Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: darkstar57

It's a snarky load of BS referencing a scamming company which has invented the notion of 'hydrinos' which are somehow hydrogen atoms in lower than the ground state that can be created to make "free energy" and destroy gullible investor capital.

Hey, it's got more going for it than most of the wacky theories you see cited here. And, it 'explains' the mystery of the missing hydrino. They're very cold neutrons.

I bet I could dress it up a little, toss in some drawings of vortexes, paste it over with "field" or "vibration" and the like, and I could get people to buy a book based on it. What do you think?

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: darkstar57

It's a snarky load of BS referencing a scamming company which has invented the notion of 'hydrinos' which are somehow hydrogen atoms in lower than the ground state that can be created to make "free energy" and destroy gullible investor capital.

Hey, it's got more going for it than most of the wacky theories you see cited here. And, it 'explains' the mystery of the missing hydrino. They're very cold neutrons.

I bet I could dress it up a little, toss in some drawings of vortexes, paste it over with "field" or "vibration" and the like, and I could get people to buy a book based on it. What do you think?

Lol. Why didn't I think of this and sell a sheitload of books.
But give it a try, you may make some handsome babs. Good luk

a reply to: Bedlam

I have a different image of an photon than you have, photons exist only in calculations and in reality it's EM disturbance with real dimensions. A photon is a simplification in math, a construct with no real particle.
Photon is just a mathematical representation of the energy needed to be added or subtracted to have certain formula working. It's just an idea .

But I do agree with you on neutron being a temporary blend or conflation of opposite charges.

The lowest energy state for an charge is a graph that brakes down if you try the calculation with more charges interacting with each other. You can if all charges are separate charges, not interacting, but if they bond to each other it is just assumption and guessing.

But anyway...
If a charge can have negative kinetic energy, so it makes the shape stable in the first place, why can't it have negative own energy too if bound?
This makes less unstable interactions possible.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: marsrat
So how does the velocity of a star increase while its Doppler shift remain constant?

Thanks for the question. The answer is that it doesn't.

The incorrect assumption in your question is this:

It is observed that past a certain radius galaxies will rotate as a singular angular unit (like a solid).

You're correct that if a galaxy did rotate like a singular angular unit like a solid, the outermost part would travel faster than the innermost part, but look at these rotation curves, which all look fairly flat to me (These are showing the velocities):

pages.uoregon.edu...


If they were rotating like a solid disk, those curves would slope up to the right rather steeply instead of being flat.

Some galaxies may have more dark matter than these examples, and in those cases you might see the rotation curves slope up to the right somewhat (M33 has an upward slope), but still probably not quite as much as with a solid object rotating. But where the velocity increases with radius in M33, so does the Doppler shift.

Here is an even larger sample of rotation curves and as you can see none are perfectly flat but few slope steeply up to the right like a solid object rotation and any that do would do so because the Doppler shift was similar:

www.ca-se-passe-la-haut.fr...

Google translated caption: "Spiral galaxies rotation curves (speed based on the distance from the galactic center) (Sofue & Rubin, 2001)"

So you totally ignore the Windup Problem? If the galaxies do not move like a solid then the spiral structure wraps around itself in the wrong direction. Why do you trust the Doppler Shift is the same everywhere when you cannot prove the rate of time is the same everywhere.

The Constancy of Wavelength in any Rate_of_Time Space
Say that a yellow star is in a Rate_of_Time space that is 10 times faster than ours. The frequency of light is ten times that of our sun but the speed of light is (relative to us) ten times faster. The two effects cancel out and the wavelength is still yellow. The yellow star appears yellow everywhere in the universe (subtracting the motion of the observer).

So how do you prove that the rate of time is the same everywhere? Einstein's theory of Relativity still has a few surprises.

originally posted by: marsrat
So you totally ignore the Windup Problem?

I'm not ignoring it, but it's not considered a problem. This link explains why astronomers think we see the spirals in spiral galaxies (they are thought to be caused by density waves, and aren't rigid rotating structures):

How Do Spiral Galaxies Keep Their Shape?

a spiral galaxy’s arms are visible primarily because they’re made of hot, young stars, and these very luminous stars should live for less than one rotation of the galaxy...

So, for the moment at least, the riddle seems solved. Astronomers believe a star’s residence within a spiral arm must be a temporary one, and the arms themselves are the result of a shock wave moving through the galaxy.

So if astronomers are right, long-lived stars like ours don't stay in the same spiral arm over their entire lifetime.

Why do you trust the Doppler Shift is the same everywhere when you cannot prove the rate of time is the same everywhere.

I don't assume the rate of time is the same everywhere, because experiments prove it's not. We can take two clocks in a lab, and move one up a meter, and see the rate of time is different one meter higher, because it's in a weaker gravitational field. The effect is more pronounced with GPS satellites which are higher by much more than one meter and also experience relativistic velocity effects on their clocks.

There are gravitational fields all over the universe and they all affect the rate of time according to the theory of relativity, which also predicts extreme changes in the passage of time near black holes. For example if you could orbit just outside the event horizon of a black hole without getting cooked, you might see a year go by on your clock while 1000 or more years pass by on Earth.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I don't assume the rate of time is the same everywhere, because experiments prove it's not. We can take two clocks in a lab, and move one up a meter, and see the rate of time is different one meter higher, because it's in a weaker gravitational field. The effect is more pronounced with GPS satellites which are higher by much more than one meter and also experience relativistic velocity effects on their clocks.

There are gravitational fields all over the universe and they all affect the rate of time according to the theory of relativity, which also predicts extreme changes in the passage of time near black holes. For example if you could orbit just outside the event horizon of a black hole without getting cooked, you might see a year go by on your clock while 1000 or more years pass by on Earth.

There is an ultimate rate of time though, there is an ultimate reference frame, it just might be impossible to comprehend it, or the problem is that the ultimate frame of spatial and temporal reference must be set to 0 or infinity, and then all other energy quanta, the relative time of which is calculated by comparing its rate of motion over unit of space, if we assume there is an ultimate reference frame, that the substance of the universe exists, and continues to exist continuously from moment to moment, and each quanta of substance moves differently, therefore you say time is relative, they are all moving differently compared to either the total lack of movement, or the total potential most movement, the scope and values of energy moving (time) exist within the utlimate reference frame of 'the energy that now exists is now in this form and it is now changing into this form and this is happening all the time'.

a reply to: ImaFungi
This is probably one of the few not completely mainstream ideas of yours that I can almost agree with.

The cosmic microwave background wasn't discovered until after Eintein's death but I often wonder what Einstein would have thought of the idea of using the cosmic microwave background as some kind of cosmic "preferred reference frame", with respect to motion. It turns out to not be very practical for us to use because of the speed we are zipping through the CMB, but conceptually I don't have a problem with that idea.

If you assume a stationary position in the CMB you would still need a place where the gravitational field is zero and there's no such place. However, if one considered a position in the immense void between galaxy superclusters, even if the gravitational field isn't exactly zero, it might be a decent approximation for the purpose you suggest. Or instead of using that as a baseline you could perhaps attempt to calculate the sum of gravitational influences at that point, make adjustments in the time calculation for those and claim that's your universal time reference.

However I'm not sure how accurate that would be given we don't understand dark matter yet.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: ImaFungi
This is probably one of the few not completely mainstream ideas of yours that I can almost agree with.

The cosmic microwave background wasn't discovered until after Eintein's death but I often wonder what Einstein would have thought of the idea of using the cosmic microwave background as some kind of cosmic "preferred reference frame", with respect to motion. It turns out to not be very practical for us to use because of the speed we are zipping through the CMB, but conceptually I don't have a problem with that idea.

If you assume a stationary position in the CMB you would still need a place where the gravitational field is zero and there's no such place. However, if one considered a position in the immense void between galaxy superclusters, even if the gravitational field isn't exactly zero, it might be a decent approximation for the purpose you suggest. Or instead of using that as a baseline you could perhaps attempt to calculate the sum of gravitational influences at that point, make adjustments in the time calculation for those and claim that's your universal time reference.

However I'm not sure how accurate that would be given we don't understand dark matter yet.

Well if you assume all all energy was created or began this direction at the same time, that is an ultimate reference frame, and someone outside of the universe could use a self consistent form of measurement, a stop watch, and they would have an ultimate frame of reference for the entire universe as a whole, as comparable quanta which move and decay at different rates compared to one another, ala relativity to an observer inside, because they dont have access to that ultimate reference frame, precisely because they are on a spinning, rotating, revolting planet, and made of many different quanta that all has differing rates of time and motion relative to one another. But we still have ultimate frames of reference, to know for a fact that an object was accelerated is to know for a fact that that object was accelerated in every frame of reference?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
But we still have ultimate frames of reference, to know for a fact that an object was accelerated is to know for a fact that that object was accelerated in every frame of reference?

If you're an astronaut on the ISS and you accelerate a tennis ball across the module, you can say you observed the acceleration of the tennis ball.

But what if the astronaut squeezes a golf ball-sized sphere of water out of the water container, such that the sphere of water just floats in mid-air, with no apparent motion. Do you know for a fact that sphere of water is accelerated in every frame of reference? Think about it. The astronaut looking at it sees no acceleration at all. But other frames of reference outside the ISS would see the acceleration of the water due to the orbit of the ISS. In fact they would see the ISS and the water drop accelerating at the same rate.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
But we still have ultimate frames of reference, to know for a fact that an object was accelerated is to know for a fact that that object was accelerated in every frame of reference?

If you're an astronaut on the ISS and you accelerate a tennis ball across the module, you can say you observed the acceleration of the tennis ball.

But what if the astronaut squeezes a golf ball-sized sphere of water out of the water container, such that the sphere of water just floats in mid-air, with no apparent motion. Do you know for a fact that sphere of water is accelerated in every frame of reference? Think about it. The astronaut looking at it sees no acceleration at all. But other frames of reference outside the ISS would see the acceleration of the water due to the orbit of the ISS. In fact they would see the ISS and the water drop accelerating at the same rate.

Yes that is true, though wouldnt the astronauts be aware that they are moving, and so if the distance does not increase between them and the water they will determine that in reference to them the water is not accelerating, and from an outside observer if the ship, the astronaut and the water are traveling at a constant pace, that is not accelerated, so in both perspectives they would be observing a ship traveling at a constant pace; now if the ship was accelerated, would not all parties be privy?

a reply to: ImaFungi
The astronauts may know about their acceleration and thus the acceleration of the floating object that travels with them, but my point is they see no acceleration of a floating object so you can't say the "object was accelerated in every frame of reference" if it's not accelerated from their reference frame.

You're saying they are aware of what external reference frames would observe, and that's true, but that doesn't change what they observe in their reference frame, which is no acceleration of a floating object.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: ImaFungi
The astronauts may know about their acceleration and thus the acceleration of the floating object that travels with them, but my point is they see no acceleration of a floating object so you can't say the "object was accelerated in every frame of reference" if it's not accelerated from their reference frame.

You're saying they are aware of what external reference frames would observe, and that's true, but that doesn't change what they observe in their reference frame, which is no acceleration of a floating object.

If there was a floating object in front of them, and the astronauts were aware of the 'readings of the ship' (i.e. rate of fuel burning and velocity), if the ship was accelerated, the astronauts would be aware the ship was being accelerated and they would be able to detect it if they had equipment, perhaps lasers or radar, that very quickly hit the object in front of them and returned back to them, giving them a real time reading; if the ship accelerated they would receive a change in the data they received right?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: glend
This explains why expansion is faster than light.

Am I stupid (be kind)

You're in good company actually in that not only are you confused, but even scientists and professors who write the textbooks have been confused on this topic and therefore since there is confusion even in the textbooks, how are non-scientists expected to sort this out?

Fortunately there is a paper on this topic which, as physics papers go is fairly easy reading, but it still requires a decent understanding of relativity to fully grasp it:

Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe

So if you can read that paper, it will even explain how some of the textbook authors have been confused by this topic, and written textbooks that were unclear, misleading, or in some cases maybe even wrong. If they can get it wrong, you certainly shouldn't feel bad about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the CMB is commonly thought to have been created when the early universe cooled enough to become translucent, correct? The initial (theoretical) quark/gluon soup was too energetic and dense for photons to radiate out to any great distance, much like the time frame it takes for a photon created in the core of a star to finally cross the photosphere. So would not the CMB actually be a less accurate image of the Big Bang than something like the CNB (cosmic neutrino background)? Admittedly, the neutrino background is considerably harder to analyze, but having been released earlier the picture of the early universe would be more accurate.
Also, doesn't Inflation fail to violate Relativity because while 2 objects measured from a fixed point could be observed moving away from the other a +C, it is the fabric of Space-Time increasing in volume on a quantum level? Therefore the objects are not moving at superluminal speed in relation to their own point in Space-Time.
Admittedly, Relativity occasionally stumps me, but violating C would require infinite energy and any object would reach infinite mass. Both of which are unreachable values. But if the fabric the objects are on is expanding quickly enough, an apparent violation of C can be achieved from an observer's perspective on the other object. If I'm totally off base, please let me know.

originally posted by: marsrat
So you totally ignore the Windup Problem?

When I wrote my first reply to this I was surprised to hear you even mention this, since I thought that problem was thought to have been solved decades ago, but I wasn't sure exactly when (because it was before my time), so I looked it up. This paper dates back to 1964 and provides an explanation of how density wave theory solves the windup problem.

Title: On the Spiral Structure of Disk Galaxies.
Authors: Lin, C. C.; Shu, Frank H.
Publication: Astrophysical Journal, vol. 140, p.646
Publication Date: 08/1964

The density wave concept has even been applied to Saturn's rings and apparently the Cassini probe has found evidence to confirm the same physics are taking place in Saturn's rings as in spiral galaxies:

Density Wave Theory

Beginning in the late 1970s, Peter Goldreich, Frank Shu, and others applied density wave theory to the rings of Saturn.[5][6][7] Saturn's rings (particularly the A Ring) contain a great many spiral density waves and spiral bending waves excited by Lindblad resonances and vertical resonances (respectively) with Saturn's moons. The physics are largely the same as with galaxies, though spiral waves in Saturn's rings are much more tightly wound (extending a few hundred kilometers at most) due to the very large central mass (Saturn itself) compared to the mass of the disk.[7] The Cassini mission has revealed very small density waves excited by the ring-moons Pan and Atlas ...

Emphasis mine, to show that spiral galaxies aren't the only place where we see such density wave physics taking place.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I just saw this and was about to chime in, that said though I will confirm that this is the theory used by most astrophysicists to explain the spiral structures. That being a density wave of star formation, that actually rotates around the galaxy faster than the stars themselves, but does not represent a bulk flow of gas.

So, good find there and excellent in general, the spiral structure is one that has many people confused, even to the point of proposing that the spirals represent stars flowing into the central black hole... which is NOT at all what they are.

a reply to: ErosA433
Thanks for the input. I've never done any astronomy professionally like you have so it's nice to hear an expert confirm this, but it's one of my spare time hobbies. Maybe you could also clarify this question: No science is ever "settled" and it's always open to new evidence and better theories, but have any astronomers in the last few decades thought the spirals rotated as if they moved like a solid object to avoid the windup problem? I never heard of that still being considered a debated option within my lifetime.

Thanks for popping in because there was another question where your input would be very welcome as it's in your current field of expertise, dark matter. The paraphrased question was "why does dark matter affect the rotation curves of galaxies, but apparently not the rotation curve of planets in our solar system?" The original question is here, and my reply follows that which I call a reply and not an answer because I didn't really have a good answer to that one except to find some research suggesting limits on the dark matter effect in our solar system, and to re-post the chart you found listing lots of possible dark matter sources. Dragonridr also contributed a reply about the distribution of dark matter in satellite galaxies.

I was hoping you might have some ideas about this. It was a great question that got me thinking about the distribution of dark matter which I see modeled all the time on larger cosmological scales, but not on solar system scales, so your thoughts on that would be appreciated.

Edited out of existence because after reconsideration, the post was not worth making.

a reply to: pfishy

Ok, just out of curiosity, what exactly is the designed for expansion on the sunlit side of the Burj Kalifa?

You can do some calculations yourself online using this building guide calculator:
www.buildingsguide.com...

Thermal Effects for Steel Buildings & Structures Calculator

Determine Max. Design Temperature Change, Change of Length or Stress as Applicable,
and Max. Length either without or between Expansion Joints

The default maximum summer temperature is 130 degrees F, but that is expected to be adjusted based on locale. Note that you might input a maximum temperature of say 160 degrees F (I'm not sure what the maximum temperature is at that location but it's fairly hot and you'd want to allow for some statistical variance, perhaps some future global warming, and safety margin), but you wouldn't input 1200 degrees F as buildings aren't designed for that temperature. If you did, you'd never get awarded any building design contracts.

Edit to add:
a reply to: pfishy
I think you're sort of on the right track with the reason we see superluminal expansion without violating relativity, but your explanation and mine too aren't as good as what the experts wrote in that paper, so that's worth reading.

The CNB might never be observed directly. Detecting neutrinos is really difficult.

So, water boils at 100 degrees right? If you want to boil a potato it takes 30 minutes. If you put the same size potato in the oven at 100 degrees then it will take alot longer to cook. Explain why and how. Just testing you here

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: Nochzwei

Can you please answer my question:

Introduction:

originally posted by: hgfbob
Simple fact of SCIENCE: if any of the potential energy from the accelerating mass went to destroying itself, it will lose kinetic energy which requires that the building slow in its fall.......but since it did fall at free-fall acceleration, it wasn't causing itself to collapse.

The above is talking about “potential energy,” “accelerating mass,” “kinetic energy,” "slow in its fall," “free-fall acceleration,” and “causing itself to collapse.”

Question: . . . is “free-fall acceleration” the same as or different from “causing itself to collapse”?

(EDIT: I have been reading this excellent thread for about 2 days now, as time allows. I just now got to the Mod post concerning this particular topic, and I apologize for bringing this back up. If it gets this post removed, I understand completely. Again, I apologize for dragging the dead horse out to beat it some more. But reading through the entire thread before posting responses would be futile for me, as it would require copious note taking to remember what and to whom I intended to reply to in the first place.)
I am probably rather late in posting this, but essentially the answer is no. "Free-fall acceleration" is a measurement of just that, acceleration. "Causing it's self to collapse" could be any number of things, but all would essentially point to the events allowing the former to occur. The acceleration event occurs once structural integrity is compromised and the support structure is no longer in place to keep the tremendous potential energy of the structure from becoming kinetic energy.
That being said, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, I understand the question you are really getting to. "Would a building's mass be able to accelerate at free-fall speeds if the underlying support structure failed in an uneven fashion, requiring the building's now-kinetic energy to impart the final failure loads on the remaining supports?" Is this the correct phrasing of what you are trying to discern?
If so, the answer is a matter of scale and percentage. To what scale did the underlying support structure fail, and what percentage of the design strength persisted in the remaining supports? Think of it this way: It is highly unlikely that all of the supports failed exactly at once. More likely, the failure began in a limited number of supports. But the additional and sudden extra loading on the remaining supports caused a cascading failure of those supports as well.
Imagine a two ton weight suspended from a steel cable. The cable is within its design capacity to support this weight under normal circumstances. Imagine now that a failure is induced to a small percentage of the strands of the cable, say 10% just as an example. Now, this failure is induced by intense heating. The remainder of the cable is being heated beyond normal tolerances as well due to the intense heat applied to the now-failed 10%. The sudden stress of that added load now causes a few more strands to give way, now due to heat and extra loading. This process repeats it's self at a rapidly accelerating rate due to the fact that the remaining strands are now under far greater load that ever designed for as well as intense heat from the original induced failure. This could happen as a rapid enough pace as to seem instantaneous to an observer watching at real speed. But it happened one strand at a time until the remaining strands failed simultaneously.
Hopefully that serves as a good visual analogy for the structural event in question.