| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Autymn D. C." |
| Date: |
21 Sep 2005 05:00:55 AM |
| Object: |
Re: speed limits for macroscopic bodies |
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/c3eb99f9959202de/2cbacff241817164#2cbacff241817164
beda pietanza wrote:
if you apply such an acceleration that result on applying a maximum
results in
allowable tidal
force on a body you will reach sooner or later the speed limit C.
how?
We know we cannot reach C, where the body find its speed limit ???
Is that a subjunctive or interrogative?
My opinion is that there is a speed limit (quite low) where the
weakening of the bounding
Inter atomic forces would not be strong enough to keep the body
structure
Intact: the macroscopic body would melt in its constituents.
You mean from Unruh radiation? Never mind, I wrote a solution:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/eab9373efd5606a1/2b6570cd5fe9d0ec#2b6570cd5fe9d0ec.
My question is what is maximum speed know or obtained or measured of
known
any
Macroscopic body (terrestrial or celestial) ????
Thanks for your useful contribute: 91 miles a second are about 0.00045
C
What is known of the speeds of the orbital comets ?
If they're still in orbit, they're not very fast, now, are they? Do
you believe in Hubble recession velocities? Other than those, whole
bodies can move at 1500 km/s near our Sgr A*
(http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/staff/hfalcke/bh/sld6.html), though the
star nearest to it, S2, is projected to whirl over 5000 km/s and spin
about 224 km/s
(http://nemesis.stsci.edu/~figer/nirspecpapers/vel/Genzel03.pdf). A
binary star has been seen to whirl at 300 km/s
(http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1003006.htm). Our plastic
disc was only 150 km/s.
-Aut
.
|
|
| User: "beda pietanza" |
|
| Title: Re: speed limits for macroscopic bodies |
22 Sep 2005 11:19:47 AM |
|
|
Autymn D. C. ha scritto:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/c3eb99f9959202de/2cbacff241817164#2cbacff241817164
beda pietanza wrote:
if you apply such an acceleration that result on applying a maximum
results in
allowable tidal
force on a body you will reach sooner or later the speed limit C.
how?
We know we cannot reach C, where the body find its speed limit ???
Is that a subjunctive or interrogative?
My opinion is that there is a speed limit (quite low) where the
weakening of the bounding
Inter atomic forces would not be strong enough to keep the body
structure
Intact: the macroscopic body would melt in its constituents.
You mean from Unruh radiation?
What is Unruh radiation ???
Never mind, I wrote a solution:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/eab9373efd5606a1/2b6570cd5fe9d0ec#2b6570cd5fe9d0ec.
My question is what is maximum speed know or obtained or measured of
known
any
Macroscopic body (terrestrial or celestial) ????
Thanks for your useful contribute: 91 miles a second are about 0.00045
C
What is known of the speeds of the orbital comets ?
If they're still in orbit, they're not very fast, now, are they? Do
you believe in Hubble recession velocities?
No, the red shift I think is due to the weakening of light travelling
long distances.
Other than those, whole
bodies can move at 1500 km/s near our Sgr A*
(http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/staff/hfalcke/bh/sld6.html), though the
star nearest to it, S2, is projected to whirl over 5000 km/s and spin
about 224 km/s
(http://nemesis.stsci.edu/~figer/nirspecpapers/vel/Genzel03.pdf). A
binary star has been seen to whirl at 300 km/s
(http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1003006.htm). Our plastic
disc was only 150 km/s.
Think of the fairy tales about macroscopic bodies travelling at speed
of .5 C or so, While the reachable speeds are less than .0001 C where
the "relativistic" effect are well below the experimental error bar.
The low speed of experimental labs warrants a "apparent" equivalence of
moving observers and covers the possibility that different commoving
material rulers shrinking differently.
regards
beda pietanza
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: speed limits for macroscopic bodies |
22 Sep 2005 11:57:56 AM |
|
|
beda pietanza wrote:
What is Unruh radiation ???
Answer my questions first. Look it up, and look up the energy limit of
cosmic rays.
No, the red shift I think is due to the weakening of light travelling
long distances.
You "think" despite contrary evidence? There is c-decay, but that
doesn't redshift. There is energy ("frequency")-dependent c, but that
doesn't redshift either.
Think of the fairy tales about macroscopic bodies travelling at speed
of .5 C or so, While the reachable speeds are less than .0001 C where
the "relativistic" effect are well below the experimental error bar.
Wrong, as I've already told.
The low speed of experimental labs warrants a "apparent" equivalence of
moving observers and covers the possibility that different commoving
material rulers shrinking differently.
SR is cumulative. Randomness is not.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "beda pietanza" |
|
| Title: Re: speed limits for macroscopic bodies |
27 Sep 2005 05:11:57 PM |
|
|
Autymn D. C. ha scritto:
beda pietanza wrote:
What is Unruh radiation ???
Answer my questions first.
If you apply a constant acceleration the object would reach C, but it
is prevented from reaching it largely before, because of the ether
drag.
Look it up, and look up the energy limit of
cosmic rays.
As I see it there is no limits to the energy of a cosmic ray, but they
are sub nuclear particles.
We don't experience the existence of macroscopic objects (I mean by
that even grain dust like objects) reaching speeds near C. WHY ???
No, the red shift I think is due to the weakening of light travelling
long distances.
You "think" despite contrary evidence? There is c-decay, but that
doesn't redshift. There is energy ("frequency")-dependent c, but that
doesn't redshift either.
Yes, I think that despite the contrary evidence: experimental evidence
can be manipulated.
Macroscopic objects moving inertialy will in a long run slow down and
stop.
Light will over long distances loose energy by red shifting and die
out.
Or you think macro objects and light travel forever???
There is not such a thing as forever in true world.
Think of the fairy tales about macroscopic bodies travelling at speed
of .5 C or so, While the reachable speeds are less than .0001 C where
the "relativistic" effect are well below the experimental error bar.
Wrong, as I've already told.
You mean macroscopic objects can reach something like .5 C ???
The low speed of experimental labs warrants a "apparent" equivalence of
moving observers and covers the possibility that different commoving
material rulers shrinking differently.
SR is cumulative. Randomness is not.
Please explain (I am slow)
Regards
Beda pietanza
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: speed limits for macroscopic bodies |
16 Oct 2005 11:03:53 AM |
|
|
beda pietanza wrote:
Autymn D. C. ha scritto:
beda pietanza wrote:
What is Unruh radiation ???
Answer my questions first.
If you apply a constant acceleration the object would reach C, but it
is prevented from reaching it largely before, because of the ether
drag.
When was anyone talking about a lack of drag? Nonetheless, I proved
that it takes finite energy to accelerate a mass to c:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/1dd958603e0697=
63/d2cf56b39252dc4c#d2cf56b39252dc4c.
Can't you read Wikipedia?
Look it up, and look up the energy limit of
cosmic rays.
As I see it there is no limits to the energy of a cosmic ray, but they
there are
are sub nuclear particles.
We don't experience the existence of macroscopic objects (I mean by
that even grain dust like objects) reaching speeds near C. WHY ???
I told you to look it up! You should look up the "Oh-my-God particle"
too.
Macroscopic objects tend to be uncharged, so they're harder to
accelerate than charged objects, which are of course particles.
However, charged objects can easily be ejected in nova, supernov=E6, and
hupernov=E6, which hardly recombine and neutralise to make dust or
whatever because the opposite charges are heading in opposite
directions. With charges that hit Earth's field layers, it's easy to
detect their radiative signature of them and their decay products; but
with uncharged debris, it'll be hard to tell its heat apart from many
masses with slower velocity. Besides, once the dust /hits/, it'll turn
into a bunch of charged particles and be indistinguishable from a
plasma that had started as one. How do you expect anyone to see dust
moving near c?
Yes, I think that despite the contrary evidence: experimental evidence
can be manipulated.
Macroscopic objects moving inertialy will in a long run slow down and
stop.
Light will over long distances loose energy by red shifting and die
out.
Or you think macro objects and light travel forever???
There is not such a thing as forever in true world.
loose -> lose
Anything is forever; forever means indeterminate. However, nothing is
endfree. Yet the bodies I told you about are still moving at
significant fractions of c; there are sure to be dust motes coming out
of the atmosfere of galactic cores.
Think of the fairy tales about macroscopic bodies travelling at speed
of .5 C or so, While the reachable speeds are less than .0001 C where
the "relativistic" effect are well below the experimental error bar.
Wrong, as I've already told.
You mean macroscopic objects can reach something like .5 C ???
Nothing in mechanics prevents microscopic objects moving that fast from
joining into macroscopic objects.
The low speed of experimental labs warrants a "apparent" equivalence =
of
moving observers and covers the possibility that different commoving
material rulers shrinking differently.
SR is cumulative. Randomness is not.
Please explain (I am slow)
You explain how randomness can make rules.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puppet_Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: speed limits for macroscopic bodies |
22 Sep 2005 11:27:57 AM |
|
|
beda pietanza wrote:
[snip]
Think of the fairy tales about macroscopic bodies travelling at speed
of .5 C or so, While the reachable speeds are less than .0001 C where
the "relativistic" effect are well below the experimental error bar.
Whether macroscopic bodies can be accelerated to .5 c or not, they
can certainly get well above .0001 c. That is only the obribital
velocity of the Earth around the sun. And, since we've sent objects
to escape the solar system, we can certainly go faster than that.
Socks
.
|
|
|
| User: "beda pietanza" |
|
| Title: Re: speed limits for macroscopic bodies |
22 Sep 2005 11:41:26 AM |
|
|
Puppet_Sock ha scritto:
beda pietanza wrote:
[snip]
Think of the fairy tales about macroscopic bodies travelling at speed
of .5 C or so, While the reachable speeds are less than .0001 C where
the "relativistic" effect are well below the experimental error bar.
Whether macroscopic bodies can be accelerated to .5 c or not, they
can certainly get well above .0001 c. That is only the obribital
velocity of the Earth around the sun. And, since we've sent objects
to escape the solar system, we can certainly go faster than that.
Socks
Earth orbiting speed is less than 0,000001 C
So argument may hold.
regards
beda pietanza
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: speed limits for macroscopic bodies |
22 Sep 2005 12:23:32 PM |
|
|
beda pietanza wrote:
Puppet_Sock ha scritto:
beda pietanza wrote:
[snip]
Think of the fairy tales about macroscopic bodies travelling at speed
of .5 C or so, While the reachable speeds are less than .0001 C where
the "relativistic" effect are well below the experimental error bar.
Whether macroscopic bodies can be accelerated to .5 c or not, they
can certainly get well above .0001 c. That is only the obribital
velocity of the Earth around the sun. And, since we've sent objects
to escape the solar system, we can certainly go faster than that.
Socks
Earth orbiting speed is less than 0,000001 C
So argument may hold.
Speed of light: roughly 3E8 m/s.
Orbital speed of Earth: roughly 3E4 m/s.
That is, Earth's orbit is .0001 c.
Your number of .000001 c would be only 300 m/s.
That's down to the speed of a not-very-unusual aircraft.
Socks
.
|
|
|
| User: "beda pietanza" |
|
| Title: Re: speed limits for macroscopic bodies |
23 Sep 2005 01:41:46 PM |
|
|
ha scritto:
beda pietanza wrote:
Puppet_Sock ha scritto:
beda pietanza wrote:
[snip]
Think of the fairy tales about macroscopic bodies travelling at speed
of .5 C or so, While the reachable speeds are less than .0001 C where
the "relativistic" effect are well below the experimental error bar.
Whether macroscopic bodies can be accelerated to .5 c or not, they
can certainly get well above .0001 c. That is only the obribital
velocity of the Earth around the sun. And, since we've sent objects
to escape the solar system, we can certainly go faster than that.
Socks
Earth orbiting speed is less than 0,000001 C
So argument may hold.
Speed of light: roughly 3E8 m/s.
Orbital speed of Earth: roughly 3E4 m/s.
That is, Earth's orbit is .0001 c.
Your number of .000001 c would be only 300 m/s.
That's down to the speed of a not-very-unusual aircraft.
You are right, my apologies.
Regards
Beda pietanza
Socks
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "beda pietanza" |
|
| Title: Re: speed limits for macroscopic bodies |
22 Sep 2005 11:29:51 AM |
|
|
errata corrige:
The low speed of experimental labs warrants a "apparent" equivalence of
moving observers and covers the possibility that different commoving
material rulers "are" shrinking differently.
regards
beda pietanza
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: speed limits for macroscopic bodies |
21 Sep 2005 06:09:45 AM |
|
|
Pecans are a very good source of polyunsaturated oil.
- Don
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
