| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Tom Helmond" |
| Date: |
25 Oct 2003 04:14:24 AM |
| Object: |
A maximum POWER in general relativity/nature? |
To complete the thread about a maximum force value in nature, here are some
interesting points.
In the German newsgroup de.sci.physik the discussion has has made many waves.
The claim that c^4/4G is the highest force in nature has lead to a search
for counter-examples, but no counter-example was found to be realistic (IMHO).
However, a professor with relativity as his research topic is not convinced yet,
and the exchange is going on. On the other hand, he has not yet
given a counter-example.
The claim of a maximum force in nature is made by Schiller (physics/0309118)
and by Gibbons (hep-th/0210109) . Interestingly, Schiller also claims a
maximum POWER value in nature, given by c^5/4G (from Pmax=vmax Fmax).
A maximum power is also a maximum luminosity.
Also this value, he claims, is never surpassed in nature, neither by the
whole universe, nor by quasars, gravitational wave sources, mini black holes,
etc. He made this claim already in his textbook some time ago.
This limit might be even simpler to beat, with a suitable counter-example.
However, I have not been able to find one. (The German newsgroup now
offers 40 Euros for the first counter-example. I hope this does not count as
a commercial post. :-)
A maximum power means that engine output is limited. In simple words,
there is a maximum number of horse-powers possible in nature.
Is that true?
Tom Helmond
.
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: A maximum POWER in general relativity/nature? |
26 Oct 2003 05:41:36 AM |
|
|
On 25 Oct 2003 02:14:24 -0700, (Tom Helmond) wrote:
To complete the thread about a maximum force value in nature, here are some
interesting points.
In the German newsgroup de.sci.physik the discussion has has made many waves.
The claim that c^4/4G is the highest force in nature has lead to a search
for counter-examples, but no counter-example was found to be realistic (IMHO).
However, a professor with relativity as his research topic is not convinced yet,
and the exchange is going on. On the other hand, he has not yet
given a counter-example.
The claim of a maximum force in nature is made by Schiller (physics/0309118)
and by Gibbons (hep-th/0210109) . Interestingly, Schiller also claims a
maximum POWER value in nature, given by c^5/4G (from Pmax=vmax Fmax).
A maximum power is also a maximum luminosity.
Also this value, he claims, is never surpassed in nature, neither by the
whole universe, nor by quasars, gravitational wave sources, mini black holes,
etc. He made this claim already in his textbook some time ago.
This limit might be even simpler to beat, with a suitable counter-example.
However, I have not been able to find one. (The German newsgroup now
offers 40 Euros for the first counter-example. I hope this does not count as
a commercial post. :-)
A maximum power means that engine output is limited. In simple words,
there is a maximum number of horse-powers possible in nature.
Is that true?
Tom Helmond
It looks to me like someone is playing the numbers game with Planck
units. The number c^4/G is essentially the mass times length divided
by time squared in Planck units. I'm not really sure where the
factor of four comes from. But that's surely what it looks like to
me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Helmond" |
|
| Title: Re: A maximum POWER in general relativity/nature? |
29 Oct 2003 01:09:49 PM |
|
|
Igor <bx238@bfn.org> wrote
It looks to me like someone is playing the numbers game with Planck
units. The number c^4/G is essentially the mass times length divided
by time squared in Planck units. I'm not really sure where the
factor of four comes from. But that's surely what it looks like to
me.
A counter example was given in the german newsgroup.
two stars with 3/4 the maximum power
radiating at the same time should beat the limit.
Tom
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Greenfield" |
|
| Title: Re: A maximum POWER in general relativity/nature? |
27 Oct 2003 07:12:13 PM |
|
|
Igor <bx238@bfn.org> wrote in message news:<uccnpvs6ljmhp3t778f3263r2rn1matfed@4ax.com>...
On 25 Oct 2003 02:14:24 -0700, (Tom Helmond) wrote:
To complete the thread about a maximum force value in nature, here are some
interesting points.
In the German newsgroup de.sci.physik the discussion has has made many waves.
The claim that c^4/4G is the highest force in nature has lead to a search
for counter-examples, but no counter-example was found to be realistic (IMHO).
However, a professor with relativity as his research topic is not convinced yet,
and the exchange is going on. On the other hand, he has not yet
given a counter-example.
The claim of a maximum force in nature is made by Schiller (physics/0309118)
and by Gibbons (hep-th/0210109) . Interestingly, Schiller also claims a
maximum POWER value in nature, given by c^5/4G (from Pmax=vmax Fmax).
A maximum power is also a maximum luminosity.
Also this value, he claims, is never surpassed in nature, neither by the
whole universe, nor by quasars, gravitational wave sources, mini black holes,
etc. He made this claim already in his textbook some time ago.
This limit might be even simpler to beat, with a suitable counter-example.
However, I have not been able to find one. (The German newsgroup now
offers 40 Euros for the first counter-example. I hope this does not count as
a commercial post. :-)
A maximum power means that engine output is limited. In simple words,
there is a maximum number of horse-powers possible in nature.
Is that true?
Excuse me if I am off topic here, but I had a problem with this "very
large force" business when considering these pieces of Martian rock
which have claimed to have been found. Intuitively I think that the
force required to blast rock from Mars' surface cause vapourization of
the material long before it escaped Martian gravity.
Comment?
Jim G
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nightbat" |
|
| Title: Re: A maximum POWER in general relativity/nature? |
26 Oct 2003 04:28:53 AM |
|
|
nightbat wrote
Tom Helmond wrote:
To complete the thread about a maximum force value in nature, here are some
interesting points.
In the German newsgroup de.sci.physik the discussion has has made many waves.
The claim that c^4/4G is the highest force in nature has lead to a search
for counter-examples, but no counter-example was found to be realistic (IMHO).
However, a professor with relativity as his research topic is not convinced yet,
and the exchange is going on. On the other hand, he has not yet
given a counter-example.
The claim of a maximum force in nature is made by Schiller (physics/0309118)
and by Gibbons (hep-th/0210109) . Interestingly, Schiller also claims a
maximum POWER value in nature, given by c^5/4G (from Pmax=vmax Fmax).
A maximum power is also a maximum luminosity.
Also this value, he claims, is never surpassed in nature, neither by the
whole universe, nor by quasars, gravitational wave sources, mini black holes,
etc. He made this claim already in his textbook some time ago.
This limit might be even simpler to beat, with a suitable counter-example.
However, I have not been able to find one. (The German newsgroup now
offers 40 Euros for the first counter-example. I hope this does not count as
a commercial post. :-)
A maximum power means that engine output is limited. In simple words,
there is a maximum number of horse-powers possible in nature.
Is that true?
Tom Helmond
nightbat
Amount of maximum power potential via engine is only limited by
surrounding medium, applied German physiks including International
physics, technological advancement, atomic elements, engine size, and
fuel. Nature itself places no limits on horse-power only the
concentrated energy/mass amount (potential power) possible in one given
normal gravity position of space. A build up or release of pressure
gradient leads to all kinds of strange, sometimes sudden state
reformations of energy/matter.
the nightbat
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
