If you turn on a flashlight while running 10mph, why don't the photons come out of the flashlight at the speed of light + 10mph?
Is it possible that the speed of photons change according to gravitation? For example, could photons leave the sun traveling very fast, then slow the farther they get, and then accelerate again as they approach the Earth?
Photons may be very small, extremely dense particles that behave the same way as other particles, just their energy is so high that they travel very far before "falling" back to their point of origin. They would also have to deal with many changes in orbit of all the bodies that they pass.
So, for example, photons that slingshot around many massive objects on their way to Earth would be visible for many "light years" further than photons that travelled a long way without encountering any other masses. In such a "gravitational vacuum," photons would slow down and "fall" back toward the mass that sent them. So could a black hole just be a relatively isolated star, without any masses to slingshot and relay photons the whole distance to Earth?
If photons in fact behave in this way, is it possible that heavenly objects appear to be more distant than they are? If photons slow very much in the outer orbits of stars and planets, they could spend many years traveling a relatively short distance before building up enough gravitational momentum to accelerate to the high speed we witness them at on Earth.
In this case a vehicle with propulsion could exceed "the speed of light" where gravitational pull is very slight. This is because photons have no means to propel themselves except the gravity of the masses they travel between.
Interstellar travel may require significantly less time and energy than predicted on the basis of constant light-speed. The question is how to figure out the mass and density of photons so as to get a viable estimate of how fast they decelerate when traveling away from a massive body. Figure out how much they slow down, how long they stay slow before picking up velocity as a result of "falling" into a subsequent gravitational field, and you could accurately predict the distance between two stellar bodies. Then tell me how fast you can traverse that distance with rocket propulsion.
This isn't right. This isn't even wrong.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 11 2009, 03:15 PM)
If you turn on a flashlight while running 10mph, why don't the photons come out of the flashlight at the speed of light + 10mph?
Is it possible that the speed of photons change according to gravitation? For example, could photons leave the sun traveling very fast, then slow the farther they get, and then accelerate again as they approach the Earth?
Photons may be very small, extremely dense particles that behave the same way as other particles, just their energy is so high that they travel very far before "falling" back to their point of origin. They would also have to deal with many changes in orbit of all the bodies that they pass.
So, for example, photons that slingshot around many massive objects on their way to Earth would be visible for many "light years" further than photons that travelled a long way without encountering any other masses. In such a "gravitational vacuum," photons would slow down and "fall" back toward the mass that sent them. So could a black hole just be a relatively isolated star, without any masses to slingshot and relay photons the whole distance to Earth?
If photons in fact behave in this way, is it possible that heavenly objects appear to be more distant than they are? If photons slow very much in the outer orbits of stars and planets, they could spend many years traveling a relatively short distance before building up enough gravitational momentum to accelerate to the high speed we witness them at on Earth.
In this case a vehicle with propulsion could exceed "the speed of light" where gravitational pull is very slight. This is because photons have no means to propel themselves except the gravity of the masses they travel between.
Interstellar travel may require significantly less time and energy than predicted on the basis of constant light-speed. The question is how to figure out the mass and density of photons so as to get a viable estimate of how fast they decelerate when traveling away from a massive body. Figure out how much they slow down, how long they stay slow before picking up velocity as a result of "falling" into a subsequent gravitational field, and you could accurately predict the distance between two stellar bodies. Then tell me how fast you can traverse that distance with rocket propulsion.
Light,
I don't know if you can put up with me. I have a www.nowtimesite.com article that talks about light rather than photons, but it has a total, if probably wrong, explanation. It does have a "rational" description of the universe that leads up to your idea of light sling-shotting its way across space. I suggest the limit of c but your idea of drooping and swinging around is inherent in it.
You suggest that photons are affected by gravity. You'll be pleased to know that they don't have to have mass to be affected by massive objects in space. (Not in my book anyway)
Blimey. Your ideas about beating the speed of light are way out but read my hypothesis/rationale for how a material world can occur in infinity. You don't have to believe it all to give you a possible framework you can diverge from.
At least it is consistent and rational, if a little bit wild.
Is it possible that the speed of photons change according to gravitation? For example, could photons leave the sun traveling very fast, then slow the farther they get, and then accelerate again as they approach the Earth?
Photons may be very small, extremely dense particles that behave the same way as other particles, just their energy is so high that they travel very far before "falling" back to their point of origin. They would also have to deal with many changes in orbit of all the bodies that they pass.
So, for example, photons that slingshot around many massive objects on their way to Earth would be visible for many "light years" further than photons that travelled a long way without encountering any other masses. In such a "gravitational vacuum," photons would slow down and "fall" back toward the mass that sent them. So could a black hole just be a relatively isolated star, without any masses to slingshot and relay photons the whole distance to Earth?
If photons in fact behave in this way, is it possible that heavenly objects appear to be more distant than they are? If photons slow very much in the outer orbits of stars and planets, they could spend many years traveling a relatively short distance before building up enough gravitational momentum to accelerate to the high speed we witness them at on Earth.
In this case a vehicle with propulsion could exceed "the speed of light" where gravitational pull is very slight. This is because photons have no means to propel themselves except the gravity of the masses they travel between.
Interstellar travel may require significantly less time and energy than predicted on the basis of constant light-speed. The question is how to figure out the mass and density of photons so as to get a viable estimate of how fast they decelerate when traveling away from a massive body. Figure out how much they slow down, how long they stay slow before picking up velocity as a result of "falling" into a subsequent gravitational field, and you could accurately predict the distance between two stellar bodies. Then tell me how fast you can traverse that distance with rocket propulsion.
Light,
I don't know if you can put up with me. I have a www.nowtimesite.com article that talks about light rather than photons, but it has a total, if probably wrong, explanation. It does have a "rational" description of the universe that leads up to your idea of light sling-shotting its way across space. I suggest the limit of c but your idea of drooping and swinging around is inherent in it.
You suggest that photons are affected by gravity. You'll be pleased to know that they don't have to have mass to be affected by massive objects in space. (Not in my book anyway)
Blimey. Your ideas about beating the speed of light are way out but read my hypothesis/rationale for how a material world can occur in infinity. You don't have to believe it all to give you a possible framework you can diverge from.
At least it is consistent and rational, if a little bit wild.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 11 2009, 03:15 PM)
If you turn on a flashlight while running 10mph, why don't the photons come out of the flashlight at the speed of light + 10mph?
Who cares what actually happens when Pencho Valev claims the photons do act as above? It's called Newton's emitter theory of light.
Now why would you think that was the case, is a far more interesting question. First of all you have to think that light is a particle effect, caused by point-like things which we can idealize as analogous to objects familiar to our intuition, say tiny rubber balls. Then you have to imagine that a physical source throws the balls the same way if at rest as in motion. Then you have to imagine that this characteristic speed exists that we can call the speed of light. Finally you have to imagine that velocities add like coins in a counting house. Having imagined such things, of course you would predict that the speed of light from a moving flashlight would be equal to the characteristic speed of light plus whatever the motion of the source is. But, actual experiments demonstrate this is not the case.
The particle accelerator people produce a great number of particles called neutral pions. These decay into pure light, but coming from a particle accelerator can be traveling at a very high proportion of the speed of light relative to the laboratory that formed them. Measurement of the speed of light emitted by pions at about 0.99975c show that the light moves far closer to 1.000c than 1.99975c. (Almost all of the light was in the forward direction.)
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...ng-source_tests
So, what was wrong about your assumptions that led your thinking to disagreement with the universe?
1) when you imagine that light is made of particles analogous to an intuitive model of a ball, experiments show that light and balls do act somewhat the same, but that behavior is not well modeled by the intuitive notions developed by playing with balls. Physicists refer to one model as Newtonian particles and to the other as relativistic quantum particles, and in regards to light, relativistic massless quantum particles.
2) when you imagine that a flashlight at rest is fundamentally the same thing as a flashlight in motion at a fixed speed, you are invoking the Principle of Relativity which Galileo and Einstein both wrote about. So far no experiment has shown a problem with that.
3) when you imagine that light has a characteristic fixed speed, you have hundreds of years of observations supporting you. From noticing that lunar motions about Jupiter were several minutes behind schedule when Jupiter was far away than near, to modern measurements of the speed of light that were more accurate than the former official definition of the meter, the fixed speed of light is experimentally found in the laboratory and in deep space.
4) when you imagine velocities add like beans, or liters in a gas tank, you are making an assumption. But that is not the only assumption consistent with everyday assumptions that there are no locations or directions in the universe which are special to physics.
In 1905, Einstein showed that there are many good reasons to suspect that the actual velocity addition formula was V = (u+v)/(1 + Kuv) where K = 1/c^2. Newton claims K=0. Experiments by scientists and truck drivers alike side with Einstein millions of times per day.
In 1910, von Ignatowsky showed that V = (u+v)/(1 + Kuv) was the only natural result.
And every experiment sophisticated enough to choose between K=1/c^2 and K=0 sides with Einstein over Newton. This has been true since at least 1859.
I have tried to make this accessible to the student of high school algebra and physics.
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2039656&postcount=28
So the why of moving light sources and constant speed of light relates to velocities not adding like dollars. Another class of thing that doesn't add like apples are angles. So someone thought, why not find something related to velocity that does add like angles, and that is where we get the rapidity, r. v = c tanh r or r = arctanh(v/c) and it does add "nicely." But it's relationship to rulers and clocks is complicated, and when you work with velocities in multiple directions it's at least as complicated as the standard treatment.
Now why would you think that was the case, is a far more interesting question. First of all you have to think that light is a particle effect, caused by point-like things which we can idealize as analogous to objects familiar to our intuition, say tiny rubber balls. Then you have to imagine that a physical source throws the balls the same way if at rest as in motion. Then you have to imagine that this characteristic speed exists that we can call the speed of light. Finally you have to imagine that velocities add like coins in a counting house. Having imagined such things, of course you would predict that the speed of light from a moving flashlight would be equal to the characteristic speed of light plus whatever the motion of the source is. But, actual experiments demonstrate this is not the case.
The particle accelerator people produce a great number of particles called neutral pions. These decay into pure light, but coming from a particle accelerator can be traveling at a very high proportion of the speed of light relative to the laboratory that formed them. Measurement of the speed of light emitted by pions at about 0.99975c show that the light moves far closer to 1.000c than 1.99975c. (Almost all of the light was in the forward direction.)
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...ng-source_tests
So, what was wrong about your assumptions that led your thinking to disagreement with the universe?
1) when you imagine that light is made of particles analogous to an intuitive model of a ball, experiments show that light and balls do act somewhat the same, but that behavior is not well modeled by the intuitive notions developed by playing with balls. Physicists refer to one model as Newtonian particles and to the other as relativistic quantum particles, and in regards to light, relativistic massless quantum particles.
2) when you imagine that a flashlight at rest is fundamentally the same thing as a flashlight in motion at a fixed speed, you are invoking the Principle of Relativity which Galileo and Einstein both wrote about. So far no experiment has shown a problem with that.
3) when you imagine that light has a characteristic fixed speed, you have hundreds of years of observations supporting you. From noticing that lunar motions about Jupiter were several minutes behind schedule when Jupiter was far away than near, to modern measurements of the speed of light that were more accurate than the former official definition of the meter, the fixed speed of light is experimentally found in the laboratory and in deep space.
4) when you imagine velocities add like beans, or liters in a gas tank, you are making an assumption. But that is not the only assumption consistent with everyday assumptions that there are no locations or directions in the universe which are special to physics.
In 1905, Einstein showed that there are many good reasons to suspect that the actual velocity addition formula was V = (u+v)/(1 + Kuv) where K = 1/c^2. Newton claims K=0. Experiments by scientists and truck drivers alike side with Einstein millions of times per day.
In 1910, von Ignatowsky showed that V = (u+v)/(1 + Kuv) was the only natural result.
And every experiment sophisticated enough to choose between K=1/c^2 and K=0 sides with Einstein over Newton. This has been true since at least 1859.
I have tried to make this accessible to the student of high school algebra and physics.
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2039656&postcount=28
So the why of moving light sources and constant speed of light relates to velocities not adding like dollars. Another class of thing that doesn't add like apples are angles. So someone thought, why not find something related to velocity that does add like angles, and that is where we get the rapidity, r. v = c tanh r or r = arctanh(v/c) and it does add "nicely." But it's relationship to rulers and clocks is complicated, and when you work with velocities in multiple directions it's at least as complicated as the standard treatment.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 11 2009, 03:15 PM)
Is it possible that the speed of photons change according to gravitation? For example, could photons leave the sun traveling very fast, then slow the farther they get, and then accelerate again as they approach the Earth?
This is experimentally rejected by timing photons about the solar system.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 11 2009, 03:15 PM)
Photons may be very small,
what does size matter?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 11 2009, 03:15 PM)
extremely dense particles
Experimentally, photons are massless.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 11 2009, 03:15 PM)
that behave the same way as other particles, just their energy is so high that they travel very far before "falling" back to their point of origin. They would also have to deal with many changes in orbit of all the bodies that they pass.
I think I will cut you off here. You ignore physical observations which characterize the photon, so you are guilty of the crime of using jargon without taking the time to understand it. You have no way of knowing how a relativistic massless quantum particle behaves and so make up completely unphysical stories which are refuted by truck drivers millions of times per day. Good luck with life.
QUOTE (Nowtime+Aug 21 2009, 04:48 AM)
I don't know if you can put up with me. I have a www.nowtimesite.com article that talks about light rather than photons, but it has a total, if probably wrong, explanation. It does have a "rational" description of the universe that leads up to your idea of light sling-shotting its way across space. I suggest the limit of c but your idea of drooping and swinging around is inherent in it.
You suggest that photons are affected by gravity. You'll be pleased to know that they don't have to have mass to be affected by massive objects in space. (Not in my book anyway)
Blimey. Your ideas about beating the speed of light are way out but read my hypothesis/rationale for how a material world can occur in infinity. You don't have to believe it all to give you a possible framework you can diverge from.
At least it is consistent and rational, if a little bit wild.
Thanks for your careful reading and critique on that basis instead of a cursory reading. I know my physics' status is not high, so I appreciate people all the more when they still go out of their way to give it ample consideration and thoughtful response.
My formulation that photons have mass was intended with the idea that in the absence of gravity-assist, photons could decelerate to relatively slow speeds and even reverse course, the way a ball launched into the sky slows down, reverses course, and accelerates back toward the ground. Is it possible for gravity to have this effect on light without it having mass?
The reason I thought this is because it would explain dark matter and maybe black-holes as being regular stars whose photons have decelerated to the point of reversing course and "falling" back to the stars. This would not seem to be possible if photons have no mass because then light can bend but otherwise proceeds on an infinite journey without losing velocity.
Dark matter could also be explained by space-time curvature, but I don't understand enough about the specifics of how space-time is curved, and how curved it is, to be able to formulate hypotheses and speculate about which masses are affecting space-time how.
You suggest that photons are affected by gravity. You'll be pleased to know that they don't have to have mass to be affected by massive objects in space. (Not in my book anyway)
Blimey. Your ideas about beating the speed of light are way out but read my hypothesis/rationale for how a material world can occur in infinity. You don't have to believe it all to give you a possible framework you can diverge from.
At least it is consistent and rational, if a little bit wild.
Thanks for your careful reading and critique on that basis instead of a cursory reading. I know my physics' status is not high, so I appreciate people all the more when they still go out of their way to give it ample consideration and thoughtful response.
QUOTE
You suggest that photons are affected by gravity. You'll be pleased to know that they don't have to have mass to be affected by massive objects in space. (Not in my book anyway)
My formulation that photons have mass was intended with the idea that in the absence of gravity-assist, photons could decelerate to relatively slow speeds and even reverse course, the way a ball launched into the sky slows down, reverses course, and accelerates back toward the ground. Is it possible for gravity to have this effect on light without it having mass?
The reason I thought this is because it would explain dark matter and maybe black-holes as being regular stars whose photons have decelerated to the point of reversing course and "falling" back to the stars. This would not seem to be possible if photons have no mass because then light can bend but otherwise proceeds on an infinite journey without losing velocity.
Dark matter could also be explained by space-time curvature, but I don't understand enough about the specifics of how space-time is curved, and how curved it is, to be able to formulate hypotheses and speculate about which masses are affecting space-time how.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 21 2009, 06:02 AM)
3) when you imagine that light has a characteristic fixed speed, you have hundreds of years of observations supporting you. From noticing that lunar motions about Jupiter were several minutes behind schedule when Jupiter was far away than near, to modern measurements of the speed of light that were more accurate than the former official definition of the meter, the fixed speed of light is experimentally found in the laboratory and in deep space.
4) when you imagine velocities add like beans, or liters in a gas tank, you are making an assumption. But that is not the only assumption consistent with everyday assumptions that there are no locations or directions in the universe which are special to physics.
In 1905, Einstein showed that there are many good reasons to suspect that the actual velocity addition formula was V = (u+v)/(1 + Kuv) where K = 1/c^2. Newton claims K=0. Experiments by scientists and truck drivers alike side with Einstein millions of times per day.
In 1910, von Ignatowsky showed that V = (u+v)/(1 + Kuv) was the only natural result.
And every experiment sophisticated enough to choose between K=1/c^2 and K=0 sides with Einstein over Newton. This has been true since at least 1859.
I have tried to make this accessible to the student of high school algebra and physics.
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2039656&postcount=28
So the why of moving light sources and constant speed of light relates to velocities not adding like dollars. Another class of thing that doesn't add like apples are angles. So someone thought, why not find something related to velocity that does add like angles, and that is where we get the rapidity, r. v = c tanh r or r = arctanh(v/c) and it does add "nicely." But it's relationship to rulers and clocks is complicated, and when you work with velocities in multiple directions it's at least as complicated as the standard treatment.
This is experimentally rejected by timing photons about the solar system.
what does size matter? Experimentally, photons are massless. I think I will cut you off here. You ignore physical observations which characterize the photon, so you are guilty of the crime of using jargon without taking the time to understand it. You have no way of knowing how a relativistic massless quantum particle behaves and so make up completely unphysical stories which are refuted by truck drivers millions of times per day. Good luck with life.
Truly I appreciate your care in crafting this response. However, I knew already how popular these assumptions about light are, and I intentionally wanted to explore ideas that diverge to see what would happen. The "what would happen" I was trying to see was not physicists calling me an idiot because I dared such an experiment.
I wanted to see what would change about physics' interpretations of natural phenomenon if light in fact had these characteristics and behaved in this way. I think the scientific term for this kind of thought experiment is "counterfactuality." It was used in history during the 1960s I think as a way of comparing different possible historical paths, for example the economic consequences if railroads and trains had not been invented.
I would like to know more about the deep space experiments. Do you know of any websites that explain them? How do such experiments take gravitation into account? Over what distance do they measure velocity? What exactly do they measure and how?
As for your formulas, I'm afraid I can only follow formulas to the extent that they are directly interpretable to me as a descriptive function. Velocity = distance/time is a direct description for me, as is velocity = inertia/mass. Basically these say that velocity describes distance as a function of time or inertia as a function of mass. These formulas represent discussable theoretical formulations, maybe just because they are simple enough for me to follow. I can't decode equations with C-squared because I don't understand what a squared-velocity represents in physical phenomena. Go ahead and hit me with your latest insult, but I'm not going to try to get into discussions about formulas I can't decode. I am also not going to give up the physics I do understand because some of it is over my head. If I get the chance to make sense of something, I wouldn't pass it up - but I'm not going to spend all my energy studying difficult concepts and avoid exploring the ones I do get as a result.
I would like to know more about the deep space experiments. Do you know of any websites that explain them? How do such experiments take gravitation into account? Over what distance do they measure velocity? What exactly do they measure and how?
As for your formulas, I'm afraid I can only follow formulas to the extent that they are directly interpretable to me as a descriptive function. Velocity = distance/time is a direct description for me, as is velocity = inertia/mass. Basically these say that velocity describes distance as a function of time or inertia as a function of mass. These formulas represent discussable theoretical formulations, maybe just because they are simple enough for me to follow. I can't decode equations with C-squared because I don't understand what a squared-velocity represents in physical phenomena. Go ahead and hit me with your latest insult, but I'm not going to try to get into discussions about formulas I can't decode. I am also not going to give up the physics I do understand because some of it is over my head. If I get the chance to make sense of something, I wouldn't pass it up - but I'm not going to spend all my energy studying difficult concepts and avoid exploring the ones I do get as a result.
4) when you imagine velocities add like beans, or liters in a gas tank, you are making an assumption. But that is not the only assumption consistent with everyday assumptions that there are no locations or directions in the universe which are special to physics.
I wasn't just adding-up velocities like beans. I was trying to conceptualize how photons move and how their speed would relate to the speed of other things they are moving relative to. This statement was just an introduction.
I also wonder how photons move relative to electromagnetic waves. I have always assumed that both the photons and the waves move at C. However, if you look at waves in the ocean or electric current, the particles do not move with the same speed as the energy. Yes, water molecules and electrons move as waves/charge runs through them, but they do not move as fast as the waves because they bump into each other, transfering energy like billiard balls. This is of course the same with conduction of heat through molecular motion.
So, if this were the case with photons, then we would not expect photons to ever reach the speed of the wave-energy that moves through them and pushes them along, because of friction and resistance among the particles. The size, mass, and density of photons would determine the characteristics of them as a medium for light, would it not? Larger particles are more likely to bump into each other when moving than smaller particles. Lower mass particles, like ping pong balls, bounce around more easily with less energy loss than heavier particles, like golf balls. So I was trying to speculate about the characteristics of photons with mass from the perspective that they were very small, very light and dense, and that they are quick and easy to fall into orbit around an electron or other particle OR accelerate into longer-distance trajectories that could last 1000s of light years.
Is there nothing interesting about these counterfactual concepts to you? Have they all been proven false by experiments that I have not learned about yet?
4) when you imagine velocities add like beans, or liters in a gas tank, you are making an assumption. But that is not the only assumption consistent with everyday assumptions that there are no locations or directions in the universe which are special to physics.
In 1905, Einstein showed that there are many good reasons to suspect that the actual velocity addition formula was V = (u+v)/(1 + Kuv) where K = 1/c^2. Newton claims K=0. Experiments by scientists and truck drivers alike side with Einstein millions of times per day.
In 1910, von Ignatowsky showed that V = (u+v)/(1 + Kuv) was the only natural result.
And every experiment sophisticated enough to choose between K=1/c^2 and K=0 sides with Einstein over Newton. This has been true since at least 1859.
I have tried to make this accessible to the student of high school algebra and physics.
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2039656&postcount=28
So the why of moving light sources and constant speed of light relates to velocities not adding like dollars. Another class of thing that doesn't add like apples are angles. So someone thought, why not find something related to velocity that does add like angles, and that is where we get the rapidity, r. v = c tanh r or r = arctanh(v/c) and it does add "nicely." But it's relationship to rulers and clocks is complicated, and when you work with velocities in multiple directions it's at least as complicated as the standard treatment.
This is experimentally rejected by timing photons about the solar system.
what does size matter? Experimentally, photons are massless. I think I will cut you off here. You ignore physical observations which characterize the photon, so you are guilty of the crime of using jargon without taking the time to understand it. You have no way of knowing how a relativistic massless quantum particle behaves and so make up completely unphysical stories which are refuted by truck drivers millions of times per day. Good luck with life.
Truly I appreciate your care in crafting this response. However, I knew already how popular these assumptions about light are, and I intentionally wanted to explore ideas that diverge to see what would happen. The "what would happen" I was trying to see was not physicists calling me an idiot because I dared such an experiment.
I wanted to see what would change about physics' interpretations of natural phenomenon if light in fact had these characteristics and behaved in this way. I think the scientific term for this kind of thought experiment is "counterfactuality." It was used in history during the 1960s I think as a way of comparing different possible historical paths, for example the economic consequences if railroads and trains had not been invented.
QUOTE
3) when you imagine that light has a characteristic fixed speed, you have hundreds of years of observations supporting you. From noticing that lunar motions about Jupiter were several minutes behind schedule when Jupiter was far away than near, to modern measurements of the speed of light that were more accurate than the former official definition of the meter, the fixed speed of light is experimentally found in the laboratory and in deep space.
I would like to know more about the deep space experiments. Do you know of any websites that explain them? How do such experiments take gravitation into account? Over what distance do they measure velocity? What exactly do they measure and how?
As for your formulas, I'm afraid I can only follow formulas to the extent that they are directly interpretable to me as a descriptive function. Velocity = distance/time is a direct description for me, as is velocity = inertia/mass. Basically these say that velocity describes distance as a function of time or inertia as a function of mass. These formulas represent discussable theoretical formulations, maybe just because they are simple enough for me to follow. I can't decode equations with C-squared because I don't understand what a squared-velocity represents in physical phenomena. Go ahead and hit me with your latest insult, but I'm not going to try to get into discussions about formulas I can't decode. I am also not going to give up the physics I do understand because some of it is over my head. If I get the chance to make sense of something, I wouldn't pass it up - but I'm not going to spend all my energy studying difficult concepts and avoid exploring the ones I do get as a result.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 3) when you imagine that light has a characteristic fixed speed, you have hundreds of years of observations supporting you. From noticing that lunar motions about Jupiter were several minutes behind schedule when Jupiter was far away than near, to modern measurements of the speed of light that were more accurate than the former official definition of the meter, the fixed speed of light is experimentally found in the laboratory and in deep space. |
I would like to know more about the deep space experiments. Do you know of any websites that explain them? How do such experiments take gravitation into account? Over what distance do they measure velocity? What exactly do they measure and how?
As for your formulas, I'm afraid I can only follow formulas to the extent that they are directly interpretable to me as a descriptive function. Velocity = distance/time is a direct description for me, as is velocity = inertia/mass. Basically these say that velocity describes distance as a function of time or inertia as a function of mass. These formulas represent discussable theoretical formulations, maybe just because they are simple enough for me to follow. I can't decode equations with C-squared because I don't understand what a squared-velocity represents in physical phenomena. Go ahead and hit me with your latest insult, but I'm not going to try to get into discussions about formulas I can't decode. I am also not going to give up the physics I do understand because some of it is over my head. If I get the chance to make sense of something, I wouldn't pass it up - but I'm not going to spend all my energy studying difficult concepts and avoid exploring the ones I do get as a result.
4) when you imagine velocities add like beans, or liters in a gas tank, you are making an assumption. But that is not the only assumption consistent with everyday assumptions that there are no locations or directions in the universe which are special to physics.
I wasn't just adding-up velocities like beans. I was trying to conceptualize how photons move and how their speed would relate to the speed of other things they are moving relative to. This statement was just an introduction.
I also wonder how photons move relative to electromagnetic waves. I have always assumed that both the photons and the waves move at C. However, if you look at waves in the ocean or electric current, the particles do not move with the same speed as the energy. Yes, water molecules and electrons move as waves/charge runs through them, but they do not move as fast as the waves because they bump into each other, transfering energy like billiard balls. This is of course the same with conduction of heat through molecular motion.
So, if this were the case with photons, then we would not expect photons to ever reach the speed of the wave-energy that moves through them and pushes them along, because of friction and resistance among the particles. The size, mass, and density of photons would determine the characteristics of them as a medium for light, would it not? Larger particles are more likely to bump into each other when moving than smaller particles. Lower mass particles, like ping pong balls, bounce around more easily with less energy loss than heavier particles, like golf balls. So I was trying to speculate about the characteristics of photons with mass from the perspective that they were very small, very light and dense, and that they are quick and easy to fall into orbit around an electron or other particle OR accelerate into longer-distance trajectories that could last 1000s of light years.
Is there nothing interesting about these counterfactual concepts to you? Have they all been proven false by experiments that I have not learned about yet?
light in the tunnel,
"Dare to be an idiot" is not a good catchphrase. The only reason you think that these experiments have not been carried out already is because you know very little about science.
"Dare to be an idiot" is not a good catchphrase. The only reason you think that these experiments have not been carried out already is because you know very little about science.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 21 2009, 08:36 PM)
light in the tunnel,
"Dare to be an idiot" is not a good catchphrase. The only reason you think that these experiments have not been carried out already is because you know very little about science.
I don't assume they haven't. I am asking if they have, and how. If there is research I can read about online, that I can follow, I am happy to learn.
"Dare to be an idiot" is not a good catchphrase. The only reason you think that these experiments have not been carried out already is because you know very little about science.
I don't assume they haven't. I am asking if they have, and how. If there is research I can read about online, that I can follow, I am happy to learn.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 21 2009, 04:40 PM)
I don't assume they haven't. I am asking if they have, and how. If there is research I can read about online, that I can follow, I am happy to learn.
The best way to learn this stuff is to study physics at a university. University libraries are a very good resource for scientific documentation.
On the other hand, I have a feeling that you would rather stick to "questioning" scientific theories without doing any actual research. There have been thousands of scientific papers written on just about every scientific subject imaginable. It's a huge body of knowledge built from the ground up.
Let's use an analogy.
Imagine science is a huge building made of bricks. Each brick is an experiment, each wall is a complete set of research. The role of scientists is to create new bricks and find weak bricks. If a weak brick is found, it is replaced. If replacing the brick requires reshaping the structure above, the walls above are knocked down and rebuilt, sometimes with the same bricks, sometimes not.
You are standing on the top of this building, and pointing down and asking about the location and quality of a brick hundreds of feet below you. You are not willing to travel down and find the brick in question; you are asking others to do it for you. You don't know where the brick is, and if it was weak, you wouldn't be able to tell. You think we should listen to you when you say with no technical knowledge whatsoever that a brick below you might be weak.
Sorry, no-one is going to listen to you.
The best way to learn this stuff is to study physics at a university. University libraries are a very good resource for scientific documentation.
On the other hand, I have a feeling that you would rather stick to "questioning" scientific theories without doing any actual research. There have been thousands of scientific papers written on just about every scientific subject imaginable. It's a huge body of knowledge built from the ground up.
Let's use an analogy.
Imagine science is a huge building made of bricks. Each brick is an experiment, each wall is a complete set of research. The role of scientists is to create new bricks and find weak bricks. If a weak brick is found, it is replaced. If replacing the brick requires reshaping the structure above, the walls above are knocked down and rebuilt, sometimes with the same bricks, sometimes not.
You are standing on the top of this building, and pointing down and asking about the location and quality of a brick hundreds of feet below you. You are not willing to travel down and find the brick in question; you are asking others to do it for you. You don't know where the brick is, and if it was weak, you wouldn't be able to tell. You think we should listen to you when you say with no technical knowledge whatsoever that a brick below you might be weak.
Sorry, no-one is going to listen to you.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 21 2009, 08:49 PM)
The best way to learn this stuff is to study physics at a university. University libraries are a very good resource for scientific documentation.
On the other hand, I have a feeling that you would rather stick to "questioning" scientific theories without doing any actual research. There have been thousands of scientific papers written on just about every scientific subject imaginable. It's a huge body of knowledge built from the ground up.
Let's use an analogy.
Imagine science is a huge building made of bricks. Each brick is an experiment, each wall is a complete set of research. The role of scientists is to create new bricks and find weak bricks. If a weak brick is found, it is replaced. If replacing the brick requires reshaping the structure above, the walls above are knocked down and rebuilt, sometimes with the same bricks, sometimes not.
You are standing on the top of this building, and pointing down and asking about the location and quality of a brick hundreds of feet below you. You are not willing to travel down and find the brick in question; you are asking others to do it for you. You don't know where the brick is, and if it was weak, you wouldn't be able to tell. You think we should listen to you when you say with no technical knowledge whatsoever that a brick below you might be weak.
Sorry, no-one is going to listen to you.
Buttress, this is a brilliantly elaborated metaphor, but since you would presumably have to be an expert in the philosophy or sociology of science to be able to adequately describe the structural mechanics of scientific discourse, I can only assume the same thing about your account here as you do of my propositions regarding the academic physics for which I am no ordained expert.
The difference between you and I is that I recognize the potential validity of your model and I am willing to engage you in critical exploration of your assumptions the implications of your theory. I do this because I don't like hearing people tell me to go get a degree in your area of interest or stop discussing it - therefore I don't think I should do the same to you.
After I carefully explained what the purpose of counterfactual hypotheses is, i.e. not simply 'questioning' what is presumed to be known but rather exploring alternative ideas, you still reduce it to simply "questioning things I don't understand and won't bother to research for myself." I do not have time to spend at a university library reading jargon-rich volumes on these topics until I can decode the jargon. So instead I research those aspects I can find online, in the kind of language I can understand. Believe it or not, doing this allows me to formulate questions and ideas, even if those are not as well grounded as someone who has read more.
On the other hand, I have a feeling that you would rather stick to "questioning" scientific theories without doing any actual research. There have been thousands of scientific papers written on just about every scientific subject imaginable. It's a huge body of knowledge built from the ground up.
Let's use an analogy.
Imagine science is a huge building made of bricks. Each brick is an experiment, each wall is a complete set of research. The role of scientists is to create new bricks and find weak bricks. If a weak brick is found, it is replaced. If replacing the brick requires reshaping the structure above, the walls above are knocked down and rebuilt, sometimes with the same bricks, sometimes not.
You are standing on the top of this building, and pointing down and asking about the location and quality of a brick hundreds of feet below you. You are not willing to travel down and find the brick in question; you are asking others to do it for you. You don't know where the brick is, and if it was weak, you wouldn't be able to tell. You think we should listen to you when you say with no technical knowledge whatsoever that a brick below you might be weak.
Sorry, no-one is going to listen to you.
Buttress, this is a brilliantly elaborated metaphor, but since you would presumably have to be an expert in the philosophy or sociology of science to be able to adequately describe the structural mechanics of scientific discourse, I can only assume the same thing about your account here as you do of my propositions regarding the academic physics for which I am no ordained expert.
The difference between you and I is that I recognize the potential validity of your model and I am willing to engage you in critical exploration of your assumptions the implications of your theory. I do this because I don't like hearing people tell me to go get a degree in your area of interest or stop discussing it - therefore I don't think I should do the same to you.
After I carefully explained what the purpose of counterfactual hypotheses is, i.e. not simply 'questioning' what is presumed to be known but rather exploring alternative ideas, you still reduce it to simply "questioning things I don't understand and won't bother to research for myself." I do not have time to spend at a university library reading jargon-rich volumes on these topics until I can decode the jargon. So instead I research those aspects I can find online, in the kind of language I can understand. Believe it or not, doing this allows me to formulate questions and ideas, even if those are not as well grounded as someone who has read more.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 21 2009, 06:44 PM)
After I carefully explained what the purpose of counterfactual hypotheses is, i.e. not simply 'questioning' what is presumed to be known but rather exploring alternative ideas, you still reduce it to simply "questioning things I don't understand and won't bother to research for myself." I do not have time to spend at a university library reading jargon-rich volumes on these topics until I can decode the jargon. So instead I research those aspects I can find online, in the kind of language I can understand. Believe it or not, doing this allows me to formulate questions and ideas, even if those are not as well grounded as someone who has read more.
First off, what I wrote isn't my opinion or a model. It's a brief summary of how the scientific world works. If you don't believe me, ask rpenner or AlphaNumeric, who are a couple of the actual physicists on this forum. Every scientific work is based on an earlier one. Every scientist, as part of his/her education, re-evaluates the experiments of those who come before so that they can understand.
Jargon is required to communicate ideas in a meaningful, timely manner. I've explained to magpies why technical language is required. No-one is going to take the time to break down scientific concepts for you for free. If you want to pay someone to do it, go right on ahead. That's what universities are for. You want to do the fun part of science without doing the difficult parts first. You don't let newbies get into the cockpit of a fighter jet, so why would you ask an amateur to do science? Do you honestly believe that you, the newbie, can do the job better than the experienced fighter pilot?
I understand that you want to be able to formulate theories that people will take seriously, but you have a long long way to go. The shortest path is ,of course, university education. If you don't have the time for that, do night classes. There's no way that you have the materials or expertise to educate yourself adequately in these matters. Plus, if you get a degree, you also get recognition for your educational accomplishments. If you get a B.S. in Physics, you are much better off than being 10 years older with the same understanding but no degree.
First off, what I wrote isn't my opinion or a model. It's a brief summary of how the scientific world works. If you don't believe me, ask rpenner or AlphaNumeric, who are a couple of the actual physicists on this forum. Every scientific work is based on an earlier one. Every scientist, as part of his/her education, re-evaluates the experiments of those who come before so that they can understand.
Jargon is required to communicate ideas in a meaningful, timely manner. I've explained to magpies why technical language is required. No-one is going to take the time to break down scientific concepts for you for free. If you want to pay someone to do it, go right on ahead. That's what universities are for. You want to do the fun part of science without doing the difficult parts first. You don't let newbies get into the cockpit of a fighter jet, so why would you ask an amateur to do science? Do you honestly believe that you, the newbie, can do the job better than the experienced fighter pilot?
I understand that you want to be able to formulate theories that people will take seriously, but you have a long long way to go. The shortest path is ,of course, university education. If you don't have the time for that, do night classes. There's no way that you have the materials or expertise to educate yourself adequately in these matters. Plus, if you get a degree, you also get recognition for your educational accomplishments. If you get a B.S. in Physics, you are much better off than being 10 years older with the same understanding but no degree.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 21 2009, 11:03 PM)
First off, what I wrote isn't my opinion or a model. It's a brief summary of how the scientific world works. If you don't believe me, ask rpenner or AlphaNumeric, who are a couple of the actual physicists on this forum. Every scientific work is based on an earlier one. Every scientist, as part of his/her education, re-evaluates the experiments of those who come before so that they can understand.
Actually it is a model, which uses the metaphor of brick wall-building as an analogy for humans reading and interpreting the work of others. It assumes that the discourse is a whole, that it is cohesive, and that each "brick" is in itself cohesive and not a collection of diverse communicative fragments. Anyone who has studied in an academic setting is familiar with the habit of reducing discourse into texts with main-points and supporting-points, but how often have you seen someone analyze texts from the approach that they contain more than that? Anyway, I would be happy to get into a deep critical discussion about scientific discourse, but if we do that I'd rather do it on an issue-by-issue basis. I'm sure you don't enjoy discussing physics as "the theory of how everything in the universe works," and I don't like theorizing discourse on the level of, "the theory of how physics discourse works."
I don't deny the potential that terminology is useful before understanding it. But I do know from experience that there are often simple ways to clarify jargon that don't require much effort. I have done this to clarify so many things for people who don't share my level of understanding that I don't feel bad accepting explanations from others "for free." I have taken my share of university classes and I'm not planning to do so again any time soon unless it pays.
I don't deny the potential that terminology is useful before understanding it. But I do know from experience that there are often simple ways to clarify jargon that don't require much effort. I have done this to clarify so many things for people who don't share my level of understanding that I don't feel bad accepting explanations from others "for free." I have taken my share of university classes and I'm not planning to do so again any time soon unless it pays.
You want to do the fun part of science without doing the difficult parts first. You don't let newbies get into the cockpit of a fighter jet, so why would you ask an amateur to do science? Do you honestly believe that you, the newbie, can do the job better than the experienced fighter pilot?
Here are two different issues: 1) wanting to do the fun stuff without doing the difficult parts and 2) whether an amateur can do the job of a professional physicist. The answer to the first issue is that a big part of science is popular science, and that there is nothing wrong with people engaging in scientific discourse in whatever way, based on their level of interest and expertise. I became interested in physics enough to seek this forum because a local community college put on an educational fair for kids where I took my son. I found some topics interesting, started thinking about them, and decided to discuss them online with others. There is nothing wrong with that. It's the reason science was invented in the first place.
As for whether amateurs can do a better job. . . it depends on what they come up with. You can't predict the value of ideas based on the status of the thinker, only on the content of the thought. It may be more likely that someone with more knowledge and experience will create ideas that are more relevant to others who have read the same articles, etc. but it's no guarantee. Sometimes people bore the crap out of each other with the same old stuff and it takes someone relatively unfamiliar with their discussion to inject new ideas that freshen things up. It may be that the more experienced scientists take those ideas further or take them somewhere completely different than the inexperienced person was going with them. Still, the fact that the inexperienced person stimulated the experienced ones to make progress makes their contribution valid.
It's more that if people respond to me, I think they should go to the trouble of understanding what I am saying and treat me respectfully in responding. If they don't feel they can respectfully address my posts, why bother responding at all? If they want to briefly tell me that there are others who have addressed the themes I am talking about but they don't want to take the time to explain it (for free), that's fine too. But don't insult me or tell me to go away to do research, take classes, or anything else. There's absolutely no reason why I am bothering anyone by posting on this forum. Anyone is free to ignore anything and everything I post if it's not worth their time and energy.
[Moderator: Suspended 3 days for abuse of the reporting facility.]
- wish this filipino fuckwit would fuckoff!
[Moderator: Your alliteration is not helpful to my decision of what to do with jsaldea12.]
So wrong it's painful.
Even if we didn't consider relativity, which has been proven thousands of times, your idea would still not make any sense.
Not all galaxies move in the same direction. Not all parts of a galaxy move in the same direction or at the same speed.
As Buttershug pointed out, you are just ignoring established physics based on repeated experiments and data. Good luck with that.
A;lex G, for the first time you are making sense.
jsaldea12
8.28.09
Actually it is a model, which uses the metaphor of brick wall-building as an analogy for humans reading and interpreting the work of others. It assumes that the discourse is a whole, that it is cohesive, and that each "brick" is in itself cohesive and not a collection of diverse communicative fragments. Anyone who has studied in an academic setting is familiar with the habit of reducing discourse into texts with main-points and supporting-points, but how often have you seen someone analyze texts from the approach that they contain more than that? Anyway, I would be happy to get into a deep critical discussion about scientific discourse, but if we do that I'd rather do it on an issue-by-issue basis. I'm sure you don't enjoy discussing physics as "the theory of how everything in the universe works," and I don't like theorizing discourse on the level of, "the theory of how physics discourse works."
QUOTE
Jargon is required to communicate ideas in a meaningful, timely manner. I've explained to magpies why technical language is required. No-one is going to take the time to break down scientific concepts for you for free. If you want to pay someone to do it, go right on ahead. That's what universities are for. You want to do the fun part of science without doing the difficult parts first.
I don't deny the potential that terminology is useful before understanding it. But I do know from experience that there are often simple ways to clarify jargon that don't require much effort. I have done this to clarify so many things for people who don't share my level of understanding that I don't feel bad accepting explanations from others "for free." I have taken my share of university classes and I'm not planning to do so again any time soon unless it pays.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Jargon is required to communicate ideas in a meaningful, timely manner. I've explained to magpies why technical language is required. No-one is going to take the time to break down scientific concepts for you for free. If you want to pay someone to do it, go right on ahead. That's what universities are for. You want to do the fun part of science without doing the difficult parts first. |
I don't deny the potential that terminology is useful before understanding it. But I do know from experience that there are often simple ways to clarify jargon that don't require much effort. I have done this to clarify so many things for people who don't share my level of understanding that I don't feel bad accepting explanations from others "for free." I have taken my share of university classes and I'm not planning to do so again any time soon unless it pays.
You want to do the fun part of science without doing the difficult parts first. You don't let newbies get into the cockpit of a fighter jet, so why would you ask an amateur to do science? Do you honestly believe that you, the newbie, can do the job better than the experienced fighter pilot?
Here are two different issues: 1) wanting to do the fun stuff without doing the difficult parts and 2) whether an amateur can do the job of a professional physicist. The answer to the first issue is that a big part of science is popular science, and that there is nothing wrong with people engaging in scientific discourse in whatever way, based on their level of interest and expertise. I became interested in physics enough to seek this forum because a local community college put on an educational fair for kids where I took my son. I found some topics interesting, started thinking about them, and decided to discuss them online with others. There is nothing wrong with that. It's the reason science was invented in the first place.
As for whether amateurs can do a better job. . . it depends on what they come up with. You can't predict the value of ideas based on the status of the thinker, only on the content of the thought. It may be more likely that someone with more knowledge and experience will create ideas that are more relevant to others who have read the same articles, etc. but it's no guarantee. Sometimes people bore the crap out of each other with the same old stuff and it takes someone relatively unfamiliar with their discussion to inject new ideas that freshen things up. It may be that the more experienced scientists take those ideas further or take them somewhere completely different than the inexperienced person was going with them. Still, the fact that the inexperienced person stimulated the experienced ones to make progress makes their contribution valid.
QUOTE
I understand that you want to be able to formulate theories that people will take seriously, but you have a long long way to go. The shortest path is ,of course, university education. If you don't have the time for that, do night classes. There's no way that you have the materials or expertise to educate yourself adequately in these matters. Plus, if you get a degree, you also get recognition for your educational accomplishments. If you get a B.S. in Physics, you are much better off than being 10 years older with the same understanding but no degree.
It's more that if people respond to me, I think they should go to the trouble of understanding what I am saying and treat me respectfully in responding. If they don't feel they can respectfully address my posts, why bother responding at all? If they want to briefly tell me that there are others who have addressed the themes I am talking about but they don't want to take the time to explain it (for free), that's fine too. But don't insult me or tell me to go away to do research, take classes, or anything else. There's absolutely no reason why I am bothering anyone by posting on this forum. Anyone is free to ignore anything and everything I post if it's not worth their time and energy.
[Moderator: Suspended 3 days for abuse of the reporting facility.]
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 21 2009, 08:39 PM)
As for whether amateurs can do a better job. . . it depends on what they come up with. You can't predict the value of ideas based on the status of the thinker, only on the content of the thought. It may be more likely that someone with more knowledge and experience will create ideas that are more relevant to others who have read the same articles, etc. but it's no guarantee. Sometimes people bore the crap out of each other with the same old stuff and it takes someone relatively unfamiliar with their discussion to inject new ideas that freshen things up. It may be that the more experienced scientists take those ideas further or take them somewhere completely different than the inexperienced person was going with them. Still, the fact that the inexperienced person stimulated the experienced ones to make progress makes their contribution valid.
I believe that your intentions are honorable, but there's really nothing you can do to help.
Scientific research is so specialized at this point that you need specific education to "catch up" to the last 50 years of scientific understanding. Think of it this way: There are no "General Practitioners" of science. There are only specialists. A neuro-scientist would be just as clueless as you are when it comes to astrophysics.
I understand that you want to be a part of it, but the best thing you can do is help other people understand that science is not the enemy. For example, there is a movement right now to stop infant vaccinations, which have successfully wiped out many diseases. Unfortunately, those same diseases are making a comeback thanks to parents who don't vaccinate their children. One of the best things you can do is fight this ignorance with facts. Same thing for creationists who try to push the not-well-disguised "intelligent design" theory into classrooms. There is a reason why America is far from being number 1 in science education.
I believe that your intentions are honorable, but there's really nothing you can do to help.
Scientific research is so specialized at this point that you need specific education to "catch up" to the last 50 years of scientific understanding. Think of it this way: There are no "General Practitioners" of science. There are only specialists. A neuro-scientist would be just as clueless as you are when it comes to astrophysics.
I understand that you want to be a part of it, but the best thing you can do is help other people understand that science is not the enemy. For example, there is a movement right now to stop infant vaccinations, which have successfully wiped out many diseases. Unfortunately, those same diseases are making a comeback thanks to parents who don't vaccinate their children. One of the best things you can do is fight this ignorance with facts. Same thing for creationists who try to push the not-well-disguised "intelligent design" theory into classrooms. There is a reason why America is far from being number 1 in science education.
Some thirty years ago, there were reputable astronomers who claimed they had detected colliding galaxies, each, moving toward one another faster than the speed of light. [Moderator: You have garbled in transmission the facts of this claim to the point which it is a lie. Your assignment: find the source material to this story.] That news was later modified that it cannot be because the speed of light is 186,000 miles/sec.. [Moderator: Lie. Even if it is true that some news source reported it, the "modification" is a correction since the newspaper blames the reporter not the facts.] But a galaxy has speed of 2 million miles per hour, more or less. [Moderator: Relative to what?] If you ask me what is the speed of light: The speed of light remains constant at 186,000 miles/sec. but light is like a stick of that length 186,000 miles in front of speeding galaxy, that wherever that stick is pointed, it remains the same length of 186,000 miles, But as light is pointing at front of galaxy, thus, the speed of light plus speed of galaxy of 2 million miles/hr. is the combined speed, we may say, too, in that is the new speed of light.[Moderator: Lie. Observational refuted in papers with citations linked to above.]
Jsaldea12
8.23.09
Jsaldea12
8.23.09
QUOTE (jsaldea12+Aug 22 2009, 09:21 AM)
Some thirty years ago, there were reputable astronomers who claimed they had detected colliding galaxies, each, moving toward one another faster than the speed of light. That news was later modified that it cannot be because the speed of light is 186,000 miles/sec.. But a galaxy has speed of 2 million miles per hour, more or less. If you ask me what is the speed of light: The speed of light remains constant at 186,000 miles/sec. but light is like a stick of that length 186,000 miles in front of speeding galaxy, that wherever that stick is pointed, it remains the same length of 186,000 miles, But as light is pointing at front of galaxy, thus, the speed of light plus speed of galaxy of 2 million miles/hr. is the combined speed, we may say, too, in that is the new speed of light.
Jsaldea12
8.23.09
Please keep your stupidity confined to your own thread. I think it's incredibly generous of the moderator to allow you to post your garbage, so don't abuse it.
Jsaldea12
8.23.09
Please keep your stupidity confined to your own thread. I think it's incredibly generous of the moderator to allow you to post your garbage, so don't abuse it.
The claim is just too garbled to research. Moreover since galaxies collide over a timescale of many millions of years, said alleged superluminal motion would still be in evidence if it ever was.
For example, this is a story about motion at some speed x, which moves in the general direction of Earth, such that the radial component of it's motion appears FTL because of the finite propagation speed of light. Old data on its radial position takes longer to reach us than new data on radial position, and if we ignore this propagation of information effect we calculate an erroneous FTL speed.
http://www.stsci.edu/ftp/science/m87/press.txt
Similar observations of this optical illusion are here:
Pearson et al., “Superluminal Expansion of Quasar 3C273”. Nature 290 (1981), pg 365.
Mirabel and Rodriguez, “A Superluminal Source in the Galaxy”, Nature 371 no. 1 (1994), pg 46.
The geometry of the situation is easy to see:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...perluminal.html
A second class of FTL illusion which is possible to observe is searchlight effects, which is why your cat has such a hard time catching that laser pointer dot.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...ight/FTL.html#3
In 1966 Arp published a list of interesting galaxies. Arp 147 is one of them.
Here's a recent picture: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2008/37/
But I find no news stories about faster-than-light colliding galaxies. The claim rests on nothing. The noise in transmission happens entirely inside jsaldea12's skull.
For example, this is a story about motion at some speed x, which moves in the general direction of Earth, such that the radial component of it's motion appears FTL because of the finite propagation speed of light. Old data on its radial position takes longer to reach us than new data on radial position, and if we ignore this propagation of information effect we calculate an erroneous FTL speed.
http://www.stsci.edu/ftp/science/m87/press.txt
Similar observations of this optical illusion are here:
Pearson et al., “Superluminal Expansion of Quasar 3C273”. Nature 290 (1981), pg 365.
Mirabel and Rodriguez, “A Superluminal Source in the Galaxy”, Nature 371 no. 1 (1994), pg 46.
The geometry of the situation is easy to see:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...perluminal.html
A second class of FTL illusion which is possible to observe is searchlight effects, which is why your cat has such a hard time catching that laser pointer dot.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...ight/FTL.html#3
In 1966 Arp published a list of interesting galaxies. Arp 147 is one of them.
Here's a recent picture: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2008/37/
But I find no news stories about faster-than-light colliding galaxies. The claim rests on nothing. The noise in transmission happens entirely inside jsaldea12's skull.
rpenner
For the sake of clarification I would like to know for which specific reasons the above is found to be "abuse of reporting facility"
I am asking on behalf of my own as a Forum member, and I would be very unhappy to get a further suspension, simply because of pure ignorance about what "abuse" in this context means, and so as to be able to avoid a like suspension. Perhaps it is obvious to all others what abuse in this context mean - but we are not all English Tongue, and already this may create situations where something said in the best meaning may be classified and deemed as abusive and inappropriate.
The above is meant purely as clarification and nothing else.
QUOTE
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman @ Aug 21 2009, 11:03 PM)
First off, what I wrote isn't my opinion or a model. It's a brief summary of how the scientific world works. If you don't believe me, ask rpenner or AlphaNumeric, who are a couple of the actual physicists on this forum. Every scientific work is based on an earlier one. Every scientist, as part of his/her education, re-evaluates the experiments of those who come before so that they can understand.
Actually it is a model, which uses the metaphor of brick wall-building as an analogy for humans reading and interpreting the work of others. It assumes that the discourse is a whole, that it is cohesive, and that each "brick" is in itself cohesive and not a collection of diverse communicative fragments. Anyone who has studied in an academic setting is familiar with the habit of reducing discourse into texts with main-points and supporting-points, but how often have you seen someone analyze texts from the approach that they contain more than that? Anyway, I would be happy to get into a deep critical discussion about scientific discourse, but if we do that I'd rather do it on an issue-by-issue basis. I'm sure you don't enjoy discussing physics as "the theory of how everything in the universe works," and I don't like theorizing discourse on the level of, "the theory of how physics discourse works."
QUOTE
Jargon is required to communicate ideas in a meaningful, timely manner. I've explained to magpies why technical language is required. No-one is going to take the time to break down scientific concepts for you for free. If you want to pay someone to do it, go right on ahead. That's what universities are for. You want to do the fun part of science without doing the difficult parts first.
I don't deny the potential that terminology is useful before understanding it. But I do know from experience that there are often simple ways to clarify jargon that don't require much effort. I have done this to clarify so many things for people who don't share my level of understanding that I don't feel bad accepting explanations from others "for free." I have taken my share of university classes and I'm not planning to do so again any time soon unless it pays.
QUOTE
You want to do the fun part of science without doing the difficult parts first. You don't let newbies get into the cockpit of a fighter jet, so why would you ask an amateur to do science? Do you honestly believe that you, the newbie, can do the job better than the experienced fighter pilot?
Here are two different issues: 1) wanting to do the fun stuff without doing the difficult parts and 2) whether an amateur can do the job of a professional physicist. The answer to the first issue is that a big part of science is popular science, and that there is nothing wrong with people engaging in scientific discourse in whatever way, based on their level of interest and expertise. I became interested in physics enough to seek this forum because a local community college put on an educational fair for kids where I took my son. I found some topics interesting, started thinking about them, and decided to discuss them online with others. There is nothing wrong with that. It's the reason science was invented in the first place.
As for whether amateurs can do a better job. . . it depends on what they come up with. You can't predict the value of ideas based on the status of the thinker, only on the content of the thought. It may be more likely that someone with more knowledge and experience will create ideas that are more relevant to others who have read the same articles, etc. but it's no guarantee. Sometimes people bore the crap out of each other with the same old stuff and it takes someone relatively unfamiliar with their discussion to inject new ideas that freshen things up. It may be that the more experienced scientists take those ideas further or take them somewhere completely different than the inexperienced person was going with them. Still, the fact that the inexperienced person stimulated the experienced ones to make progress makes their contribution valid.
QUOTE
I understand that you want to be able to formulate theories that people will take seriously, but you have a long long way to go. The shortest path is ,of course, university education. If you don't have the time for that, do night classes. There's no way that you have the materials or expertise to educate yourself adequately in these matters. Plus, if you get a degree, you also get recognition for your educational accomplishments. If you get a B.S. in Physics, you are much better off than being 10 years older with the same understanding but no degree.
It's more that if people respond to me, I think they should go to the trouble of understanding what I am saying and treat me respectfully in responding. If they don't feel they can respectfully address my posts, why bother responding at all? If they want to briefly tell me that there are others who have addressed the themes I am talking about but they don't want to take the time to explain it (for free), that's fine too. But don't insult me or tell me to go away to do research, take classes, or anything else. There's absolutely no reason why I am bothering anyone by posting on this forum. Anyone is free to ignore anything and everything I post if it's not worth their time and energy.
[Moderator: Suspended 3 days for abuse of the reporting facility.]
First off, what I wrote isn't my opinion or a model. It's a brief summary of how the scientific world works. If you don't believe me, ask rpenner or AlphaNumeric, who are a couple of the actual physicists on this forum. Every scientific work is based on an earlier one. Every scientist, as part of his/her education, re-evaluates the experiments of those who come before so that they can understand.
Actually it is a model, which uses the metaphor of brick wall-building as an analogy for humans reading and interpreting the work of others. It assumes that the discourse is a whole, that it is cohesive, and that each "brick" is in itself cohesive and not a collection of diverse communicative fragments. Anyone who has studied in an academic setting is familiar with the habit of reducing discourse into texts with main-points and supporting-points, but how often have you seen someone analyze texts from the approach that they contain more than that? Anyway, I would be happy to get into a deep critical discussion about scientific discourse, but if we do that I'd rather do it on an issue-by-issue basis. I'm sure you don't enjoy discussing physics as "the theory of how everything in the universe works," and I don't like theorizing discourse on the level of, "the theory of how physics discourse works."
QUOTE
Jargon is required to communicate ideas in a meaningful, timely manner. I've explained to magpies why technical language is required. No-one is going to take the time to break down scientific concepts for you for free. If you want to pay someone to do it, go right on ahead. That's what universities are for. You want to do the fun part of science without doing the difficult parts first.
I don't deny the potential that terminology is useful before understanding it. But I do know from experience that there are often simple ways to clarify jargon that don't require much effort. I have done this to clarify so many things for people who don't share my level of understanding that I don't feel bad accepting explanations from others "for free." I have taken my share of university classes and I'm not planning to do so again any time soon unless it pays.
QUOTE
You want to do the fun part of science without doing the difficult parts first. You don't let newbies get into the cockpit of a fighter jet, so why would you ask an amateur to do science? Do you honestly believe that you, the newbie, can do the job better than the experienced fighter pilot?
Here are two different issues: 1) wanting to do the fun stuff without doing the difficult parts and 2) whether an amateur can do the job of a professional physicist. The answer to the first issue is that a big part of science is popular science, and that there is nothing wrong with people engaging in scientific discourse in whatever way, based on their level of interest and expertise. I became interested in physics enough to seek this forum because a local community college put on an educational fair for kids where I took my son. I found some topics interesting, started thinking about them, and decided to discuss them online with others. There is nothing wrong with that. It's the reason science was invented in the first place.
As for whether amateurs can do a better job. . . it depends on what they come up with. You can't predict the value of ideas based on the status of the thinker, only on the content of the thought. It may be more likely that someone with more knowledge and experience will create ideas that are more relevant to others who have read the same articles, etc. but it's no guarantee. Sometimes people bore the crap out of each other with the same old stuff and it takes someone relatively unfamiliar with their discussion to inject new ideas that freshen things up. It may be that the more experienced scientists take those ideas further or take them somewhere completely different than the inexperienced person was going with them. Still, the fact that the inexperienced person stimulated the experienced ones to make progress makes their contribution valid.
QUOTE
I understand that you want to be able to formulate theories that people will take seriously, but you have a long long way to go. The shortest path is ,of course, university education. If you don't have the time for that, do night classes. There's no way that you have the materials or expertise to educate yourself adequately in these matters. Plus, if you get a degree, you also get recognition for your educational accomplishments. If you get a B.S. in Physics, you are much better off than being 10 years older with the same understanding but no degree.
It's more that if people respond to me, I think they should go to the trouble of understanding what I am saying and treat me respectfully in responding. If they don't feel they can respectfully address my posts, why bother responding at all? If they want to briefly tell me that there are others who have addressed the themes I am talking about but they don't want to take the time to explain it (for free), that's fine too. But don't insult me or tell me to go away to do research, take classes, or anything else. There's absolutely no reason why I am bothering anyone by posting on this forum. Anyone is free to ignore anything and everything I post if it's not worth their time and energy.
[Moderator: Suspended 3 days for abuse of the reporting facility.]
For the sake of clarification I would like to know for which specific reasons the above is found to be "abuse of reporting facility"
I am asking on behalf of my own as a Forum member, and I would be very unhappy to get a further suspension, simply because of pure ignorance about what "abuse" in this context means, and so as to be able to avoid a like suspension. Perhaps it is obvious to all others what abuse in this context mean - but we are not all English Tongue, and already this may create situations where something said in the best meaning may be classified and deemed as abusive and inappropriate.
The above is meant purely as clarification and nothing else.
QUOTE (bukh+Aug 22 2009, 05:43 PM)
For the sake of clarification I would like to know for which specific reasons the above is found to be "abuse of reporting facility"
I am asking on behalf of my own as a Forum member, and I would be very unhappy to get a further suspension, simply because of pure ignorance about what "abuse" in this context means, and so as to be able to avoid a like suspension. Perhaps it is obvious to all others what abuse in this context mean - but we are not all English Tongue, and already this may create situations where something said in the best meaning may be classified and deemed as abusive and inappropriate.
The above is meant purely as clarification and nothing else.
light in the tunnel had a habit of reporting everyone who he considered "rude."
I am asking on behalf of my own as a Forum member, and I would be very unhappy to get a further suspension, simply because of pure ignorance about what "abuse" in this context means, and so as to be able to avoid a like suspension. Perhaps it is obvious to all others what abuse in this context mean - but we are not all English Tongue, and already this may create situations where something said in the best meaning may be classified and deemed as abusive and inappropriate.
The above is meant purely as clarification and nothing else.
light in the tunnel had a habit of reporting everyone who he considered "rude."
Hubble Website
Sir/madam:
Hubble telescope had taken a photograph of colliding/interacting galaxies, called Arp 147. In this connection, please permit to request that the Hubble telescope to measure the speed of each galaxy colliding one another.
This request is made in as much as some 30 years ago, a number of reputable astronomers claimed they detected colliding galaxies, each, moving toward one another faster than light. That news was later modified because how can that be since nothing is faster than the constant speed of light of 186,000 miles/sec.
But galaxies have speed of 2 million miles/hr., more or less. Thus, as light is constant, it is like a rigid stick 186,000 miles in length (that anywhere that stick is pointing, it is the same length of 186,000 miles) and the galaxy is pushing that rigid stick of light. Thus, the combined speed of light of 186,000 miles per/sec. plus the speed of galaxy of 2 million miles per hr. becomes the new speed of light.
It is like a cart being pushed by driver. Suppose the driver is the galaxy and the cart is the constant light. The pushed cart acquires a new speed, the push. Thus, speed of pushing galaxy plus the rigid constant speed of light is the total new speed of light.
It is on this meritorious premise that this request is made.
I shall appreciat4e very much a response.
Jose S. Aldea
Chairman – Capiz Scientists & Inventors Society
Jsaldea12@yahoo.com
Phys forums, re-“Speed of light absolute limit” (by Light on the Tunnel whom I agree)
8.23.09
Sir/madam:
Hubble telescope had taken a photograph of colliding/interacting galaxies, called Arp 147. In this connection, please permit to request that the Hubble telescope to measure the speed of each galaxy colliding one another.
This request is made in as much as some 30 years ago, a number of reputable astronomers claimed they detected colliding galaxies, each, moving toward one another faster than light. That news was later modified because how can that be since nothing is faster than the constant speed of light of 186,000 miles/sec.
But galaxies have speed of 2 million miles/hr., more or less. Thus, as light is constant, it is like a rigid stick 186,000 miles in length (that anywhere that stick is pointing, it is the same length of 186,000 miles) and the galaxy is pushing that rigid stick of light. Thus, the combined speed of light of 186,000 miles per/sec. plus the speed of galaxy of 2 million miles per hr. becomes the new speed of light.
It is like a cart being pushed by driver. Suppose the driver is the galaxy and the cart is the constant light. The pushed cart acquires a new speed, the push. Thus, speed of pushing galaxy plus the rigid constant speed of light is the total new speed of light.
It is on this meritorious premise that this request is made.
I shall appreciat4e very much a response.
Jose S. Aldea
Chairman – Capiz Scientists & Inventors Society
Jsaldea12@yahoo.com
Phys forums, re-“Speed of light absolute limit” (by Light on the Tunnel whom I agree)
8.23.09
- wish this filipino fuckwit would fuckoff![Moderator: Your alliteration is not helpful to my decision of what to do with jsaldea12.]
I jumped…it is only now that I opened and read about the references of moderator, Openner, on the superluminal velocity of galaxy, superluminal scissor…sorry but….
I am not questioning the constant speed of light of 186,000 miles/sec. ..it is the fastest INDEPENDENT phenomenon on the universe, but when it rides on, as in the illustration, the rider and the cart, (look at it in the practical side), the rider pushes the cart that is already constantly moving downhill, the rider represents the galaxy, and the cart represents the constant, fixed light. Thus, as the rider pushes downward further the cart, the cart speed includes its already downhill constant motion plus the additional push by the rider. That is why the speed of the galaxy of 2 million miles per hour plus the speed of ride-on light of 186,000 miles per/sec. is the combined speed, the new speed of visible light of the galaxy.
No quarrel… but I like to hear from John Biretta, Space Telescope Science Institute, on his luminal velocity of light, e-mail: biretta@stsci.edu .
Jsaldea12
8.23.09
I am not questioning the constant speed of light of 186,000 miles/sec. ..it is the fastest INDEPENDENT phenomenon on the universe, but when it rides on, as in the illustration, the rider and the cart, (look at it in the practical side), the rider pushes the cart that is already constantly moving downhill, the rider represents the galaxy, and the cart represents the constant, fixed light. Thus, as the rider pushes downward further the cart, the cart speed includes its already downhill constant motion plus the additional push by the rider. That is why the speed of the galaxy of 2 million miles per hour plus the speed of ride-on light of 186,000 miles per/sec. is the combined speed, the new speed of visible light of the galaxy.
No quarrel… but I like to hear from John Biretta, Space Telescope Science Institute, on his luminal velocity of light, e-mail: biretta@stsci.edu .
Jsaldea12
8.23.09
You say you do not question the constant speed of light then go on to say it can go faster?
You can use logic or you can use observation.
Light speed does not get added on to other speeds the same way pushing an ox cart does.
Or you can look at the ox cart going down hill and someone shoots an arrow forwards. The arrow is going faster than it would normall go if the archer had been standing still.
BUT with light it still goes at the same constant speed. No matter how fast what is emitting is going.
That is what has been found. You can argue all you want as to why that is illogical but it will remain the fact.
You can use logic or you can use observation.
Light speed does not get added on to other speeds the same way pushing an ox cart does.
Or you can look at the ox cart going down hill and someone shoots an arrow forwards. The arrow is going faster than it would normall go if the archer had been standing still.
BUT with light it still goes at the same constant speed. No matter how fast what is emitting is going.
That is what has been found. You can argue all you want as to why that is illogical but it will remain the fact.
Light does not exit any star in a straight line, but is bent by gravity.
The larger the star is, the stronger the bend.
For example, light exiting the sun does so with a slightly hyperbolic spiral in space-time. The more massive the star, the greater this effect. If you have a star with high enough mass, then you have a black hole.
A neutron star that is arbitrarily close to critical mass of becoming a black hole could in fact have very ancient light spiraling out from it for eons in some cases if the surface gravity is arbitrarily close to critical and the light was emmited at a low enough angle(arbitrarily close to the tangent of the surface of the star). In such a scenario, it might take eons for light emmitted at these angles to travel just a few meters "up" from the surface, because the light would orbit the star billions or even trillions of times before finally getting far enough away to escape into space. One consequence of these would be the appearance of "ghost" objects, much like the multiple images of an object "behind" a black hole due to gravitational lensing.
That is, a star that is arbitrarily close to critical mass may in fact appear as some sort of globular cluster due to all the duplicate images from light escaping at different angles along different spirals.
The larger the star is, the stronger the bend.
For example, light exiting the sun does so with a slightly hyperbolic spiral in space-time. The more massive the star, the greater this effect. If you have a star with high enough mass, then you have a black hole.
A neutron star that is arbitrarily close to critical mass of becoming a black hole could in fact have very ancient light spiraling out from it for eons in some cases if the surface gravity is arbitrarily close to critical and the light was emmited at a low enough angle(arbitrarily close to the tangent of the surface of the star). In such a scenario, it might take eons for light emmitted at these angles to travel just a few meters "up" from the surface, because the light would orbit the star billions or even trillions of times before finally getting far enough away to escape into space. One consequence of these would be the appearance of "ghost" objects, much like the multiple images of an object "behind" a black hole due to gravitational lensing.
That is, a star that is arbitrarily close to critical mass may in fact appear as some sort of globular cluster due to all the duplicate images from light escaping at different angles along different spirals.
Earth orbits sun at 66,000 miles/hr., the sun orbits milky way and milky way rotates ….the total accumulated speed of earth is 1 million miles per hr., more or less. In like manner, too, is light. Because it rides on the motion of galaxy, its total combined speed is the speed of light plus the motion of galaxy. ..expanded relativity speaking.
But in the case of the light riding on motion of galaxy (not exploding supernovae a billion times bright), galaxy does not create such super-luminousity, and the computation of the ride-on is simple and accurate: speed of light plus speed of galaxy. It is up to you.
Regards.
Jsaldea12
8.24.09
But in the case of the light riding on motion of galaxy (not exploding supernovae a billion times bright), galaxy does not create such super-luminousity, and the computation of the ride-on is simple and accurate: speed of light plus speed of galaxy. It is up to you.
Regards.
Jsaldea12
8.24.09
QUOTE
Because it rides on the motion of galaxy, its total combined speed is the speed of light plus the motion of galaxy
So wrong it's painful.
Even if we didn't consider relativity, which has been proven thousands of times, your idea would still not make any sense.
Not all galaxies move in the same direction. Not all parts of a galaxy move in the same direction or at the same speed.
As Buttershug pointed out, you are just ignoring established physics based on repeated experiments and data. Good luck with that.
NASA - What is the speed of the Earth?
When you take into account the three-dimensional picture of the Sun's movement through our Milky Way Galaxy, things get very complicated.
4. The sun {and hence the solar system} is moving towards the constellation Hercules, namely to the star Lambda Herculis at 12 miles per second {or 20 kilometers per second} which is 43,200 MPH
5. The Solar system is also moving upwards, at 90 degrees to the plane of the Milky Way, at 4.34 miles per second or 15,624 MPH. But we are actually leaving the Galaxy, out about 50 light years now and will be moving out to 250 light years before it reverses. Details of the mechanics of this are explained in the link below. We also crossed the Galactic plane 2 million years ago.
6. The Solar system is orbiting around the Galaxy at an "estimated" speed of 124 miles per second {or 200 kilometers per second} which is 446,400 MPH. The way that figure has been calculated can be found at the link below.
Stanford University - What is the speed of the Solar System?
.
Image NASA/ GSFC.
This is where finding our way home becomes difficult, as we do NOT have an actual true figure for this calculation. The further out we go, taking into account the various motions and speed, the more difficult it becomes to get precise calculations ergo the more room for error. Until we can actually go and measure the distances, a "best guess" is all we have. Over the past few decades these values have been revised several times, and are constantly being added to today.
From an Astronomer's point of view this is not a problem, as they are merely observing from Earth and can fix their calculations when they get new data… no harm done… just reprint the maps.
BUT from a spaceship pilot point of view…touring just within our own galaxy… the problems are enormous.
From a navigator's point of view, we can leave out the "wobble" and the Earth's rotation as those movements are "in place". For later calculations we could also leave out the Earth orbiting the Sun, because if we can make it back to the Sun, I am sure we can locate Earth.
So our "armchair Astronaut" is now moving through 6 different directions and a combined speed of approximately 574,585 MPH
69,361 MPH Spin and Orbit
43,200 MPH Towards Lambda Herculis
15,624 MPH Perpendicular to Galactic Plane
446,400 MPH Orbiting the Galactic Center {or Galactic Spin Rate}
-------------------
574,585 MPH Speed of Earth within Our Galaxy
So for every hour you are away from the solar system, your planet is moving half a million miles, and in several directions…
Now if you want to leave the galaxy add another 1,339,200 MPH to the calculations. This is the speed the galaxy is moving through the universe. But THEN you really get into difficulties pin pointing you reference point. Details can be found here…
So you see… the propulsion unit is the least of your worries….
You better have a REALLY GOOD NAVIGATOR.
NASA - What is the Speed of our Galaxy?
.
Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/R. Hurt (SSC)
Oh and about that vector calculation thing? …
--------------Forget it I have a headache! …
----------------------------Go ask a rocket scientist! ...
WANTED: ROCKET SCIENTIST...
JOB: Provide Accurate measurements and vector details for the Scientific Explanation
PAY: The Satisfaction that comes from sharing your knowledge.
What is the speed of the Solar System?
(by Amara Graps)
Or, how fast is the Sun (Solar System) hurling towards the constellation Hercules?
From the book: _Guide to the Galaxy_, 1994; Henbest and Couper; Cambridge University Press.
The Sun is moving towards Lambda Herculis at 20 kilometers per second or 12 miles per second. Or in units "per hour": 72,000 kilometers per hour or 45,000 miles per hour. This speed is in a frame of rest if the other stars were all standing still.
The three-dimensional picture of the Sun's movement through the Galaxy is a little more complicated.
The Sun is moving upwards, out of the plane of the Milky Way, at a speed of 7 kilometers per second. Currently the Sun lies 50 light-years above the mid-plane of the galaxy, and its motion is steadily carrying it further away.
But the gravitational pull of the stars in the Galactic (Milky Way) plane is slowing down the Sun's escape. The astronomer Frank Bash estimates that in 14 million years the sun will reach its maximum height above the Galactic disk. From that 250 light-year position, it will be pulled back towards the plane of the Galaxy. Passing through, it will travel to a point 250 light-years below the disk, then oscillate upwards again to reach its present position 66 million years from now. We crossed the plane 2 million years ago. We are currently in the thick of the galactic disk and our view of distant regions is largely blocked by dust but 10-20 million years from now, our motion will allow a full view of our starry galaxy.
The Sun-Galactic center distance is 25,000 light-years -- plus or minus 2,000 light-years. The galaxy is thought to be 100,000 light-years in diameter and we are thought to be about halfway out from the center (used to be thought that we were two-thirds out).
If you have a good idea of the Sun's distance from the Galactic center, then the solar system's speed can be approximated. Using speed measurements of the gas at different distances from the Galactic center, the Sun appears to be cruising along at 200 kilometers per second and it takes 240 million years to complete the grand circuit around the Galaxy. This speed is an absolute speed.
Stanford University - What is the speed of the Solar System?
.
What is the Speed of Light
The speed of light in a vacuum is an important physical constant denoted by the letter c for constant or the Latin word celeritas meaning "swiftness"
In metric units, c is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second (or 1,079,252,848.8 km/h). Note that this speed is a definition, not a measurement, since the fundamental SI unit of length, the metre, has been defined since October 21, 1983 in terms of the speed of light: one metre is the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second. Converted to imperial units, the speed of light is approximately 186,282.397 miles per second, or 670,616,629.384 miles per hour.
Source Wikipedia
What is a Light Year
A light-year is approximately equal to
* 9,460,528,404,879 km (about 9.461 Pm)
* 5,878,482,164,161 statute miles[1]
* 63,239.7263 AU (about 63,240 AU)
* 0.306601394 pc
The actual, exact length of the light-year depends on the length of the reference year used in the calculation, and there is no wide consensus on the reference to be used. The figures above are based on a reference year of 31,556,925.9747 seconds, but other reference years are often used, such that the light-year is not an appropriate unit to use when extremely high precision is required.
However, the IAU style guide recommends the use of calendar years, specifically Julian (and not Gregorian) calendar years of 365.25 days or exactly 31,557,600 seconds. This gives the light-year an exact value of 9,460,730,472,580,800 meters, again about 9.461 Pm).
The light-year is often used to measure distances to stars. In astronomy, the preferred unit of measurement for such distances is the parsec, which is defined as the distance at which an object will generate one arcsecond of parallax when the observing object moved one astronomical unit perpendicular to the line of sight to the observer. This is equal to approximately 3.26 light years. The parsec is preferred because it can be more easily derived from, and compared with, observational data. However, outside scientific circles, the term light-year is more widely used.
1 light-year = 9.46*10^{15} meters
1 parsec = 3.08*10^{16} meters
Source Wikipedia
See Also the Cosmic Yin Yang
.
Copyright Notice
All pictures and photos on this page, unless otherwise notated, have been gathered from pubic domain sources or are available under GNU Licence. Further documentation is available on our Copyright Page and our Legal Department.
Article Qoutes all have links to their appropriate source and are noted. All other text not so noted is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
All information on this page is used only for non profit educational purposes. All reasonable attempts have been made that no credits are missed, but with a work of this size ommisions may occur. If you see anything of yours that has not been properly credited or wish to have removed please contact the Webmaster
I am not far after all. Regards.
jsaldea12
82409
When you take into account the three-dimensional picture of the Sun's movement through our Milky Way Galaxy, things get very complicated.
4. The sun {and hence the solar system} is moving towards the constellation Hercules, namely to the star Lambda Herculis at 12 miles per second {or 20 kilometers per second} which is 43,200 MPH
5. The Solar system is also moving upwards, at 90 degrees to the plane of the Milky Way, at 4.34 miles per second or 15,624 MPH. But we are actually leaving the Galaxy, out about 50 light years now and will be moving out to 250 light years before it reverses. Details of the mechanics of this are explained in the link below. We also crossed the Galactic plane 2 million years ago.
6. The Solar system is orbiting around the Galaxy at an "estimated" speed of 124 miles per second {or 200 kilometers per second} which is 446,400 MPH. The way that figure has been calculated can be found at the link below.
Stanford University - What is the speed of the Solar System?
.
Image NASA/ GSFC.
This is where finding our way home becomes difficult, as we do NOT have an actual true figure for this calculation. The further out we go, taking into account the various motions and speed, the more difficult it becomes to get precise calculations ergo the more room for error. Until we can actually go and measure the distances, a "best guess" is all we have. Over the past few decades these values have been revised several times, and are constantly being added to today.
From an Astronomer's point of view this is not a problem, as they are merely observing from Earth and can fix their calculations when they get new data… no harm done… just reprint the maps.
BUT from a spaceship pilot point of view…touring just within our own galaxy… the problems are enormous.
From a navigator's point of view, we can leave out the "wobble" and the Earth's rotation as those movements are "in place". For later calculations we could also leave out the Earth orbiting the Sun, because if we can make it back to the Sun, I am sure we can locate Earth.
So our "armchair Astronaut" is now moving through 6 different directions and a combined speed of approximately 574,585 MPH
69,361 MPH Spin and Orbit
43,200 MPH Towards Lambda Herculis
15,624 MPH Perpendicular to Galactic Plane
446,400 MPH Orbiting the Galactic Center {or Galactic Spin Rate}
-------------------
574,585 MPH Speed of Earth within Our Galaxy
So for every hour you are away from the solar system, your planet is moving half a million miles, and in several directions…
Now if you want to leave the galaxy add another 1,339,200 MPH to the calculations. This is the speed the galaxy is moving through the universe. But THEN you really get into difficulties pin pointing you reference point. Details can be found here…
So you see… the propulsion unit is the least of your worries….
You better have a REALLY GOOD NAVIGATOR.
NASA - What is the Speed of our Galaxy?
.
Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/R. Hurt (SSC)
Oh and about that vector calculation thing? …
--------------Forget it I have a headache! …
----------------------------Go ask a rocket scientist! ...
WANTED: ROCKET SCIENTIST...
JOB: Provide Accurate measurements and vector details for the Scientific Explanation
PAY: The Satisfaction that comes from sharing your knowledge.
What is the speed of the Solar System?
(by Amara Graps)
Or, how fast is the Sun (Solar System) hurling towards the constellation Hercules?
From the book: _Guide to the Galaxy_, 1994; Henbest and Couper; Cambridge University Press.
The Sun is moving towards Lambda Herculis at 20 kilometers per second or 12 miles per second. Or in units "per hour": 72,000 kilometers per hour or 45,000 miles per hour. This speed is in a frame of rest if the other stars were all standing still.
The three-dimensional picture of the Sun's movement through the Galaxy is a little more complicated.
The Sun is moving upwards, out of the plane of the Milky Way, at a speed of 7 kilometers per second. Currently the Sun lies 50 light-years above the mid-plane of the galaxy, and its motion is steadily carrying it further away.
But the gravitational pull of the stars in the Galactic (Milky Way) plane is slowing down the Sun's escape. The astronomer Frank Bash estimates that in 14 million years the sun will reach its maximum height above the Galactic disk. From that 250 light-year position, it will be pulled back towards the plane of the Galaxy. Passing through, it will travel to a point 250 light-years below the disk, then oscillate upwards again to reach its present position 66 million years from now. We crossed the plane 2 million years ago. We are currently in the thick of the galactic disk and our view of distant regions is largely blocked by dust but 10-20 million years from now, our motion will allow a full view of our starry galaxy.
The Sun-Galactic center distance is 25,000 light-years -- plus or minus 2,000 light-years. The galaxy is thought to be 100,000 light-years in diameter and we are thought to be about halfway out from the center (used to be thought that we were two-thirds out).
If you have a good idea of the Sun's distance from the Galactic center, then the solar system's speed can be approximated. Using speed measurements of the gas at different distances from the Galactic center, the Sun appears to be cruising along at 200 kilometers per second and it takes 240 million years to complete the grand circuit around the Galaxy. This speed is an absolute speed.
Stanford University - What is the speed of the Solar System?
.
What is the Speed of Light
The speed of light in a vacuum is an important physical constant denoted by the letter c for constant or the Latin word celeritas meaning "swiftness"
In metric units, c is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second (or 1,079,252,848.8 km/h). Note that this speed is a definition, not a measurement, since the fundamental SI unit of length, the metre, has been defined since October 21, 1983 in terms of the speed of light: one metre is the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second. Converted to imperial units, the speed of light is approximately 186,282.397 miles per second, or 670,616,629.384 miles per hour.
Source Wikipedia
What is a Light Year
A light-year is approximately equal to
* 9,460,528,404,879 km (about 9.461 Pm)
* 5,878,482,164,161 statute miles[1]
* 63,239.7263 AU (about 63,240 AU)
* 0.306601394 pc
The actual, exact length of the light-year depends on the length of the reference year used in the calculation, and there is no wide consensus on the reference to be used. The figures above are based on a reference year of 31,556,925.9747 seconds, but other reference years are often used, such that the light-year is not an appropriate unit to use when extremely high precision is required.
However, the IAU style guide recommends the use of calendar years, specifically Julian (and not Gregorian) calendar years of 365.25 days or exactly 31,557,600 seconds. This gives the light-year an exact value of 9,460,730,472,580,800 meters, again about 9.461 Pm).
The light-year is often used to measure distances to stars. In astronomy, the preferred unit of measurement for such distances is the parsec, which is defined as the distance at which an object will generate one arcsecond of parallax when the observing object moved one astronomical unit perpendicular to the line of sight to the observer. This is equal to approximately 3.26 light years. The parsec is preferred because it can be more easily derived from, and compared with, observational data. However, outside scientific circles, the term light-year is more widely used.
1 light-year = 9.46*10^{15} meters
1 parsec = 3.08*10^{16} meters
Source Wikipedia
See Also the Cosmic Yin Yang
.
Copyright Notice
All pictures and photos on this page, unless otherwise notated, have been gathered from pubic domain sources or are available under GNU Licence. Further documentation is available on our Copyright Page and our Legal Department.
Article Qoutes all have links to their appropriate source and are noted. All other text not so noted is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
All information on this page is used only for non profit educational purposes. All reasonable attempts have been made that no credits are missed, but with a work of this size ommisions may occur. If you see anything of yours that has not been properly credited or wish to have removed please contact the Webmaster
I am not far after all. Regards.
jsaldea12
82409
Just like NASA chained computation of the speed of earth, what is now the speed of light, with constant 186,000 miles per sec. that rides on the speed of galaxy, moving at 2 million miles per hr., more or less?
Regards
Jsaldea12
8.25.09
.
Regards
Jsaldea12
8.25.09
.
QUOTE (jsaldea12+Aug 24 2009, 10:23 PM)
Just like NASA chained computation of the speed of earth, what is now the speed of light, with constant 186,000 miles per sec. that rides on the speed of galaxy, moving at 2 million miles per hr., more or less?
Regards
Jsaldea12
8.25.09
.
Not in the real Universe.
Regards
Jsaldea12
8.25.09
.
Not in the real Universe.
The Michelson-Morley measurement of speed of light, forward, backward, sideward, was performed on Earth and found light is the same at 186,000 miles per/sec., thus, Eminent Dr. Einstein declared, after ten years, that light is simply constant. No question. But what is missed is that earth is moving at 68,000 miles per/sec. it is like rocketship with speed of 68,000 miles per/sec. with rigid stick in front with length of 186,000 miles. The forward motion of the rocketship plus the rigid stick (representing constant light) is the total combined length/speed, although the stick remains the same 186,000 miles in length, although light remains constant at 186,000 miles per/sec. Light is not independent of its source (interferometer on earth) though light is independent of observer outside earth.
Regards.
Jsaldea 12
8.28.09.
Regards.
Jsaldea 12
8.28.09.
idiot.
Nothing more needs to be said.
Nothing more needs to be said.
QUOTE (jsaldea12+Aug 27 2009, 08:41 AM)
The Michelson-Morley measurement of speed of light, forward, backward, sideward, was performed on Earth and found light is the same at 186,000 miles per/sec., thus, Eminent Dr. Einstein declared, after ten years, that light is simply constant. No question. But what is missed is that earth is moving at 68,000 miles per/sec. it is like rocketship with speed of 68,000 miles per/sec. with rigid stick in front with length of 186,000 miles. The forward motion of the rocketship plus the rigid stick (representing constant light) is the total combined length/speed, although the stick remains the same 186,000 miles in length, although light remains constant at 186,000 miles per/sec. Light is not independent of its source (interferometer on earth) though light is independent of observer outside earth.
Regards.
Jsaldea 12
8.28.09.
Imagine a gun that shoots bullets at mach 2.
Imagine a jet that flies at mach 3.
Imagine a flashlight.
Imagine the jet has such a gun mounted and a flashlight.
Imagine a spot on the ground with a gun and a flashlight.
Imagine a target.
Imagine the jet flying over the spot on the ground.
Imagine that they both fire and turn on the light at the same time as the jet is immediately over the spot.
The two beams of light will arrive at the same time. The speed of light is a constant.
The bullet from the jet will hit next. It will have it's own speed added to the jet's speed. (ignoring air resistance.)
The bullet from the ground will hit last.
Don't think of the light like anything else. You can't add up the speeds.
That's reality deal with it.
Regards.
Jsaldea 12
8.28.09.
Imagine a gun that shoots bullets at mach 2.
Imagine a jet that flies at mach 3.
Imagine a flashlight.
Imagine the jet has such a gun mounted and a flashlight.
Imagine a spot on the ground with a gun and a flashlight.
Imagine a target.
Imagine the jet flying over the spot on the ground.
Imagine that they both fire and turn on the light at the same time as the jet is immediately over the spot.
The two beams of light will arrive at the same time. The speed of light is a constant.
The bullet from the jet will hit next. It will have it's own speed added to the jet's speed. (ignoring air resistance.)
The bullet from the ground will hit last.
Don't think of the light like anything else. You can't add up the speeds.
That's reality deal with it.
The illustrated distance is very short at the level of light but not for jet and guns. The distance has to be more than the LENGTH of speed of light per/sec. to measure speed of light plus speed of objects (jets and guns), such requirement being impossible in ACTUALITY..
The problem is compounding: we can see the source of light and the object it comes in contact with, that is why outer space is “pitched black”, according to astronauts. Because in between, light is invisible. Only when concentrated light of length of 186,000 miles comes in contact with human eyes per second, can concentrated light be seen.
But in reality, though. it is impossible to detect constant light in-between because it is invisible, it is being pushed, like illustrated rigid stick, as light rides on the speeding galaxy, moving at 1.5 million miles per hour.
The colliding galaxies could be, ONLY, one exception to be able to detect speed of light plus speed of colliding two galaxies.. because there are two references at the level of speed of light.
That luminal velocity of super-pressurized JET emanating from center of galaxy maybe another. It maybe, maybe, more than speed of light....not exactly illusion.
Regards.
jsaldea 12
8.28.09
The problem is compounding: we can see the source of light and the object it comes in contact with, that is why outer space is “pitched black”, according to astronauts. Because in between, light is invisible. Only when concentrated light of length of 186,000 miles comes in contact with human eyes per second, can concentrated light be seen.
But in reality, though. it is impossible to detect constant light in-between because it is invisible, it is being pushed, like illustrated rigid stick, as light rides on the speeding galaxy, moving at 1.5 million miles per hour.
The colliding galaxies could be, ONLY, one exception to be able to detect speed of light plus speed of colliding two galaxies.. because there are two references at the level of speed of light.
That luminal velocity of super-pressurized JET emanating from center of galaxy maybe another. It maybe, maybe, more than speed of light....not exactly illusion.
Regards.
jsaldea 12
8.28.09
idiot.
None of that made any sense at all.
This doesn't even rise to the level of crackpot. It's just nonsense.
None of that made any sense at all.
This doesn't even rise to the level of crackpot. It's just nonsense.
Distance can not equal velocity.
You can't see the source of light.
You can't see the object it reflects off of.
All you can see is the light that impacts your eye.
You can't see the source of light.
You can't see the object it reflects off of.
All you can see is the light that impacts your eye.
Light, emanating from source, flashlight, and all the surrounding light impacted are visible.
Unless light is seen in all its length of 186,000 miles per/sec., it is not possible
to see if it is being pushed or not. It is only in outer space that this experiment/observation can be done, like in colliding galazies, where there are two references, the two colliding galaxies.
Astronomer Beritta is not responding. Maybe AlexG can make contact.
Regards to you both.
jsaldea12
8.28.09
Unless light is seen in all its length of 186,000 miles per/sec., it is not possible
to see if it is being pushed or not. It is only in outer space that this experiment/observation can be done, like in colliding galazies, where there are two references, the two colliding galaxies.
Astronomer Beritta is not responding. Maybe AlexG can make contact.
Regards to you both.
jsaldea12
8.28.09
I offer the motion to suspend jsaldea12 for 30 days for wasting our time and that of leading researchers by going over old ground and being really stupid about his own damn unspecific claims about two galaxies somewhere in the universe as documented somewhere, maybe.
I will consider arguments for reducing this to 15 or not imposing sanctions at all. Preferably by Mr. Peter Kingdom of Market Shipborough, Norfolk.
I will consider arguments for reducing this to 15 or not imposing sanctions at all. Preferably by Mr. Peter Kingdom of Market Shipborough, Norfolk.
Second the motion.
A;lex G, for the first time you are making sense.
jsaldea12
8.28.09
Moderator,
Please don’t consider of suspending….now that we are in a better position to know more.. Because I will request Astronomer Beritta, on top of all, to make astronomical observation of the Hubble detected two colliding galaxies as of present and compare it with same recorded astronomical observation fifty or more years ago.. and be able to calculate the speed of each of colliding galaxies toward one another.
Jaldea12
8.28.09
Please don’t consider of suspending….now that we are in a better position to know more.. Because I will request Astronomer Beritta, on top of all, to make astronomical observation of the Hubble detected two colliding galaxies as of present and compare it with same recorded astronomical observation fifty or more years ago.. and be able to calculate the speed of each of colliding galaxies toward one another.
Jaldea12
8.28.09
If you get an actual accredited and rational astronomer to do anything for you other than flee your presence like Paris Hilton fleeing a spelling bee, I will actually faint.
No, I wont flee, because chances are, I am wrong? Something tells me something is missed with the calculation of the speed of light. Light is never independent from source: without the source, there is no light, simple as that. No quarrel..
Regards.
Jsaldea12
8.28.09
Regards.
Jsaldea12
8.28.09
Kindly permit me to clarify: In the Michelson-Morley experiment, the frame reference (interferometer), mirrors, and source of light are all in one area of earth. As far as that small area is concerned, light is the same, constant, but in bigger reference, the entire earth, a light escaping earth has TOTAL speed = its constant speed of 186,000 miles/sec. plus ride on source of light, earth, itself, with speed of 68,000 miles/hr.
This has implication on that luminal velocity of super-pressurized jet emanating from center of galaxy. As matter, like earth, can push light, that luminal velocity is real, not illusion. It may be added that quasars, matter, are receding closest to speed of light. But that jet is super-pressurized heated matter that is why it iluminastes.)
Hope, you will permit this addition.
Jsaldea 12
8.28.09
This has implication on that luminal velocity of super-pressurized jet emanating from center of galaxy. As matter, like earth, can push light, that luminal velocity is real, not illusion. It may be added that quasars, matter, are receding closest to speed of light. But that jet is super-pressurized heated matter that is why it iluminastes.)
Hope, you will permit this addition.
Jsaldea 12
8.28.09
QUOTE (jsaldea12+Aug 28 2009, 02:21 AM)
Light, emanating from source, flashlight, and all the surrounding light impacted are visible.
Unless light is seen in all its length of 186,000 miles per/sec., it is not possible
to see if it is being pushed or not. It is only in outer space that this experiment/observation can be done, like in colliding galazies, where there are two references, the two colliding galaxies.
Astronomer Beritta is not responding. Maybe AlexG can make contact.
Regards to you both.
jsaldea12
8.28.09
The only light that is visible is that which is in your eye.
That's why heads up displays work.
You don't really "see" the source.
Run a city block, then walk back slowly.
Two different speeds but it's the same distance.
You can not equate distance with speed.
Unless light is seen in all its length of 186,000 miles per/sec., it is not possible
to see if it is being pushed or not. It is only in outer space that this experiment/observation can be done, like in colliding galazies, where there are two references, the two colliding galaxies.
Astronomer Beritta is not responding. Maybe AlexG can make contact.
Regards to you both.
jsaldea12
8.28.09
The only light that is visible is that which is in your eye.
That's why heads up displays work.
You don't really "see" the source.
Run a city block, then walk back slowly.
Two different speeds but it's the same distance.
You can not equate distance with speed.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 28 2009, 10:10 AM)
The only light that is visible is that which is in your eye.
That's why heads up displays work.
You don't really "see" the source.
Run a city block, then walk back slowly.
Two different speeds but it's the same distance.
You can not equate distance with speed.
Wow, I couldn't figure out what he was actually saying until you clarified.
Now that I look back, it makes sense (not really).
Does he think that you need to actually travel 30 miles to go at 30mph?
That's why heads up displays work.
You don't really "see" the source.
Run a city block, then walk back slowly.
Two different speeds but it's the same distance.
You can not equate distance with speed.
Wow, I couldn't figure out what he was actually saying until you clarified.
Now that I look back, it makes sense (not really).
Does he think that you need to actually travel 30 miles to go at 30mph?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.