Ask any question you want about Physics

can someone tell me how strong a structure has to be to withstand 38k tons falling at freefall speed for about 12 feet?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

Everything in the universe searches for its lowest energy point. In curved space around earth that would be the earyhs surface. This has to do with potential energy. This is similar to wooden cars on a race track. The track is inclined this is potential energy we use energy to place our car on the track. We are placing it higher in curved space. Meaning it takes longer for it to move through curved space.

seems to me that potential energy should some how correlate with inertia. Not that I disagree with your line of thought, just attempting to continue it in my own way.
It is not like if I let the ball to roll from the top of the hill down, when the ball comes to rest it is loosing all of it's potential energy because if I dig a pit at bottom of the hill further down, the ball will start to roll again. Can we assume the ball lost its potential energy if came to rest after first roll down? It knows nothing of me digging another 'hill top' for it. Is it gaining another portion of potential energy as my pit gets deeper?

cheers)

originally posted by: vjr1113
can someone tell me how strong a structure has to be to withstand 38k tons falling at freefall speed for about 12 feet?

Not a simple answer need to know density of materials involved their density and its microstructure. For example steel and stainless steel have different properties.


en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: greenreflections

I think you got it just to clarify one thing though distortion occurs we don't see it because the distortion is in 4TH DIMENTION. we only see the distortion through time but never in real time.

4th spatial dimension? Only through time? Wow...ok, we can only see space-time distortion because of time? How is that? How about gravitational lensing? Or please elaborate.

Lots of talk about space-time as being wrapped, distorted, bent but could anybody be more precise? What is happening with space-time in presence of mass? Why Einstein has brought geometry into his space-time concept? Why space-time topology is even discussed among scientific theories?

What do you people think?

originally posted by: mbkennel
Is there an empirical experimental diagnostic which could distinguish a mind with free will from one without?

Now we are getting somewhere. Not only do we need to define what we mean by "free will", but for science to answer the question it needs to be defined in precisely those terms. If we can't do that then science can't answer the question. If we can do that then we don't need people debating for centuries, all we have to do is perform the experiment and let the results of the experiment answer the question.

a reply to: greenreflections

What is happening with space-time in presence of mass?

It is, apparently, being distorted.

Why Einstein has brought geometry into his space-time concept?

Because math has proven to be a very effective tool in describing various aspects of reality.

Why space-time topology is even discussed among scientific theories?

Because it affects us. And it has not been shown to be in error. It's the best thing we've got to describe what's going on, so far.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: greenreflections

What is happening with space-time in presence of mass? It is, apparently, being distorted.

Thanks, I have better idea. It is being bent.

edit on 24-12-2015 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

a reply to: greenreflections

Sure. That works. The terms are synonymous.
www.thesaurus.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: greenreflections

Sure. That works. The terms are synonymous.
www.thesaurus.com...

how about you have no idea. Phage, can you in few words explain what gravity well means?

a reply to: greenreflections

how about you have no idea.

Actually, I do. I know that distorting space and time means the same thing as bending space and time.

Phage, can you in few words explain what gravity well means?

Yes. Yes, I can. It is a metaphorical application of the word "well", as in a water well. The implication being that the deeper you are in a water well, the more difficult it is to get out of it. Similarly, the closer you are to a mass, the more force must be exerted to remove distance yourself from it.

Too many words?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: greenreflections

how about you have no idea.

Actually, I do. I know that distorting space and time means the same thing as bending space and time.

Phage, can you in few words explain what gravity well means?

Yes. Yes, I can. It is a metaphorical application of the word "well", as in a water well. The implication being that the deeper you are in a water well, the more difficult it is to get out of it. Similarly, the closer you are to a mass, the more force must be exerted to remove distance yourself from it.

Too many words?

with your last line you were trying to diminish my intelligence. But that's ok.

You picture it as a vortex of....... that takes everything in the vicinity down the toilet?

)

a reply to: greenreflections

You picture it as a vortex of....... that takes everything in the vicinity down the toilet?

No. I don't picture it as a vortex.

For a couple of obvious reasons.
1) A vortex, by definition, involves rotation.
2) A vortex is a poor representation of the three dimensional distortion of space. That's probably because it is difficult to "picture" the spherical nature of gravitation which, apparently, is induced by mass. That's one reason math is useful.

The vortex of a toilet bears no similarity to gravitation.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: greenreflections

You picture it as a vortex of....... that takes everything in the vicinity down the toilet?

No. I don't picture it as a vortex.

For a couple of obvious reasons.
1) A vortex, by definition, involves rotation.
2) A vortex is a poor representation of the three dimensional distortion of space. That's probably because it is difficult to "picture" the spherical nature of gravitation which, apparently, is induced by mass. The vortex of a toilet bears no similarity to gravitation.

so if we take Earth - Moon model and make them stationary (just Earth and the Moon with none rotating... Stationary big Earth and smaller Moon. Nothing rotates.
With you logic Moon would not start to fall toward non rotating Earth?
where the vortex part comes into play? How space-time being vortexed?

originally posted by: greenreflections
With you logic Moon would not start to fall toward non rotating Earth?

Phage is stating it doesn't matter, not that it does.

Rotation of matter only starts having a detectable effect on gravity when you have an enormous rotating mass or it's rotating so fast that you can begin to detect frame dragging, also known as Lense-Thirring effect for Bassplyr. Even then, it's not the sort of thing you'd notice unless you were looking for specific small effects.

a reply to: greenreflections

With you logic Moon would not start to fall toward non rotating Earth?

Rotation is not relevant.
But if for some reason the Moon were to stop revolving around Earth, if it lost its angular momentum somehow, the two would indeed collide. Because of the very same phenomenon which keeps the Moon revolving around Earth. See, the Moon is falling. But because it has angular momentum, it is falling around Earth. We didn't need Einstein to get that part.

so vortex is there regardless if there is a rotation between two mass objects. Allow me to ask what in this case would cause a vortex (gravity) if nothing rotates?

Earth and Moon do not rotate, what would cause the vortex?

Can not be that space-time starts to spin to the point of vortex on its own around non rotating massive bodies just to fit your vision of gravity.

cheers)

originally posted by: greenreflections
so vortex is there regardless if there is a rotation between two mass objects.

No. No vortex. Gravity bears no similarity to a vortex.

Allow me to ask what in this case would cause a vortex (gravity) if nothing rotates?

Again, gravity is not a vortex. But to answer your question about what causes gravity; matter, apparently. According to every experiment devised to test it. Apparently gravity, like inertia, is a property of matter.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: greenreflections
so vortex is there regardless if there is a rotation between two mass objects.

No. No vortex. Gravity bears no similarity to a vortex.

Allow me to ask what in this case would cause a vortex (gravity) if nothing rotates?

Again, gravity is not a vortex. But to answer your question about what causes gravity; matter, apparently. According to every experiment devised to test it. Apparently gravity, like inertia, is a property of matter.

thanks for your answers, Phage.

originally posted by: greenreflections

Earth and Moon do not rotate, what would cause the vortex.

Earth and moon very much DO rotate. Although gravity has nothing to do with vortices.