Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by losfomot

  1. So if A remains at constant v with respect to K and B remains at constant v with respect to K albeit 1 second time t and vt(I think??) distance behind A then A will be younger than B by more than 1 second of time t'

    I don't think that is possible no matter how fast they were going. edit - <scratch that


    There was no quantity for v given, so I don't think you can work out how much the clocks will differ, only who's clock will be ahead or behind.

  2. If they both start of at rest with respect to coordinate system K and A takes off at v with respect to K and continues with velocity v with respect to K then B, who leaves one second later, will have to travel faster than v to catch up with A, their clocks will be synchronous.


    If A accelerates to v with respect to K and then decelerates with respect to K eventually coming to rest again with respect to K and B does the same thing, but one second behind, their clocks will be synchronous.


    Although I think you may be right about both of those situations (not positive about the first one), neither applies in this instance. There was never any mention of B 'catching up to' A... They start in the same rest frame and end in the same rest frame, they undergo the same acceleration (apparently instant) just at different times.

  3. OK, let's see.


    I have two A and B in the same frame clocks synched.



    A takes off and instantly acquires v.


    After some time B takes of exactly the same way.


    They will end up in the same frame.


    Which is younger?

    Actually, who is "younger" depends upon which frame you are considering it from.


    Here's the space-time diagrams for the situation as seen from both the staring inertial rest frame of A and B and from their final inertial rest frame.




    From the original frame, A (the blue world-line) ends up younger than B,(the red World-lines)


    However, when you switch to the final rest frame, B is younger than A.


    So if A and B synchronized their clocks in the starting rest frame (before anyone took off anywhere, say at time = -1), then A 'takes off', accelerating instantly to some velocity (the final rest frame)... and then sometime later (in your diagram it appears to be 1 second later?) B takes off, accelerating instantly to A's frame (the final rest frame)... they compare clocks in the final rest frame and B's is behind A's?


    This doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

  4. How would building a orbiting hotel or a hotel on the moon possibly benefit people?


    Don't judge me! :)


    There's a million things I would do with that money, I only mentioned a few things that particularly interest me, individually. Believe me, the world would benefit if I had that kind of money. Philanthropy is kind of an obvious answer. Do you want everyone to spout off about how many hospitals and schools they would build? That wouldn't make for a very interesting thread. Besides, I think taking the first steps toward leaving this planet would be a great benefit for humanity. I think its in our best interest to spread ourselves out a bit... the sooner the better.

  5. News footage of the 9/11 disaster shows some people jumping to their death from a burning building, since they obviously preferred to die a minute sooner by hitting the ground rather than living a minute longer at the price of experiencing the horror of burning to death.


    You don't at all entertain the idea that they were trading certain death for the (extremely) slim possibility that they, miraculously, survive the jump?

  6. Hotel orbiting Earth.


    School... lots of school.


    Obviously friends and family would be taken care of.


    Lot of travel.


    Some new shoes.


    Cancer research. Cryonics research.


    Hotel on the Moon. That will be the second in a future chain of hotels. The third will obviously be on Mars... of course the venture will have to prove itself profitable by this time as 100 billion only goes so far.

  7. I am not a physicist, but I don't think anyone has answered clearly enough for you, so I will point out a couple of things i think you don't get yet:


    OK so we are agreed that in my scenario that at the end of the journey, Brian and Andy (now standing next to each other) will look at their respective clocks and see that Brian's only shows 100 days (100 pips), and that Andy's shows 200 days (200 pips). And that this is because Brian's movement and heavy accelerations have caused Brian to age only half the time of Andy.


    Actually no, your assuming that half the speed of light = time dilation of 2... this isn't how it works. At 1/2 c the time dilation factor is about 1.15


    So if Brian's clock read 100 days at the end of his journey, Andy's clock would read about 115 days.


    This is where it gets interesting. So does this mean that to make this happen, Brian must have had to take the decision to turn back after only 50 days (50 pips) (as he perceives it) such that his clock has only got to 100 by the time he returns? And when he returns, he sees that Andy's clock has got to 200 days (this being consistent with Andy's own experience of Brian taking 200 days for the whole trip). Am I right about this so far?


    If you change Andy's clock to 115 days, then yes.


    Assuming I am, then the following perhaps make sense: That for the portions of the journey when Brian is not accelerating, then for almost all of (from Brian's perspective) the 2 * 50 day journey, that Brian would look back at Andy, and see Andy's clock going at half speed, so resulting in only 25 days (25 pips) elapsing for the outbound journey, and 25 days elapsing for the return journey. 50 days total - as seen by Brian. Now since we know that on his return to Andy, Brian will see that Andy's clock has passed 200 days, there is a missing 150 days here. 150 days that needs to be added on to Brian's perception of Andy's clock at some point in the journey


    You've got it completely wrong here. Lets assume that Brian does travel for 50 days out before turning around as you say and coming back. Brian would look back at Andy and see Andy's clock going slower on the outbound journey. On the inbound journey, Brian would see Andy's clock going faster. Brian would receive more pips from Andy on his journey back to Earth than he did on his journey away from Earth. But, in total, Brian would receive 115 pips from Andy, while only 100 pips on his own clock. Andy would receive 100 pips from Brian, while seeing 115 pips go by on his own clock. Brian and Andy would see the same thing, there is no paradox there. When they are back together, comparing clocks, Brians clock will say 100 days, and Andy's clock will say 115 days... which is exactly the number of pips they will both count during the journey.

  8. I don't mean another constant i just mean using the value of c^2 rather than figuring it out EVERY time you use the equation!

    If you are doing these types of equations frequently, then you will probably have a good calculator. Good calculators have letters that you can assign value to. I imagine most physicists have the value of c assigned to the letter c on their calculator. It is much easier to punch c^2 into your calculator than to figure it all out ahead of time and punch the actual long number in.

  9. While I do appreciate your humor, I see more than the frivolity of your statement. Since there is method to your madness, share it. What I would like is some common sense that I can understand, rather than a "cut in stone" rational.


    Your question is worded as though it were clear cut... but it isn't. I have no idea what you are looking for. In your original post, you are asking where everything (the big bang) came from. This is a question to which we currently have no answer. You seem to be aware of this, and yet you want 'some common sense that I can understand' what does this mean? There is no 'common sense' answer to the question. There is only speculation. I am guessing that you are looking for more speculation.


    My opinion is that it didn't come from 'nothing'. But that doesn't mean I'm right, and it really doesn't tell you anything about where it came from.


    Some people would say that 'nothing' could never have existed, because it isn't anything to exist. 'Nothing' is the absence of 'things', so there could never be 'a nothing'. The word 'Nothing' is not a noun.

  10. While not having a Scientist mind by any stretch of the imagination, or overly endowed with brain power; my question is: Did the universe spring from nothing? Something so small as a singularity? Or was it aleady in a condition to be built upon? In either of the cases, why? If not, how was this feat accomplished?


    I, also, am not a physicist... however,


    I believe the most correct answer would be that we do not know yet.


    If you already know this, then you are just looking for possibilities. There are many to choose from. If you have an imagination, you could make one up... it might be right!


    There are many universes. In one of them, there was an enormous black hole. The local intelligence there were trying out a new type of cosmic weapon near their black hole, when suddenly BLAM! the black hole disappeared. The locals were stumped because they knew about conservation of energy... a black hole can't simply disappear. The truth is, it burst into another universe... ours.


    Actually, The universe has always existed, it just has cycles of expansion and contraction... we just happen to be in the expansion phase currently.


    No, but seriously... it was God, silly. But if you question where he came from, well then you're lost because its all about faith my friend.


    Could be we will never know.

  11. Seriously? How is the answer to your question not immediately obvious to you?


    It is obvious that it is a great help to the layman... or to a student. And perhaps that helps, indirectly, in the long run, to advance science for mankind.


    I don't think this particular forum brings scientists together for discussion within a discipline. The population of participants is too sparse to expect overlap in any one discipline; I think the target audience is the interested non-expert, e.g. a student, or someone learning about material not in their field.


    I cannot say that research-wise that I have learnt a lot here......


    Probably, it is correct to say that in general scientists have not yet fully realised the potential of internet forums for discussion and dissemination. I often look at nlab, but have not participated myself.


    People do keep blogs of their research (I am starting to do this slowly). These can be useful for dissemination, maybe more than general science forums.


    Perhaps this is simply the wrong forum for that type of thing. Do you think that NLab has succeeded, in a more direct way, to advance science?


    It seems to me that there are probably a lot of things stopping scientists from doing any real, effective, collaborative thinking/sharing/discussion/dissemination... Fear that they might make a silly mistake. Fear that they give too much away, and someone else patents the idea they came up with or publishes the paper before them.


    I am not trying to take away the value of this forum and others like it. It's just that, almost 20 years ago, I discovered a forum called ask Dr. Neutrino, and I remember thinking that the internet was going to advance science like nothing else ever did... a new scientific revolution. Today there are many such forums, but I have not seen the dramatic effect I was expecting.


    Perhaps it is my point of view. Someone else might say science (and technology) has moved very fast in the last 30 years. Someone else might say 'look at all the different things and ideas forums like this have helped to create'

  12. Put another way:


    Have there been any clear advances or benefits to science as a direct result of this forum?


    Scienceforums.net has been around for many years now, and I love it. I know it has helped me, and it is an invaluable resource for a layman to be able to ask professional scientists questions. Or for scientists to ask themselves questions.


    Think about the state of communication 30 years ago compared to today. You would think that a forum (like this one) that offers virtually instant communication between scientists around the world, giving them the ability to share and compare ideas, theories, and thoughts, would be a huge boost to technological/scientific advance.


    Has it been?

  13. NO! and I think it great, no more mess, it said it felt funny at first, but it didn't take much to get used to, he still orgasms just as hard as before. The gland is still there, it's just a shriveled up prune now, which is why the blood vessels may get crimped, as they are attached, at least they aren't cut.


    I'd call that a side effect.

  14. I am considering building an 'aluminizer'... but I can't find a lot of detail in how they work. I know that they use a vacuum chamber, and then elements heat up and evaporate aluminum which then deposits on the glass surface. But how hot do the elements have to be? and can it be any old piece of aluminum, or does it have to be a certain thickness/size/shape? Are the aluminum and hot elements above the glass and the Al travels down to deposit on the glass, or its it the other way around?

  15. Physics for future presidents is an award winning class that focuses on the conceptual end of physics rather than the math. I'm working my way through it for a 2nd time.


    Here is a link to the relativity portion of the lectures, but I started at Lecture 1 and worked my way through... it is all excellent.

  16. Well Sattelites, normally move because their in orbit, don't they? This thing was stationary for an hour (or more, maybe... I went to bed) and as far as the lasers are concerned, this was quite a distance in the position in the sky from the moon (about 3 moons away at the 11 o'clock position.)




    stationary with respect to the moon or the Earth? The moon would have moved noticeably after an hour.. did this object move with it? If so, not a geostationary satellite. I would guess that it was a star or planet.


    HERE is a picture of the sky in the direction of the moon from Las Vegas at 2:25am on the 27th...


    and HERE is one from the 26th (I'm not sure what day you are talking about)


    I don't see anything that sticks out at the position you are talking about... so maybe it WAS aliens.

  17. I only said it once but some how it downloaded 4 times. Whats in error?


    How can an event that first occured in the year 2050 have occcured while the space traveler is still in the year 2000 irrespective of rate?


    The space traveller is not IN the year 2000. There is no such thing as a universal 'year 2000'.


    If the space traveller leaves Earth in 1999, travels in space for a year, and comes back to Earth in the year 2050... Then the space traveller is on Earth in the year 2050, he is not in the year 2000.


    The space traveller will NEVER experience the 'year 2000' because he was not in Earth's frame of reference that year. He will never experience 2001, 2002, 2003... or 2049, because he was not in Earth's frame of reference during those years, and he cannot go back in time to get them back... the past is past.

  18. Why do certain people here ask me for evidence when with the right people, they are willing to believe such unsupported statements?


    The "right people" do not hand out "unsupported statements" in the first place. I have to agree with iNow when he asks 'what's your point?'


    You are against the current model (which has evidence supporting it) in favour of... what?


    You ask some interesting questions, and you have some powerful resources here to help answer those questions... but your methods are far from desirable. Instead of rejecting the science that exists outright, why not just ask the questions that bother you.


    Martin is probably one of the most knowledgable people you will ever have the good fortune of discussing this stuff with. You should take advantage of that fact, and not spit in the face of it.


    I know you are a persistent bloke, but 'SFN' is a little different from what you're used to.... if you keep on the way you're going, you won't last long here.

  19. Yes, I think there's a misunderstanding. I only meant to use the "Outside" to explain that the universe doesn't end. That even past all of the stars and plants and galaxy'[s that there is still "sapce" Even though there is no matter. Hopefully this clarify's


    There is no 'outside' in that sense either. You can choose any point in the entire universe, and it should look (on average) just like right here... with galaxies all around, in the same numbers and density that we see from here.

  20. I think the word "description" is used more for physical features, while "explanation" can me applied to any occurring phenomenon.


    Besides, "description" means how it's happening while "explanation" means why it is happening.


    Any strong reason for your proposal?


    I would say 'description' gives you a 'picture or idea' of what is happening.


    While 'explanation' implies a 'mechanism' for what is happening... which GR does not supply.


    That's just how I saw the words... it is silly and I should have just kept my fingers still.

  21. Once again John, the classical view and my personal opinion is that gravity is a characteristic of an object, just like mass, height, width etc.


    And how that works? Well, GR gives a fine explanation I believe and if you find a place in GR where what you're saying fits in, then you have a reason to debate!


    I would replace the word 'explanation' with the word 'description'

  • 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.