Miscellaneous Science Questions

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5530
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby doogly » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:41 pm UTC

Gravity waves are no different from EM waves in this respect, they are both trapped in the same way. A charged black hole also has a coulomb field, but it cannot radiate.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

Homer
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:01 pm UTC

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby Homer » Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:29 pm UTC

I think that's the part I'm having difficulty with. You're saying that it's the modulation that's prohibited?

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5530
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby doogly » Tue Feb 16, 2010 4:08 pm UTC

It's signals moving from inside to outside. The static field is either -
1) always there, which astrophysically not at all reasonable but is what a standard schwarzschild or kerr-newman metric would tell you
2) due to the infalling sphere of matter, which an outside observer never sees cross the horizon.

If you are the poor shmo falling inside, you certainly notice yourself crossing the horizon, however any sort of signal sending you do after you cross is not seen by anyone. If you do send a signal right before you cross your comrades will see it, but it will take a rather long time.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

Homer
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:01 pm UTC

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby Homer » Tue Feb 16, 2010 4:49 pm UTC

doogly wrote:I...however any sort of signal sending you do after you cross is not seen by anyone. If you do send a signal right before you cross your comrades will see it, but it will take a rather long time.


Just so I'm clear on this; static gravity field passes thru ok but not a modulated version?

I don't mean to be thick on this point but I really would like to get this notion out of my head once and for all!

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5530
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby doogly » Tue Feb 16, 2010 5:03 pm UTC

It doesn't pass through, it was already there. If it were passing anything, it wouldn't be static.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

Homer
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:01 pm UTC

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby Homer » Tue Feb 16, 2010 6:13 pm UTC

doogly wrote:It doesn't pass through, it was already there. If it were passing anything, it wouldn't be static.


I keep getting hung up on just how permeable the event horizon is and to what. It doesn't pass EM stuff out (hence the name) but does pass gravity (hence the reputation). I can't see how the event horizon prevents a modulated gravity wave from passing. If you were to just poor rocks into the black hole, the mass goes up as does the gravity. So the static field can and does change and the effects can be measured.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5530
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby doogly » Tue Feb 16, 2010 6:19 pm UTC

Nothing at all leaves the event horizon. If you pour rocks in you will notice an increase in mass due to the rocks being there, but you won't notice it coming from inside the horizon. You will never see the rocks cross the horizon, so you will see the gravitational field coming from a rock near the horizon. The only way for it to look like mass at the central singularity is for the mass to have already been there, or for there to be a spherical infalling shell of matter which you then treat as matter at the center. It is actually very tricky work indeed to show that collapsing matter actually forms something that resembles the ideal schwarzschild or kerr metrics (but it is a thing that has been done, I think this is well covered in Landau and Lifschitz, who spend more time on collapse than most other books).
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3423
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby Eebster the Great » Wed Feb 17, 2010 1:18 am UTC

Homer wrote:
doogly wrote:If you are a source of gravitational disturbances inside the horizon, you cannot send signals across it. It is exactly analagous to e&m waves.


But a black hole does in effect send out a signal. Consider the gravity as just a carrier wave. I'm suggesting it can be modulated. Since it's not EM in nature it's not going to be pulled back in.


No, a black hole does not send out a signal, and anything inside the event horizon (including gravitational waves) cannot, even in principle, affect anything outside the event horizon. Your last sentence is the problem. There is no reason gravitational waves would not be "pulled back in" in the exact same way EM waves are. Both photons and gravitons have zero mass but are still unable to exit the black hole.

User avatar
QwertyKey
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:45 pm UTC

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby QwertyKey » Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:27 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:
Homer wrote:
doogly wrote:If you are a source of gravitational disturbances inside the horizon, you cannot send signals across it. It is exactly analagous to e&m waves.


But a black hole does in effect send out a signal. Consider the gravity as just a carrier wave. I'm suggesting it can be modulated. Since it's not EM in nature it's not going to be pulled back in.


No, a black hole does not send out a signal, and anything inside the event horizon (including gravitational waves) cannot, even in principle, affect anything outside the event horizon. Your last sentence is the problem. There is no reason gravitational waves would not be "pulled back in" in the exact same way EM waves are. Both photons and gravitons have zero mass but are still unable to exit the black hole.


Now I'm interested. Would this mean that the mass or size of a black hole does not affect its gravitational strength? I always thought that big black hole = strong gravity. So the gravitational field around a black hole, if any, is a residual field?

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3423
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby Eebster the Great » Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:44 pm UTC

QwertyKey wrote:
Eebster the Great wrote:
Homer wrote:
doogly wrote:If you are a source of gravitational disturbances inside the horizon, you cannot send signals across it. It is exactly analagous to e&m waves.


But a black hole does in effect send out a signal. Consider the gravity as just a carrier wave. I'm suggesting it can be modulated. Since it's not EM in nature it's not going to be pulled back in.


No, a black hole does not send out a signal, and anything inside the event horizon (including gravitational waves) cannot, even in principle, affect anything outside the event horizon. Your last sentence is the problem. There is no reason gravitational waves would not be "pulled back in" in the exact same way EM waves are. Both photons and gravitons have zero mass but are still unable to exit the black hole.


Now I'm interested. Would this mean that the mass or size of a black hole does not affect its gravitational strength? I always thought that big black hole = strong gravity. So the gravitational field around a black hole, if any, is a residual field?


As stated, the field is a residual field, yes. Essentially, from the perspective of somebody outside the event horizon, time for an object nearing the event horizon dilates. As it gets closer, time goes slower and slower, and it never really crosses the event horizon. The gravitational and electrical fields generated by this never go away (until the black hole evaporates).

Or at least that is my understanding.

User avatar
thoughtfully
Posts: 2253
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:25 am UTC
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby thoughtfully » Sun Feb 21, 2010 2:58 am UTC

QwertyKey wrote:Now I'm interested. Would this mean that the mass or size of a black hole does not affect its gravitational strength? I always thought that big black hole = strong gravity. So the gravitational field around a black hole, if any, is a residual field?

A larger black hole will have a larger "residual" field. The field's strength reflects the mass of the progenitor star's core, and any subsequent mass will "pile up" onto the residual field, increasing its strength.
Image
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

User avatar
feedme
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 3:59 am UTC

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby feedme » Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:52 am UTC

I have a few questions about space, in general.

When thinking about space, and in particularly our solar system, I think of it as a rectangular box that is expanding out, but height is somewhat ignored. So are there things above our solar system, and below? Or merely off to the sides?

I remember hearing somewhere that Einstein once thought of an elevator falling in space. This thought's always bothered me.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Sun Feb 21, 2010 5:32 am UTC

feedme wrote:I have a few questions about space, in general.

When thinking about space, and in particularly our solar system, I think of it as a rectangular box that is expanding out, but height is somewhat ignored. So are there things above our solar system, and below? Or merely off to the sides?

Space is definitely 3D, yes, and nature takes advantage of this.
I remember hearing somewhere that Einstein once thought of an elevator falling in space. This thought's always bothered me.

Uh, what about it? Einstein was using it as a thought experiment on the nature of gravity, probably. If the elevator is accelerating upwards, this will be indistinguishable from being in a gravitational field.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3423
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby Eebster the Great » Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:33 pm UTC

feedme wrote:I remember hearing somewhere that Einstein once thought of an elevator falling in space. This thought's always bothered me.

I think the thought experiment was that an elevator on Earth in free-fall is indistinguishable from an inertial elevator in space (ignoring tidal effects). This kind of thing led Einstein to his theory of General Relativity.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:02 pm UTC

Elevators get used a lot in relativity thought experiments, it seems. I definitely remember another one about special relativity. I guess they're a plausibly self-contained metal box for experimenters to be in.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5530
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby doogly » Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:50 am UTC

Space is three dimensional of course, but it is true that our solar system and galaxy are both pretty disc shaped. The other dimension is very important if you want to do things like actually aim for mars or the galactic center; you just aren't too screwed if you're thinking discilly.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3423
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby Eebster the Great » Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:23 am UTC

doogly wrote:Space is three dimensional of course, but it is true that our solar system and galaxy are both pretty disc shaped. The other dimension is very important if you want to do things like actually aim for mars or the galactic center; you just aren't too screwed if you're thinking discilly.


But our solar system does not lie in the same plane as our galaxy, and neither lies in the same plane as most other galaxies (most galaxies don't even lie primarily in one plane).

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5530
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby doogly » Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:28 am UTC

Yeah, it's not a good idea to put it in a plane, just sometimes good enough.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:33 am UTC

Question: In many systems--spiral galaxies, solar systems--we see matter arrange itself mostly-into-a-plane. Is this pattern duplicated in any supergalactic structures, like clusters?
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Antimony-120
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:16 am UTC
Location: Wherever you can look - wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat.

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby Antimony-120 » Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:58 pm UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:Question: In many systems--spiral galaxies, solar systems--we see matter arrange itself mostly-into-a-plane. Is this pattern duplicated in any supergalactic structures, like clusters?


No, on the cluster/supercluster scale there is no real order other than lumps of galaxies (hence the name cluster). On the broadest possible scale there appear to be strings of superclusters (even a couple "great walls") seperated by big empty spots (as in empty even for inter super-cluster space).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_filament

Note that much of this research is very, very recent data. The first filamant data started showing up in the late 80's and a wall was discovered in '89, the next couple being discovered in the early 2000's.

In short, at the filimant scale there appears to be a cylindrical symmetry (for each filamant, they lie in random orientations relative to eachother) or eliptical symmetry for the walls. Beyond this level is the "End of Greatness" where it's just a random scrawl of filament lines.
Wolydarg wrote:That was like a roller coaster of mathematical reasoning. Problems! Solutions! More problems!


****************Signature Dehosted, New Signature Under Construction************************

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3707
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby PM 2Ring » Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:07 am UTC

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/ wrote:This web page is designed to give everyone an idea of what our universe actually looks like. There are nine main maps on this web page, each one approximately ten times the scale of the previous one. The first map shows the nearest stars and then the other maps slowly expand out until we have reached the scale of the entire visible universe.

[...]

14 Billion Light Years from the Sun
The Visible Universe
Although our knowledge of the large scale structure of the universe is incomplete, many large and small scale features are visible right out to the very edge of the visible universe. The entire universe is fairly uniform, as this map shows.

matthew turnage
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 1:32 am UTC

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby matthew turnage » Fri Feb 26, 2010 1:43 am UTC

im pretty certain that it doesn't matter whether how fast info "moves" what does matter is how quickly it can be absorbed and interpreted. think about it our body is attacked by many many things our brain is absorbing all of the things happening to the body and interpreting it as things such as light heat cold smooth rough rigid sour smelly that is now information so the speed of information is only as fast as how quickly our brains can absorb and interpret this. now if ur talking about communication that's a different story

User avatar
Antimony-120
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:16 am UTC
Location: Wherever you can look - wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat.

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby Antimony-120 » Fri Feb 26, 2010 1:46 am UTC

matthew turnage wrote:im pretty certain that it doesn't matter whether how fast info "moves" what does matter is how quickly it can be absorbed and interpreted. think about it our body is attacked by many many things our brain is absorbing all of the things happening to the body and interpreting it as things such as light heat cold smooth rough rigid sour smelly that is now information so the speed of information is only as fast as how quickly our brains can absorb and interpret this. now if ur talking about communication that's a different story



No. Information can only move at the spped of light or less. That's a fact of GR (actually SR if I remember correctly).
Wolydarg wrote:That was like a roller coaster of mathematical reasoning. Problems! Solutions! More problems!


****************Signature Dehosted, New Signature Under Construction************************

matthew turnage
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 1:32 am UTC

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby matthew turnage » Fri Feb 26, 2010 1:47 am UTC

and about shape of solar systems? i thought that since we are in space that there really is no shape and is saying its 3d enough or is there more to it?

matthew turnage
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 1:32 am UTC

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby matthew turnage » Fri Feb 26, 2010 1:48 am UTC

plz explain antimony

matthew turnage
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 1:32 am UTC

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby matthew turnage » Fri Feb 26, 2010 1:52 am UTC

i mean can u say that space is on a three dimensional plane or more than just 3 dimensions.

matthew turnage
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 1:32 am UTC

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby matthew turnage » Fri Feb 26, 2010 1:54 am UTC

im in this forum so i can learn about all of this. so i would appreciate any comments as long as they are not derogatory or insulting

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Fri Feb 26, 2010 1:55 am UTC

Information is carried by physical phenomena. Physical phenomena can't travel faster than light. No matter what, you can't find out about something in less time than it would take for light to travel from the event to you.

As fro the solar system question, I'm not sure what you're saying. The solar system lies mostly in one plane, that is, the planets mostly all go around the sun at the same level. Space is three-dimensional, yes, but our solar system does not use the third dimension much, although it certainly isn't two-dimensional.

EDIT: Please use the edit feature to add to your previous posts.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

matthew turnage
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 1:32 am UTC

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby matthew turnage » Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:03 am UTC

i believe that all of our theories about the distance between other solar systems and ours or between galaxies, etc. could be either completely right or completely wrong.

User avatar
Antimony-120
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:16 am UTC
Location: Wherever you can look - wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat.

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby Antimony-120 » Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:08 am UTC

matthew turnage wrote:i believe that all of our theories about the distance between other solar systems and ours or between galaxies, etc. could be either completely right or completely wrong.


That's not really up for debate. While there is some uncertainty about the exact distances, the orders of magnitude are known. Several different methods have been used to measure them, and most rely on fairly basic, well verified physics.

Edit: This thread deals with the FTL-Relativity problem in more detail
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=51782
Last edited by Antimony-120 on Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:11 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Wolydarg wrote:That was like a roller coaster of mathematical reasoning. Problems! Solutions! More problems!


****************Signature Dehosted, New Signature Under Construction************************

matthew turnage
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 1:32 am UTC

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby matthew turnage » Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:10 am UTC

thank you sir elderberry for replying and what i meant was not just the solar system but our relation to the rest of the universe. all lines converge at a single point that is a fact lets say that that single point is the earth and everything else is the universe around us. we are constantly in motion whether its our rotation revolutions around the sun our solar system or galaxy or cluster so the single point is constantly in motion. what do u think about that i can't think of anything like everything is connected to strings comic

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:14 am UTC

matthew turnage wrote:i believe that all of our theories about the distance between other solar systems and ours or between galaxies, etc. could be either completely right or completely wrong.

As I understand it, two basic methods underlie stellar distance-judging. For nearby things (in our galaxy? I'm not much of an astronomer) the usual method is parallax. Essentially, you draw a triangle with Earth, the Sun, and the object as the vertices. Then you wait six months, and draw another won. At each point, you measure the Object-Earth-Sun angle. So you know two angles and one side (because we know the distance from Earth to the sun) and you can use trigonometry to find the distance.

For farther away things (i.e., other galaxies) we use a particular kind of star--called Cepheids, I believe--that always burn at the same brightness, and so are called "standard candles". Since we know that how fast a galaxy recedes from us is proportional to how far away it is due to cosmic inflation, we can measure the red shift caused by the movement of the star and determine how fast it is going, therefore, how far away it is.
thank you sir elderberry for replying and what i meant was not just the solar system but our relation to the rest of the universe. all lines converge at a single point that is a fact lets say that that single point is the earth and everything else is the universe around us. we are constantly in motion whether its our rotation revolutions around the sun our solar system or galaxy or cluster so the single point is constantly in motion. what do u think about that i can't think of anything like everything is connected to strings comic

I'm sorry, I'm afraid I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make. Yes, we're always in motion, but there's nothing special about the Earth just because you can draw lines from this point to any other point. You could do that anywhere.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Antimony-120
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:16 am UTC
Location: Wherever you can look - wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat.

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby Antimony-120 » Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:17 am UTC

matthew turnage wrote:thank you sir elderberry for replying and what i meant was not just the solar system but our relation to the rest of the universe. all lines converge at a single point that is a fact lets say that that single point is the earth and everything else is the universe around us. we are constantly in motion whether its our rotation revolutions around the sun our solar system or galaxy or cluster so the single point is constantly in motion. what do u think about that i can't think of anything like everything is connected to strings comic



Three lines do not necessarily converge at a point.
Image

If you're asking what it would look like if we drew a line from the Center of Mass of the Earth to the center of mass of everything else...it would look like a large mess. If you're asking about our precise movement through the universe, the question becomes "relative to what?". there is no absolute grid to measure based upon. relative to the sun we execute a roughly circular orbit. Some small epicycles due to the rotation of the earth, but nothing these perturbutions are much smaller than the orbit. Similarly our solar system rotates around the galactic center, and relative to that our small orbit has very little noticable effect at that size. Finally our galaxy is moving relative to the cluster (or supercluster) center of mass, and this movement is much larger than our rotation about the galaxy.
Wolydarg wrote:That was like a roller coaster of mathematical reasoning. Problems! Solutions! More problems!


****************Signature Dehosted, New Signature Under Construction************************

matthew turnage
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 1:32 am UTC

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby matthew turnage » Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:20 am UTC

i said all lines not three. but all.

User avatar
Josephine
Posts: 2142
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:53 am UTC

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby Josephine » Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:29 am UTC

matthew turnage wrote:i said all lines not three. but all.

n-gon.
Belial wrote:Listen, what I'm saying is that he committed a felony with a zoo animal.

User avatar
Antimony-120
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:16 am UTC
Location: Wherever you can look - wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat.

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby Antimony-120 » Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:33 am UTC

matthew turnage wrote:i said all lines not three. but all.


Add another line to that picture, see if that makes them all converge at the same point. No? Well then add another. still no? Try adding a few billion. Go ahead, I'll wait.

You'll eventually come to realize that as many lines as you add to that picture, those three lines will NEVER CONVERGE. Adding other lines doesn't change that fact. So by adding a million lines to that picture I can make a picture with 1 000 003 lines, that do not all converge at the same point. Add 10^92, that would be the number of protons in the universe. That many lines, and still there are at least three in my picture that don't converge at a single point.
Wolydarg wrote:That was like a roller coaster of mathematical reasoning. Problems! Solutions! More problems!


****************Signature Dehosted, New Signature Under Construction************************

matthew turnage
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 1:32 am UTC

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby matthew turnage » Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:39 am UTC

n-gon nice. very nice. and what u are saying answers my question elderberry. thank you. antimony what are u going on about three lines? and three points. imagine lines coming from all directions on a three dimensional plane. imagine taking a small ball of clay and sticking pins in it from all directions do it right and they all meet at one point.

Birk
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 5:08 pm UTC

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby Birk » Fri Feb 26, 2010 3:06 am UTC

Saying you can draw an infinite number of lines from a given point is not the same as saying all lines converge at one singular point.

matthew turnage
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 1:32 am UTC

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby matthew turnage » Fri Feb 26, 2010 3:11 am UTC

Birk wrote:Saying you can draw an infinite number of lines from a given point is not the same as saying all lines converge at one singular point.

ok why? does the fact that i can make a 3d model of that all lines converge at a single point on a three dimensional plane not just prove that they can? please tell me what u think. the point is not an origin but just a where the lines pass each other through. i should have been more clear phrased it better all lines intersect at a single point. excuse me

Birk
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 5:08 pm UTC

Re: RELATIVITY QUESTIONS! (and other common queries)

Postby Birk » Fri Feb 26, 2010 3:13 am UTC

matthew turnage wrote:
Birk wrote:Saying you can draw an infinite number of lines from a given point is not the same as saying all lines converge at one singular point.

ok why? does the fact that i can make a 3d model of that all lines converge at a single point on a three dimensional plane not just prove that they can? please tell me what u think. the point is not an origin but just a where the lines pass each other through. i should have been more clear phrased it better all lines intersect at a single point. excuse me



It's just an issue of being precise in your wording. If you say ALL lines converge at a single point I would say "well what about parallel lines?" You are just talking about taking an arbitrary point in space and passing an infinite number of lines through it. Do you see the difference?

Either way, I'm not sure what your point is to be quite honest.


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests