| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Martin Winer" |
| Date: |
27 Nov 2006 03:49:34 PM |
| Object: |
Spinning Star Problem |
You just build a 0.5c capable engine (1/2 speed of light for anyone not
familiar with the lingo). You aim it at a distant star which you don't
happen to know is spinning.
The star is spinning at 0.75 c, that is the left side of the star is
moving(spinning) towards you at 0.75 c, the right side is spinning away
from you at 0.75 c. But you don't know this.
You aim your ship at the center of the star and fire your engine. Do
you see the star turn into a strange egg shape which is larger than the
original star?
Next, puzzled by this: after you arrive at this star, you spin a tennis
ball at rotational speed of 0.75c and throw the ball at 0.5c. Does
this ball curve through space in the direction of the side spinning
away from the thrower?
Next, while the (straight) forward motion of the ball is limited by the
speed of light, doesn't this ball, by travelling on a diagonal arc not
pass the speed of light from the thrower?
Thanks...MCW
.
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Spinning Star Problem |
27 Nov 2006 05:01:48 PM |
|
|
"Martin Winer" <martin.winer@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164664174.448532.255500@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| You just build a 0.5c capable engine (1/2 speed of light for anyone not
| familiar with the lingo). You aim it at a distant star which you don't
| happen to know is spinning.
|
| The star is spinning at 0.75 c, that is the left side of the star is
| moving(spinning) towards you at 0.75 c, the right side is spinning away
| from you at 0.75 c. But you don't know this.
|
| You aim your ship at the center of the star and fire your engine. Do
| you see the star turn into a strange egg shape which is larger than the
| original star?
|
| Next, puzzled by this: after you arrive at this star, you spin a tennis
| ball at rotational speed of 0.75c and throw the ball at 0.5c. Does
| this ball curve through space in the direction of the side spinning
| away from the thrower?
|
| Next, while the (straight) forward motion of the ball is limited by the
| speed of light, doesn't this ball, by travelling on a diagonal arc not
| pass the speed of light from the thrower?
|
| Thanks...MCW
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould" |
|
| Title: Re: Spinning Star Problem |
28 Nov 2006 11:29:18 AM |
|
|
Martin Winer wrote:
The star is spinning at 0.75 c, that is the left side of the star is
moving(spinning) towards you at 0.75 c, the right side is spinning away
from you at 0.75 c. But you don't know this.
You would be able to figure it out from the differential Doppler shift of
different parts of the star's image.
You aim your ship at the center of the star and fire your engine. Do
you see the star turn into a strange egg shape which is larger than the
original star?
No, if the star occupied a circular region in your visual field before the
boost, it'll still be circular after. If you accelerate toward it, it'll
appear smaller. The change in your visual field under a boost is independent
of what originally produced the light that you're seeing.
Next, puzzled by this: after you arrive at this star, you spin a tennis
ball at rotational speed of 0.75c and throw the ball at 0.5c. Does
this ball curve through space in the direction of the side spinning
away from the thrower?
Ignoring the star's gravity, no. It's obvious (by symmetry) that the
spinning ball won't move if you release it at rest, so if you throw it at
0.5c it must move in a straight line; anything else would violate the
principle of relativity. One side of the ball will move at (0.75c + 0.5c) /
(1 + 0.75 * 0.5) = 0.91c away from you, and the other side at (0.75c - 0.5c)
/ (1 + 0.75 * 0.5) = 0.18c towards you.
-- Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Winer" |
|
| Title: Re: Spinning Star Problem |
28 Nov 2006 10:49:54 PM |
|
|
No, if the star occupied a circular region in your visual field before the
boost, it'll still be circular after. If you accelerate toward it, it'll
appear smaller. The change in your visual field under a boost is independent
of what originally produced the light that you're seeing.
This part of the theory bugs me. Either I don't get the theory ( a
distinct possibility ) or we're missing something here.
Let's take a fluorescent bulb (the long straight kind) and spin it such
that the tips are moving at near the speed of light. On the side
spinning towards you, I get the fact that the photons leaving the
flourescent bulb are NOT going twice the speed of light. ( I get that
these speeds don't add).
The problem is on the other side, the side moving away from us at
(near) the speed of light. Does the theory say that the speed of a
photon can't be slowed down my motion away from us? How can that be?
The light from the most stars is on average 8 billion years old, yet at
the big bang, all stars were right next to each other. If we can't
slow down light (photons) then how can we see stellar history by
looking into the night's sky?
Anyways, thanks for the response Ben.
Regards...MCW
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Spinning Star Problem |
29 Nov 2006 09:20:55 AM |
|
|
"Martin Winer" <martin.winer@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164775793.994564.156470@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
The problem is on the other side, the side moving away from us at
(near) the speed of light. Does the theory say that the speed of a
photon can't be slowed down my motion away from us? How can that be?
The light from the most stars is on average 8 billion years old, yet at
the big bang, all stars were right next to each other. If we can't
slow down light (photons) then how can we see stellar history by
looking into the night's sky?
Suppose you've got a ladybug walking along the
surface of an elastic band towards your hand,
which is holding one end of the band. If you
start stretching the elastic so that the rate
of the expansion is just less than the constant
walking rate of the bug, it'll take the bug a
lot longer to reach your hand than if no
stretching were taking place.
It's similar for space which is expanding. Light
moves (locally) at a constant speed whilst the
space between distant objects is expanding.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Spinning Star Problem |
29 Nov 2006 10:11:19 AM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREMo@ve.netcom.ca> wrote in message =
news:456da45f$0$1619$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
| "Martin Winer" <martin.winer@gmail.com> wrote in message
| news:1164775793.994564.156470@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
|=20
| > The problem is on the other side, the side moving away from us at
| > (near) the speed of light. Does the theory say that the speed of a
| > photon can't be slowed down my motion away from us? How can that =
be?
| > The light from the most stars is on average 8 billion years old, yet =
at
| > the big bang, all stars were right next to each other. If we can't
| > slow down light (photons) then how can we see stellar history by
| > looking into the night's sky?
|=20
| Suppose you've got a ladybug walking along the
| surface of an elastic band towards your hand,
| which is holding one end of the band. If you
| start stretching the elastic so that the rate
| of the expansion is just less than the constant
| walking rate of the bug, it'll take the bug a
| lot longer to reach your hand than if no
| stretching were taking place.
|=20
| It's similar for space which is expanding. Light
| moves (locally) at a constant speed whilst the
| space between distant objects is expanding.
I don't stretch optical fibres. The source and detector is the black =
spot.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac_fibre.gif
Expanding space my arse!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Spinning Star Problem |
29 Nov 2006 10:32:18 AM |
|
|
"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote in message
news:Hiibh.23499$bz5.2839@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Expanding space my arse!
Please, your sex life is of no interest to us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Spinning Star Problem |
29 Nov 2006 10:52:21 AM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREMo@ve.netcom.ca> wrote in message =
news:456db519$0$1643$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com (nothing of =
consequence).
Did you snip something to hide your embarrassment, you *****?=20
I don't stretch optical fibres. The source and detector is the black =
spot.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac_fibre.gif
Expanding space my arse!
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Spinning Star Problem |
30 Nov 2006 04:36:53 PM |
|
|
...... ahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha...
"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote in message
news:9Vibh.23675$bz5.6082@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Greg Neill" <gneillREMo@ve.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:456da45f$0$1619$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Martin Winer" <martin.winer@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164775793.994564.156470@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
The problem is on the other side, the side moving away from
us at (near) the speed of light. Does the theory say that the
speed of a photon can't be slowed down my motion away
from us? How can that be?
The light from the most stars is on average 8 billion years
old, yet at the big bang, all stars were right next to each other.
If we can't slow down light (photons) then how can we see
stellar history by looking into the night's sky?
[Greg]
Suppose you've got a ladybug walking along the
surface of an elastic band towards your hand,
which is holding one end of the band. If you
start stretching the elastic so that the rate
of the expansion is just less than the constant
walking rate of the bug, it'll take the bug a
lot longer to reach your hand than if no
stretching were taking place. [1]
It's similar for space which is expanding. Light
moves (locally) at a constant speed whilst the
space between distant objects is expanding. [2]
[hanson to Greg]
[1] yeah, but YOU were there to supply the energy
into that rubber band system. Who/what supplies
that expansion energy on the truly cosmic scale?
[2] How are you measuring, not deducing or
conjecturing, the cosmic expansion speed when
you only know the constant "local: speed of light?
Where, or at what number/size/limit is that borderline
where "local" goes over to/becomes "distant"?
"Greg Neill" <gneillREMo@ve.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:456db519$0$1643$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com
(nothing of consequence [accordind to Andro]).
[Andro to Greg]
Did you snip something to hide your embarrassment, you *****?
I don't stretch optical fibres. The source and detector is the black spot.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac_fibre.gif
Expanding space my arse!
"Greg Neill" <gneillREMo@ve.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:456db519$0$1643$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
Please, your sex life is of no interest to us.
[hanson to Andro]
Pretty good Sagnac.gif, Andro, and even more to the point is
your 1-liner above. Greg's Freudian slip exemplifies how all
Einstein Dingleberries regard the expansion space around
Albert's sphincter as 1 of their essential mental masturbation
tools.... ahahahaha... "things" like distances may expand *IN*
space but, space itself cannot expand by the very definition
of the word. In the same way and fervor, == time itself does NOT
slow down but, tick-rates of clocks may do so, or == mass does
NOT increase with speed, but its total impact size/amount does.
Einstein himself became to see that fact towards the end of his
illustrious con-career, a year before he puffed, when said in
1954 to Besso:
== "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
== on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
== case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
== theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." -- A.E
Thanks for the laughs guys
ahahaha... ahahanson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Spinning Star Problem |
30 Nov 2006 07:15:23 PM |
|
|
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:92Jbh.17678$Uz.362@trnddc05...
[snip]
[Greg]
Suppose you've got a ladybug walking along the
surface of an elastic band towards your hand,
which is holding one end of the band. If you
start stretching the elastic so that the rate
of the expansion is just less than the constant
walking rate of the bug, it'll take the bug a
lot longer to reach your hand than if no
stretching were taking place. [1]
It's similar for space which is expanding. Light
moves (locally) at a constant speed whilst the
space between distant objects is expanding. [2]
[hanson to Greg]
[1] yeah, but YOU were there to supply the energy
into that rubber band system. Who/what supplies
that expansion energy on the truly cosmic scale?
This is the conjectured "dark energy".
[2] How are you measuring, not deducing or
conjecturing, the cosmic expansion speed when
you only know the constant "local: speed of light?
Where, or at what number/size/limit is that borderline
where "local" goes over to/becomes "distant"?
Red shift and time dilation, and in particular,
the values obtained frm the spectra of distant
supernovas.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Spinning Star Problem |
30 Nov 2006 09:24:03 PM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREMo@ve.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:456f814e$0$1615$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:92Jbh.17678$Uz.362@trnddc05...
[snip]
[Greg]
Suppose you've got a ladybug walking along the
surface of an elastic band towards your hand,
which is holding one end of the band. If you
start stretching the elastic so that the rate
of the expansion is just less than the constant
walking rate of the bug, it'll take the bug a
lot longer to reach your hand than if no
stretching were taking place. [1]
It's similar for space which is expanding. Light
moves (locally) at a constant speed whilst the
space between distant objects is expanding. [2]
[hanson to Greg]
[1] yeah, but YOU were there to supply the energy
into that rubber band system. Who/what supplies
that expansion energy on the truly cosmic scale?
[Greg]
This is the conjectured "dark energy".
[hanson]
Ahhh... Buzz-words... ahahaha... & just because it was
printed you BELIEVE that "This is so...." ... ahahahaha...
Trip wire: ...in the print, isn't that dark energy supposed
to do exactly the opposite of what you say?... ahahaha...
[hanson]
[2] How are you measuring, not deducing or
conjecturing, the cosmic expansion speed when
you only know the constant "local: speed of light?
Where, or at what number/size/limit is that borderline
where "local" goes over to/becomes "distant"?
[Greg]
Red shift and time dilation, and in particular,
the values obtained frm the spectra of distant
supernovas.
[snip]
[hanson]
..... ahahaha... really now, Greg!... ahahahaha... Say again,
this time without "deducing or conjecturing"... or at least
make a step to step case. Use equations and numbers
if you wish, especially for that "local/distant" thing... and
then tell me why that "local" becomes "distant" at that point.
.... ahahaha... DON'T use any buzz words!... ahahahaha...
ahahaha.... ahahahanson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Spinning Star Problem |
30 Nov 2006 09:51:41 PM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREMo@ve.netcom.ca> wrote in message =
news:456f814e$0$1615$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
| "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
| news:92Jbh.17678$Uz.362@trnddc05...
|=20
| [snip]
Gladly, only too happy to oblige. Need anything else snipped while I'm =
here?=20
=20
| > [2] How are you measuring, not deducing or
| > conjecturing, the cosmic expansion speed when
| > you only know the constant "local: speed of light?
| > Where, or at what number/size/limit is that borderline
| > where "local" goes over to/becomes "distant"?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Spinning Star Problem |
30 Nov 2006 09:48:54 PM |
|
|
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message =
news:92Jbh.17678$Uz.362@trnddc05...
| ..... ahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha...
| "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote in message
| news:9Vibh.23675$bz5.6082@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| "Greg Neill" <gneillREMo@ve.netcom.ca> wrote in message
| news:456da45f$0$1619$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
| > "Martin Winer" <martin.winer@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1164775793.994564.156470@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
| >> The problem is on the other side, the side moving away from
| >> us at (near) the speed of light. Does the theory say that the
| >> speed of a photon can't be slowed down my motion away
| >> from us? How can that be?
| >> The light from the most stars is on average 8 billion years
| >> old, yet at the big bang, all stars were right next to each other.
| >> If we can't slow down light (photons) then how can we see
| >> stellar history by looking into the night's sky?
| >
| [Greg]
| > Suppose you've got a ladybug walking along the
| > surface of an elastic band towards your hand,
| > which is holding one end of the band. If you
| > start stretching the elastic so that the rate
| > of the expansion is just less than the constant
| > walking rate of the bug, it'll take the bug a
| > lot longer to reach your hand than if no
| > stretching were taking place. [1]
| >
| > It's similar for space which is expanding. Light
| > moves (locally) at a constant speed whilst the
| > space between distant objects is expanding. [2]
| >
| [hanson to Greg]
| [1] yeah, but YOU were there to supply the energy
| into that rubber band system. Who/what supplies
| that expansion energy on the truly cosmic scale?
| [2] How are you measuring, not deducing or
| conjecturing, the cosmic expansion speed when
| you only know the constant "local: speed of light?
| Where, or at what number/size/limit is that borderline
| where "local" goes over to/becomes "distant"?
| >
| "Greg Neill" <gneillREMo@ve.netcom.ca> wrote in message
| news:456db519$0$1643$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com
| (nothing of consequence [accordind to Andro]).
| >
| [Andro to Greg]
| Did you snip something to hide your embarrassment, you *****?
| I don't stretch optical fibres. The source and detector is the black =
spot.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac_fibre.gif
| Expanding space my arse!
| >
| "Greg Neill" <gneillREMo@ve.netcom.ca> wrote in message
| news:456db519$0$1643$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
| >
| > Please, your sex life is of no interest to us.
| >
| [hanson to Andro]
| Pretty good Sagnac.gif, Andro, and even more to the point is
| your 1-liner above. Greg's Freudian slip exemplifies how all
| Einstein Dingleberries regard the expansion space around
| Albert's sphincter as 1 of their essential mental masturbation
| tools.... ahahahaha... "things" like distances may expand *IN*
| space but, space itself cannot expand by the very definition
| of the word. In the same way and fervor, =3D=3D time itself does NOT
| slow down but, tick-rates of clocks may do so, or =3D=3D mass does
| NOT increase with speed, but its total impact size/amount does.
|=20
| Einstein himself became to see that fact towards the end of his
| illustrious con-career, a year before he puffed, when said in
| 1954 to Besso:
| =3D=3D "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
| =3D=3D on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
| =3D=3D case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, =
gravitation
| =3D=3D theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." -- A.E
|=20
| Thanks for the laughs guys
| ahahaha... ahahanson
In case you missed it:=20
A stupid question for Dork Van de local village dog tord
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Given:
The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the
ground state of the cesium 133 atom. -- NIST, Dork Van de Psycho.
A year is 9,192,631,770 * 60 * 60 * 24 * 365.2425 periods of the
radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine =
levels
of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom. -- Wackypedia
"So if T =3D 5 years and v =3D 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
have aged 10 years while his travelling twin sister will have aged
6 years." -- Dork Van de Psycho.
(5 years is 10 years or 6 years, I'm not sure which).
(Reference: =
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html)
"Time is what a clock says" -- Dork Van de *****.
Now for the stupid question.
What happened to the missing 1,160,365,758,078,260,000 periods of
the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine
levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom's prodigal twin =
sister?
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Needless to say, Dork didn't understand the stupid question so he =
snipped=20
and insulted.=20
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Spinning Star Problem |
29 Nov 2006 10:47:08 AM |
|
|
Martin Winer wrote:
[relativity questions]
Maybe you are unaware of the newsgroup sci.physics.relativity?
Socks
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
