It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Need help with relativity question: Has "Dingle's Question" ever been answered?

page: 4
8
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 05:24 PM
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

I wasn't trying to chase my tail, I basically wanted to get an opinion on, "Is light moving like a train or simply existing like cars being added to a parked train?" If that analogy makes any sense...

posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:13 PM

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
So the idea of lets say using a pulse engine to gradually speed up a craft to near light speed is not feasible because the rate of energy that can be stored in the increased mass would always be at a lessor rate of increase than the rate of increase of the matter, the craft?

Alex Filippenko on one of The Universe episodes on the History channel covered this, but never talked about the difference in the rates of increase. It's where I learned the concept from. What you say sheds a different light on the subject.
I like Alex Filippenko, and he's usually pretty good at explaining things with examples, in fact I think he won an award for his teaching. I have a couple of video courses by him, and they are excellent.

Regarding how much energy the mass is storing as its moving, it's storing all the energy you put into it. So if you double the energy put in, none of that is lost.

But let's say your spaceship weighs the same as the space shuttle, a little less than the quarter million pounds in orbit (not the over 4 million pounds at takeoff).

Let's say you take the entire energy output of the US in a year, 3,015,383 million kilowatt hours. If you use that amount of energy to accelerate the space shuttle, it would take 108 years to accelerate it to 50% of the speed of light.

If it was a linear acceleration function, then in 216 years it would be going 100% of the speed of light, but it's not linear. The spaceships motion will have all 216 years worth of energy stored in the motion, but it will only be traveling a little over 70% the speed of light.

After 351 years it would reach 90% the speed of light.. So you have more than triple the energy put into accelerating the ship, and the ship has triple the energy in it, nothing was lost. But it's not triple the velocity because part of the increased energy is relativistic mass increase.

If you did this using a project orion type ship powered by atomic bombs, this would require about 73 billion Hiroshima-sized bombs to get to 90% the speed of light, which is more energy than most of us can even imagine, myself included. As you keep trying to go faster and faster eventually you'll exceed the entire energy output of our sun and still won't reach the speed of light.

But we can accelerate very tiny things to over 99.99% the speed of light like protons, in the LHC. We can only do that because they are so small, and even then, CERN's LHC electric bill quite large, just to accelerate things that are so small we can't even see them without instruments.

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

I have no idea why my last post is in a quote box. There is no [slash quote] at the end of what I posted.

You have 3 open quotes but only 2 close quotes, it puts the third close quote in for you if you forget.

Chances are you didn't want that first open quote line, the solution would be to delete that. Then you'd have 2 and 2 and the opens would match the closes.

posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 07:04 PM

Only one question, "Did you figure that out all one your own, or did you paraphrase a source?" Because if you figured that all out on your own that's quite the accomplishment I must say. That took some real math skills and knowledge of what is to what in energy needed to push mass over x time. I mean that is really awesomely impressive what you wrote.

PS You were correct on why everything I had was in quotes. Tizz fixed now.

I have no idea how an individual can be so smart. You continuously impress me with your brilliance.
edit on 2-10-2011 by LilDudeissocool because: added a PS.

posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 07:04 PM

I understand...I often try to make "fancy periods".

While I will happily describe, dissect, and debate the mechanics of String Theory - and of its conglomerate, M-Theory - I reject the idea that they represent reality.

In one episode of the show The Big Bang Theory, Leonard and Leslie break-up because she believes in Loop Quantum Gravity, while Leonard favours String Theory. In this case, I would side with Leslie. I favour LQG, as well (as far as existing quantum theories go - I believe LQG is closer to the right track than is String Theory).

Consequently, I reject any number of dimensions greater than 4.

posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 07:08 PM

It only looks impressive because he didn't show his work. He's right, of course...he's one of the few people around here who actually know what they're talking about when it comes to physics. But, if he showed the math, it wouldn't be quite as awesomely impressive.

posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 10:18 PM

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
Only one question, "Did you figure that out all one your own, or did you paraphrase a source?" Because if you figured that all out on your own that's quite the accomplishment I must say. That took some real math skills and knowledge of what is to what in energy needed to push mass over x time. I mean that is really awesomely impressive what you wrote.

I have no idea how an individual can be so smart. You continuously impress me with your brilliance.
Thanks, well I did join Mensa, which only lets people with high IQ's join. But I think watching courses by Alex Fillipenko and others like him is the true source of where a lot of my knowledge comes from. Based on your questions, I think you'd enjoy his courses too.

I did paraphrase a source, but only because I was too lazy to do the calculations myself, and the main part of the source really isn't that relevant:

www.biblehelp.org...

I don't know what that's doing on a site called biblehelp? It's not a site I frequent, it just showed up in a search when I looked for an example for you. Actually none of the calculations in that example are that hard which you will see if you visit that link. When you see how easy they are I think you'll realize you can do the calculations too.

Some relativity calculations are very difficult, but that's not one of the difficult calculations.
I think the only calculation I did was multiplying the number of atomic bombs to accelerate one pound to 90% light speed (317.515) by the number of pounds of the spaceship (231,053) to get the total, and I see I misread the 317.515 as 317,515, so my answer is off because of that, sorry about that. But you can easily multiply those two numbers together to get the correct total. Even the corrected amount is still a lot!

I didn't check that guys math but I think his figures are in the right ballpark so my guess is, it's probably right, or at least in the right ballpark.

I'm glad the quote tip helped, I had the same problem before which is how I knew about that!

edit on 2-10-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 12:20 PM

You see, I disagree with this. "A major quantum gravity contender with string theory, loop quantum gravity incorporates general relativity without requiring string theory's higher dimensions." source en.wikipedia.org... I believe it does. based partly on this en.wikipedia.org... visualizing this en.wikipedia.org...

I believe gravity is a product of a kinetic force.

Take our three dimensions flip it inside out and spin it inside the sixth dimension which of course includes the complete forth dimensional plane, what would happen? Keep in mind when this spin occurs it creates centrifugal in all directions for 3D as the same mechanics function in one direction requiring 2D within our 3D world. Now the higher 3 dimension above 3D function in reverse as 3D and 6D are mirror images of one another. So in 6D centrifugal force becomes centripetal force. What appears to be pulled in within the 3D world is actually being pushed out in 6D. You need M-theory and special relativity both to conceive this which was what my fancy period was all about.

You know if space expands and time contracts as you believe, there is part of the model right there.

posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 12:22 PM

No props for the Arbitrageur huh?
No respect... simply no respect.

posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 12:26 PM

Well that settles it then, you are a genius for real.

I believe based on what you have explained that you have done enough work on your own to impress the heck out of me. Which might not be hard to do... however the fact is you researched and produced work of your own out of that research, and that's good enough I think to impress anyone... I'm sure those research figs are accurate if they are to be checked.

posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 01:31 PM

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

You see, I disagree with this. "A major quantum gravity contender with string theory, loop quantum gravity incorporates general relativity without requiring string theory's higher dimensions." source en.wikipedia.org... I believe it does. based partly on this en.wikipedia.org... visualizing this en.wikipedia.org...

I believe gravity is a product of a kinetic force.

Take our three dimensions flip it inside out and spin it inside the sixth dimension which of course includes the complete forth dimensional plane, what would happen? Keep in mind when this spin occurs it creates centrifugal in all directions for 3D as the same mechanics function in one direction requiring 2D within our 3D world. Now the higher 3 dimension above 3D function in reverse as 3D and 6D are mirror images of one another. So in 6D centrifugal force becomes centripetal force. What appears to be pulled in within the 3D world is actually being pushed out in 6D. You need M-theory and special relativity both to conceive this which was what my fancy period was all about.

You know if space expands and time contracts as you believe, there is part of the model right there.

Lol. So I suppose a Nobel Prize would be in order,

posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 03:22 PM

You see, I disagree with this. "A major quantum gravity contender with string theory, loop quantum gravity incorporates general relativity without requiring string theory's higher dimensions."

The links you gave deal with String Theory (or, I should say, the multiple string variants). I disagree with these, because I reject any theory invoking any more than 4 dimensions. As far as I'm concerned, it's superfluous.

Though, if you'll notice, I also didn't say I agreed with LQG. I said it's probably closer to being on the right track than String Theory.

I believe gravity is a product of a kinetic force.

Kinetic means motion. A kinetic force would be any force that causes motion. Gravity causes motion. By definition, gravity is a kinetic force.
In fact, by definition, all forces cause motion. All forces are kinetic forces.

Take our three dimensions flip it inside out and spin it inside the sixth dimension which of course includes the complete forth dimensional plane, what would happen? Keep in mind when this spin occurs it creates centrifugal in all directions for 3D as the same mechanics function in one direction requiring 2D within our 3D world. Now the higher 3 dimension above 3D function in reverse as 3D and 6D are mirror images of one another. So in 6D centrifugal force becomes centripetal force. What appears to be pulled in within the 3D world is actually being pushed out in 6D. You need M-theory and special relativity both to conceive this which was what my fancy period was all about.

I hate to say this...'cause I like you, and I like the way you think... but, what you said has nothing at all to do with M-Theory. M-Theory doesn't exist...it's a goal of String Theory, but it has yet to be formulated (even Ed Witten would admit to this, I'm sure). And none of what you said has anything to do with String Theory. That is, as far as I can tell.

You can't "flip" dimensions "inside out." And I'm also not sure how you can turn centrifugal force into centripetal force. Especially considering the fact that centrifugal force doesn't actually exist.
Unless, of course, I'm just having a hard time visualizing this the way you are. Which is always possible.

You seem to be inspired by the Calabi-Yau Manifold. This dimensional manifold is a mathematical construct necessary to account for String Theory's superfluous dimensions. It has no physical necessity, and the more we use it in our models, the further we get from reality.

You know if space expands and time contracts as you believe, there is part of the model right there.

Even if you're right in your visualization, I would still refuse to apply it to my little space-time expansion/contraction hypothesis. You would have to do quite a bit of convincing to get me to even begin to warm to the idea. And, yes, that's a challenge

No props for the Arbitrageur huh?
No respect... simply no respect.

Arbitrageur has earned an impressive amount of my respect. In fact, I have more respect for Arbitrageur just because of all of the respect he's earned

posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:00 PM
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

If I said I "discovered" not that I "believe," and here is my work which was held up by the scientific community to be fact then I would win a NP.

posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:34 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime

The links you gave deal with String Theory (or, I should say, the multiple string variants). I disagree with these, because I reject any theory invoking any more than 4 dimensions. As far as I'm concerned, it's superfluous.

Though, if you'll notice, I also didn't say I agreed with LQG. I said it's probably closer to being on the right track than String Theory.

What I am suggesting is that if there are 11 dimensions that are laid out as string theory suggests then the way I say 3D & 4D relate to one another and act upon one another is a possibility. Additionally you need special relativity to make it happen, and at this point this is what I believe.

Kinetic means motion. A kinetic force would be any force that causes motion. Gravity causes motion. By definition, gravity is a kinetic force.
In fact, by definition, all forces cause motion. All forces are kinetic forces.

Alright, "I believe gravity is a product of a kinetic force" which is a kinetic force originating from a higher dimensional plan that is acting upon our 3D world.

I hate to say this...'cause I like you, and I like the way you think... but, what you said has nothing at all to do with M-Theory. M-Theory doesn't exist...it's a goal of String Theory, but it has yet to be formulated (even Ed Witten would admit to this, I'm sure). And none of what you said has anything to do with String Theory. That is, as far as I can tell.

Its theoretical mechanics correlates with my idea of how gravity functions, or where it may come from or pass through from point A, 6D, or beyond originating from, or in rather, a much higher dimensional plane, to point B, 3D.

You can't "flip" dimensions "inside out." And I'm also not sure how you can turn centrifugal force into centripetal force. Especially considering the fact that centrifugal force doesn't actually exist.
Unless, of course, I'm just having a hard time visualizing this the way you are. Which is always possible.

I can. For instance, I can imagine this world turned inside out. All the forces acting in revere. All the laws, the ones that I understand that is, having their cause and effect mirrored. Example a batter can hit a baseball in 3D because he is exerting more force on the ball than the ball has stored within it, along with being able to maintain position due to gravity the ball changes direction due to the process of inertia. In 6D the bat would be knocked back and the ball would drop where it hit the bat, that could mean "drop up" in 6D. Not only that, but the ball would be turned inside out to form a shape no possible in this world. An inverted sphere. We can turn a convex shape to form a concave shape in 3D, well in 6D you can to that with a sphere. That's who I visualize. Do I see the shape no, I just know it might be possible in 6D. And you thing centrifugal force does not exist? Please explain why?

You seem to be inspired by the Calabi-Yau Manifold. This dimensional manifold is a mathematical construct necessary to account for String Theory's superfluous dimensions. It has no physical necessity, and the more we use it in our models, the further we get from reality.

That could be true.

Even if you're right in your visualization, I would still refuse to apply it to my little space-time expansion/contraction hypothesis. You would have to do quite a bit of convincing to get me to even begin to warm to the idea. And, yes, that's a challenge

Sounds like you have a sound mind.

Arbitrageur has earned an impressive amount of my respect. In fact, I have more respect for Arbitrageur just because of all of the respect he's earned

edit on 3-10-2011 by LilDudeissocool because: of those dang freaking quote boxes which I'm having a heck of a time learning how to keep straight.

posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 06:32 PM

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

What I am suggesting is that if there are 11 dimensions that are laid out as string theory suggests then the way I say 3D & 4D relate to one another and act upon one another is a possibility. Additionally you need special relativity to make it happen, and at this point this is what I believe.

String Theory suggests that anywhere between 1 and 22 (though, typically 6 or 7) extra dimensions are "curled" in Calabi-Yau manifolds at each point in space. These dimensional manifolds have no interaction with this 4-dimensional spacetime other than that of the strings that oscillate between them.

Alright, "I believe gravity is a product of a kinetic force" which is a kinetic force originating from a higher dimensional plan that is acting upon our 3D world.

You mean like the Randall-Sundrum Model?

I can imagine this world turned inside out. All the forces acting in revere. All the laws, the ones that I understand that is, having their cause and effect mirrored.

You're describing two different things. "Inside-out" dimensions in now ways results in "inside-out" physics.

Example a batter can hit a baseball in 3D because he is exerting more force on the ball than the ball has stored within it, along with being able to maintain position due to gravity the ball changes direction due to the process of inertia. In 6D the bat would be knocked back and the ball would drop where it hit the bat, that could mean "drop up" in 6D. Not only that, but the ball would be turned inside out to form a shape no possible in this world. An inverted sphere. We can turn a convex shape to form a concave shape in 3D, well in 6D you can to that with a sphere. That's who I visualize. Do I see the shape no, I just know it might be possible in 6D.

With things like this, you can't "know" anything "might be possible. This is where a mathematical foundation becomes so important.

And you thing centrifugal force does not exist? Please explain why?

Centrifugal force is the imaginary (outward) force described by people who are within a system that is being subjected to a centripetal (inward) force. It's an illusion.

However, even if we allow the existence of that illusive force, I'm still not sure how it transforms into a centripetal force is higher dimensions.
edit on 3-10-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:29 AM

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
What I am suggesting is that if there are 11 dimensions that are laid out as string theory suggests then the way I say 3D & 4D relate to one another and act upon one another is a possibility. Additionally you need special relativity to make it happen, and at this point this is what I believe.
Belief is an interesting thing.

I've been interested in trying to understand why people believe what they do. What makes you believe this?

String theory is beyond the realm of known science at this point, where proof is lacking. I tend to think along the same lines as CLprime, in not necessarily believing in 11 dimension string theory.

Now first I'd admit, 11 dimension string theory might be right. I'm not claiming it's false, because then I'd need to present evidence to support my claim it's false, which I don't have.

But instead, the burden of proof rests with the people who claim 11 dimensional string theory is correct to provide proof of that assertion. I haven't seen any and further, the prominent string theorist in this video doesn't really even claim to have proof, rather, he shows this slide claiming that string theorists aren't even sure what string theory is:

So it doesn't take much to be skeptical about string theory when string theorists show slides like that about their own field of study!

On the other hand, I'm not closed-minded, about string theory or anything else, if someone can come up with proof, I'm willing to look at it. But now my sentiment is "show me the proof". In fact after over four decades with no proof, if I was dean of the university, I'd kick the string theorists out of the theoretical physics department and move them to the mathematics department, and some string theorists are already in the math departments so there's enough precedent for that.

But if you've seen something that has caused you to have a stronger belief in string theory, that I've overlooked, please enlighten me. As I said, I'm open minded, I've just never seen anything that has caused me to believe it.

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:58 PM

That would be my opinion, as well. At the moment, I view String Theory as an abstraction. It has no basis in reality because it has no possible way of having any such basis observed, measured, or otherwise inferred. It's so far beyond our ability to experimental test that it's hardly worthwhile even considering.
For now. I would happily side with String Theory should any evidence of its validity be presented. Until then, it's just a blind shot in the proverbial dark.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:18 AM

We aren't the only ones who think that way. Here is a similar sentiment:

www.astronomy.pomona.edu...

String theory predicts that the electroweak force, the strong force, and gravity have the same strength at 10^19 GeV, so the accelerator would have to be very powerful, to say the least. Even so, a direct testing of string theory seems impossible and this has led many scientists to claim that string theory is mere speculation and does not deserve the lofty term theory. For all the conceptual revolutions in string theory, many physicists maintain that there is little to show but a lot of beautiful mathematics.

“We’ve made an enormous amount of progress in the last few years”, says Dr. Steven Giddings of the University of Santa Barbara, “but now we realize the greater depth of our ignorance."
I like his candor.

I think the LHC can create something like 7x10^3 GeV, so trying to test claims about what happens at 10^19 GeV isn't possible with the LHC, and it's hard to imagine building a collider big and powerful enough to run tests at those 10^19 GeV energy levels. We would probably need a Dyson Sphere to power such a collider, if it's even possible to build.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:53 AM

That's the equivalent of 0.4 tons of TNT. Or, put another way, that's a mass of 0.018 milligrams (20 billion trillion electrons) in pure energy. I'd say that's just a tiny bit past our collider capabilities.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:27 PM

Is that a calculation for just one particle?

Because if the LHC was scaled up it would be a lot more than that, but the LHC designed the beam dump block to handle ALL the particles in the beam, not just one particle. The LHC beam is equivalent to up to about 90 kg of TNT when it hits the beam dump block:

Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the LHC - CERN

The power stored in the LHC 360 MJoule: the energy stored in one LHC beam corresponds approximately to… 90 kg of TNT

So if you scale up the 90 kg in the LHC by a factor of 10^19/7000, you get 1.286x10^17 kg, and dividing that by 907 kg/ton to get tons, I get almost 142 trillion tons of TNT.

I must admit I'm at a loss on how to build a beam dump block to handle 142 trillion tons of TNT, and I thought I could figure out how to build almost anything!

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

I must admit I'm at a loss on how to build a beam dump block to handle 142 trillion tons of TNT, and I thought I could figure out how to build almost anything!

top topics

8