The speed of life

Kaneda, I said nothing about working at a particle accelerator. I was making a joke, so as to lightheartedly remedy your prejudices about my level of intelligence. Hence my focus on something directly related to acceleration (an accelerator). You were the one who accused me of not knowing what acceleration is, so don't get all in a huff over something you caused in the first place. The only time you're going to see my ego unleashed is when I need to give someone a verbal spanking. With you, your ego is out 24 hours a day. This is why they teach people to share in Kindergarten, so as to stop your particular brand of behaviour from surviving beyond childhood.

Take this and extend it to any object:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html

You seriously need to rethink your analogies. Just because the element on my stove is colder now than it was last night does not imply that its velocity relative to the rest of my house had ever changed. How you managed to gather that this is what I was implying is beyond me. Hanlon's razor comes into play here, and I'm seriously doubting that you're an evil person.

In regard to absolute rest, I'm showing you that your analogy is completely flawed since that's what would occur. If what you suggested were even remotely possible, then the electron would not have a well-defined amount of mass-energy. In other words, you would end up with an infinite collection of electron "types". In reality, you must certainly already know that there is one and only one electron rest mass known to man. If the inertia of a massive object were to decrease with increased relative velocity, then reiku's own point that v = c is unachievable would be incorrect. Of course, we know that's not true, since it's been proven correct using accelerators countless times using a level of precision that would make a surgeon blush. You brought up accelerators as your own argument, but it appears that you may have missed exactly what they are doing there -- accelerating particles to very high velocity by utilizing Einstein's mechanics, and not Newton's.

You two get your ducks in a row before you start tag teaming with the smack talk. You're worse than the mafia "gurus" on physorg.com. At least they recognize when they've been dressed down.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This will be the 3th time I ask this quistion on this forum and I've never got a satisfiad answer.

In concerns FTL travel.

When you near the speed of light the universe will start to get diformed and time dilation will occur. This means ultimatly that you can not move fasther then light at least that's how it looks because if your inside the moving vehicle then time slows down for you.
So basicly when your inside the ship you would have to travel a little over 86%c to experience a travel time of half a year to reach a point 1 lightyear away. A outside observer would argue that it still takes you 1,16 years but that's yust the twins paradox


Also a important fact on totaly diferent laws is that if you have a wormhole it's 2 mouths will experience the same time movement. So that a when you move a single mouth at near lightspeed the stationary mouth will also by under the time dilation influence meaning if you would send one mouth away to alpha century 4,3 LY away at 80%C at you would go through the mouth on it 2,15 years later you would arrive at alpha centauri?

So okay it involves wormholes witch are poorly understood but is their at this point any theory our law that would send the whole ID to the wastmand?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

shalayka. I thought you were shoving off from your recent whinge about the people here not being up to your level of science? Obviously just a lie to try and cheer us up. Like the lie about the particle accelerator to try and impress us with a supposed intellectual job you do not possess.

Where did I accuse you of not knowing about acceleration? After you butted in in your typically nasty style, accusing me of insulting people's intelligence, I pointed out the difference between a particle accelerator where a particle is deliberately accelerated and a free moving particle. You've got a chip on your shoulder as big as your head as you blunder around this forum, casually insulting everyone.

The muon experiment measures like for like, but does not take into account a colossal energy loss, so is measuring different particles at the bottom of the mountain as I previously pointed out to AlphaNumeric.

Why do you now claim I'm an evil person in your under-the-country style of insulting? As before, I think you have some serious mental problems you need to work through, pupamancur.

I have explained to you the difference between a free moving particle and a particle being accelerated so you tell me that my idea on a free moving particle is wrong because accelerated particles do not behave like that. Where's a doh icon when you need one?

A dressing down? From a text book quoting fool like you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

orcot. We have no evidence that time dilation will occur in the way claimed on people other than just speculations.

If time dilation exists, then your engine is going to slow down too, so put out ever less power as you try to get ever faster.

Your physical form will begin to shorten in the direction of travel as electrons are crushed up against the light barrier which will slow them down. The body's electricity will work at the universal speed so not slow down so it could burn cells out as they do slow down since effectively the electricity now seems to be travelling far faster than before.

To make a worm hole you need incredible amounts of energy. They may be possible inside black holes but only for "tiny lengths". If you want one to extend beyond a black hole, you're going to have to use that equivalent amount of energy for each equivalent length. In other words, for one a few light years long, you'd probably have to use a few galaxy's worth of energy.

Wormholes crush matter. The only thing that is going to happen to a space ship that enters one is that it is going to be turned onto atomic material.

If you had asked someone a few centuries ago how they could get to America from Britain within a few hours, they could not have visualised Concorde. They would probably have settled on some sort of super-clipper with lots and lots of sails. There may be a way of travelling at FTL speeds but at present we have no idea what it is.

 

A sphere of water in a vacuum? Great oxymoron!

 

Time dilation does make some sence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_and_space_flight
So altough your going to slow down to a outside observer as a participant you will notice the universe speeding up, so without to mutch mathemathics if you travel at 80%c then you the participant will reach your 1LY marker before a year has past but to the observer and also the participant (meaning you) will arrive 1,25 years (meaning the participant toulk a long trip to the near future).
Does this part make sence?

 

Is this you telling me that I don't understand acceleration, or not?

 

What energy loss?

 

That's your extrapolation, not mine. Don't assume my distrust for you applies to others by default, because that's not the case.

Like I said before, I was very interested in having calm discussions about alternative theories. It's not that I have any problem with you talking complete nonsense, it's that you have no sense of openmindedness to treat other people's theories with the same level of respect. This is just as bad as someone who apparently knows what they're talking about, but is only capable of replies that are big on venom and small on fact. If you don't like that I've learned how to stand up to bullies effectively, well, that's your issue. If you would like me to start quoting sociology textbooks regarding this, just let me know, because this discussion has nothing to do with physics.

Not everyone behaves in your way, so not everyone gets the treatment you've received. Again, don't extrapolate beyond yourself. If you cannot be objective and understanding, then you have no business being an adult.

And where on Earth did you get the idea that I hold myself on some pedestal of scientific knowledge? I have never pretended to have gone to university, or belong to any sort of professional organization. I'm a "crackpot" just like you, except that I know how to treat people with the respect that they deserve (or lack of respect in your case).

In the first post of this thread you accept that foreshortening occurs, but you deny that the remainder of the model is correct. I can't even tell whether or not you're for or against special relativity at this point.

 

if i was able to fly using telekinesis, would it be dangerous to fly too fast (in earth's atmosphere)? for example, what would happen when i go faster than sound? would i get hurt from the sonic boom? and what height should i fly at, so that i don't hit birds?

i saw a guy in heroes fly faster than sound and nothing happened to him, but it's just a movie so i'm not sure...

 

orcot. The idea is that time is a real dimension, as in Doctor Who and you travel through time. However if you travel fast enough, instead of travelling at 1 sec per sec, you travel at maybe 1 sec per 10 secs so you age 1/10 as fast as normal and the universe outside appears to be moving 10 times faster than normal.

Evidence for this is some SF books.

 

shalayka. No. I'm saying make sure you know what people are talking about before you start insulting them and make sure that you have science and not scientific speculation or mathsworld speculation (a big difference) to back you up.


Muons in atmosphere from the site you gave earlier :

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/muonatm.html

 

shalayka. You have this delusional idea that everything you do is perfect and that everyone else is wrong. Your post just emphasises that. I'll answer your future posts in the tone that you post to me.

There are a number of effects that are grouped under time dilation. I accept them but not necessarily the reason for them.

 

Yorda. You see all these people flying in comics, even on TV shows but no one ever gets flies in their eyes. I remember being on the top of the World Trade Centre many years ago, 110 floors up, and there were insects outside the glass windows. If you could fly at speed, you'd need to wear glasses, and even then, you'd have insects all over you like a car windscreen. I suppose someone with a telekinetic ability could keep them out of their way.

Another big problem is wind resistance. In a car at 100 mph, try putting your hand out of the window. The force on it is surprisingly strong. Such a wind will take your body heat away and you'll find yourself getting cold very quickly. An even bigger problem is just breathing. Your lungs (if not Superman) work on atmospheric pressure and trying to breathe in a 100 mph wind would make you gasp.

But the speed of sound is about 700 mph (depending on height above sea level) so far worse. I would assume that the man in Heroes (I saw the episode) would have to have a TK shield around himself to protect himself because he would never manage otherwise. There was a case of someone falling at near that speed but that was very high up (20 miles) where the atmosphere was very thin, so little wind resistance. More wind resistance equals more heat as in friction which you would need protection against getting burnt.

As to birds, I'd try a mile up but no guarantee since the highest flying bird; Ruppell's griffin vulture has been recorded at 7 miles up (higher than most aircraft) with the bar headed goose at six miles. Impact with a bird at the speed of sound would be very bad unless you had some protection.

As we can hear the sonic boom some miles away, it would be incredibly loud close up, but nothing to worry about if you are flying faster than sound (so it cannot catch up).

 

If I thought I was perfect, I wouldn't be interested in other people's ideas. That's obviously not true, and in fact, it's what I'm showing you up for. Transfer of guilt, another old-school bully tactic. Nice try, but I'm old enough to know that nobody's perfect. However, bullying someone for their differing beliefs is something that I will not tolerate. Have you not noticed that I was very open minded about your posts until you started talking smack about other people's perspectives? If you had simply respected the opinions of others like a well-adjusted human being does, then none of this would have occurred.

Don't bother replying to my posts. You have absolutely nothing to offer.

 

But don't sky divers fall at 120 mph or so, and is it not so that they don't use oxygen tanks? I once read somewhere that you can breathe through your skin at that speed... Not sure if it's true though...

 

shalayka. I'd call you a troll but I don't think you have sufficient intelligence for that.

 

saudade. For normal falls, 120 mph is said to be terminal velocity (6 seconds acceleration). You can breathe but breathing out in the face of a 120 mph wind is difficult. It's easier to turn your head to the side. It would need a much faster speed to get air through the skin, which could be fatal. If air gets into the blood stream, the heart suddenly finds itself with no blood to pump and only air, so loses it's systematic rythym and a person can die. There are injections which can work through the skin instead of with a needle and a vacuum can suck air and blood out through the skin which would happen in space without a space suit.

 

I'm glad to see that you've finally learned how to form an unambiguous opinion.

 

Shalayka. While you remain long winded. Is your day job a politician?