requires is obedience and faith, in the sense that Abraham had faith in God when he was willing to do anything God asked even if it sounded ludicrous. ("Wait, you want me to leave my house and move to Israel, because I'm going to have a bunch of kids there? I'm 90 years old!") Disobedience is the only sin there is.

What kind of sick game is that to be playing. God says 'thou shalt not kill' and then tells Abraham to kill his own son. If that was truly a test, I'd say Abraham failed. How did he know he was not being tricked by lucifer into breaking one of God's commandments? And if God was all-knowing, why does he need to test people? He would know what was in Abraham's heart without having to put him through all that just to say at the last moment 'just kidding, you don't have to kill your son, I was just testing you' It just doesn't make any sense.

As for the question of why, God answers that quite well in Job. Primarily by saying you're a piddly human and you shouldn't be asking.

And yet he loves us all for we are all his ignorant children.

### Increasing the rate of acceleration using induced gravitational fields

If you are accelerating you will feel the force.

Unless that force is due to gravity... as it is in a slingshot maneuver. Jump out of a plane while enclosed within a box... you are accelerating, yet you feel no force (not until you hit the ground).

### Increasing the rate of acceleration using induced gravitational fields

Nope fraid not. The 'g's that you feel ARE the acceleration. If anything lessens that force (rather than using techniques to help the body cope with it) then you will simply accelerate less.

Just guessing, but in a slingshot manoeuvre surely you would have lateral g to contend with as well

But in a regular slingshot maneuver (not a 'powered slingshot' maneuver), all the acceleration is due to gravity... so why would you feel a 'g-force'? As long as your rockets aren't firing, you should be weightless the whole time... shouldn't you?

### The sun is giving birth to planets

Why would an increase in mass = a larger orbit?

### Increasing the rate of acceleration using induced gravitational fields

Wouldn't slingshoting your spaceship around a planet allow you a high rate of acceleration without the 'g-force' beating up your body?

### The sun is giving birth to planets

Lets speculate wildly.

The sun consumes its material but like any other thing in the Universe, it is imperfect. A small amount of material is not well "burned" and remains inside the sun. It slowly agglomerates into an inform packet that rotates with the sun, inside the sun. Because it has another density of the surrounding plasma, this small mass of impurities rotates at another velocity and thus follows an internal orbit. Slowly, as the mass increases, the orbit gets larger, becoming a spiral. The process continues until impurities reach the sun surface, eventually getting out of the sun, still upon the path of the spiral. When impurities get out of the sun, their mass do not augment any more. As the inform mass morphs slowly into a circular body, and because there is no added mass any more, the path changes from a spiral and becomes a regular orbit. The planet is born.

Why would an increase in mass = a larger orbit?

### The sun is giving birth to planets

I still like my planet timeline theory. I mean its easy, basically when Earth rotates out to where Jupiter is it will be a gas giant too. And when Jupiter gets to Uranus, it's gases will freeze a bit and it will shrink. Thanks everyone.

Earth will never be a gas giant. It is not just the size that distinguishes these two planets... it is mass (and composition) that is the important difference.

### Are the planets a timeline?

Well,

We are spinning away from the sun, not into it. When an orbit intersects close enough with the sun, it builds mass off of the sun until it pops off, that's where I'm at now.

Why?

Eventually something has to intersect with the sun, why not a white dwarf.

Do we understand the core of our planet? No.

Perhaps we are a white dwarf with a plasma coating. Maybe all planets have a white dwarf in the middle of them?

I really think the video pretty much explains it. That without the supernova.

The Earth is not a white dwarf star... and all planets do not have a white dwarf inside of them. Read up on white dwarfs.

### The sun is giving birth to planets

I disagree with the theories of planet formation.

What is it about the 'theories' that you disagree with particularly?

### The sun is giving birth to planets

Thanks guys for thinking of possibilites. And thanks for the links as well. I'm still not totally good on quoting everyone as you can tell from my previous posts. So I'm kinda mass responding here to the past few posts. I appreciate your patiencein listening to what I'm trying to get across.

I'm not saying anything is possible...I mean I don't really think all the images from space have been doctored and we could be a triangle shaped planet. I believe that scientists are fueled by their own thirst for knowledge and that is why I find so much comfort and faith within the realms of it. I feel that their hearts are in the right place, trying to find answers, and that smile on the face of a man or woman who has just discovered something for the first time, when they know they have the proof to back it up.......it's amazing!

Just to have anyone take me seriously on here at all kinda gives me that feeling. I started to share a few of my thoughts with some of my friends and I've been surprised at how large their eyes have gotten, on 3 occasions now I've had them come back at me the next day with their own thoughts and theories and questions. For guys playing poker at a bar, that's pretty awesome.

Lately I've been thinking of the big bang theory a little more and the planet formations, I can see why an explosion could leave behind a straight line of debris. With the video recreations of this, it makes sense to me why everyone would think that, but I still say we're spinning fast like a top and that's why we are in line. Perhaps connected to the sun by a force we cannot see. There is a wobble? right? why?

It's great that you are so excited about talking about this stuff. But I think you are here merely to philosophize... rather than trying to discover the truth about things. That can be annoying to people who are trying to answer your questions in the hope that you want to learn something.

The term 'big bang' is misleading. It was more an expansion than an explosion. I am not sure what 'straight line of debris' you are talking about.

Which wobble are you talking about? There are lots of wobbles.

2) If the sun ejected planet-sized balls of matter like this once in while, perhaps it would result in a gravity shift in the solar system that would allow the existing planets to re-orient their orbits at further distances. The process could go something like this: sun stretches causing its gravity field to warp and shift the orbits of the planets at which point the stretched out part breaks away from the rest of the sun and the two gravity wells re-spherize at a distance from each other with the new planetoid redistributing the solar gravitation it brought with it in splitting off.

I said:

I don't think the sun is the only thing that is stretching here.

That is as specific as you can get?

It was a play on words.

OK... first problem... you have not given a cause for the first event. Everything plays out (though it still doesn't work) after 'sun stretches'... what caused the sun to stretch? Do you mean stretch like went from a sphere to a football shape and then a piece pinched off and it snapped back to a sphere? That is a dramatic effect... where is the cause?

### The sun is giving birth to planets

2) If the sun ejected planet-sized balls of matter like this once in while, perhaps it would result in a gravity shift in the solar system that would allow the existing planets to re-orient their orbits at further distances. The process could go something like this: sun stretches causing its gravity field to warp and shift the orbits of the planets at which point the stretched out part breaks away from the rest of the sun and the two gravity wells re-spherize at a distance from each other with the new planetoid redistributing the solar gravitation it brought with it in splitting off.

I don't think the sun is the only thing that is stretching here.

Ok. So spitting out a planet and having it fall into an orbit seems unlikely, if not impossible. I still believe it could happen based on how little we know of things like that occuring. As I stated earlier, when the thought was first suggested of solar flares and coronal mass ejections in 1951, the science community lashed out at it, calling it "impossible". Not only was it possible, it happens all the time.

There are many things that were scoffed at that ended up being true... but that is not an argument. My new theory is that the planet is actually a perfect triangle, and we are an alien experiment whose purpose is to see how long the humans can be fooled into believing their planet is round. Why do I believe this? Because we don't know everything that happens in the universe and also because people laughed when someone first suggested the planet was round right? Everyone knew, back then, that the planet was flat... so why not?

This one big bang theory does not make sense at all, it's about as easy to love as the 2 party system. I believe we are all on the same plane with the other planets because our solar system is swirling around a larger solar system. The motion and momentum of hurtling through space have pushed us into one spinning plane, like a top. Pluto is falling out of spin like the edge of a top while the closer planets stay in this straight line of sorts like the top of a top. Imagine our solar system as a dna strand spiraling through a hurricane of other solar systems all swirling towards a black hole in the eye of the hurricane. We spiral through it all planets in line.

You keep mentioning the big bang... but that has very little to do with what we are talking about. We are talking about planet formation. You can read a little about it HERE. What is it that you don't like about the theory, and why is yours more believable? Or have you abandoned that idea yet? I can't really tell, you are like a politician... that may be your calling.

Also I think if a body with enough gravitational pull such as the white dwarf pictured in the video above came in contact with the sun, it would pull the plasma from the sun, spinning it and covering its surface, then as the planet grew slowly from the plasma, it would gain enough mass to orbit away from the sun rather than into it.

I like this one a little better than the first one, but really you are just throwing out ideas now... dna strands... hurricanes... white dwarfs... its like a mixture of art, poetry, and philosophy with a little bit of astronomy thrown in. There is no doubt or question that there are many many possibilities... but the fact is that the theory we have now appears to be the best one (regarding planet formation).

### The sun is giving birth to planets

I guess I keep thinking of the magnetic fields that keeps the sun from exploding out

I believe the main force keeping the sun from 'exploding out' is gravity... not its magnetic field.

wouldn't the suns magnetic field be different than the earths?

Of course.

COuldn't that impact and slow down the "cannonball".

Slowing it down or speeding it up is not going to change the outcome. It is still going to fall back to the sun or escape the solar system altogether. What everyone is trying to tell you is that: the only way anything ejected from the sun will attain a stable orbit, is if that object's direction is changed. Any force originating from the Sun will only push it away or pull it in... this cannot help the object attain an orbit. The 'cannonball' must be acted upon by a force other than the Sun for your 'theory' to work.

I mean something that holds true on earth does not necessarily hold true to the sun.

When you are talking about basic laws of physics.... it does.

### Distance and space expansion

If this is not a flawed analogy, there's no reason to differentiate between distance-increase from expansion and distance gained by object-motion.

Every analogy is flawed.

And I think we were mistaking 'proper motion' with 'peculiar motion' I am pretty sure it is peculiar motion that we are talking about in this thread.

Here's my understanding of 'peculiar motion'... We have assigned a geometry to space. The balloon analogy is always the easiest to work with, so we decorate the balloon with a drawn-on grid system, which represents the geometry of space (since the surface of the balloon is representing space itself). On our decorated balloon, we place a grain of sand in the top left corner of one quadrant (or square) of it's geometry. we place another grain in the top right corner of a quadrant 3 quadrants over from the first. We now define 'peculiar motion' as any motion relative to the geometry (or gridlines, or quadrants) of space (the surface of the balloon). Take a picture of the position of the grains of sand in their quadrants of 'space'. Measure the distance between the grains of sand.

Now blow the balloon up some more. Take a picture of the position of the grains of sand in their quadrants of 'space'... They haven't moved. One is in the top left corner of it's quadrant, and the other is still in the top right corner of it's quadrant, 3 quadrants over. By our definition of 'peculiar motion', they have not moved 'through space'. Now measure the distance between the 2 grains... the distance has grown. Without moving 'through space', the distance between the 2 grains has increased.

The law 'nothing can go faster than the speed of light' only applies to objects moving 'through space'.

Their is a clear difference between objects moving 'through space' and objects moving 'with the expansion of space itself'

### The twins struggle with Minkowski

Bolded where it hurts. What I cannot swallow is that I observed the ship going slowly, and coming back in a blink of the eye, evoluting at the same speed.

When an ambulance drives by you, you know that the 'dee doo dee doo' siren is letting out 'dee doo's at a constant rate, yet you hear more 'dee doo's in the 100 yards the ambulance travels toward you than in the 100 yards it travels after it has passed you (travelling away from you).

You don't have to use yards either.... you can use time:

When an ambulance drives by you, you know that the 'dee doo dee doo' siren is letting out 'dee doo's at a constant rate. But when the ambulance is travelling toward you, it takes 25 seconds to hear 25 'dee doo's, and when the ambulance is traveling away from you it takes 40 seconds to hear 25 'dee doo's

If you know the 'dee doo's are being emitted at a constant rate, how can this discrepancy exist?

analogous to:

It is stated from the beginning that speed to go is the same as speed to come back. That is not negotiable

It means that its apparent speed, as measured from our FOR, is $X/25$, which is different from the measured speed at departure.

But that was not negotiable.

Where am I wrong?

### Distance and space expansion

I was under the impression that space expansion was meaning that the units of space was expanding. If the amount of space in between increase them galaxies have proper motion...

I always liked the ants on an expanding balloon picture. Proper motion would be analogous to the ants walking around on the surface of the balloon. If the ants stopped walking, the distance between the ants would grow. Not because the ants are moving (proper motion), but because the surface of the balloon itself is expanding (space expansion).

### Distance and space expansion

Hi, I have a question:

I read many place that space expansion is not proper motion.

That faraway galaxies doesn't move but are caried by space expansion.

So if today a galaxy is mesured to be 1G lightyears away, in 1 millions years that galaxy will still be 1G lightyears a way because she have no proper motion.

If I go back in time, the same will be true. No need for a bigbang...

where am I wrong in my reasonning ?

Thanks

If we could measure a galaxy to be exactly 1,000,000,000 LY away today. In a million years that galaxy would be measured to be about 1,000,072,000 LY away (if I did my math right). This distance change has nothing to do with proper motion, only motion due to the expansion. A million years is a fairly short time in the life of our universe.

### About the Ending to the film "Inception"

I just meant with energy that kept it in motion. If it started to wobble, the added energy would only succeed in making it fall over faster.

Why?

Start a top spinning on the table.

Hit the table.

The top will wobble and correct itself and keep right on spinning.

### About the Ending to the film "Inception"

I thought about adding, "if constant energy were applied to the top to keep it spinning", but I didn't think anyone would focus on that point. So let me rephrase my question.

Let's say we have a top. It is supplied with a constant energy to maintain it's spin. If it wobbles, this wobble will cause the top to fall over, correct?

Not necessarily. If it is supplied with constant energy, then there must be some other reason that it wobbled (a flaw in the surface, somebody blowing on it...) most of these reasons the top should easily recover from, especially if it is supplied with constant energy to maintain its spin.

The only sure reason that a top's wobble will indicate a topple, is that it is wobbling because it is slowing down, and is about to topple. You have eliminated that possibility by adding energy to keep it spinning.

### About the Ending to the film "Inception"

So the story pretty much is, that he spins the top (called a totem in the movie), and if it falls over, he's awake. Conversely, if he spins it and keeps spinning forever, he's stuck in a dream.

My argument is that since the top appears to start wobbling at the end, it will at some point in the future fall over, correct? Once it loses that perfect balance it initially has, it will stop. So he has to be awake.

Is there any flaw in my thinking, provided that tops behave in Inception like they do in the world we live?

Edit: Every clip I find has embedding disabled. So you'll have to go to youtube to see it. Apologies.

Of course there is a flaw. It could be a flaw in the table he spun the top on that made it wobble... it may have recovered and continued spinning. If they had ended the movie before the wobble, you would have been left thinking that the top spun forever... ending the movie after that little wobble gives you hope that maybe it WILL stop... I don't think it gives you certainty at all. The whole annoying point to the ending is that you are left with ambiguity about whether or not he really is awake this time. If your logic makes you feel better about it, there is nothing wrong with believing that he's awake.

×