FrostCloud Forums  

Go Back   FrostCloud Forums > Science/Technology > Space and Time

Greetings!

Space and Time Discussions on space, time, relativity, physics, and the nature of the universe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 12-18-2009, 07:19 PM
Bobbo Bobbo is offline
An old dog
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michel View Post
I feel like you are confusing 2 things.
You wrote about displacement. You use it both for "motion" and for "change of motion". That is confusing.
Motion need no force. Motion need no energy. Motion is relative.
Change of motion need force & energy. Change of motion is acceleration.
All the first part of your post is about acceleration (i.e. displacement), or disturbance of motion.
That is what you mean when writing "All substances deform to some extent initially when displaced. If the attempt at displacement is severe, the substance may be permanently deformed or shattered or the displaced and displacing objects may be integrated (welded) together." You are talking about acceleration.

Your statement "That there is a rate of displacement of objects which depends on the objects is well demonstrated." is also, I suppose, about acceleration. Because there is no such a rate for motion. Entire planets, giants stars, whole galaxies are in movement. Where is that "rate" ?
Motion is displacement. Movement is displacement. An object ocupies a place at some time and another place at a subsequent time. We accept that all objects are in motion. Unless that motion is in a straight line, and it rarely is, the object is accelerating. All objects which orbit another object are accelerating - changing direction - more or less constantly.

The traveler in the spacecraft accelerates his hand as he reaches forward. The wall of his heart accelerates as it beats. Each molecule, each atom, each quark in his hand and in the wall of his heart is accelerated even if the speed of his craft is constant. Every atom in the materials of his craft are vibrating. Vibrating means each one changes direction and accelerates. Each electron orbiting the core of an atom is accelerating.

Since we cannot construct a frame of reference independent from the rest of the universe, we must accept that every object, molecule, atom and quark has an absolute velocity relative to the universe. The idea that the speed of light is constant means that it is an absolute speed relative to the frame of reference of the universe. For those of us who accept that the propagation of light is a disturbance in a medium (a medium of some sort of objects) the rate of that propagation (the speed of light) is the upper limit for the rate of proagation (displacement) of all objects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michel View Post
You wrote "The fact that super light speeds cannot be achieved even in the accelerators tells me that it is not possible to displace or push an object, even a single particle, beyond that limit." To me it tells something else (see post #27)
I'm not sure I make the connection, but take it that you mean that there is an observational limit. I agree completely that there is an observational limit, and we recognize it under relativity. But I think that is a separate issue apart from the physical limits of materials.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michel View Post
You wrote :"We can demonstrate that materials will fail at the molecular level in both tension and compression. I suspect similar demonstrations will be made at the atomic and subatomic levels and this phenomenon will provide the limits of displacement." Again I think you are talking about "change in motion".
Yes, I am talking about change in motion. How can any object change speed without accelerating? And how can it accelerate without some other object attempting to displace it? The "reaction" in "action and reaction" is an attempt to resist displacement. In free space, if the shell is more massive than the cannon, when we fire the cannon the cannon will be displace more than the shell.

I think the fact that we can produce nuclear detonations, plasmas and Bose-Einstein condensate (I confess I know almost nothing of these, except what I have read) is enough of an indication for me that matter at all levels is not permanently cohesive. It appears that there are points for all matter at which an attempt to increase motion will result in a breakdown of the state of the matter. This is why I believe that there may be a real limit to the speed that matter may achieve.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michel View Post
You wrote:"What you are saying is that the speed of light is NOT constant, but is relative to each observer. If you really do accept this, then all relativity would be nonsense, there would be nothing to calculate to or from. " Well, relativity is not nonsense. Relativity is something else. And you are right, in some sense, there would be nothing to calculate to or from. Mach is back.

I don't follow your thoughts here, some explanation?
I have seen some arguments posted that experience is instantaneous and that light doesn't actually propagate through space. Although they seemed to make sense to the posters, they seemed very convoluted, and I don't think they are worthwhile. If you consider an environment without mass, acceleration and thus all action, would be instantaneous and our concept of time would not apply. I'd rather not get into it any deeper.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michel View Post
That is not a problem. Light does not decelerate or accelerate. As you said, light is not an object. And the observation of light is different from the phenomena itself.

So let me be insane. I truly believe that C is an observational "trick", like horizon. You must know that stupid joke of the photograph walking indefinitely trying to take a picture from behind the horizon. C must be something comparable.

"The reason" is something I haven't manage to find out. But I am working on it.
Friendly.
Michel.
Well, I've tried to give you my best understanding of the issues.

I accept that light is a disturbance in a medium. That is the only way I know to describe a wave, and light is certainly not an object.

I consider the way we observe using light (relativity) to be a separate issue from the physical problems associated with achieving velocity. I think this is a very important distinction. It eliminates observation as the cause of a phenomenon.

I accept that C is the speed of light and that it is constant throughout the universe. This and the fact there is only one frame of reference provides us with some insight into our universe; although we are not yet able to determine place and absolute direction, we can determine absolute speed and relative direction. Its a start we need to navigate the universe.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Yogic Metaphysics and Holographic Dreams in Maya Mike Dubbeld General Philosophy 5 05-23-2010 08:15 PM
Our Improbable Universe Mike Dubbeld Space and Time 30 10-22-2009 09:14 AM
The Paradox Of Nothingness And The Case For The New Deism AlumnodeVerum Religion 17 08-01-2007 12:35 AM
A new view for the universe nwaogu General Science and Nature 15 03-10-2006 06:45 AM
Why Atheists Threaten frish Religion 93 01-16-2006 11:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:13 AM.



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Hosted and Maintained by The IceStorm Network