Darth Flatus Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Yes kaftan that is why they are theories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaftan Barlast Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Theories?!! Me kAftan no Like THEORIES!!! RRraaaaaarghhh!! Well, I was sort of inquiring if there is any furhter theory as to how one might actually accomplish bending space? Saying that you believe its possible that space can bend is the easy part " DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself. Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture. "I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 ..or was that the thing were you would slingshot yourself using the gravity well of a black hole? Well, that may be a method to achieve great speeds, but it's not useful to surpass the speed of light. The cause is that in order to accelerate an object with a mass different than zero to the speed of light, you need infinite energy. A black hole, no matter how massive, generates a gravitational field with enormous, yet finite, gravitational potentials. Which means you could only get so much energy from the gravitational pull of a black hole. You could probably accelerate to relativistic speeds, but never beyond c. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Theories?!! Me kAftan no Like THEORIES!!! RRraaaaaarghhh!! Well, I was sort of inquiring if there is any furhter theory as to how one might actually accomplish bending space? Saying that you believe its possible that space can bend is the easy part " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Get everyone in the US to move to Las Vegas and wait for the critical mass to bend space-time ... OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serious Callers Only Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Quantum teleportation only refers to the transportation of information, bettwen entangled atoms. Not the atom itself. So no teleportation, but maybe instantaneous communication. Maybe. In experimental condictions. For orders of magnitude less than nanoseconds. In fact possibly of no pratical application whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 It has been suggested that if the population of China were all to jump in the air at the same time, that it would move the orbit of the Earth. And yes, the prevelant wormhole theories state that space could be bent, but no one knows how to do it currently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Wouldn't there be some sort of action-reaction thing though that would prevent the Earth's orbit from actually changing, since everyone in China is orbitting too? Not that I'm sure it would matter..... Mass of earth is about 6.0 x 10^24 kg Average mass of man is 70 kg I'm going to ignore kids and women, which will give the estimate a high bias.... 1.3 billion people in China x 70 kg = 9.1 x 10^10 kg Which is roughly 0.000000000000015 or 1.5 x 10^-14 Earth Masses, or 1.5 x 10^-12 % of Earth's Mass. I doubt it'd be significant, even if they could push off with a force equalling a few times their body weight. Although I would still contend that we are a closed system and even if we were to all jump it wouldn't make much of a difference. I would think you'd need something exceptionally energetic (like Nukes or something....but even then) to make an impact on the orbit of the Earth. But I'm just speculating....I haven't taken Astronomy in a little while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 I'm not physics expert, but doesn't inertia factor in? If I want to move an object sitting on the ground, I have to work against inertia, and the object's gravity here on earth. Moving the planet in space, there is less inertia since the planet is already moving, and it's floating in space. It should be easier to move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 It's an urban legend. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Flatus Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Oui, c'est vrai. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calax Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 imagine if you were to remove all inertia from yourself or you vehicle? Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition! Kevin Butler will awesome your face off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Moving the planet in space, there is less inertia since the planet is already moving, and it's floating in space. It should be easier to move. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> no. first of all, inertia and gravity are identical (if you subscribe to the concepts of einsteinian relativity). second of all, given above assumptions, the fact that a planet is moving in space is irrelevant. i.e. there is no absolute frame of reference for movement, therfore it makes no difference that we are circling the sun, sitting still w.r.t. the sun, moving about the galaxy, etc. in other words, in order to affect a change on the earth's movement, it takes the same amount of force regardless of what direction it is moving w.r.t. some other object. all the people in china jumping would simply move the planet in the opposite direction, then it would come back due to mutual gravity as would the people. a system cannot change itself from within, it requires an outside influence. nukes going off propelling matter out of the system would qualify, btw, but it would take a lot to make a difference. of course, if you don't believe in relativity, some of these things behave a little differently though the newtonian principles of action/reaction still apply. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 I'm not physics expert, but doesn't inertia factor in? If I want to move an object sitting on the ground, I have to work against inertia, and the object's gravity here on earth. Moving the planet in space, there is less inertia since the planet is already moving, and it's floating in space. It should be easier to move. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As taks sort of touched on, the inertia of an object is exactly the same. An object at rest prefers to stay at rest, and in motion prefers to stay in motion and all that jazz. The motion of the planet is in a slightly elliptical orbit around the Sun, and it prefers to stay that way. It would not be any easier to change the motion of the planet than if it was completely motionless (compared to what? Ahhhh, the absolute reference frame...where is it? :D). I funny little sidenote about Newton's Laws and Einstein's Theory. People put too much stock in the words "Law" and "Theory." I took a course on special relativity (I can just imagine the complexity of general relativity), and I basically got the impression that Einstein's Theory of Relativity more accurately predicts the motions of the planets than Newton's Laws. Something about Mercury getting close enough to the sun that either a combination of the speed of mercury and/or it's close proximity to a huge gravity well and therefore affect it's journey through space-time is not accounted for in Newton's Laws. We were always off by a bit :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 that's the advance in the perihelion of mercury. newton's laws cannot address this issue, but relativity can. well, mostly, i think there is still a slight error in the prediction but i am not sure. they talk about it in the "against the mainstream" threads over at the badastonomy website i so often refer to. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 As taks sort of touched on, the inertia of an object is exactly the same. An object at rest prefers to stay at rest, and in motion prefers to stay in motion and all that jazz. The motion of the planet is in a slightly elliptical orbit around the Sun, and it prefers to stay that way. It would not be any easier to change the motion of the planet than if it was completely motionless (compared to what? Ahhhh, the absolute reference frame...where is it? :D). Wrong. That would be true if the planet wasn't under the influence of any forces. Inertia will never cause a body to go on or continue on a trajectory which isn't linear. To change a planet's orbit you would have to deal with the gravitational pull of the Sun, rather than the planet's inertia. And about Newton's laws, well, every law gets outdated sooner or later. Which doesn't mean it's no longer valid to deal with situations within the original parameters upon which the law was formulated. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Flatus Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 My first year mechanics lecturer as a rough explanation said that Newton's laws dont really work when dealing with massive scales - like with planets and space so relativity is better used. Newton's laws also don't really work on a tiny scale either e.g. interatomic forces so in this case quantum mechanics is more apt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 As taks sort of touched on, the inertia of an object is exactly the same. An object at rest prefers to stay at rest, and in motion prefers to stay in motion and all that jazz. The motion of the planet is in a slightly elliptical orbit around the Sun, and it prefers to stay that way. It would not be any easier to change the motion of the planet than if it was completely motionless (compared to what? Ahhhh, the absolute reference frame...where is it? :D). Wrong. That would be true if the planet wasn't under the influence of any forces. Inertia will never cause a body to go on or continue on a trajectory which isn't linear. To change a planet's orbit you would have to deal with the gravitational pull of the Sun, rather than the planet's inertia. And about Newton's laws, well, every law gets outdated sooner or later. Which doesn't mean it's no longer valid to deal with situations within the original parameters upon which the law was formulated. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Point taken. The fact that the Planet is in orbit and changing it's direction (since velocity is a vector, with magnitude and direction), indicates clearly that there is a force being applied to it (ye olde centripetal force). Sorry about that. And I wasn't discounting Newton's Laws as being invalid. But people place so much weight in the world LAW and THEORY, when in fact Einstein's Theory of Relativity is more all-encompassing and accurate than Newton's Laws, particularly when objects begin to reach extremely high velocities. I get sick of people that often discount relativity since "it's just a theory." It's just a theory the same way that gravity is just a theory. Newton's Laws still work, and are simple to use, for low velocity conditions...which entails the vast majority of events that interest most humans. Even then, relativities equations for motion (IIRC...it's been a while since I took the course), basically look exactly like Newton's, except for the gamma factor. Since at low velocities the gamma factor pretty much becomes 1, it becomes a non-factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 I get sick of people that often discount relativity since "it's just a theory." It's just a theory the same way that gravity is just a theory. LOL Well, some people still thought that Earth was flat (or at least they did until they got hacked badly). I don't pay much attention to that kind of people. :D - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 I remember reading that site. It was a riot. Their rationalizations for everything was priceless. I don't know how anyone could have actually believed that garbage. But hey, I guess it makes sense for Earth to be the only flat planet in our solar system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 I think you'll find that they were conducting a rhetorical tour de force, rather than a scientific or philosophical engagement. One can't maintain that sort of fierce analytical objectivity and yet not be swayed by the avalanche of available evidence ... OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calax Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 people forget that if you remove all gravitational pull from an object it immedatly starts to pick up speed because everything else is still pulled away by gravity. essencially this object will freeze in place while everything around it will be moving. and moving very quickly. and no i dont know how you slow down or how this relates to hyperspace but i'm guessing that if you calculate correctly you could make yourself literally appear on another planet. Got the idea from issac Asimov Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition! Kevin Butler will awesome your face off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Not quite sure I follow what you are trying to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 people forget that if you remove all gravitational pull from an object it immedatly starts to pick up speed because everything else is still pulled away by gravity. essencially this object will freeze in place while everything around it will be moving. and moving very quickly. and no i dont know how you slow down or how this relates to hyperspace but i'm guessing that if you calculate correctly you could make yourself literally appear on another planet. Got the idea from issac Asimov kthxbye - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calax Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Not quite sure I follow what you are trying to say. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you were to remove all inerta possible and to remove all gavatational anomolies the object you did this to would seem to dissapear because it's staying in one place in the universe. What you have to remember is that everything else is moving. We rotate around the planets axis the planet rotates around the sun the sun rotates around the center of our galaxy, the galaxy is moving in a cluster the cluster is moving away from other cluster , and so on and so forth. basically what happens is that the object that is frozen in place for one second becomes the fastest moving object in the universe (relativly) its wierd. i'm guessing that if you calculated right and you figured out just how you had to do everything (IE you could find the point where going out one way would bring you back the other) you could probably use this to find away around the galaxy. I'm not even going to bring up the battle tech concept of hyperspace. that's just creepy Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition! Kevin Butler will awesome your face off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 (ye olde centripetal force).<{POST_SNAPBACK}> that's not really a "force" in the sense you're thinking... it's centripetal acceleration. the phantom force is a result of the intertial tendency to follow a straight line. the force is gravity. taks PS: most folks still call it "centrifugal force"... and i cringe. comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now