The Rebuild Begins!!! - Page 25

three90s&125sump · 06-03-2006, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdwyatt

I thought gossip was the fastest thing in the universe, because nothing travels faster than gossip...

OK, maybe bad news, but I'm sticking with Gossip!

OK, technically you might be right on that, Tom. But, I don't beleive it has been scientificly proven, yet.

Does anyone want me to give you a hint?

tdwyatt · 06-03-2006, 06:35 PM

hints are good, I will consult "A Brief History of Time" in the meanwhile...

three90s&125sump · 06-03-2006, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdwyatt

hints are good, I will consult "A Brief History of Time" in the meanwhile...

You wont find the answer in there but you will find it in Stephens newer lectures. Good Luck.

three90s&125sump · 06-03-2006, 09:22 PM

Ok here is my first hint. It is a quote from the guy (possibly my next trivia question) that coined the term "black hole".

"Matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move."

tdwyatt · 06-04-2006, 01:41 PM

That a black hole keeps ("sucks" light in) raises two possibilities:

Light is not the fastest thing in the universe, since something is sucking it in even faster, and
The speed of light is not constant, but can be slowed down or even reversed by enough gravity.

I have several thought experiments on this, but none fit the normal intuitive responses we expect when discussing general vs. special theories of relativity nor most quantum mechanix theory. Is there anyone who knows more about physics than I who could clear up these matters?

Reading more on the topic, found the following as an interesting .pdf:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0408/0408023.pdf

more later as I think about this one

tdwyatt · 06-04-2006, 02:20 PM

The basic facts of relativity:

1- Speed of light, c, is constant and unattainable by particles with any mass, as it will take an infinite amount of energy to accelerte an ever-expanding mass (mass increases to infinity as velociuty approaches C)
2- Particles with mass cannot accelerate to c for the same reason particles at c can't decelerate to sub-c. Photons never slow down. When they enter a black hole, they do not accelerate nor decellerate, rather, they are trapped and their wavelength changes (google event horizon phenomena)
3- The higher a fraction of c, the more inertial mass you have, the more inertial mass, the harder it is to accelerate: your object will reach infinite mass, and there will be only soo much energy available to accelerte, making for an unattainable asymptotic speed limit.

The speed of light is constant because no matter how fast you move, you will always measure a photon's velocity to be c relative to the observer, as your measuring device is altered by the velocity of your observation platform traveling relative to the photon.

Time is relative, the faster you go, time remains constant to you, but to observers around you, you age slower, hence a photon never ages, its 'immortal'. If you were to take a spaceship and travel at a high fraction of c from and to earth, you would age a small amount of time, while millenia will have passed on earth...

Hmmmm... Theoretical particles with zero or negative mass that exist only at speeds above the speed of light... Tachyons??? If we are creating tachyons with accelerators or nuclear reactions, and they have negative mass, do they trave at -t??? Does this mean that we are bombarding our ancestors with tachyons when we run these accelerators?

I dunno, interesting thought experiments, I need to do lot more reading...

BGJ223 · 06-04-2006, 03:04 PM

Geoff do you have in image with all the dimensions of your skimmer? I want to try and cad out a mock up of it. I want to give a a DIY skimmer a go.

Geoff · 06-04-2006, 08:29 PM

not yet. there are a couple of dimensions that are not quite right. thinking of building a second prototype to make sure i have things pretty close before giving away dimensions. do not want anybody yelling at me because it gives off to many microbubbles or something like that.

G~

tdwyatt · 06-04-2006, 08:38 PM

http://www1.shore.net/~ewall/

BGJ223 · 06-04-2006, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoff

not yet. there are a couple of dimensions that are not quite right. thinking of building a second prototype to make sure i have things pretty close before giving away dimensions. do not want anybody yelling at me because it gives off to many microbubbles or something like that.

G~

Let me know when it is ready. I will love to give it a go. Except I would probably make a recirculating mod. Which I know is one of those things that you don't like.

tdwyatt · 06-04-2006, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by above article

o Note that a negative mass particle is inherently an antigravity particle.

tdwyatt · 06-04-2006, 08:50 PM

heh, sorry to butt in on this thread Geoff, I think we shoud move the physics discussin to a different thread, maybe the think tank as well...

Geoff · 06-04-2006, 08:53 PM

Tom- heck no, leave it here. i am just as interested. i just have not had the time to do the research to play along.

G~

Geoff · 06-04-2006, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BGJ223

Let me know when it is ready. I will love to give it a go. Except I would probably make a recirculating mod. Which I know is one of those things that you don't like.

when you build it, i think you will realize that a recirc mod will just make removing micro bubbles nearly impossible. i will try and get a pic of it from the side running. it fills the entire chamber now with micro bubbles. adding any more turbulance in there i would think that it would just push it over the edge and a whole mess of micros would escape.

i put the 1/2" eductor on the thing. HOLY MOLY!! it literally filled the entire bottom chamber up. and foam started nearly at the bottom of the collection reaction chamber tube. using a 1/2" eductor it was moving some serious water in and out of that thing. this what i would love to design the skimmer box around. this is why i am thinking of building a second prototype.

how experimental do you feel? i can toss some dimensions out of what i would try next, but not guaranteeing that they will work first time.

G~

three90s&125sump · 06-04-2006, 09:09 PM

Tom,

You are close in what you're are saying. I think your problem is that you are trying to think of and "object".

You cought your self on the "the speed of light is not constant" thing. Light always travels at the same speed but, A) the observers speed and B) the light sources speed can change the wave length of the light either moving it more red or more blue. It is called the dopler effect.

Also, you have to know that an objects mass increases expontially the closer the speed of light you get. An atom that weighs 10^-12g might weight 70 tons at half the speed of light (this is just a guestimate) and at 3/4 of the speed of light it may weigh 2000000 tons. Thus, the closer to the speed of light something is traveling the more energy it takes to excellerate it closer to the speed of light. So at the speed of light an atom will have an infinite mass meaning that to excellerate it past the speed of light it would also take > an infinite amount of energy.

**** you already said that in your post. I feel bad that I know this stuff with out looking it up.

Ok, well I am going to guess that you have already figured out that what ever can travel faster than the speed of light cannot have any mass. There is nothing theoretical about this either.

I will have to look into tachyons, I have heard of them but, I don't know anything about tham.