On 23 Aug 2005, at 06:14, Maru Dubshinki wrote:
A minor point: why are you representing the cartesian distance formula
in squared form? I've always elsewhere seen it as sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2).
If you look at the relativistic formula
d^2 = t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2
(which uses my preferred sign
- Original Message -
From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: Physics question
On 23 Aug 2005, at 06:14, Maru Dubshinki wrote:
A minor point: why are you representing the cartesian
Dan said:
For those of you who don't know, I'm just a humble plumber, who's
dissertation was on 300 Gev proton-Neon interactions in Fermilab's
bubble
chamber. Rich is the one who does fancy-pants theoretic stuff. :-)
I'm just a humble programmer now, and even back when I was a
physicist
- Original Message -
From: Maru Dubshinki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: Physics question
On 8/22/05, Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Minimum speed of time is the opposite: all possible
On 8/22/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If a physicist were here,
There are at least two physicists here: Rich and myself. I've only been
active on the list for about six years, so maybe you didn't notice that I'm
here. :-)
I did not know that. There really should be a short page
On 8/22/05, Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, and thus there are places, where time is going faster, relative to
earth... eg places going slower (as we are going rather fast). And is
there a minimum and maximum speed of time?
Andrew
Well, assuming Green's metaphor holds, yes.
Behalf Of Maru Dubshinki
On 8/22/05, Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, and thus there are places, where time is going faster, relative
to
earth... eg places going slower (as we are going rather fast). And
is
there a minimum and maximum speed of time?
Andrew
Well, assuming
Minimum speed of time is the opposite: all possible acceleration, that
is, light speed.Intuitively, this should make time stand still,
and it does. And faster still would be going backwards in time
(tachyons, anyone?).
Speaking of which, if this were possible, HOW exactly would time go
On 8/22/05, Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, that's good, that's what I was thinking too. And the Big Bang part
is an interesting angle.. Is there somewhere like that, can we identify
a centre of our universe?. And what about the maximum speed of time?
Andrew
A physical centre? No;
On 8/22/05, Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Minimum speed of time is the opposite: all possible acceleration, that
is, light speed.Intuitively, this should make time stand still,
and it does. And faster still would be going backwards in time
(tachyons, anyone?).
Speaking of
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
On Aug 18, 2005, at 9:06 PM, Andrew Paul wrote:
All I know is it's a pretty damn funky concept. And now I am
wondering
if there is such a thing as a maximum speed for time. Yes, I know,
that
sounds really stupid, I guess that's cos
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
IIRC current models for spacetime hold that the maximum velocity you
can have is lightspeed. As you accelerate along the space dimension,
your motion in time slows; if you're fully at rest, your motion through
time is at lightspeed.
Yikes.
Yikes squared! ;-) But
Behalf Of Kevin Street
Sent: Friday, 19 August 2005 6:04 PM
To: 'Killer Bs Discussion'
Subject: RE: Physics question
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
IIRC current models for spacetime hold that the maximum velocity you
can have is lightspeed. As you accelerate along the space dimension,
your
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
IIRC current models for spacetime hold that the maximum velocity
you
can have is lightspeed. As you accelerate along the space
dimension,
your motion in time slows; if you're fully at rest, your motion
through
time is at lightspeed.
Yikes.
Yikes
Andrew Paul wrote:
Yes, well, that's what my question is about. What is the speed of time
if you are still (putting relative issues aside if one can).
24 hours per day, or 60 seconds per minute :-P
At lightspeed time, for other observers, stops. So at no speed,
what happens.
You stop :-)
On Aug 19, 2005, at 8:29 AM, Julia Thompson wrote:
Are we going through spacetime at the speed of light, basically?
Yes -- the combined velocity along the space and time vectors is
lightspeed. (I don't recall when exactly this realization was made
clear to me, but when it did get clarified,
On Aug 18, 2005, at 9:53 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Aug 18, 2005, at 9:06 PM, Andrew Paul wrote:
All I know is it's a pretty damn funky concept. And now I am
wondering
if there is such a thing as a maximum speed for time. Yes, I know,
that
sounds really stupid, I guess that's cos it
Julia Thompson wrote:
Are we going through spacetime at the speed of light, basically?
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
Yes -- the combined velocity along the space and time vectors is
lightspeed. (I don't recall when exactly this realization was made
clear to me, but when it did get clarified, it
At 12:13 PM Friday 8/19/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Aug 19, 2005, at 8:29 AM, Julia Thompson wrote:
Are we going through spacetime at the speed of light, basically?
Yes -- the combined velocity along the space and time vectors is
lightspeed. (I don't recall when exactly this realization
At 02:00 PM Friday 8/19/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On Aug 18, 2005, at 9:53 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Aug 18, 2005, at 9:06 PM, Andrew Paul wrote:
All I know is it's a pretty damn funky concept. And now I am
wondering
if there is such a thing as a maximum speed for time. Yes, I know,
that
On Aug 19, 2005, at 1:53 PM, Kevin Street wrote:
Asking, though, what the speed of time is is a lot like (exactly
like)
asking what the speed of space is. Time, being a dimension, doesn't
have a speed. It's only your motion through it that applies the
measure
of speed.
When you're at rest,
On Aug 18, 2005, at 9:06 PM, Andrew Paul wrote:
All I know is it's a pretty damn funky concept. And now I am wondering
if there is such a thing as a maximum speed for time. Yes, I know, that
sounds really stupid, I guess that's cos it is, but there is supposedly
a maximum speed for light, what
On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:51 PM, Andrew Paul wrote:
[Robert, I believe]
And for an object to have absolute zero momentum in a relativistic
universe the entire universe and every object in it would also have to
have absolute zero momentum.
I would have thought that was the case anyway. Surely
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Warren Ockrassa
On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:51 PM, Andrew Paul wrote:
[Robert, I believe]
And for an object to have absolute zero momentum in a relativistic
universe the entire universe and every object in it would also have
Andrew Paul wrote:
I would have thought that was the case anyway. Surely the universe
does have zero momentum? Doesn't it?
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
Relative to what?
Andrew Paul wrote:
Yes, exactly...
I guess I was taking the view that kinda by definition, it would have to
have
On Aug 13, 2005, at 8:54 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
The real thing we can look at is the magnitude of dp and dx that we are
talking about. h-bar is, roughly, 10^-34 J-s or 10^-34 kg m^2/s.
Let's
assume we have a 100 kg spacecraft. That gives us, dv*dx = 10^-36
m*(m/s).
For the indeterminacy in
On Aug 12, 2005, at 12:38 PM, The Fool wrote:
If you could overcome the effects of gravity
and slow an object's (such as a space probe's)
absolute velocity to very close to but not quite
zero, would the uncertanty principle cause the
object's position to become so uncertain that
it
Robert Seeberger wrote:
As I understand Relativity, it states that there are no privileged
frames of reference. Therefore, there can be no absolute velocity
since the velocity of an object is completely dependent on the frame
of reference of an observer.
Absolutely. ;-) Everything is
Kevin Street wrote:
The Fool wrote:
But what if the apparatus is cooled to very close to absolute 0?
Like some kind of bose-einstein condensate?
I suspect that the theoretical lower limit of cooling would still
fall short of the kind of stillness needed to get an interesting
displacement in
- Original Message -
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: Physics question
Kevin Street wrote:
The Fool wrote:
But what if the apparatus is cooled to very close to absolute 0
Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: Physics question
Kevin Street wrote:
The Fool wrote:
But what if the apparatus is cooled to very close
- Original Message -
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: Physics question
Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs
Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: Physics question
Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Robert Seeberger
At very cold temps some kinds of molecular bonds become very weak
and
if the displacement transmission is in any way turbulentthe craft
just might disintegrate.
Good try, but that's not it.
But is my
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Warren Ockrassa
On Aug 12, 2005, at 12:38 PM, The Fool wrote:
If you could overcome the effects of gravity and slow an object's (such
as a space probe's) absolute velocity to very close to but not quite
zero, would the uncertanty principle cause the
At 09:49 AM Monday 8/15/2005, Andrew Paul wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Warren Ockrassa
On Aug 12, 2005, at 12:38 PM, The Fool wrote:
If you could overcome the effects of gravity and slow an object's (such
as a space probe's) absolute velocity to very close to but not quite
- Original Message -
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: Physics question
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Street [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' brin-l
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Kevin Street [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A very good point, but I think The Fool is talking about the
velocity (or
maybe more interestingly, the momentum) with regard to the
reference
frame
of the place from which it was launched. i.e.: most likely
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Street [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 5:49 PM
Subject: RE: Physics question
A very good point, but I think The Fool is talking about the velocity (or
maybe more interestingly
On Aug 12, 2005, at 12:38 PM, The Fool wrote:
If you could overcome the effects of gravity and slow an object's (such
as a space probe's) absolute velocity to very close to but not quite
zero, would the uncertanty principle cause the object's position to
become so uncertain that it 'jumps' for
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Aug 12, 2005, at 12:38 PM, The Fool wrote:
If you could overcome the effects of gravity and slow an object's
(such
as a space probe's) absolute velocity to very close to but not
quite
zero, would the uncertanty principle cause the object's
The Fool wrote:
If you could overcome the effects of gravity and slow an object's (such
as a space probe's) absolute velocity to very close to but not quite
zero, would the uncertanty principle cause the object's position to
become so uncertain that it 'jumps' for lack of a better term,
At 12:08 PM Friday 8/12/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Aug 12, 2005, at 12:38 PM, The Fool wrote:
If you could overcome the effects of gravity and slow an object's (such
as a space probe's) absolute velocity to very close to but not quite
zero, would the uncertanty principle cause the
At 02:38 PM Friday 8/12/2005, The Fool wrote:
then Dogs absolute velocity is 0.
Most Dogs come as close as they are able to meeting that condition most of
the time. Particularly in the summer.
-- Ronn! :)
___
44 matches
Mail list logo
