Spin Mechanics

Given time is a physical dimension than can objects/matter move temporally in a Physical way?

a reply to: Bedlam

I have this sword, but I just can't seem to let go of it...

Glad I'm not the only one who thought of the Warlock's Wheel with this.

In general abstractions do not constitute physical evidence and are akin to Legends as defined.

a reply to: Kashai

I would have though that it would lose structural integrity.

When something spins, that insists that the outer reaches of the object will be moving faster than the inner portions of the object. So a) only a certain percentage of the object would be spinning through space time at approaching the speed of light, and b) the portion which is not moving at that speed would have an awful hard time trying to keep its grip on that outer area. I would have thought that whatever the object, it would fly apart. Either that, or the outer portion would simply expand away from the inner core, and then you would have a situation where the outer shell would be revolving around the inner core, perhaps separated by a few microns. The inner core, free of the drag of the outer portion.

There is no way to make an object spin at near to light speed, without that object coming apart in some fashion, not that I can make out, anyway.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Unless you consider that the issue of time dilation represents an addition of mass to the object.

The fact of the matter is such an object would experience time dilation whether on a linear course or in a spin.

An object falling apart in a classical way does not necessarily constitute it falling apart in a quantum way.

Though to be clear I doubt it would fall apart given all things inherently are in motion.

Increasing mass slows time and so what part of that are some of you unable to relate to?

a reply to: Kashai

You will get anything from zero towards infinity.
Because we don´t know the radius of your pea.

If you want a single velocity, you need the distance from the axis.

The pea would not "spin" at 99.9999999 the speed of light.
Because speed is the rate of change of it´s position in space. What you apply to the object is rotational speed and it´s measured in revolutions per time.

So something can´t spin at the speed of light. You can measure any point IN the sphere that´s not in the centre and determine the circumference of the path that point does in one revolution multiply it by the RPM you are cranking.
Or you work with angular velocity.

Now we have a problem because speed (length/time) != rotational speed (revolutions/time).
Of course, like I said you can convert those two if you have the distance from the center (radius).
So you can´t just say equivalent to the speed of light because that would mean (using SI norms here)
299 792 458 m/s. While spin is determined rev/sec.

Edit: You can think of your sphere as a disk. Because it´s a (perfect) sphere and it spins on one axis, you can throw away one dimension.

originally posted by: Kashai

The idea that such an object would be vaporized but in reality we today have the technology to actually find out what happens.

I look forward to future research into rotating garden peas to near light speed.

Has science gone too far?

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Kashai

The idea that such an object would be vaporized but in reality we today have the technology to actually find out what happens.

I look forward to future research into rotating garden peas to near light speed.

Has science gone too far?

Lol nice one

a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

The mass would stay the same.

If you accelerated part of the disc up to relativistic velocity, the mass certainly would not stay the same.

I think Kashal wants to discuss the relativistic effects that would occur when the disc is spun up to such angular velocities. Some interesting time dilation effects certainly would occur if the disc held together, but unfortunately — as you astutely point out — it would spin itself to bits long before any of this happened.

a reply to: Kashai

I was going to link to the old "Gene Ray - Timecube" website (for lulz) but I find that it is down (although the domain has recently been re-registered in Gene's name, so he's probably still around).

Then I realized a synchronicity: Gene Ray is from Florida and you are from Florida! Your avatar is also a tumbling Tesseract (hypercube) perhaps indicating a development of Gene's 4-corner "cubic" time (except in actuality, cubes have 8 corners, but that is probably well beside the point).

Could you be Otis Eugene Ray (Doctor of Cubism and Wisest Human)?

originally posted by: Kashai
The topic relates to what would happen if one were to spin an object the size of a ball bearing to near of light.

I have requested physical evidence not theoretical mumbo jumbo.

Pauli..... is that not the same person that appeared on the Johnny Carson show repeatedly and insisting high dosages of Vitamin C could cure Cancer?????

Or was that Pauling?

Either way what physical evidence do you have to support your position Sir?

Linus Pauling PhD (and double Nobel Prize winner), in 1976, stated that he had done a study indicating that mega doses of Vitamin C could improve outcomes in Cancer treatment. This study and its conclusions have been called into question by later studies.

Wolfgang Pauli was an Austrian physicist. His 'Pauli Exclusion Principle' (note, not a theory) states that two of the same kind of Fermions cannot have the same quantum numbers. It is a very important principle in physics, because the particles that make up ordinary matter are Fermions.

Just because physics is always, to some extent, theoretical, does not mean that it is "mumbo jumbo". It is verified mathematically and experimentally, daily, by scientists and students across the world (all physics students do 'lab' classes, repeating past experiments to verify those results and to hone the experimenters' technique). It is predictive and allows for those predictions to be tested to verify not only occurrence, but also that magnitude values are correctly calculable and exact.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the physical paradigms I referred to have all been verified experimentally, e.g: like in particle accelerators (the LHC is one such accelerator). Experimental results are physical evidence!

I'll concede that SUSY is largely theoretical because it relates to the creation of matter but it solves and gives sensible answers to inconsistencies in the Standard Model of Physics.

The fact that you propose something that would be physically unachievable and is therefore totally speculative (not even theoretical) at best, yet you request physical evidence for the reasons offered (repeatedly, by many), as to why, does not suggest a weakness in understanding of those offering reasons, nor in the precepts of physical science.

a reply to: Kashai

You said that the object would have to be spherical and smaller than a pea.

If what you meant was an atom, a proton, neutron, electron, or similar, then I would agree with your assessment. However, that assessment would not work for everything smaller than a pea. There are a great many things which are smaller than a pea which would operate on a classical mechanics principle, before they ever started to behave in a way familiar to persons who collide hadrons. Furthermore, peas are not of uniform size. Some peas are actually quite large, when compared with other peas, and much larger of course than the fundamental particles of quantum mechanics!

a reply to: Kashai

Two things

As it would be approaching significant fractions of the speed of light, the time dilation effect would kick in, its time zone would be getting a lot slower than ours, or we would be speeding up from its point of view. At some stage the energy required to spin it, surely would be from a different space time, and wouldn't spin it?.

Or the faster its spun, the slower it time zone gets and the less force their is to tear it apart, because as far as we are concerned its getting slower?

a reply to: chr0naut

The mumbo jumbo thing was a little rude but despite your confidence that all is well I would prefer to see the actual experiment.

I have my own reasons for that.

a reply to: chr0naut

If someone predicted something, by semantics, did it came true?

a reply to: TrueBrit

A person is in a vessel moving at near the speed of light time slows down due to time dilation. To be clear I am discussing an object about the size of a pea, like a ball bearing. While some disagree I feel that given that a photons existence is solely the result of momentum, then increasing momentum in matter should affect such an objects mass by increasing it.

In potential the increase could be substantive perhaps even massive especially in a spin.

Clearly there are disagreements but in relation to my assertion my physics is sound given my sources.

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: chr0naut

If someone predicted something, by semantics, did it came true?

They made rational and mathematical predictions, based upon scientific theory and by experimentation they then accumulate proof that the theory is valid. They don't prove scientific theories semantically.

Part of the design of those experiments is to exclude alternate causes and therefore the experiment 'hones in' on the particular postulate or theory, either proving or disproving it and isolated from other possible alternate causes.

By definition, a successful and well designed experiment does make the predictions of a theory "come true" (or not).

a reply to: Kashai

Again, it´s not moving at the speed of light, nor can it spin at the speed of light.
Parts of it will be moving at the speed of light, in theory. To be exact, the outer parts.

a reply to: chr0naut

No I mean, If I say I predicted that the moon will disappear. What does this sentence imply?

a) the moon disappeared (already)
b) the moon will disappear (in future)

remember, I wrote predicted.

It does not have to do with your post but since you´re mother language is english, I thought I´d ask you.