»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Physics and Philosophy question
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Physics and Philosophy question |
|
|
Vagabond Member
since 2004-01-23
Posts 163
|
What happens when an irresistable force meets an inmovable object? Anybody got theories? The Freebird |
||
| © Copyright 2004 Jerome Hollon - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Re-hab?  |
||
Ringo 
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
We dated, had a kid, got married and got divorced... in that order. lol Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur |
||
|
Vagabond Member
since 2004-01-23
Posts 163 |
It's a paradox! Vagabon the Lost One |
||
|
Sudhir Iyer Member Ascendant
since 2000-04-26
Posts 6943Mumbai, India : now in Belgium |
I.F. : Hi, the name is 'Irresistable Force', and you are? I.O. : Hi, I am 'Immovable Object'... pleased to meet you. I.F. : Same here, gotta go... I.O. : All right, I shall be waiting here, if you come back another day. Have a good one! and I.F. zooms away because the force takes him away while I.O. stays there holding on to memories... 'cos he is affected perhaps by static electricity and his hair stand up...  now, is this an acceptable answer? Hu knows? Have a nice day... Regards Sudhir |
||
|
berengar Member
since 2004-01-02
Posts 86 |
According to Iain Banks, the irrestibible object is resisted and the immovable object moves. His characters in one of his books spent years in a cold castle trying to figure that one out. |
||
|
Jamie Member Elite
since 2000-06-26
Posts 3168Blue Heaven |
1. There is no immovable object 2. There is no irrestible force Now if the darn near immovable object met the really really hard to resist force..... There is society where none intrudes, by the deep sea, and music in its roar. |
||
|
sea_of_okc Senior Member
since 1999-06-15
Posts 568Oklahoma City, OK, USA |
KA-BLAMMMMMMM!!!!!!  |
||
|
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
that would be Opeth and Brad meeting in say.. Guam... I expect, they would find a bar and have a drink... perhaps start a debate on the merits of illustrations in childrens books and whether or not they were subliminal political propoganda... and end up someplace along the coast not remembering how either of them got there.. but... I could be wrong.. they might remember how they got there. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Annihilation Newtonian physics -- force = mass * acceleration. An object with irresistible force would have infinite mass and infinite acceleration (relativity thanks to Einstein)-- which are only possible at the event horizon of a black hole (an immoveable object - because it's own irresistible force (gravity) sucks up everything around it). Sorry the answer is so boring. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
My answer was pretty darned close tho.  |
||
|
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
Local rebel... now..in your assertion "black hole (an immoveable object - because it's own irresistible force (gravity) sucks up everything around it)." I think you fail to take into account that black holes are not stationary in the universe. many are found in the centers of galaxies or along the edges and those galaxies are still in motion, expanding as it would seem from the orginal big bang. A black hole, by the way, was recently observed 'eating" a star. In the act, it only consumed approximately 20% of the mass and the rest was "spit out", which would also imply balck holes do not consume everything nor suck everything into them even with their huge gravitational forces. since black holes are not proven to be immovable objects, does the rest of your assertion hold true? personally.I prefer the Brad and Opeth answer.. lol |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
One step at a time... First -- http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/star_destroyed_040218.html Once matter or light is trapped in a black hole -- it can't escape. The 'spitting out' is a metaphor for what was happening around the black hole due to the acceleration and inertial forces -- the star was stretched apart beyond cohesion -- in the process it also accelerated at a super rate -- the previous trajectory and inertia of the star (caused by the force of the big bang) and the resultant trajectory caused it to (pretty much) slingshot around the hole -- the other forces created in the process were able at a distance far enough away from the black hole to overcome the gravitational field (for now). Anything that went beyond the event horizon is there (forever -- however long that is) Second; The motion of the black hole is due to the initial force of the big bang and whatever other forces acted on the black hole before it became a black hole -- there is no force that can now act on the black hole. It is immoveable (in trajectory). Third; I liked Ringo's answer best...  |
||
|
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
granted... Ringo's answer comes in a close second to my Brad and Opeth scenario... and perhaps even ahead of it if you discount the idea there had to be motion in that equation someplace. now as for your reply... yes anything that went beyond the event horizon was indeed captured, the spitting out metaphor is appropriate enough if you consider that your original statement was "An object with irresistible force would have infinite mass and infinite acceleration (relativity thanks to Einstein)-- which are only possible at the event horizon of a black hole (an immoveable object - because it's own irresistible force (gravity) sucks up everything around it)." If such a thing exists, it exist BEYOND the event horizon of the black hole and then only in a relative sense. it is relative in that the size of one black hole may be larger than another, does this make one black hole able to move another of larger size? and at the event horizon, would imply to me that point where the forces are balanced, beyond the event horizon anything is sucked in, but before the event horizon they may escape... I think your answer interesting... but not sure I can agree with your assertions about black holes or with using it as an example. Immovable objects.. as close as we might come to that would be perhaps the universe itself, though we do not know in fact if it is moving or not in some way. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Motion is a property indiginous to this universe -- therefore -- no -- the universe doesn't move -- as we understand motion -- relative to other universes in the multi-verse. ( I just go on and on don't I? ) But it is within the realm of probability that the surface of a black hole actually IS another universe (which has it's own properties and laws of motion). Yes -- obviously something can escape beyond the event horizon -- but it has to have enough velocity to do that -- therefore it would have to be very far away from the event horizon.... at the event horizon it has nearly infinite mass and acceleration approaching the speed of light -- there would be nothing with enough energy to change its course -- it's doubtful that at that point the gravity of the black hole itself is still acting on the object or its own inertia carries it into the hole. I have not seen any theories *lately* on what happens if two black holes approach each other -- but I would doubt there is a basis for such a scenario. I could be wrong -- but it would seem unlikely given the expansion of the universe. The only model that satisfies the parameters of the problem is an object approaching the event horizion of a black hole. But, if you think you can move one... go ahead.. *lately* added by moi on edit [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (02-26-2004 11:06 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well -- it aint pretty... http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/merging_backhole_021119.html whoda thunkit? |
||
|
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
"Motion is a property indiginous to this universe" Sir, I respectfully ask how this conclusion was reached and what evidence you have to substantiate it. "I have not seen any theories *lately* on what happens if two black holes approach each other -- but I would doubt there is a basis for such a scenario. I could be wrong -- but it would seem unlikely given the expansion of the universe." As you found for yourself such events do occur and occur within the realms of whole galaxies colliding. My question would be ( and this perhaps is where I am simple not getting your earlier arguments) If a black hole is contained within a galaxie and a galaxie is in motion, a black hole is in motion and moving at a speed that is relative to the speed of the galaxie itself. Now, the galaxie itself may contain more mass than the black hole though spread out over a far greater parcel of space. So is then, a galaxie as an objecct actually not larger than a black hole and if so is it not possible the combined mass of the galaxie is capable of moving the black hole in relation to itself and space? Is it not also possible, that once the black holes which are coliding reach a point where the gravitaional effect of one is felt on the other, that one black hole will in fact mose the other? IF so, a black hole is not an immovable object. As for event horizons and velocity and the ability of objects such as the star metioned earlier being pulled apart. While velocity and inertia are forces seperate from mass they are as Einstein theorized elements in the equation E=mc squared. I would offer that regardless of the massive power of a black hole or a super black hole that there was theoretically a way to escape from a black hole's event horizon by sacrificing mass to create the energy needed as long as the object being attracted has suffecient mass to sacfifice in the form of energy... therefore..I would also argue a blck hole is not an irresistable force.. ( I do just go on and on don't I..and in circles at times as well...) Convince me with science LR... I truly am interested as to whether my assumptions are incorrect or if my mind has wrapped around this question in such a way as to make logical sense of it, since I know little to nothing of physics.) |
||
|
berengar Member
since 2004-01-02
Posts 86 |
Oh, to be a fly on the wall if ever Brad and Opeth ever do meet in a bar ... (not least because it's handy to be mobile) |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I have been a fly on the wall here ... But I wonder, between Opeth and Brad, which one is the irresistable force, and which one is the immoveable object? Brad's just not that irresistable, and Opeth's not as immoveable as he thinks. (Gotta have some fun.. sooner or later) Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ahhh, man. Stephan, you're the pin to my baloon. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Aye Cap'n Ron... this aught to be fun for sure... Hang onto yer warp drive... a few links to peruse first: /pip/Forum8/HTML/000426.html#1 http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw02.html http://courses.washington.edu/phys55x/A%20New%20View%20of%20Our%20Universe%20Only%20One%20of%20Many.htm http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/6929/h_kaku2.html So, while I say that motion is local to our universe it isn't, necessarily exclusive to this universe -- but doesn't exist in h-space or 'between' universes -- therefore the universe doesn't 'move' per se.. And you aren't exactly wrong... I'm merely being very exact about the specifications of the problem. The problem only asks for an 'immoveable' object -- not a static one. If you want a static object -- that's a scope change -- and I'll need a signed Change Order Request with an authorization for an upcharge to accomodate that. An object at the event-horizon of a black hole has irresistible (infinite) force -- but cannot move the black hole. Remember -- mass increases with acceleration.. an object at the event-horizon is at near-light speed -- if it passes the event-horizon it has to eventually break the speed-of-light barrier to escape -- which also means it's mass will increase -- even if it loses mass it will still have to reach infinite mass... see? But if a worm hole opened up at the exact moment the object reached the horizon -- it may be possible for it to escape -- but -- that would seem a very remote probability. Again -- I could be wrong. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
'Scuse me LR but an object at the event-horizon does not HAVE irrestible force, unless maybe it is another similar sized black hole. Instead, it is being subjected to irrestible force. Related to the black hole, its own force is negligible, even insignificant. Other than that, I found your argument interesting |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
hehe... but it has infinite force...(impact) force = mass * acceleration... nothing -- except a black hole -- could resist it -- but you're correct -- two black holes do make a big mess... in theory -- the object that has passed the event horizon would already be another black hole... i wouldn't want to get hit by it |
||
|
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
Since I am sitting here, waiting for one of those geek thingsI run to finish and have a fe moments to read and respond, I thought I'd read this again ( trying to see the fine line you are drawing) and wrap my own head around the physics and theories. What I find, is that your original statement "Motion is a property indiginous to this universe" has left me with this understanding of what you originally meant: Motion as an indiginous property of this universe was or is truly native only to our universe and was "created" or exists only in our universe. I think I understoof your argument then to be that it may not be confined only to our universe, but what might be motion in another universe or between universes can not be seen as motion as we know it. OK... Motion as defined by webster: mo·tion [ mṓsh’n ] noun (plural mo·tions) 1. act of moving: the act or process of moving or the way in which somebody or something moves walked with a swaying motion 2. a movement: a movement, action, or gesture made a quick motion of the wrist 3. power of movement: the power or ability to move something 4. proposal: a proposal put forward for discussion at a meeting 5. law application to a judge or court: an application made to a court or judge for an order or ruling in a legal proceeding 6. music movement from one note to another: the movement from one note to the next by a voice or instrument 7. U.K. physiology passing of solid waste from the body: the passing of solid waste matter out of the body through the anus 8. U.K. physiology stool: a piece of evacuated fecal matter ( dated ) ( often used in the plural ) transitive and intransitive verb (past mo·tioned, past participle mo·tioned, present participle mo·tion·ing, 3rd person present singular mo·tions) signal to somebody: to gesture or signal something such as a request or intention to somebody motioned me over and told me to sit down [14th century. Via Old French, from, ultimately, the past participle of Latin movere “to move” (source of English move).] go through the motions to do something in a perfunctory or mechanical way, without enthusiasm or commitment put or set something in motion to cause something to start moving, functioning, or happening If we stick to definition 1: 1. act of moving: the act or process of moving or the way in which somebody or something moves walked with a swaying motion and define Moving as: an act of changing location or position then I am drawn back to the bubble analogy used in the article you linked to and left again with the belief that motion is : 1. A term to describe the relative position of items and how they change. 2. observable in our universe as a physical attribute of variable positions between objects 3. theoretically able to be applied across a universal discussion as the relative possible positions of universes in relation to each other as well as to the possible changes of those positions. 4. A term which must be used in the context of another object or "space" as it is only by making one thing relative to another that changes are easily measured or discussed. I am at this time sir, respectfully asking if my first assumption of what you meant was correct, or if I took too literally your intent related to motion and you are modifying that interpretation at this time. If modifying, this indeed may require a change of scope request and further efforts to LOE the requested changes which will result in analyssis charges plus any additional hours being billed for the required changes As to the immovable and irrestistable concepts, I would argue now, that infinite mass in our universe could only have existed the millisecond before the big bang, and as such was instable. A black hole may contain qualities similar to the universe before the big bang but can not practically be considered as having infinite mass nor since it is fact unable to effect all matter in the universe and all anti matter in the universe not and irrisistable force.. by all means.. help me see where the logic fails..or where I am mixing apples and oranges in the concept.. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Good work... But here's something you need to factor in -- motion is dependent upon the four dimensions that most of us are familiar with -- our universe actually has 10 dimensions and possibly 25 -- for some reason we only perceive and 'use' four. Motion is the change of positions in the three cardinal dimensions over the fourth dimension -- time. In other universes time wll not exist as we know it -- in some it may run backwards -- or at very different rates -- even in our own universe -- there is relativity with speed -- but imagine a universe that uses 5 dimensions -- or even 10? When I speak of motion -- I refer to it as we percieve and use it in this universe -- which may be applicable to some other universes but not all. In h-space (or negative vacuum) time would be completely non-existent -- which would be a topic for Essorant The black hole is composed of matter -- which is not the same thing as mass -- and therefore has some properties that make it behave like other objects -- namely -- it has a gravitational field -- how much matter is in the black hole will determine its' gravity. The matter in an object approaching the event horizion has mass relative to its speed -- that mass generates a force (of impact -- like a bullet -- I'm speaking of mechanical force ) which if infinite -- is irrisistible. |
||
|
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
LR.... you state: force = mass * acceleration so mass would then look like force divided by acceleration = mass? one could compute the mass of an object by knowing the force with which it impacted and at what speed. But you have said earlier that as an object is accelerated to the speed or near speed of light its mass increases, which would be at odds with this would it not? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
BTW -- I am cheating -- but no one has called me on the reason why -- yet... I'm waiting for Ron to step in.  |
||
|
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
"But here's something you need to factor in -- motion is dependent upon the four dimensions that most of us are familiar with -- our universe actually has 10 dimensions and possibly 25 -- for some reason we only perceive and 'use' four. Motion is the change of positions in the three cardinal dimensions over the fourth dimension -- time. In other universes time wll not exist as we know it -- in some it may run backwards -- or at very different rates -- even in our own universe -- there is relativity with speed -- but imagine a universe that uses 5 dimensions -- or even 10? When I speak of motion -- I refer to it as we percieve and use it in this universe -- which may be applicable to some other universes but not all." Then sir..I respectfully submit motion is not indiginous to this universe nor restricted to it by your own admission. Motion may be defined in terms relative to the universe one occupied or existed in at the moment one was defining it, yet the concept of relative in cardinal points over time... would still hold true in even a 25 dimension universe if time exists in some form and if cardinal references also exist. Since we do not know the properties or of the true existance of any universe but our own, we also do not know that motion is limited only to our own. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
When an airplane flies across the sky and breaks the sound barrier its' mass increases too -- but at that speed it isn't noticeable... If it gets faster and faster then the changes in mass compound. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: I didn't say it was limited to our own -- I said it is indiginous to our own -- the properties of other universes may inhibit motion or allow motion that would not be possible in this universe -- but inbetween universes there is no 'motion' as we know it since there is no time. |
||
|
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
Indigenous: 1. belonging to a place: originating in My point here is simply that we do not know if it originintated in or belongs to this universe or many.... as for cheating sir....LOL... shame on you taking advantage of an innocent like me!! Define mass for me please.. and matter... would not all matter of a universe in one place have infinite mass? if then it did and velocity of movement increasded the mass at teh moment of the big bang and in the time that followed the amount of mass in the universe has been increasing thought he amounts of matter have not? |
||
|
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
energy = mass times the speed of light sqared mass = energy/speed of light squared how does this equation say that mass increases as the speed or velocity that it moves increases? it seems to imply that energy increases as a set mass is accelerated through space. which is where in the root of it all I am hung up in understanding your arguments. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/mass_increase.html since an object with mass can't go faster than the speed of light Einstein's formula holds for the simple reason that any additional energy introduced goes into increasing the particle's mass mass increases at all speeds due to conservation of momentum as discussed in the link above.. and -- I'm not taking advantage of you... the fun for me is that someone is learning |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: If there are no other universes then motion is indiginous to this universe. The expansion of the universe indicates there are other universes. Whatever exists in this universe only exists in this universe. Motion, in this universe, was created here, and only exists here. Motion in other universes may be fubercon. |
||
|
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
(chuckling) Indeed... now the conservation of momentum, velocities relative to axis, and no mention of the amount of velocity or energy lost in a collision to change directions has me reaching for something to take care of my aching head... as I still try to take the precise moment that an object would have infinite mass and imagine how that could be.. it would seem since no mass can go faster than the speed of light one would imploy the incremental close theory.. there is no such thing as infinite mass only a mass which would approach infinite because mass would not reach the speed of light only approach it... OK..LR... I give... on the mass increasing as does the velocity with which it moves. now explain to me how or why it is that anything at the event horizon of a balck hole has to be moving at or near the speed of light? Infinite mass ( though I am not convinced infinite mass can exist except in theory without engulfing the universe) would be unmovable. But... would not infinite mass be able to scarifice mass ( the forces acting upon it to increase mass) to the exten it might escape the pull of a black hole? If not... then how can it indeed have infinite mass? If infinite mass is "eaten" by a black hole does that then have the effect of increasing the mass of the black hole infinitely? If that is so... then why would a black hole not have eaten the universe as we know it today? and I am totally unsure how anything could have infinite mass if..there existed anything other than the object itself.. which would negate that a black hole could exist in the scenario you paint.. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
/pip/Forum8/HTML/000221.html#13 |
||
|
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
"Enter black holes, so named because they represent a gravitational field so intense that even light cannot escape. But if gravity and acceleration are equivalent, it is equally valid to say the gravity well is accelerating the photons at a speed that exceeds their own integral velocity. They - and everything else caught in the well - are travelling faster than the speed of light. We are dividing by zero." Ron... an interesting write..and well explained as for dividing by zero... and I have always assumed the answer to be infinity myself.... now... as for black holes and your statement above. With respect, I ask why it is equally valid to say the gravity well is accelerating the photons at a speed that exceeds their own integral velocity. They - and everything else caught in the well - are travelling faster than the speed of light. If gravity acts on all matter and energy, why is the assumption that matter trapped in a gravity well intense enough that not even light energy can escape also an indication of increased velocity of the matter itself? My ignorance here is showing, but a black hole to my knowledge is not really a hole with no bottom, but rather, a gravity well created around collapsed and concentrated mass which traps all energy and light that comes within the reaches of its pull and does not have the energy or mass to escape. gravity would in a falling scenario indeed pull things towards it with an increase in velocuty as it feel, yet I still am failing to make the connection with the ultimate speed of light or beyond as a result of such a fall. Again... a black hole not being of infinite mass.. would not also have infinite power to pull into it anything at an infinite speed... or am I simply too simple minded to grasp these basics of physics and math? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I am the simple minded one. I'm with Reb, waiting for Ronnie Baby to pop in and make one of those wonderful analogies--hey--they work for me. Otherwise I'm reading this real slow. Over and over. And I'm still saying, "huh?" sigh. I try, dammit, I really do.  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
There are two ways to talk about motion and gravity, Ron. One is as you have, in terms of free fall. Take an object to the very fringes of space, drop it, and it will fall towards Earth at an accelerating rate equal to 9.8 m/s/s. The second way to talk about motion in a gravity well is to describe it as Escape Velocity. To take that object to the fringes of space, you needed to travel about 7 miles per second. The Conservation of Energy laws dictate that these two different ways of looking at the same thing are identical. Were that not true, at some point, you'd have to pull energy out of your, uh, hat. If an object has to travel faster than C to escape a singularity, then it must be true that it will also be falling faster than C at some point. They're just flip sides of the same thing, which is why Einstein could treat gravity and acceleration identically. In the real Universe, it gets a bit more complicated, though. Hawkings has been the first scientists to fully account for the angular momentum (spin) of a blackhole, and the results have been a little startling. The math gets over my head very quickly, but it appears that under the right circumstances (which may be very common), light and matter can go in and come back out. Put another way, it seems that blackholes "leak." |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
correction: sometimes they work for me. sheesh. But I do love the term "Escape Velocity". and I'm saving this too. Just 'cause I don't understand it today doesn't mean I won't tomorrow. Black holes leak, huh? smile. I'm not sure if I should find that comforting or not. Thanks Rons and Reb... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ah-- Good to have you in the thread Ron.. Goes in and comes out isn't exactly descriptive of the way Hawking Radiation works as I understand it -- although -- leak is an appropriate term. New matter that enters the hole isn't likely to just come out again... Over a very long time the matter in a black hole may appear to come out -- but that's not exactly the way it happens in theory..it is a yet -- seperate complicated story from the thread problem. Hawking used the concept of 'virtual-particles' to explain the leaking process -- a virtual particle is a particle/anti-particle pair that annihilate each other before they can even be detected. They appear randomly throughout the universe all the time -- even at the event horizon of a black hole. In Hawking Radiation a virtual particle appears at the event horizon and one particle falls in -- the other is left without a partner -- since it can't instantaneously annihilate it becomes 'real' instead of 'virtual' -- and since it is real it has some amount of mass -- that it steals from the energy of the black hole (from its gravity) -- but since the hole has lost energy it has to sacrifice some of its own mass to replace it. Blazey -- here's an excedrin... |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
An Exedrin? heh heh... a mere tinkle into the grand canyon now... sighs and giggles. But I appreciate the sympathy. (see why I love this guy?) sheesh. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Okey dokey then Blaze -- lets try this then... If you jump out of an airplane you will fall at the above mentioned rate of about 9.8 m/s/s. That is until you reach *Terminal* Velocity. Terminal velocity for a human with a parachute and the accompanying baggy jump suit is about 125mph.... you won't accelerate beyond that because of wind drag. The reason you will fall, initially, at an accelerating rate of 9.8 m/s/s is due to the mass of the Earth and its' accompanying gravity -- which is proportional to mass... In a vacuum -- you would accelerate until you smacked into Terra-Firma. In space -- no one can hear you scream -- because there is no air -- no air -- no terminal velocity. The gravity from a black hole is so strong that an object falling into it accelerates infinitely -- to the speed of light -- because -- it CAN'T GO FASTER THAN C!!! and in TIME, I'll reveal why I'm cheating -- but not yet. I'll have to see a few more tries first. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Which is about as Terminal as it gets. Point being, even without intervening friction, there is always a terminal velocity, i.e., a speed that will never be exceeded. That speed is determined by the equation v = sqrt(2GM/R) and is a function of M (mass of Earth) and R (radius). That works out to about 7 miles per second, which should sound familiar. The speed at which an object would fall at any given point on a falling trajectory is exactly equal to its Escape Velocity at that same point. quote: Sorry, LR, but "accelerates infinitely" and "to the speed of light" aren't the same thing - as anyone who watches Star Trek would quickly explain. Einstein contended that anything with mass could never travel AT the speed of light, because the math would result in division by zero, which he interpreted to mean an increase to infinite mass. Even if we accept that (and I don't, believing indeterminate mass is more correct), there is nothing in Relativity that precludes traveling faster than the speed of light. That's why science is still looking for the hypothetical tachyon. BTW, LR, your contention that a black hole is both an irresistible force and an immovable object should be explorable without any reference to specific properties. As Ron already alluded, black holes are likely a dime a dozen in the dense nucleus of a galaxy, and are eating each other constantly. Take any two irresistible forces in close proximity and the inevitable result will be a single irresistible force. Ergo, an irresistible force, by definition, must be unique. |
||
|
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
(chuckling).. coffee... and lots of it before I respond to this in depth... wait, there may not be enough coffee in the world for my mind to work fast enough... OK... bottom line to my understanding is, that LR's assertion a black hole is an irresistable force and or an imovable object are about the same.. they are neither. I am appreciative of the patience... and have a few thoughts, but as I said COFEE!!!! ( and some database work I need to get started on) and I'll be back.. "Newtonian physics -- force = mass * acceleration. An object with irresistible force would have infinite mass and infinite acceleration (relativity thanks to Einstein)-- which are only possible at the event horizon of a black hole (an immoveable object - because it's own irresistible force (gravity) sucks up everything around it)." LR>. you assertion..which still seems to bother me.. says a blck hole has irresistable force and infinite mass... which if true..would have to mean anything and everything would be sucked into it.. the fact that several exist and the fact great distances mean the effect of black holes are non existant or relatively non existant at great distances in and of itself seems to say both assertions are incorrect... now...beat it into me thick head again... cause I ain't getting how you're getting there.. |
||
|
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
OK.... I'm waiting for some files to cmpact..and had this stupid thought.. would it not take infinite energy to move infinite mass? photons ( according to einstein) have no mass and may move at the speed of light. All other objects have mass and the mass increases as it moves at a higher velocity and to move it faster energy of some form has to be applied to the mass to make it move. The higher the mass, the higher the energy required to move it... indeterminate mass rather than infinite mass is used by some to describe the mass of an object as it approaches the speed of light. Still...infinite mass moving at the speed of light which would require infinite + X energy to move it... ????? Lord... I know this is going to put me on the short list for morons. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
This may get confusing really fast... First -- Capt. Ron's question about why don't black holes eat the whole universe (which is contained in Ron C's answer to my answer about Terminal velocity.. which I'll get to momentarily). We can answer this one simply with Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. F = GMm/r^2 F: Force due to gravity G: Universal Gravitational Constant M, m: Masses of of the two objects involved r: Distance between the objects ^: indicates exponent (x^2 = x*x) The force, gravity, radiates in all directions from an object -- be it a baseball, the Earth, or a Black Hole. The energy of that force is proportional to the masses and distance of the objects. So, if you envision this force radiating out in a sphere as you do the appropriate Russian doll nesting -- calculate the area of each increasing sphere -- and you see why the effects of gravity dissipate the further you are from the object -- it is the rest mass, or invariant mass of the black hole that will ultimately determine how far or near an object will be before it gets caught in its gravity field. That's why the black hole doesn't eat the universe. Second -- Capt. Ron your instincts have been pretty good all along -- mass is confusing. In your last post you're getting it pretty much the way Einstein proposed it -- because he was speaking of relativistic mass -- and not invariant mass. Relativistic mass accounts for the accumulation of energy whereas invariant mass is a constant related only to the objects matter content. Although the idea of relativistic mass is not 'wrong' it leads to confusion which is why modern science has pretty much stopped using it and refers to invariant mass when it says 'mass'. At zero speed the invariant mass and relativistic mass are equal. So sometimes you'll also see invariant mass referred to as 'rest' mass. This is one of the reason's that I'm cheating. I started off with Newtonian Mechanics -- and tried to apply them to Relativity. No one called me on it -- but should have. One cannot blindly substitute the measure of rest mass plus its' kinetic energy (relativistic mass) for rest mass -- which should be obvious.... The Newtonian version F=ma looks more like this in relativity F = gamma m (1 + gamma2 v vt) a which means that force is not always equal to acceleration where m is the invariant mass, v : the velocity (as a column vector), and 1 : a 3 x 3 identity matrix Third -- Hawking only represents one school of thought -- which after 30 years is still a little mysterious to physicists. His opposition , in the form of physicist like Dr. John Preskill of Caltech, and Dr. Leonard Suskind of Stanford, would argue that the dilation of time at near light speed would prevent an object with mass from ever even reaching the black hole -- and that the material would appear frozen in time to an outside observer. If they, and Einstein are right -- then near light speed would be the terminal velocity for anything with mass. Special Relativity appears to be correct even for particles in particle accelerators... But Fourth -- Maxwell's physics suggested that space is composed of a light-conducting medium (which he called the Aether) and not a vacuum. The famous Michelson and Morley experiment -- or MMX failed to prove its existence in the late 19th century -- so search for the 'Aether' was poo-poo'd and abandoned by most physicists... but even Einstein maintained a suspicion that it existed. The problem that we have with all these theories is that they don't work very well together -- separately they work within themselves and we can do things like apply Newton's laws to Mechanical Engineering at a level that is efficacious. But -- in looking for a way to unify everything science is now looking for a Theory of Everything -- or sometimes called the Grand Unification Theory. They are now back to inferring there is an Aether or more commonly referred in modern circles a substratum. This would be finite particle elements that fill the entire universe forming an absolute 3D matrix-- light and energy are wavicles that travel through the apparent vacuum of space by jumping from one particle element to another . The speed of light may be the maximum speed of travel through the substratum -- just like a solid has a different sonic speed than that of air -- the substratum may have set the universal speed limit. This may also be why it is that the speed of gravity appears to be equal to the speed of light. Objects approaching light speed appear to accumulate mass because their particles -- which are composed of variants of wavicles -- do accumulate energy -- but this is in the form of a higher frequency of vibration -- so high as C is approached that they become unstable and do, in fact, begin to break apart giving up matter to energy in the form of radiation -- which may -- in the end be Hawking Radiation after all... But, it was fun wasn't it? |
||
|
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
it was a blast! I now understand how little I undeerstand... lol |
||
|
Vagabond Member
since 2004-01-23
Posts 163 |
I disagree with an earlyer reply about the demisions. It said that there was only 10 demisions. Wrong! There are an idefinate amount of demisions, each spawning from the earlyer demisions. We, like he said, can only persive four. Then again if the situation is right i say we may be able to see more than four. Vagabon the Lost One |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Hawke: So in order for me to move at a rate close to the speed of light, I have to become less dense? Don't see much chance of that happening. I think I'll stick to the more concrete subjects of theology and philosophy. Jim |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: The other way around, Jim. As your speed increases relative to a point your mass also increases relative to the same point. Time, however, slows down. So, even though you become more dense, you have more time to think about things. Everything balances. |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
You guys are more fun than a college course... I can see why Serenity appreciates the free lessons. So do I.  |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
It is fun, ain't it? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Perhaps Jim it is better stated that if we all lighten up we'll get further faster. And since I'm moving at no where near light speed I don't have time right now to go back and fill in all the things I should have explained in my last post -- sorry guys -- perhaps someone else would take the mantle until I can get back to it... I think I hear some polemics calling  |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
