Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use. So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.
Richard Wolfson’s “Simply Einstein” is a book I would recommend very highly, but even in this work it is possible to find things that don’t seem to add up – at least to me.
Lets consider three scenarios:
1. (Passengers in an aircraft): Wolfson asks: “Am I moving?” He then answers the question as follows: “By looking out of the window you can justifiably assert that the plane is moving relative to Earth, but that is as far as you’ll get. You’re just as correct in asserting that Earth is moving relative to the plane.” So far, so good; this is exactly what relativity tells us.
2. (The twin paradox, involving a return trip from Earth to a distant star): Wolfson argues that because the occupants of the space ship experience acceleration, whereas those on Earth do not; one can say that the spaceship is moving relative to the Earth, but not the other way round.
Is it just nit-picking to insist that the same can be said of the aircraft in the first scenario?
3. (Spaceship passing Earth in uniform motion): Wolfson explains that because both Earth and spaceship are in uniform motion, each must be able to claim to be stationary, relative to the other, and both must observe the other’s clocks to be “running slow”, relative to their own clocks.
Apart from ignoring the fact that the space craft must have accelerated at some point, relative to something; this does seem to leave one question unanswered. Suppose that when the spacecraft passes Earth, there happen to be two people, one on the ship and one on Earth, who are exactly the same age. When the ship passes a distant star, some time in the future, will there be any difference between their ages?
1. (Passengers in an aircraft): Wolfson asks: “Am I moving?” He then answers the question as follows: “By looking out of the window you can justifiably assert that the plane is moving relative to Earth, but that is as far as you’ll get. You’re just as correct in asserting that Earth is moving relative to the plane.” So far, so good; this is exactly what relativity tells us.
if the plane is sitting on the ground , it is moving. and it is moving faster than the ground.
could two observers look at the watches and see the difference in time between the two velocities?
and the answer is a definite possible yes!!!
Quote:
2. (The twin paradox, involving a return trip from Earth to a distant star): Wolfson argues that because the occupants of the space ship experience acceleration, whereas those on Earth do not; one can say that the spaceship is moving relative to the Earth, but not the other way round.
the occupants of the earth are also experiencing an acceleration 24/7
and the answer is a predefined possible definite possibility.
Quote:
3. (Spaceship passing Earth in uniform motion): Wolfson explains that because both Earth and spaceship are in uniform motion, each must be able to claim to be stationary, relative to the other, and both must observe the other’s clocks to be “running slow”, relative to their own clocks.
the earth does not travel in uniform motion. uniform motion requires a straight line.
and the answer is apples and oranges.
Quote:
Apart from ignoring the fact that the space craft must have accelerated at some point, relative to something; this does seem to leave one question unanswered. Suppose that when the spacecraft passes Earth, there happen to be two people, one on the ship and one on Earth, who are exactly the same age. When the ship passes a distant star, some time in the future, will there be any difference between their ages?
and the answer is a most definite absolutely.
the one on earth would be dead , if the spaceship were capable of anything less than lightspeed.
so the one on earth would be dead.
when the one who was on the spaceship traveling less than lightspeed returns to earth he could have the dead ones corpse radio carbon dated to see just how much older he is.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
2. (The twin paradox, involving a return trip from Earth to a distant star): Wolfson argues that because the occupants of the space ship experience acceleration, whereas those on Earth do not; one can say that the spaceship is moving relative to the Earth, but not the other way round.
Is it just nit-picking to insist that the same can be said of the aircraft in the first scenario?
You are correct, the same thing can indeed be said of the aircraft. The main difference is a question of scale. The difference in velocity is so small that the contraction is almost impossible to measure. However, it can be done. The first that I know of was back in the 1960s when Hewlett Packard introduced the first commercial atomic clock. Before that you had to build your own. As a publicity stunt HP took 2 of their clocks and very carefully compared their timing. Then they bought an around the world air line ticket for one of them. When it got back to Palo Alto they compared them again and found that there was a discrepancy in their times that matched Einsteins equations. But you can't make the comparison with a pocket watch.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
if the plane is sitting on the ground , it is moving. and it is moving faster than the ground.
Moving relative to what?
Quote:
the earth does not travel in uniform motion. uniform motion requires a straight line.
I did Wolfson no favours by trying to pick out the skeleton of his argument. He did say: "...to the extent that Earth is in uniform motion – and to a very good approximation, it is.."
depending on which part of the plane we wish to measure the speed of , according to the distance from the center of the earths rotation.
suppose the plane is 50 feet tall , the top of the planed is moving faster than the ground the plane is sitting on.
lets say the distance from the center of the earths rotation to the ground where the plane is sitting is 4000 miles.
the grounds angular speed is
1047.1975511965977461542144610932 mph
the top of the plane is 50 ft higher than the ground.
the top of the planes angular speed is
1060.2875205865552179811421418568 mph
a difference of 13.089969389957471826927680763832 mph
Quote:
He did say: "...to the extent that Earth is in uniform motion
there is not a single molecule on earth that is in uniform motion.
the spaceship could be made to travel in uniform motion , but it would be extremely hard to accomplish , as it would be affected by all sources of gravity.
if relativity is proven on the basis of falsities then that proves that relativity is false also.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
3. (Spaceship passing Earth in uniform motion): Wolfson explains that because both Earth and spaceship are in uniform motion... space craft... spacecraft... ship... ship
So your spaceship doesn't have a name? Doesn't seem like much of a spaceship if it doesn't have a name. Have you ever heard of a spaceship without a name.
"Star date 38759385x9494, Captain James T. Kirk of the starship, eh, crap, my, this is a predicament, screw this, where that green woman at?"
My ship in my thread has a name, the 'HMS Blowme' and her sister ship 'Bob'. My thread has almost 300,000 views. Your thread? Not so much. Maybe if your ship had a name you could get some views, otherwise you are just practicing typing.
In the cave where I keep a guy for screaming at. My flash drive died and imageshack shrunk all my images so I'm starting over.
Quote:
what we need in this forum is a little reality , could you be just the person to supply that edge?
Hey now, do you see me saying things like "space/time", "curvature of space", "multi demensional" or "vote for Obama, he won't take you cash and give it to someone else?"
Of course I'm that guy, I say things like "if you take a monkey and materialize him in a empty universe and that monkey flings some feces the monkey and feces will travel away from each other, but eventually gravity will overcome their inertia and monkey and feces will one day be reunited."
Now THAT'S science.
Quote:
how's your sister doing?
She's fine, thank you.
Quote:
welcome back
I posted a thing in my thread a couple of weeks ago.
Richard Wolfson’s “Simply Einstein” is a book I would recommend very highly, but even in this work it is possible to find things that don’t seem to add up – at least to me.
Lets consider three scenarios:
3. (Spaceship passing Earth in uniform motion): Wolfson explains that because both Earth and spaceship are in uniform motion, each must be able to claim to be stationary, relative to the other, and both must observe the other’s clocks to be “running slow”, relative to their own clocks.
Apart from ignoring the fact that the space craft must have accelerated at some point, relative to something; this does seem to leave one question unanswered. Suppose that when the spacecraft passes Earth, there happen to be two people, one on the ship and one on Earth, who are exactly the same age. When the ship passes a distant star, some time in the future, will there be any difference between their ages?
Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer
Mike Kremer attempting to answer Scenario 3.
Any sort of continous movement will make you appear younger than some-one at rest. Regarding the two people ..one in the space craft and the other on Earth, the only way they can be guaranteed to be born at the same time, is for both of them to be born in the same place.
To satisfy this, they must both be born in the moving rocket. One of them parachutes to Earth, as the rocket flys by.
The other way around acceleration would have to be added into the age equation.
Due to the rockets continous (and steady) movement, one can assume that the person in the rocket ages slower than his twin.
But the only way to prove this differences in ages, would be for the rocket (without slowing) to return towards Earth in a wide circle, and drop off its passenger by parachute, as it re-passes.
. . "You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.
Paul, you talk of the plane and the ground moving relative to the centre of the Earth; but the centre of the Earth is rotating as well, so both are stationary relative to the centre of the Earth.
The further an object is from the centre of the Earth the faster it moves, relative to some object stationary in space, but how do you establish that something is stationary?
I dont think that atomic clocks would be the ideal clock to use.
atomic clocks seem too vulnerable to pressures.
acceleration causes pressures.
this might be why the atomic clock in the plane did not show the same exact time as the atomic clock on the ground.
the atomic clock ( WORKS ) in the plane was undergoing more angular acceleration than the one on the ground.
I could be wrong , but figure the odds of that happening.
put a atomic clock on a balloon that will not be moving relative to the ground , the higher it is the faster it is moving although it is tethered to the same spot beneath it on the ground.
let it stay up there for a week. the two times should still be different.
even though the clock high in the atmosphere never really moved relative to the ground , it only went up.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Paul, you talk of the plane and the ground moving relative to the centre of the Earth; but the centre of the Earth is rotating as well, so both are stationary relative to the centre of the Earth.
no I was talking about the plane moving relative to the ground.
Quote:
The further an object is from the centre of the Earth the faster it moves, relative to some object stationary in space, but how do you establish that something is stationary?
I dont think that a stationary object will ever be found.
even if you do determine that a certain object is found to look stationary , its atomic structure will always be moving.
electrons n such
since a stationary object is impossible to find especially here on the earth , any relative object is not stationary to any relative object.
theres no such thing as a stationary object.
theres no such thing as time either...
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
if the plane is sitting on the ground , it is moving. and it is moving faster than the ground.
plane and ground
Quote:
no I was talking about the plane moving relative to the ground.
plane and ground
Quote:
…a balloon that will not be moving relative to the ground
balloon and ground
Quote:
Reasoning in two directions at once may work well in politics, but how good is it in science?
how did you compose the two different directions?
not only can we not understand you guys , Im not sure how you guys can even understand yourselves.
when something is moving it has both direction and speed.
the plane is sitting on the ground , both the plane and the ground have the same direction , but the top of the plane has more speed that the ground has.
the top of the plane has a speed 13 mph faster than the ground.
its not that hard to figure out.
still I introduced the balloon to try and give you a mental picture of the differences in speed between the two.
BTW ... and Im surprised you didnt catch it. I had the calculation wrong.
there was only a .00247 mph difference in speed between the top of the plane and the ground.
if 50 ft shows a difference in speed of .00247 mph , then a balloon at an altitude of 31 miles...
would show a difference of 8 mph speed between the ground and the balloon.
that's not really a lot of difference in speed , but because in my opinion time dilation only occurs during acceleration the two clocks should register different times even though the clocks are not even moving away from each other.
they only have different speeds ( angular acceleration ) due only to there distance from the center of the earth.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
BTW ... and Im surprised you didnt catch it. I had the calculation wrong.
Paul, I am unlikely to spot your calculation error; I tend to trust your calculations. It’s only your reasoning that sometimes gives me problems.
My reference to two directions didn’t refer to directions of movement, but to directions of argument. You seemed to be saying on the one hand that the plane was moving relative to the ground, and on the other, that the balloon was not moving relative to the ground. Can both be true?
You seemed to be saying on the one hand that the plane was moving relative to the ground
YES !! the top of the plane is relatively moving faster than the ground.
you dont have to use the center of an object you can use any point of the object when calculating the angular velocity of a point on the object relative to any other point on the object.
aircraft use two ways of measuring speed.
air speed and ground speed.
air speed is the measurement of the aircraft speed. ground speed represents the actual displacement of the aircraft at ground level.
air speed is always greater than ground speed.
Quote:
and on the other, that the balloon was not moving relative to the ground. Can both be true?
consider a record on a turntable , the outer edge of the record will have a greater angular velocity than the center of the record.
so relative to the grooves of the second song on the record the grooves of the first song on the record will always have a greater angular velocity , when the record player is turning the record that is.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
YES !! the top of the plane is relatively moving faster than the ground.
Wrong, the top of the plane is not moving with respect to the ground. It it was the plane would move from its position on the runway.
Originally Posted By: Paul
air speed is the measurement of the aircraft speed. ground speed represents the actual displacement of the aircraft at ground level.
air speed is always greater than ground speed.
Not necessarily. If there is a tail wind the air speed may be less than the ground speed.
Originally Posted By: Paul
consider a record on a turntable , the outer edge of the record will have a greater angular velocity than the center of the record.
This is probably just a minor error. Angular momentum is measured in degrees per second, or whatever units you using. The linear velocity of the inside and outside of the record will be different, but not the angular velocity.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
Wrong, the top of the plane is not moving with respect to the ground. It it was the plane would move from its position on the runway.
It's obvious that you are wrong Bill.
Quote:
It it was the plane would move from its position on the runway.
no it wouldnt Bill.
the wheels of the plane that are in contact with the ground are moving at the same speed as the ground.
Quote:
Not necessarily. If there is a tail wind the air speed may be less than the ground speed.
I think you have that backwards Bill.
a tail wind would cause the aircraft to have a greater air speed , ( speed it up ) a head wind would cause the aircraft to have a lesser air speed ( slow it down )
in a tailwind mechanical instruments would show a lesser air speed ( because there is less air pressure acting on the speed sensor / measuring device )
but the actual air speed ( of the aircraft ) would increase.
A tailwind is a wind that blows in the direction of travel of an object, while a headwind blows against the direction of travel. A tailwind increases the object's speed and reduces the time required to reach its destination, while a headwind has the opposite effect.
Quote:
This is probably just a minor error. Angular momentum is measured in degrees per second, or whatever units you using. The linear velocity of the inside and outside of the record will be different, but not the angular velocity.
In physics, the angular velocity is defined as the rate of change of angular displacement and is a vector quantity (more precisely, a pseudovector) which specifies the angular speed (rotational speed) of an object and the axis about which the object is rotating.
as in the above the angular velocity of the top of the plane is greater than the angular velocity of the ground.
also as above the angular displacement of the top of the plane is greater than the angular displacement of the ground.
its pretty simple to figure out.
I cant understand why you guys are having such a difficult time with it.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Paul, while your plane is on the runway, with its wheels stationary, climb on to the top of the plane, stick the end of a length of string to the top - use your chewing gum if you like - now come down and stick the other end to the ground, vertically below the chewing gum. If the top of the plane is moving relative to the ground your string will not remain vertical for long, and the plane will distort. Ergo, the top of the plane is stationary relative to the ground.
Similarly, in the case of the record; of course the outer edge is moving faster than the inner, relative to the surroundings, which for the sake of illustration, can be taken to be stationary; but any point on the outside of the record never changes its position relative to any other part of the record. That in my understanding is what constitutes being stationary relative to something.
a tail wind would cause the aircraft to have a greater air speed , ( speed it up )
A tail wind would cause the plane to have greater speed relative to the ground below, but would decrease its airspeed - i.e. its speed relative to the air through which it is flying.
Paul, Bill S. has pretty much pointed it out, but I will go just one step further.
Assume an arc 1 foot from the origin that subtends 30 degrees. Now draw an arc 100 feet from the origin that subtends 30 degrees. I agree that the 100 foot arc will be much larger than the 1 foot arc. But they both are 30 degree arcs. If you move something along the 1 foot arc in 1 second its angular velocity will be 30 degrees per second. Now move something along the 100 foot arc in 1 second. Its angular velocity will be 30 degrees per second. Obviously the object on the 100 foot arc will be moving much faster than the one on the 1 foot arc, in order to move 30 degrees in 1 second. There is a large speed difference between 2 arcs. There will be no difference in the angular velocity.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
you left out the most important part in your arc analogy.
( the lenghts of the two arcs)
it was tricky and underhanded , but something I have become used to in this want to be science forum.
but suppose you do draw a 30 degree arc at a 1 foot radius from the center. and you draw a 30 degree arc 100 ft from the center.
do you actually think that the arc at the 100 ft radius will be the same length as the arc at the 1 ft radius?
LOL
not a chance...
the circumference of the entire circle at the 1 ft radius point is 6.28 ft the circumference of the entire circle at the 100 ft radius point is 628.00 ft
and since you have used 1 second time for travel in both arcs and since you have used 30 degree arcs , quite naturally you would have 2 travel times of 1 second both traveling along a 30 degree arc.
you just left out the distance of the 2 30 degree arcs.
the 30 degree arc at a radius of 1 ft is 0.52 ft in length.
the 30 degree arc at a radius of 100 ft is 52 ft in length.
you say theres no difference in angular velocity I say that there is , and plenty of it.
0.52 ft/sec angular velocity. vs 52 ft/sec angular velocity.
so the difference in the two velocities is a whopping 51.48 ft/sec.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Paul, while your plane is on the runway, with its wheels stationary, climb on to the top of the plane, stick the end of a length of string to the top - use your chewing gum if you like - now come down and stick the other end to the ground, vertically below the chewing gum. If the top of the plane is moving relative to the ground your string will not remain vertical for long, and the plane will distort. Ergo, the top of the plane is stationary relative to the ground.
Quote:
if the plane is sitting on the ground , it is moving. and it is moving faster than the ground.
the top of the plane is 50 ft higher than the ground. it is moving faster than the ground.
you even agree in the below.
Quote:
Similarly, in the case of the record; of course the outer edge is moving faster than the inner, relative to the surroundings, which for the sake of illustration, can be taken to be stationary; but any point on the outside of the record never changes its position relative to any other part of the record. That in my understanding is what constitutes being stationary relative to something.
and the top of the plane is like the outer edge.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
its speed relative to the air through which it is flying.
Quote:
Not necessarily. If there is a tail wind the air speed may be less than the ground speed.
your talking about IAS indicated air speed.
the actual aircraft speed is what I was talking about.
and the actual air speed would increase in a tailwind.
and I think I covered the guages and pressures already in my reply.
Quote:
I think you have that backwards Bill.
a tail wind would cause the aircraft to have a greater air speed , ( speed it up ) a head wind would cause the aircraft to have a lesser air speed ( slow it down )
in a tailwind mechanical instruments would show a lesser air speed ( because there is less air pressure acting on the speed sensor / measuring device )
but the actual air speed ( of the aircraft ) would increase.
I wasnt talking about IAS indicated air speed , because I was talking about the actual aircraft speed in a tailwind.
Quote:
air speed is the measurement of the aircraft speed. ground speed represents the actual displacement of the aircraft at ground level.
air speed is always greater than ground speed.
try and find a situation where actual air speed is less than ground speed without flying through a hole in the earth.
as long as the aircraft is flying above the ground its air speed will always be greater than its ground speed.
even if it is flying straight down. or straight up.
theres no way around it.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
the actual aircraft speed is what I was talking about.
and the actual air speed would increase in a tailwind.
No, Look up air speed in a dictionary. Websters: "Air Speed: The speed of an aircraft with respect to the air"
If you are going to use terms that have defined meanings you have to use them correctly. Since air speed is the speed of the air craft with respect to the air, then air speed is different from ground speed.
In regard to the angular velocity discussion I specifically said that the object moving along the 100 foot arc would move much farther and much faster than the object moving along the 1 foot arc. You completely ignored that part of my discussion and apparently wanted people to forget that I had made an accurate statement.
And lets look at what Webster has to say about Angular Velocity.
Webster: "Angular velocity - A vector quantity describing rotational motion, the magnitude of which is the time rate of change of angle and and the direction of which is along the axis of rotation"
You see, angular velocity has to do with a change in angle, not a change in distance. A 30 degree per second angular velocity is the same no matter if you are 1 foot from the center or 1 mile.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
No, Look up air speed in a dictionary. Websters: "Air Speed: The speed of an aircraft with respect to the air"
If you are going to use terms that have defined meanings you have to use them correctly. Since air speed is the speed of the air craft with respect to the air, then air speed is different from ground speed.
Im going to clarify this for you bill.
Quote:
your talking about IAS indicated air speed.
the actual aircraft speed is what I was talking about.
and the actual speed of the aircraft would increase in a tailwind.
hows that?
Quote:
In regard to the angular velocity discussion I specifically said that the object moving along the 100 foot arc would move much farther and much faster
so you agree that the top of the plane would move faster than the ground.
something moving much farther and much faster must be moving faster , right?
but you want us to think that the velocities would be the same if you moved something along both arcs in 1 second. in other words the velocities are the same in both arcs.
Quote:
Assume an arc 1 foot from the origin that subtends 30 degrees. Now draw an arc 100 feet from the origin that subtends 30 degrees. I agree that the 100 foot arc will be much larger than the 1 foot arc. But they both are 30 degree arcs. If you move something along the 1 foot arc in 1 second its angular velocity will be 30 degrees per second. Now move something along the 100 foot arc in 1 second. Its angular velocity will be 30 degrees per second. Obviously the object on the 100 foot arc will be moving much faster than the one on the 1 foot arc, in order to move 30 degrees in 1 second. There is a large speed difference between 2 arcs. There will be no difference in the angular velocity.
let me do one of those bill
suppose I point my finger straight up. then I swing my finger 45 degrees. I do that in 1 second. now suppose that there is a planet 1 trillion miles from the center of the 45 degree point that my finger swings on.
and the planet swings with my finger the 45 degrees in 1 second.
both have followed a 45 degree arc in 1 second.
so there is no difference in the two angular velocities.
no , the facts are that the tip of my finger has a angular velocity of 2 inches / sec the planet has a angular velocity of 785,398,163,397. miles/sec
the angular velocity is defined as the rate of change of angular displacement and is a vector quantity (more precisely, a pseudovector) which specifies the angular speed (rotational speed) of an object and the axis about which the object is rotating.
angular velocity = angular displacement / time
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
following a thread that includes calculations that you dont understand can be a difficult task , so I've decided to put my method of determining the distance / displacement of a arc at a given radius.
suppose we need to determine the distance of a 30 degree arc at a 1 ft radius.
radius x 2 = diameter diameter x pi = circumfernce circumference / 360 degrees = displacement / length / distance of each degree of the circumference.
this gives us the displacement of each degree in the arc.
each degree x arc degree = displacement of arc
r x 2 = 2 2 x 3.14 = 6.28 6.28 / 360 = 0.0174
0.0174 x 30 = 0.522 ft
the displacement of a 30 degree arc at a radius of 1 ft is 0.522 ft
if the distance along the 30 degree arc is traveled in 1 second then the angular velocity would be 0.522 ft/sec
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Gentle readers: Here once again we see Paul refusing to recognize that he is wrong and trying to provide proof that everybody else is wrong. He is doing this by denying the common definitions of every day matters and substituting his own definitions. Please observe that this way he can prove anything, even when it doesn't match experimental proof.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
Paul, you can, of course, establish that anyone has said almost anything if you select your quotes with sufficient care.
Quote:
Similarly, in the case of the record; of course the outer edge is moving faster than the inner, relative to the surroundings, which for the sake of illustration, can be taken to be stationary; but any point on the outside of the record never changes its position relative to any other part of the record. That in my understanding is what constitutes being stationary relative to something.
However, the whole quote does say something different.
the top of the plane is 50 ft higher than the ground. it is moving faster than the ground.
This statement has no real scientific meaning unless you specify what the movement is relative to.
If any part of the plane were moving relative to the ground, the plane would not be stationary relative to the ground.
Can we agree on that?
All of that's true isn't it.
A point on the plane 50' higher than a point on the ground would, in 24 hrs, describe a circumference around the Earth 314' greater than that of the point on the ground. The plane and the ground beneath it remain in the same relative locations. In other words, the given point on the plane travels through local space faster (by 314' per day).
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
In physics, motion is a change in position of an object with respect to time
the top of the plane has changed its position 314 ft more than the ground in a 24 hour period.
right redd!
observation of motion requires more
Quote:
Motion is observed by attaching a frame of reference to a body and measuring its change in position relative to another reference frame.
but if no one is there to observe the motion of an object it still has motion.
I used 4000 miles as the radius of the outer edge of the ground and I used 50 ft as the height of the plane.
I dont need any frame of reference.
I already know that the earth rotates 1 revolution per day and that time period is 24 hours.
so I already know the angular velocity of the ground where the plane is sitting , all thats left is to calculate the greater angular velocity of the top of the plane.
pretty simple stuff there guys.
and I hold that the top of the plane is moving faster than the ground...
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
A point on the plane 50' higher than a point on the ground would, in 24 hrs, describe a circumference around the Earth 314' greater than that of the point on the ground. The plane and the ground beneath it remain in the same relative locations.
Exactly..
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Quoting from Wiki is a bit like quoting from the Bible: there's always another quote!
"In geometry, a position or position vector, also known as location vector or radius vector, is a Euclidean vector which represents the position of a point P in space in relation to an arbitrary reference origin O."
Locating a point is relevant only in relation to another point, so identifying movement is relevant only with reference to some other thing.
The Earth rotates once in 24hrs relative to the sun. If there were nothing else in the Universe, could you still say that the Earth rotates?
So, in your physics an object can be moving and stationary, relative to some other object, in the same F of R, at the same time?
YES !
centripetal force and centrifugal force equations demand the above to be correct.
force requires motion. more motion = more force.
at the center of rotation there is little centripetal force & little motion. at ground level there is more force & motion at the top of the plane there is even more force & even more motion.
if I am wrong then physics math is also wrong , but figure the odds of that happening.
also , if my physics as you say is wrong , then the earth could rotate at 500 billion revolutions per second and the plane would never be launched from the ground. the earth would not be shattered by the forces.
but physics and I are not wrong.
note: when I say physics math = non relativity math that does not use the bullshit pre defined elements that ensure its correctness.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Then why am I not moving towards the center of the Earth? There is a force holding me down to the floor in here, but I am just staying right here in one place. If force requires motion where is the motion?
Just saying something that doesn't happen to be true doesn't make you particularly smart. You need to check the facts that have been shown to be true by repeated experiments and observations. Then you can say you know something.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
Just saying something that doesn't happen to be true doesn't make you particularly smart. You need to check the facts that have been shown to be true by repeated experiments and observations. Then you can say you know something.
well sure , if I use a magic formula that is designed to show something a desired way , it will always show that it is correct ( it will always show the pre defined desired results ).
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
there just happens to be something else that is falling that is blocking your fall.
If something is blocking your fall, does that not stop you from falling?
Trying to fall = falling??? Yet more linguistic evolution, perhaps?
Possibly you will argue that the surface of the Earth is falling, and you are falling with it. Would this mean that the Earth is shrinking? Could this be another case of something that is moving and stationary at the same time, in the same F of R?
there just happens to be something else that is falling that is blocking your fall.
If something is blocking your fall, does that not stop you from falling?
Trying to fall = falling??? Yet more linguistic evolution, perhaps?
Possibly you will argue that the surface of the Earth is falling, and you are falling with it. Would this mean that the Earth is shrinking? Could this be another case of something that is moving and stationary at the same time, in the same F of R?
Good reply. I was just about to make a similar reply, but you beat me to it by just a few seconds. As far as I can tell the surface of the Earth is not falling toward the center of the Earth, it is relatively stationary aside from small tidal and geological movements. It certainly doesn't seem to be moving (falling) down.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
you guys really do need to read about what you write about before you press the submit button.
every single particle on earth is falling towards the center of the earth.
because of gravity.
and , guess why !!
because every single particle on earth is being accelerated ( Falling due to gravity ) towards the center as the earth rotates.
this is a science forum , why dont you two at least try to appear as if you have learned something about science.
I know that this stuff isnt the fantasy land of quantum physics , and that it can actually be calculated ( correctly ) using everyday math , and it does require a little effort on your part ( thinking ) but you guys may not be capable of thinking along real reality lines.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
I know that this stuff isnt the fantasy land of quantum physics , and that it can actually be calculated ( correctly ) using everyday math , and it does require a little effort on your part ( thinking ) but you guys may not be capable of thinking along real reality lines.
Ok Paul, How fast am I falling towards the center of the Earth? I haven't noticed that the Earth is smaller than it was yesterday. In fact if I check any references I don't find any place that tells us how much smaller the Earth is getting.
Or have you redefined falling to match what you want it to mean the way you did Air Speed?
You see gentle readers how Paul makes up his own definitions and sticks to them with minor modifications so that he can show that he is right even when what he says has nothing to do with what observation and experiment have shown to be the way the world works.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
You see gentle readers how Paul makes up his own definitions and sticks to them with minor modifications so that he can show that he is right even when what he says has nothing to do with what observation and experiment have shown to be the way the world works.
Bill Gill
You seem to be appealing for help because you can't handle this argument on your own. What's up with that? Is this some kind of religious manipulation thing? The Reverend uses this same kind of trick when he gets frustrated to pull whatever judgments and frustration there might be in others to gain a feeling of camaraderie and superiority.
Democracy and religious prejudice seem to go hand in hand...
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!
Ok Paul, How fast am I falling towards the center of the Earth?
if you were sitting on the roof of your house.
and if you were 4000 miles from the center of the earth and on the equator.
then the circumference of the 360 degree circle that you are traveling in as the earth rotates would be 25,132 miles.
4000 x 2 = 8000 miles diameter 8000 x 3.14 = 25132 miles circumference.
you have a angular velocity of 1047 mph. 25,132 miles / 24 hours = 1047 mph.
in one second your angular displacement is 1535 ft/sec.
if gravity became a republican, and just decided to stop doing its job because it wanted more tax cuts and tax breaks and give aways to the top 1% , and gravity was not accelerating you towards the center of rotation like is should be doing , then you would launch at a 90 degree angle away from the center of the earths rotation.
at a velocity of 1535 ft/sec
gravity is pulling / accelerating you at a rate of 32.2 ft/s^2
that doesnt mean that you are falling that fast , thats just how fast that you would fall and accelerate as you are falling if there were nothing stopping you from falling.
your not being pushed down like some of your bone headed colleagues seem to think
Gravity is NOT a pulling Force. Gravity is a "Pushing" Force of Mass Expansion. Earth Mass is Expanding at the Gravitational Acceleration rate of 9.808175174 m/s^2 In order to understand you must first accept the Mathematics on Einstexxxxxxxxdotcom because Math does not lie. Then you can move on to
he doesnt even konw how to calculate the acceleration due to gravity in the first second , he thinks theres instant acceleration durring the first second of acceleration due to gravity. LOL
ie...
Quote:
After one second, the ball will be traveling 32.2 ft/s. After two seconds, it is traveling 64.4 ft/s, and after three seconds, it is traveling at 96.6 ft/s.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
what he says has nothing to do with what observation and experiment have shown to be the way the world works.
if you design your experiments to return desired results and you also design your math to support those returned desired results , then how can you lose.
Quote:
the way the world works
and what would that be?
the world works according to which group of people?
it looks like the world works in many ways ( mostly BS ) the facts are that the fantasy realm has caused people or forced people to learn ( mostly BS ) , and now they cant even think straight.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
suppose you have hydraulic piston that can lift your car.
it cant lift your car unless the piston is allowed to move.
-------
when you are being accelerated towards the center of the earth all day and all night as the earth rotates , the motion that is the result of the force being applied by gravity , is your movement in a circular path vs a linear path.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
suppose you have hydraulic piston that can lift your car.
it cant lift your car unless the piston is allowed to move.
-------
That's right. If the piston can't push harder than what the car weighs then the car won't move. That is if the piston doesn't exert enough force then the car won't move. Notice that force doesn't always cause movement. My feet pressing on the Earth exerts a force equal to my weight on the surface of the Earth. But that doesn't cause the surface of the Earth to move.
Give up Paul, go study some physics, maybe do some simple experiments, then figure out how things work.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
Gravity is NOT a pulling Force. Gravity is a "Pushing" Force of Mass Expansion. Earth Mass is Expanding at the Gravitational Acceleration rate of 9.808175174 m/s^2
That sounds like Mark Mc Cutcheon. Where did that come from, and what is it meant to establish?
gravity is pulling / accelerating you at a rate of 32.2 ft/s^2
that doesnt mean that you are falling that fast, thats just how fast that you would fall and accelerate as you are falling if there were nothing stopping you from falling.
I follow your line of reasoning there Paul; but you do seem to accept what we have been saying: something is "stopping you from falling". Ergo, you are not falling.
There is a much more intuitive way you show it to a child with the following example
Walk up to a wall and push it as hard as you can. You know and can feel you are exerting a force but nothing is happening. So forces do not always result in motion they can be resisted.
The leap to understanding that the wall is creating an opposing force takes some further work so they understand what is happening when forces are resisted but at least they start with forces can be resisted.
Lets see if Paul can grasp what a child can that forces do not always lead to motion they can be resisted perhaps as a later exercise we can walk him thru that resistance to a force is done by creating a counter force.
Last edited by Orac; 11/22/1201:49 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Stress is the way in which the force per unit area is spread out in a cross-section of an item that balances and reacts to external loads applied to a body.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Paul, I'm just checking to make sure I'm not getting the wrong impression. Are you saying that stress does not necessarily involve motion, but force does?
Are you saying that stress does not necessarily involve motion, but force does?
not me , Physics says that , I didnt write Physics.
FORCE
Quote:
In physics, a force is any influence that causes an object to undergo a certain change, either concerning its movement, direction, or geometrical construction. It is measured with the SI unit of newtons and represented by the symbol F. In other words, a force is that which can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate, or which can cause a flexible object to deform. Force can also be described by intuitive concepts such as a push or pull. A force has both magnitude and direction, making it a vector quantity.
The original form of Newton's second law states that the net force acting upon an object is equal to the rate at which its momentum changes.[1] This law is further given to mean that the acceleration of an object is directly proportional to the net force acting on the object, is in the direction of the net force, and is inversely proportional the mass of the object. As a formula, this is expressed as:
F=ma Force = mass x acceleration !! no motion = no acceleration = no force !!
STRESS
Quote:
Stress is the way in which the force per unit area is spread out in a cross-section of an item that balances and reacts to external loads applied to a body. It is a second-order tensor with nine dimensions, but can be fully described with six dimensions due to symmetry in the absence of body moments. Stress is often broken down into its shear and normal components as these have unique physical significance. It often results from built up pressure due to the lack of an outlet.
I didnt write any of the above ( in quotes ), it was there when I looked it up.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Read the first sentence of you own supposed counter
Quote:
Stress is the way in which the force per unit are is spread out in a cross-section of an item that balances and reacts to external loads applied to a body
Pretty sure they said force per unit area and no movement????????
A child get this so you are playing stupid troll games because you and your god dislike science ... grow up and get over it.
How you haven't been banned for trolling on a supposed science forum is beyond me and I remember why I left this forum but hey I might just decide to religious troll you and your pathetic god.
Last edited by Orac; 11/22/1205:04 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Stress is the way in which the force per unit are is spread out in a cross-section of an item that balances and reacts to external loads applied to a body
Thanks Orac, that was the direction in which I was going in my more ponderous way.
I was also going mention that applying a "load" to a body involved force.
Thanks Orac, that was the direction in which I was going in my more ponderous way.
I was also going mention that applying a "load" to a body involved force.
you can apply a force to an object , but only while the force that is being applied is in motion.
as soon as the force being applied is spread out and stops its motion because it is incapable of accelerating the object that it is being applied to there is no longer a force being applied there is only stress.
force requires motion.
according to physics and F=ma
what is it that you guys dont understand about acceleration?
Quote:
In physics, acceleration is the rate at which the velocity of a body changes with time.
F=ma not F=m
theres no acceleration so theres no force. there is only stress.
lets check this using the above physics formula
using a wall that is being stressed by another object. only the wall does not change its velocity. so the wall is not accelerating.
f=ma
suppose the mass of the wall is 10,000 kg
f=10,000 x 0
10,000 x 0 ( because there is no acceleration ) = 0
therefore and thus f = 0
if f = 0 then there is no force.
its pretty simple stuff guys , you guys seem to be able to grasp the fantasy stuff pretty easily ( because its all fake/fantasy ) but the slightest bit of reality just puts you in a situation that renders you helpless.
how does the wall create an opposing force you dimwitted little brain fart.
ok genius try following how we teach 10 year olds probably beyond you but lets try it.
We now take a piece of ordinary newpaper and attach it to the wall between two brackets and get the kids to push on it.
It obviously tears and rips with their small force.
Now we roll another piece of paper into a roll and attach it to same bracket and get them to push and strangely they can't break it nor move the wall.
What they then understand is that the structure of the thing they are pushing on matters with its ability to resist force.
You can then show them wood, steel and a variaty of materials have different abilities to resist force and then show them what the structures look.
Pretty basic really dipstick ... concrete has an organized structure that as you try and deform from its organized pattern produces a force back against the pressure as do most organized structured materials.
However that is probably beyond your intelligence and I only offer it others who may be interested how we teach it.
There are many other sorts of forces besides motional force which you are getting you pea brain stuck around so perhaps we should send you to the kids page (http://www.zephyrus.co.uk/forcetypes.html) they list 9 types and they leave out complicated ones like nuclear.
Want to guess how many of those types of force involve moment Mr Physics genius.
You on the other hand probably have some divine GOD force that magically stops the wall from moving or doing anything. Of coarse you would have to explain how you measure a GOD force and its unit of measurement so anyone could understand it.
Last edited by Orac; 11/22/1204:20 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Paul and Orac, You are both taking this forum to a demeaning and immature level. I suggest you amend your ways. Calling names and exchanging grammar school level insults is offensive to the rest of the members of this forum and shows a huge lack of respect on both your parts. If you can't have a discussion like mature, responsible adults, don't post it.
If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose
Amaranth Rose you will notice all conversations with Paul become stupid and meaningless because he is a professional religious troll he has no interest in science.
You will notice Bill S, Bill G, Redenwaur and anyone with a science understanding beyond 10 years old has problems with him some are just more tolerant than others.
My concern is students may come to this site and since there is no moderation some of his rubbish simply needs to be corrected and at least challenged because that is his intention to mislead and in those instances calling stupid on something that is clearly and obviously stupid is justified.
In the instance above he seeks to mislead children on what force is and how it works and it is deliberate because it really is that simple children get it.
To you Paul I am not offended at all you are a religious troll who is so insecure in your GOD you feel you need to undermine science in any way possible ... real religious people like Rev K are not so insecure that they view science as any sort of risk.
Last edited by Orac; 11/22/1204:51 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
I suspect we are not going to get any further with this as we seem to have hit one of those situations that bedevil Earth Science threads.
I would, however, like to try to work through some thoughts that are going round in my head, and perhaps get them into some sort of order, just to see if they make sense.
F = ma. (So far, so good)
I have a 10kg block of something rigid that I want to move by pushing it.
I (try to) apply a force to it, but the force is insufficient to move the block. (I’m having a feeble day)
F = 10kg x 0 = 0 (No force in spite of my feeble efforts!)
The force I thought I was applying = 5N
Therefore 5N = 10kg x 0 = 0
Therefore 5N = 0.
Have I missed something here, or does this not make very good sense?
There are a hundred of ways to punch a hole in it you did it the nice mathematical way but hard for kids to really understand whats happening that way ... nice for adults.
You could also connect a rubber band and wind it up, pull on a piece of elastic and a myriad of other ways to disprove it.
A good one would be to attach a force measuring gauge to your brick and pull on it to show the force really is there and said brick still isnt moving :-)
Literally hundreds of way to do it but the trick is to make it understandable to kids when teaching.
This really shouldn't be hard to discuss on science forum it only becomes so because of the troll but I am comfortable now that students can cut thru the rubbish with the contributions everyone has made.
Last edited by Orac; 11/22/1205:42 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Have I missed something here, or does this not make very good sense?
0N = 0N
if the ( 5N force that you are thinking of ) force is not moving then it cant possibly be moving the 10kg mass.
so there is no force there is only stress.
there is 5N stress
force requires motion F=ma
I believe I have had enough of the non-scientific discussions that I can stomach for awhile , especially with dillweeds like orak around ranting and raving about how children are taught things.
why not teach them the correct way first , then later they wont be so confussed.
like orid is.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
It is perhaps easier to understand Paul’s line of reasoning if the Work Function is introduced.
The equation used to express this function is W = F d, where W is the work done, F is the force used and d is the distance over which the work is carried out. Although the Work Function is a good tool to assess the amount of coal that would be needed for a steam locomotive to pull a train of a given weight from London to Manchester, for example; it can produce some odd results if it is inappropriately used to assess how much energy might have been used in a particular situation.
Picture a situation in which a horse is being used to try to move an enormously heavy object. If the attempt is successful the work function can be applied to it, but suppose the horse is unable to move the object. The distance then becomes zero, so F in the second half of the work function equation must be multiplied by 0. The equation becomes W = 0. No work has been done; therefore no energy has been expended, notwithstanding the possibility that the horse might be totally exhausted.
You could also connect a rubber band and wind it up, pull on a piece of elastic and a myriad of other ways to disprove it.
A good one would be to attach a force measuring gauge to your brick and pull on it to show the force really is there and said brick still isnt moving :-)
dillweed , your talking about tension, not force. the children you are teaching will curse the day you were hatched.
Quote:
As tension is the magnitude of a force, it is measured in newtons (or sometimes pounds-force) and is always measured parallel to the string on which it applies. There are two basic possibilities for systems of objects held by strings:[1] Either acceleration is zero and the system is therefore in equilibrium, or there is acceleration and therefore a net force is present.
you understand it now , its clear , but trying to teach a dillweed is impossible , because they already know everything there is to know , just like the sagg bad boy dillweed , oran
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
"Let's look at a diagram of a car. When the car is sitting still, gravity exerts a downward force on the car...But the ground exerts an equal and opposite upward force on the tires, so the car does not move."
"It is commonly said that there are four fundamental forces of nature**: the gravitational, electromagnetic, weak nuclear and strong nuclear forces. The normal force is actually a collection of electromagnetic forces. At the atomic level, two objects resist being smashed together because the electrons of one object resist those of the other. Electrons have a negative charge, so two electrons will tend to repel each other when they are near. When many atoms behave this way collectively, the result is the normal force.
This force is always directed perpendicular to the surface that causes it. When a car is on flat ground, the normal force is vertical and will exactly cancel out the gravitational force. This is why a car on level ground will accelerate neither upward nor downward"
** 3, if you count electromagnetic and weak as the electroweak, but it's the electromagnetic facet that's relevant here.
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
it can produce some odd results if it is inappropriately used to assess how much energy might have been used in a particular situation.
Picture a situation in which a horse is being used to try to move an enormously heavy object. If the attempt is successful the work function can be applied to it, but suppose the horse is unable to move the object. The distance then becomes zero, so F in the second half of the work function equation must be multiplied by 0. The equation becomes W = 0. No work has been done; therefore no energy has been expended, notwithstanding the possibility that the horse might be totally exhausted.
Since work is defined as a force acting through a distance (a length of space), energy is always equivalent to the ability to exert pulls or pushes against the basic forces of nature, along a path of a certain length
there is no force acting through a distance.
no motion = no length no length = no energy
force requires motion
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
I’m leaving this thread because it’s going nowhere I want to be.
As far as the exchange of insults is concerned, I disagree with both Paul and Orac in their assessments of the other. I think Orac must be an intelligent person to do the job he does, and he shows this in his less heated posts.
IMO, Paul presents as very intelligent. It is extremely easy for those who do not have personal experience of dogmatic belief, to fail to realise the absolute urgency of the need to protect it. Some do it by shutting their minds to anything outside, for example, accusing scientists of trying to “explain away” God, and rejecting whatever they say. Others do it by striving to make sense of some sort of concordance between their beliefs and those things that appear to challenge them. This latter is, I believe, the more rational, and may be what Paul is doing. If it is (and I could be wrong – it has happened before) I don’t think it should be equated with stupidity.
