M stars are red
O stars are blue
Brown dwarfs are dim,
and not easy to view
O stars are blue
Brown dwarfs are dim,
and not easy to view
The following users thanked this post: chris
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
There's an easier way. The total orbital energy can be found by:Thanks for your effort. Can you share your calculation?
I found an equation that predicted orbital velocity based on the distance a satellite is from a planet and the planet's mass. The equation is: orbital velocity (m/s) = square root ((gravitational constant x mass of the planet (kg)) / orbital radius (m)).The orbital velocity I calculated for the Moon's semi-major axis of 384,399,000 meters was 1,018.20824493 meters per second. Then I used Newton's kinetic energy equation to calculate how much kinetic energy the Moon (with a mass of 7.342 x 10^22 kilograms) would have at that velocity. The equation is: kinetic energy (J) = 0.5 x mass (kg) x (velocity (m/s))^2. The result was 38,059,020,182,894,347,263,576,879,000 joules.
Then I repeated the calculations with the Moon being 3.82 centimeters further out (384,399,000.0382 meters), resulting in an orbital velocity of 1,018.20824488 meters per second and a kinetic energy of 38,059,020,179,156,504,796,530,624,000 joules. I subtracted the two to get a kinetic energy decrease of 3,737,842,467,046,255,000 joules per year.
For the gravitational potential energy, I likewise used the required equation as found by Google. The equation is: gravitational potential energy (J) = (-(gravitational constant) x (mass of Earth (kg)) x (mass of Moon (kg))) / orbital radius (m). First I calculated the potential energy for the Moon at 384,399,000 meters from Earth and then calculated it for the Moon at 384,399,000.0382 meters from Earth. The first result was 76,118,040,365,661,721,284,394,600,402 joules and the second was 76,118,040,358,097,421,841,161,601,579 joules. I subtracted the two to get an increase of 7,564,299,443,232,998,823 joules of gravitational potential energy. I then subtracted the kinetic energy from the potential energy to get 3,826,456,976,186,743,823 joules.
There is about 1 atom per cubic metre, which is not much to convey the pressure wave which corresponds to a shockwave here on the Earth's surface. But sound would still travel - just very quietly...It depends on the wavelength of the sound compared to the mean free path( how far a particle will travel on average before encountering another) of the particles of the medium. in order to carry sound, the mean free path must be small compared to the wavelength of the compression wave. The mean free path where the particles are 1 to the cubic meter is huge. ( a particle could travel for a distance of kilometers before bumping into another particle.)
Then the potential difference and the thus the gravitational time dilation would be greater.- And if the shell is very thin, the clock at the center of the hollow sphere would run at pretty much the same rate as a clock at the outer surface of the hollow shell.
What if the shell is very thick instead? For example, if there was a planet that was completely solid except for a 10-meter-diameter cavity at the very center, how would that affect the time dilation calculation within that cavity?
Wow, that was an quite a bit of text to say absolutely nothing relevant to the validity of SR.
So no, you have shown a contradiction in SR. (And let's be honest, if Relativity could be proven wrong by such a simple example, it would been dumped decades ago. Scientists don't make a name for themselves by just going along with the flow, they do it by overturning the boat, and someone would have jumped on this chance long ago.)
Does this argument (simple example) protect or resque the theory SR?
The human perceived that “the Earth is flat” and “the Sun turns around the Earth” for million years.
The theory has analyzed the light on a single direction and moreover according to a local object. This attitude is not normal in accordance with methodology. Yes, it is amazing; does anyone discover the flaw on opposite direction? I did not encounter like this fault. And therefore, I wrote a book about this subject (Pseudo Science <Under the protection of mysticism> 2003 and 2008):
1- Mysticism likes the brilliant ideas. Mysticism is an archetypal quality of human.
2- Human’s cognitive ability is linear and inadequate for universal subjects (especially light).
3- The theory SR had neglected to analyze the other directions and the operation step of superpose.
4- Already, when a person did not internalize the SR analysis of single direction by the method of active education, he cannot consider new/next steps.
5- The theory SR is not a method of therapy or surgical operation that their defects are cropped up immediately. It is exempted from “life anvil”.
6- The real reason of the illusion of space-time is to be limited/finited value of light’s velocity; not fix and same value for everything. When the analysis is realized by the base of limited/finited velocity and on LCS; it will be possible without any troubles (I can analyze by this paradigm and I calculated the age of universe)
7- General affirmation (due to the power of media) gives an excuse to the person who does not understand the theory. And the objections are underestimated by this present paradigm.
8- There are the realization successes of the human on every subjects. In science history we can see the concept of Ad-hoc.
9- In science philosophy (that is my other interest), some requirements are not on agenda yet:
. The management of mental references
. Revising the local postulates according to universal scale by methodology and like a project.
10- There is a different word for every nuance in English. But the word “relativity” is a single for the subject; whereas the types of relativity is mentioned by me (genuine relativity; nominal/supposed relativity; momentary/temporary relativity; etc). Probably this situation may restricts someone’s analysis.
11- Currently we human remain our traditional habit (that to assign the local object as reference role)
12- The young scientists can understand my objections/clues/arguments. Some academician can find reasonable objection for my football example by carrying the event to space (On the earth the ground became reference frame for the ball, not player; but on space the player can be reference frame for the relative motion of the ball by the reason of effection-reaction. But when he discovered a flaw of my argument; he supposed his answer as a flag and his mind was anchored like a ship. Whereas the concept of effection-reaction is not valid for the light/photon .
13- First and new scientific approaches may have mistakes. Because human mind is linear and nature has complexity. Some wrong opinions may remain for hundred years in accordance with low requirement or utilization.
14- The theory SR has other serious defects. For example, in formulas the parameters have units and we require to get provision for these units too. But Lorentz transformations give always 300 000 relativeKm/relativeSec and claims that results are equal to 300 000 referenceKm /referenceSec in numerical application. If the units are changeable, the numerical values never be equal for authentic distance. We must also get active our attention for this point.
15- The theory SR had been helpful to revise light kinematics by being a guide hypothesis.
Dear Janus and Goc,
Your SR calculation is correct. I want to repeat for other viewers of this topic:
The ship’s speed is 60 % c and it travels toward + x. Two photons (toward +x and –x) is emitted at the moment To = 0 worldsec.
We seek the coordinates of these photons according to the ship at the moment Tı =10 worldsec.
]The results acoording to the world:
(x’ ; t’) world ===> (3 000 000 worldkm; 10worldsec)
(x’’ ; t’’) world ===> (-3 000 000worldkm; 10 worldsec)
The results according to the ship:
(x’ ; t’) ship ===> (1 500 000 shipkm ; 5 shipsec)
(x’’ ; t’’) ship ===> ( 6 000 000shipkm ; 20 shipsec)
I have never/any objection for these results. And nobody objects these result in accordance with SR mentality.
BUT; probably, you may distinguish a contradiction too:
How does the clock (in the ship) indicate either 5 shipsec or 20 shipsec simultaneously?
How does the shipclock or abstract time of the ship work by two (innumerable for angled positions) different tempos?
Is there time contraction in SR (20 shipsec represents time contraction instead of time dilation)
The time moment is unique; 10 worldsec, 5 shipsec and 20 shipsec represent the same moment in accordance with the existence of photons.
Since time slows down at the event horizon of each black hole shouldn't it take an infinite amount of time for the process to conclude?
Random acts, even if they might result in any benefits, will always result in far more chaos. For example, even if you believed that if you threw a pile of bricks off a roof billions of times they would eventually fall into a perfectly constructed house with walls, closets and an attached garage, a vast majority of the time, though, they would unquestionably fall into meaningless configurations.Genes, chromosomes etc. are not bricks. They don't just take on any random configuration and can only combine in certain ways. They also are more analogous to the blueprints of the house rather than the building materials. Mutations are small alterations to those blueprints. Of course, you might instead be referring instead to the original formation of life, abiogenesis instead here. But even abiogenesis is not just a random throwing together of chemicals, as those chemical themselves have rules that govern how they can join up. Besides, abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things and are not related to each other, even though some people try to lump them together into a single argument. (now that's intellectual dishonesty)
Mutations are not the random remixing of genetic material. they are small changes to one part of the blueprint. Some mutations are benign (the Siamese breed of cat is a result of a mutation that altered its pigmentation.), Some will be harmful, and some will turn out to be beneficial. (if not immediately then at some later point. If the mutation is harmful or produces a malformed individual, that individual will either not survive or won't reproduce, and the mutation never gets into the gene pool. (If it hadn't been for the fact that people found the unique pigmentation of the Siamese cat desirable, they would have bred it out instead of for it and you wouldn't see that breed of cat today) Mutations effect individuals, while evolution effects populations. Only those mutations that do not hinder the individuals reproduction will be passed on to later generations and spread out into the population as a whole.
The same is true with genetics. Randomly rearranging genetic material generally result in grossly deformed and diseased organisms. For every fossil of a viable-looking organisms we should have found billions of fossils of diseased and deformed organisms. They're not there. The vast majority of fossils show well-formed, functional-looking creatures. The fossil record proves beyond any question that evolution never happened.
Evolution is the combination of small random mutations to the individual coupled with natural selection on the population level. Those mutations that do not hinder the individual's reproduction, are passed on, those that do, are not. That's evolution; the slow alteration of a population over many generations.
Then, to say that evolution was not random, as some have suggested, yet still call it evolution, is as ludicrous as calling a bird a giraffe -- if it flies it's not a giraffe.
"Unfit" is a relative term. A creature that is unfit under one circumstance, is the fittest under another. Let's take the giraffe for example. You start with an animal that grazes on low shrubs. In a population you are going to have a certain genetic variation in terms of neck length. This will vary over a certain range, with necks too long or too short selected against. But now the climate begins to slowly change and the low shrubbery is going away in favor of trees. Those animals with longer necks find themselves having a slight advantage over those with shorter necks. The shorter necked individuals can't compete as well, produce fewer and fewer offspring and this trait is selected against. A new "norm" has been established for neck length. This also means that mutations that produce even a longer neck will be selected for, when earlier, it would have been selected against (the too long neck being more of a hindrance for a low level browser.) So a really long neck is "unfit" under certain conditions, but more fit under others. "unfit" doesn't equate to non-viable, but just not a good fit for the circumstances. "Survival of the fittest", just means that those individuals that have a genetic trait that gives them a competitive edge, is going to be more successful, and be more likely to produce offspring and pass that trait onto later generations.
The bottom line is the fossil records shows that new species make their first appearance as functional creatures, not as a result of survival of the fittest. Where are the myriads of "unfit" that should have existed? Such a sudden appearance of new, viable life forms, which is confirmed over and over by the fossil record, rather than support evolution, thoroughly disprove it.
Sorry, I work at sea, and there is a chance that if our boilers are leaking and emitting too much water vapour through the stack that we have fires caused by this water, which we call hydrogen fires. which as you point out is NOT the same as hydrogen flame.
The kinetic energy = potential energy. So the answer is actually 4,9j?
Tom Ettinger asked the Naked Scientists:
My question is about the super moon. On the national public radio station in United States there was a discussion of the super moon. In this discussion they stated that the biggest tides were during the full moon. I can understand why tides are stronger when the effects of the sun and moon influence each other. Why would tides be higher when the moon and sun are opposite in the full moon, rather than to acting together When there is a new moon?
What do you think?
However the distance traveled, as measured by you, will be 100 times shorter than the distance measured by you. Your "odometer" at the end of the trip would register a smaller distance, which is the length equivalent of the difference in elapsed time. In other words, the fact that he sees you length contracted and your tick rate as running slow are like effects and only hold while you are in motion with respect to him. Your accumulated age and odometer reading at the end of the trip are the hold-overs. So to say that there is no hold over effect from length contraction is wrong.
The idea that time is a dimension has always struck me as suspect. If I go fast enough my length dimension will change according to an outside observer, as will my time--One year passes for me, while 100 passes for him. However, when I return home and stop, my length, according to the same outside observer, will be restored, while my time will not. That is, according to the observer our clocks will again tick at the same rate, but the alteration in my time, because of my trip, will not be restored--I will still be about 100 years younger than him.
You would have to time your exit at the antipodes carefully or you might well start another trip down if you wanted to see what it is like in the middle you would have to look quick as you would be moving at 11.6Km/h
Neglecting air resistance (and other impracticalities), you would oscillate back-and-forth between the two sides of the planet with simple harmonic motion. You would accelerate downwards from one surface, reach a velocity maximum in the region of the Earth's centre and then decelerate to a standstill at the opposite surface.
That's theoretically true - if a perfectly symmetrical spherical object, such a ball-bearing of finest precision, were dropped into a hole drilled through the centre of a perfectly symmetrical planet. The ball-bearing would oscillate endlessly back and forth.
However, the OP posits that "you", ie presumably a human being, jumps into hole drilled through "Earth".
Earth and humans aren't perfectly symmetrical. Humans have more mass in their head than in their feet, and Earth has more land-mass in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern.
Wouldn't these asymmetries affect the oscillations, until the OP's human eventually stepped out of the hole, probably at the South Pole end?