Breaking the Speed Limit

[Allan_Halsey]

Bill said:

I have a degree in Physics, one in Math and I am a member of the American Astronomical Society.

 

and:

 

However, you are still on Earth while you spray, so relative to the Earth, you're not accelerating.

 

but Einstein said:

 

"we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system."

 

Did you go to WWU? You should demand a refund!!

[Dru]

I ate quark once.

[Bill_Simpkins]

My mother used to live on a farm in North Dakota when she was a child. To keep the ducks together, they would make a duck swallow a piece of string and it would come out their butt, then they would make the next duck swallow the string, etc....until they had a sting chain of ducks.

Hence, string theory

[Dru]

Modern physics has noted that information can travel faster than light as long as it is unusable. Thus observing the state of a particle in entanglement can affect the state of a particle on the other side of the universe, instantaneously, as long as no information is transferred. This explains Spray perfectly.

[J_Fisher]

You guys are full of shit. You can learn about the true origins of the universe here.

 

http://www.venganza.org/index.htm

 

It's even written by a physicist and stuff

[Dechristo]

And the 3,000,000,000,000 mph that we race around the Sun?

 

4500 times the speed of light? You don't know shit...

 

You're right, I have a proclivity to hyperbole.

[archenemy]

If everything is expanding, then what we use to measure our speed of expansion is also expanding. So how do we know if things are really expanding?

[Dru]

Constants that are constant, as opposed to inconstant constants.

[Dechristo]

And the 3,000,000,000,000 mph that we race around the Sun?

 

4500 times the speed of light? You don't know shit...

 

Does 66,700 mph sound better? I confused circumference with area formulas.

[mec]

If everything is expanding, then what we use to measure our speed of expansion is also expanding. So how do we know if things are really expanding?

 

The 'local' part of the universe is not expanding. For example, the space between the earth and sun is not expanding. This gives us a constant measure.

 

Plus by examining the speed of galaxies far far away, and comparing to ones that are closer, we can see that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster they are moving away. Since the expansion is not constant, we know that things are really expanding

[Dru]

867-5309

[Allan_Halsey]

The 'local' part of the universe is not expanding. For example, the space between the earth and sun is not expanding. This gives us a constant measure.

 

So since any part of the universe could be considered "local" by it's inhabitants, none of the Universe is expanding?

 

More like: The Laws of Physics are valid anywhere in the Universe, and the only "point" with "zero expansion" is a single point. The space between any two points is increasing, and the rate of expansion increases as the distance between the two points increases. So the "Space" between the Earth and the sun is in fact expanding.

 

Or: You don't know shit.

[Bill_Simpkins]

Bill said:

I have a degree in Physics, one in Math and I am a member of the American Astronomical Society.

 

and:

 

However, you are still on Earth while you spray, so relative to the Earth, you're not accelerating.

 

but Einstein said:

 

"we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system."

 

Did you go to WWU? You should demand a refund!!

 

I need no refund. Einstein was correct.

"Whenever an observer detects the local presence of a force that acts on all objects in direct proportion to the inertial mass of each object, that observer is in an accelerated frame of reference. "

 

We feel the force of the Earth, therefore we are an observer in an accelerated frame of reference. However, that does not mean that we are accelerating relative to the Earth. It is different.

Einstein does not defy math. If our position is x(t)=0, then x'(t)=0 and x''(t)=0. We are in an accelerated reference frame, that's why we feel gravity, however, the normal force of the ground is keeping us from moving. Therfore x''(t)=0 relative to the Earth.

[Dechristo]

867-5309

Good tune.

[Dechristo]

The space between any two points is increasing, and the rate of expansion increases as the distance between the two points increases.

 

So that's why Americans are getting fatter.

[Allan_Halsey]

Dig a hole and jump in and let me know if you're accelerating with respect to the Earth.

 

Also, as I am currently in orbit around the Earth, I have a rate of centripetal acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s with respect to the center of the Earth's mass.

 

Learn more HERE

Edited June 29, 2005 by Allan_Halsey

[mec]

The 'local' part of the universe is not expanding. For example, the space between the earth and sun is not expanding. This gives us a constant measure.

 

So since any part of the universe could be considered "local" by it's inhabitants, none of the Universe is expanding?

 

More like: The Laws of Physics are valid anywhere in the Universe, and the only "point" with "zero expansion" is a single point. The space between any two points is increasing, and the rate of expansion increases as the distance between the two points increases. So the "Space" between the Earth and the sun is in fact expanding.

 

Or: You don't know shit.

 

The universe does not have many inhabitants, or matter, or anything else but space. So, yes for the inhabitants, their local space is not expanding, but it is the distance between these local spaces that is increasing.

 

To make your argument true, matter would also need to expand. Since the space just above earth would also be expanding, which would cause an increase in circumference just above earth, but the earth itself is not increasing (unless mater expands as well). Somewhere in there the expansion of space has to take into account matter, which what is considered 'local'. If I remember right, physicist consider 'local' to be the milky way galaxy, not just the solar system.

 

I also know shit, he is a good friend of mine.

[Bill_Simpkins]

Dig a hole and jump in and let me know if you're accelerating with respect to the Earth.

 

Also, as I am currently in orbit around the Earth, I have a rate of centripetal acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s with respect to the center of the Earth's mass.

 

You would be accelerating with respect to the Earth if you jumped in a hole, because you would have no Normal force opposing the force of the Earth to keep you still, as we do now when we sit here.

 

If you want to incude rotation into this, then yes, we are acclerating.

The Earth rotating gives us centripetal acceration of about 0.0339 m/s^2, not 9.8. If the coordinates are not rotating, then yes we are moving (and accelerating) relative to those coordinates. However, if you base your coordinates on the rotating Earth, our position is constant in that frame.

[mec]

All this stuff is great, It makes my brain hurt too. Reference point is everything.

[Allan_Halsey]

So, if I modeled the Earth as a 2D grid, with the center of the Earth's mass on the axis y=0, because my coordinates do not change, or y=constant, my position does not change over time, therefore a=0 with respect to y=0?

[Bill_Simpkins]

Your graph explanations doesn't make sense to me. Do you mean the distance from the center of the Earth onthe Y axis vs time? In this case, if y is contant over time (ie a straight line), then in that coordinate system, dy/dt =0 and d^2y/dt^2 =0.

If you were to plot a parmetric 3D position graph with stationary coordinates, yes, we would be moving in orbit around the center and would be accelerating (ie. you would see a circle of our position). However, if the graph rotated with the rotation of the Earth, there would just be a dot of our postion.

[Allan_Halsey]

Your graph explanations doesn't make sense to me. Do you mean the distance from the center of the Earth onthe Y axis vs time? In this case, if y is contant over time (ie a straight line), then in that coordinate system, dy/dt =0 and d^2y/dt^2 =0.

If you were to plot a parmetric 3D position graph with stationary coordinates, yes, we would be moving in orbit around the center and would be accelerating (ie. you would see a circle of our position). However, if the graph rotated with the rotation of the Earth, there would just be a dot of our postion.

 

 

Yes.

 

Got it. Money well spent. Thanks.

[Bill_Simpkins]

Phew!

[archenemy]

The 'local' part of the universe is not expanding. For example, the space between the earth and sun is not expanding. This gives us a constant measure.

 

So since any part of the universe could be considered "local" by it's inhabitants, none of the Universe is expanding?

 

More like: The Laws of Physics are valid anywhere in the Universe, and the only "point" with "zero expansion" is a single point. The space between any two points is increasing, and the rate of expansion increases as the distance between the two points increases. So the "Space" between the Earth and the sun is in fact expanding.

 

Or: You don't know shit.

 

The universe does not have many inhabitants, or matter, or anything else but space. So, yes for the inhabitants, their local space is not expanding, but it is the distance between these local spaces that is increasing.

 

To make your argument true, matter would also need to expand. Since the space just above earth would also be expanding, which would cause an increase in circumference just above earth, but the earth itself is not increasing (unless mater expands as well). Somewhere in there the expansion of space has to take into account matter, which what is considered 'local'. If I remember right, physicist consider 'local' to be the milky way galaxy, not just the solar system.

 

I also know shit, he is a good friend of mine.

 

Matter is, indeed, expanding. Or rather, the space between each teeny tiny particle is growing b/c each is moving away from the other.

[Bill_Simpkins]

The 'local' part of the universe is not expanding. For example, the space between the earth and sun is not expanding. This gives us a constant measure.

 

So since any part of the universe could be considered "local" by it's inhabitants, none of the Universe is expanding?

 

More like: The Laws of Physics are valid anywhere in the Universe, and the only "point" with "zero expansion" is a single point. The space between any two points is increasing, and the rate of expansion increases as the distance between the two points increases. So the "Space" between the Earth and the sun is in fact expanding.

 

Or: You don't know shit.

 

The universe does not have many inhabitants, or matter, or anything else but space. So, yes for the inhabitants, their local space is not expanding, but it is the distance between these local spaces that is increasing.

 

To make your argument true, matter would also need to expand. Since the space just above earth would also be expanding, which would cause an increase in circumference just above earth, but the earth itself is not increasing (unless mater expands as well). Somewhere in there the expansion of space has to take into account matter, which what is considered 'local'. If I remember right, physicist consider 'local' to be the milky way galaxy, not just the solar system.

 

I also know shit, he is a good friend of mine.

 

Matter is, indeed, expanding. Or rather, the space between each teeny tiny particle is growing b/c each is moving away from the other.

 

This is not true. If the amount of space was increasing between particles the wave lengths given off by particles changing quantum levels would be changing also. This has not been observed and doesn't fit any theory. It also conflicting because more and more energy would be needed to expand the distances fo each level when in fact, the universe is experinecing enthropy.

Clusteres of matter are increasing distance from each other in space. We can observe this by using the doppler affect. Each cluster is generally a galaxy.

Just think of an explosion and each galaxy is a chunk of debris.

As far as every particle, thats just not true.