catbirdseat Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Finally decided that you guys were trolling me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctorb Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 probly would have to travel light speed Objects with mass cannot travel at the speed of light. but it would be intresting to see if ageing is relitive to the time it takes to travel around the sun Huh? wounldn't it be posible if this was true to increase a persons life span, oh and if it 365 for us mars takes longer doesn't it? if it is 325 would it then decrease? and could decay time diifer, which would effect a lot of things Double huh? Â I think wirlwind went to gibberish camp when he was a kid. Or he's a little punchy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ducknut Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 we wouldn't troll you, but here is the compartive planetary statistics. and a pagetop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctorb Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Kepler's 3 laws Planets travel in elipses, with the sun at one focus A line drawn from the sun to a planet will sweep out equal areas in equal time intervals. The square of a planets period is proportional to the cube of the mean distance from the sun. Â So...k=T^2/R^3, k is the same for ALL planets. Which planets travel with the highest orbital velocity then? HMMMM???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whirlwind Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 ok dude photons have mass. what is ageing based on if not the obit of the earth around the sun, or decay and if these rates are diferent then wouldn't ageing be different thats what i was asking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 (edited) Kepler's 3 laws Planets travel in elipses, with the sun at one focus A line drawn from the sun to a planet will sweep out equal areas in equal time intervals. The square of a planets period is proportional to the cube of the mean distance from the sun. Â So...k=T^2/R^3, k is the same for ALL planets. Which planets travel with the highest orbital velocity then? HMMMM???? Â the shape of the planetary orbit (eccentricity) can change with time from, for example, a more circular orbit to stretched elliptical orbit. not sure why but this was worked out mathematically, i think, by a pole or russian mathematician, last name Milankovitch--Milankovitch orbital parameters--for earth, I believe it's something on the order of 100,000 years for fluctuation in shape of orbit. Â NOAA paleoclimatology... Edited January 9, 2004 by Stonehead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctorb Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 ok dude photons have mass. Photons cannot have mass, according to Einstein. Â what is ageing based on if not the obit of the earth around the sun Oxidation of mitochondrial DNA Â or decay and if these rates are diferent then wouldn't ageing be different thats what i was asking. You would age at the same rate. Unless there was a change in temperature. Increase temp, increase oxidation, and vice versa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lummox Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 dint we already kick them maritians ass in the war of the worlds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabertooth Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Catbird...think about that for a second. Who says the planets travel at the same velocity? Â This is true. A planet's velocity depends upon several factors. 1. The sun's mass 2. The planet's mass 3. The distance between them. Â It rotates at a speed where there is a neutralization of angular momentum. The outward force is based upon the planets mass and the speed it is rotating at. The inward force is based upon the equation F=G*M*m/r^2, where G is the universal constant 6.67 X 10^-11 NM^2/kg^2, M is the mass of the sun in kg, m is the mass of the planet is kg, and r is the distance between them in meters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 ok dude photons have mass. Photons cannot have mass, according to Einstein. Â what is ageing based on if not the obit of the earth around the sun Oxidation of mitochondrial DNA Â or decay and if these rates are diferent then wouldn't ageing be different thats what i was asking. You would age at the same rate. Unless there was a change in temperature. Increase temp, increase oxidation, and vice versa. Â sounds more like someone is talking about the measure of aging, atomic clock (absolute?) vs. length of day, period of revolution, etc. (relative), while the other is talking actually about biological aging. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ducknut Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 whoa Dude my head is spinning now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 there is no unit of time shorter than the Planck time. the time quanta. thus resolving Zeno's paradox without the need for calculus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctorb Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 (edited) Catbird...think about that for a second. Who says the planets travel at the same velocity? Â This is true. A planet's velocity depends upon several factors. 1. The sun's mass 2. The planet's mass 3. The distance between them. Â It rotates at a speed where there is a neutralization of angular momentum. The outward force is based upon the planets mass and the speed it is rotating at. The inward force is based upon the equation F=G*M*m/r^2, where G is the universal constant 6.67 X 10^-11 NM^2/kg^2, M is the mass of the sun in kg, m is the mass of the planet is kg, and r is the distance between them in meters. Â Incorrect. The mass of the sun has no effect on it's orbital velocity. Only the mass of the orbiting object and the radius of the orbit have an effect on orbital velocity. Â The inward acting force (centripetal):M plannet*(v^2/r) Â "Outward acting force"??? This is commonly called "centrifugal force", and doesn't exist. There is no outward acting force on an object travelling with uniform circular(or satellite) motion. Â Got notes, fixed mistakes!! Edited January 9, 2004 by Doctorb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Aging is based on tons of thingss, including your chromosomes becoming shorter. Â Time is based on speed, not where you are. If you go to Mars and come back you will be the same age as if you had stayed here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Suppose wrlwind gets in a spaceship and heads out on an extended voyage (and climbs the walls) while ducknut stays behind on earth and climbs on rock. Wrlwind accelerates at at 1 G, because he's used to earth's gravity. Â As his ship approaches 0.98 times the speed of light, Ducknut notices that wrlwinds rate of acceleration seems to be slowing. Meanwhile wrlwind still feels that he is accelerating at 1 G. From Ducknut's frame of reference, the mass of wrlwind's ship in increasing and his clocks are speeding up, but as far as wirlwind is concerned his weight, or mass, is the same and his clocks, as well as his perception of the passage of time are the same. Â So if wrlwind goes fast enough, say above 0.99x C and travels for long enough, he might eventually come home to find himself much older than ducknut, even though they may have been the same age when he left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 I could just see GWB in his flight suit again. Â "Punch it Chewie!" Â I can't think of a better place for G-Dub. Can we get this program sped up a bit? I'd push for a launch date early this year! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctorb Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Suppose wrlwind gets in a spaceship and heads out on an extended voyage (and climbs the walls) while ducknut stays behind on earth and climbs on rock. Wrlwind accelerates at at 1 G, because he's used to earth's gravity. As his ship approaches 0.98 times the speed of light, Ducknut notices that wrlwinds rate of acceleration seems to be slowing. Meanwhile wrlwind still feels that he is accelerating at 1 G. From Ducknut's frame of reference, the mass of wrlwind's ship in increasing and his clocks are speeding up, but as far as wirlwind is concerned his weight, or mass, is the same and his clocks, as well as his perception of the passage of time are the same.  So if wrlwind goes fast enough, say above 0.99x C and travels for long enough, he might eventually come home to find himself much older than ducknut, even though they may have been the same age when he left.  Except Ducknut is moving away from wirlwind, according to wirlwind, and time has slowed for Ducknut, from wirlwind's frame of reference, not for wirlwind. So which one has aged more than the other? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Incorrect. The mass of the sun has no effect on it's orbital velocity. Only the mass of the orbiting object and the radius of the orbit have an effect on orbital velocity. Â The inward acting force (centripetal):M plannet*(v^2/r) Â "Outward acting force"??? This is commonly called "centrifugal force", and doesn't exist. There is no outward acting force on an object travelling with uniform circular(or satellite) motion. Â Got notes, fixed mistakes!! Your statement is only correct then the mass of the central object is very large relative to the orbiting body, which in the case of the sun is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Did you just read The Elegant Universe or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctorb Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Incorrect. The mass of the sun has no effect on it's orbital velocity. Only the mass of the orbiting object and the radius of the orbit have an effect on orbital velocity. Â The inward acting force (centripetal):M plannet*(v^2/r) Â "Outward acting force"??? This is commonly called "centrifugal force", and doesn't exist. There is no outward acting force on an object travelling with uniform circular(or satellite) motion. Â Got notes, fixed mistakes!! Your statement is only correct then the mass of the central object is very large relative to the orbiting body, which in the case of the sun is true. Â Support your statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Except Ducknut is moving away from wirlwind, according to wirlwind, and time has slowed for Ducknut, from wirlwind's frame of reference, not for wirlwind. So which one has aged more than the other? The one who is accelerating is the one which for which time passes more slowly relative to the stationary one. Wirlwind is accelerating because he has some sort of fusion drive under his butt. Ducknut does not. Thus Ducknut ages faster than wrlwind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ducknut Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Hey I'm getting old fast enough, stop this train I want to get off..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabertooth Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Catbird...think about that for a second. Who says the planets travel at the same velocity? Â This is true. A planet's velocity depends upon several factors. 1. The sun's mass 2. The planet's mass 3. The distance between them. Â It rotates at a speed where there is a neutralization of angular momentum. The outward force is based upon the planets mass and the speed it is rotating at. The inward force is based upon the equation F=G*M*m/r^2, where G is the universal constant 6.67 X 10^-11 NM^2/kg^2, M is the mass of the sun in kg, m is the mass of the planet is kg, and r is the distance between them in meters. Â Incorrect. The mass of the sun has no effect on it's orbital velocity. Only the mass of the orbiting object and the radius of the orbit have an effect on orbital velocity. Â The inward acting force (centripetal):M plannet*(v^2/r) Â "Outward acting force"??? This is commonly called "centrifugal force", and doesn't exist. There is no outward acting force on an object travelling with uniform circular(or satellite) motion. Â Got notes, fixed mistakes!! Â You are right about the sun's mass, now that I think about it. Â Centripital Force is inward, but there most certainly is a force acting outward. Centrifugal Force, or the tendancy of the planet to escape it's orbit definately exists, and is the same as it's Centripital Force. That is why the planet stays in it's orbit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctorb Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Except Ducknut is moving away from wirlwind, according to wirlwind, and time has slowed for Ducknut, from wirlwind's frame of reference, not for wirlwind. So which one has aged more than the other? The one who is accelerating is the one which for which time passes more slowly relative to the stationary one. Wirlwind is accelerating because he has some sort of fusion drive under his butt. Ducknut does not. Thus Ducknut ages faster than wrlwind. Â wirlwind DOES NOT MOVE. It is Ducknut that moves away from wirlwind. The two cases are equivalent, and thus the PARADOX. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skykilo Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Actually Jon, according to general relativity spacetime is warped by massive objects, so time is also based also on your proximity to large objects. In the case at hand, though, that difference is negligible. Â Wirlwind, when did you find out photons have mass? We have only put limits on the photon mass, but those limits are pretty damn small (effectively zero). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.