Upcoming Indian Moon Landing.

Dan Óg

Ui Máine
Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
15,075
Likes
8,784
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #337
Mod action: Please stop posting to wind people up otherwise I will be forced to thread ban.
He is not winding anyone up, he is posting nonsense that anyone with basic physics can see through. He needs to go imo.
 

Dan Óg

Ui Máine
Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
15,075
Likes
8,784
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #339
We will not be talking to James about "traveling" or "splatting" again on this thread. Two terms that he implied meant something in physics.
He will not be trying to confuse any reader on the difference between mass and weight either and implying that I do not know the difference.
 

valamhic

PI Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
1,726
Likes
767
I do not know where you got this idea, but it is not classical mechanics anyway
1) There is only one object in the universe with gravity capable of accelerating anything close to the speed of light. That is a black hole. An object with the characteristic of a black hole will move any object falling into it beyond the event horizon at close to the Speed of light. Any star that could do that would be a black hole itself. Einstein postulated gravitational waves were limited by the speed of light, but of course this cannot be proved. He postulated what would happen to the earth if the sun suddenly vanished. Would it know instantly or would it take 8 minutes? It is commonly
believed that the pull of gravity is limited to the speed of light and therefore it could accelerate an object close to that speed. This is not the case because gravity reduces with distance and the final distance is the centre of the source. An object approaching such a host will crash into it long before it reaches the SOL.

2) There is no fixed inertia frame reference in the universe. Everything is moving. Velocity is measured by comparing an object in one inertial frame to a point in a another one. Acceleration in the rate at which an object changes from one inertial reference frame to another. It takes a point in reference frame A and a point in reference frame B and measures the time at which the object changes between the two. Therefore velocity is measured in miles per hour while acceleration is measured in miles per hour per hour.

3) the speed of light differs in that it is observed at the same speed from all inertial reference frames.. You all need to read Einstein's papers..

None of this is relevant to the topic under discussion.
 

valamhic

PI Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
1,726
Likes
767
Then point out a mistake! You're full of hot air!
You will not answer the question put. It is for you to demonstrate you understand the topic and you fail to do that. Therefore we cannot assess your competence, That is trolling to prevent the interaction of discussion which no one else does.
 

Dan Óg

Ui Máine
Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
15,075
Likes
8,784
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #342
1) There is only one object in the universe with gravity capable of accelerating anything close to the speed of light. That is a black hole. An object with the characteristic of a black hole will move any object falling into it beyond the event horizon at close to the Speed of light. Any star that could do that would be a black hole itself. Einstein postulated gravitational waves were limited by the speed of light, but of course this cannot be proved. He postulated what would happen to the earth if the sun suddenly vanished. Would it know instantly or would it take 8 minutes? It is commonly
believed that the pull of gravity is limited to the speed of light and therefore it could accelerate an object close to that speed. This is not the case because gravity reduces with distance and the final distance is the centre of the source. An object approaching such a host will crash into it long before it reaches the SOL.

2) There is no fixed inertia frame reference in the universe. Everything is moving. Velocity is measured by comparing an object in one inertial frame to a point in a another one. Acceleration in the rate at which an object changes from one inertial reference frame to another. It takes a point in reference frame A and a point in reference frame B and measures the time at which the object changes between the two. Therefore velocity is measured in miles per hour while acceleration is measured in miles per hour per hour.

3) the speed of light differs in that it is observed at the same speed from all inertial reference frames.. You all need to read Einstein's papers..

None of this is relevant to the topic under discussion.
You are correct that none of this is relative to the topic in question because it is all very much theoretical, it is also far above what is relevant which is relatively simple "mechanics". The formulae and concepts are hundreds of years old and are just high school/college level. That stuff is advanced and post grad level.

I would not expect anyone here to have an inkling of what you are talking about. It is still physics but really it is a different subject entirely.
In simple mechanics, even a small force will eventually accelerate a body to approach the speed of light, which this higher science today tells us, can't be breached.
 

valamhic

PI Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
1,726
Likes
767
I am afraid you are incorrect here Val. Acceleration and velocity are too different things.
The unit of velocity is meters per second.
The unit of acceleration is meters per second per second.
Note the extra, per second.

In a vacuum the velocity of an object under acceleration due to gravity or any force will increase right up to the speed of light, which is the maximum speed an object can achieve in theory.

In the atmosphere, a falling object will achieve a maximum velocity, which occurs when the resisting force due to air resistance or friction, is equal to the force of gravity. Then they balance out and there is no longer a net force acting on the object.
The 9.8 figure is the maximum distance an object in a vacuum will travel at the earths surface expressed in meters squared per second. viz:
The time it takes for a stationary object to fall from rest under uniform gravitational field is: SQRT(2h)/a), where h is the height of the object and a is the acceleration due to gravity, wherever you may be in the universe. (On Earth, a = 9.81m/s2) at the surface.

The value of a is much less as you move away from the surface. An asteroid finding itself drawn towards earth will never come in at a direct angle. This is why you never see a shooting star come from directly over head, its always at an angle to the ground. The earth is moving as the object is drawn into it forcing it to travel in a curve. While the speed of gravity is = speed of light it is not correct to say an object drawn in with it can achieve that speed. Apart from the fact it would collide with its host long before that speed was reached, it is impossible to accelerate an object to (or past) the speed of light. , For any given force, the acceleration produced by that force will decline as the the object approaches the speed of light.
 

Storybud2

PI Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2018
Messages
744
Likes
2,303
You are correct that none of this is relative to the topic in question because it is all very much theoretical, it is also far above what is relevant which is relatively simple "mechanics". The formulae and concepts are hundreds of years old and are just high school/college level. That stuff is advanced and post grad level.

I would not expect anyone here to have an inkling of what you are talking about. It is still physics but really it is a different subject entirely.
In simple mechanics, even a small force will eventually accelerate a body to approach the speed of light, which this higher science today tells us, can't be breached.
Of course it can be breached, we are still cave men rowing a skinned animal boat in a pond before powerboats and Jet engines were invented,

1) its all about time, not distance,, stop time and you can paddle your way to Mars in a second

2) Light travels at exactly a certain speed, why ? and why not look at new forms of energy that can travel faster ? ok, I am spewing
but we cannot be limited by the pond, we have to think outside the pond,
 

valamhic

PI Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
1,726
Likes
767
You are correct that none of this is relative to the topic in question because it is all very much theoretical, it is also far above what is relevant which is relatively simple "mechanics". The formulae and concepts are hundreds of years old and are just high school/college level. That stuff is advanced and post grad level.

I would not expect anyone here to have an inkling of what you are talking about. It is still physics but really it is a different subject entirely.
In simple mechanics, even a small force will eventually accelerate a body to approach the speed of light, which this higher science today tells us, can't be breached.
Unfortunately hundred year old physics is obsolete. Newtonian physics has been overtaken by Einsteinian physics. As an object approaches the SOL the acceleration caused by a given force reduces and time also dilates or slows down. It is not me who introduces this stuff, it is the trolling by Jim/Hollandia who is out to destroy the thread. There is enough meat to chew without using the theory of relatively. No aspiring student would dare to come in and chat with an Eeghket like that. A thread like this should be enjoyable for participants of all levels of knowledge and all posters should learn form each other about what is a fascinating topic. The problem for him is he is a communist and can't abide anyone daring to question the state.
 

Dan Óg

Ui Máine
Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
15,075
Likes
8,784
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #346
Unfortunately hundred year old physics is obsolete. Newtonian physics has been overtaken by Einsteinian physics. As an object approaches the SOL the acceleration caused by a given force reduces and time also dilates or slows down. It is not me who introduces this stuff, it is the trolling by Jim/Hollandia who is out to destroy the thread. There is enough meat to chew without using the theory of relatively. No aspiring student would dare to come in and chat with an Eeghket like that. A thread like this should be enjoyable for participants of all levels of knowledge and all posters should learn form each other about what is a fascinating topic. The problem for him is he is a communist and can't abide anyone daring to question the state.
He is gone. But this material is not relevant to landing on the moon, where after all, the velocities are relatively slow.
 

Dan Óg

Ui Máine
Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
15,075
Likes
8,784
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #347
Of course it can be breached, we are still cave men rowing a skinned animal boat in a pond before powerboats and Jet engines were invented,

1) its all about time, not distance,, stop time and you can paddle your way to Mars in a second

2) Light travels at exactly a certain speed, why ? and why not look at new forms of energy that can travel faster ? ok, I am spewing
but we cannot be limited by the pond, we have to think outside the pond,
That is why I said today. In the future, the speed of light may well be breached, as in the Star Trek movies.
 

valamhic

PI Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
1,726
Likes
767
Of course it can be breached, we are still cave men rowing a skinned animal boat in a pond before powerboats and Jet engines were invented,

1) its all about time, not distance,, stop time and you can paddle your way to Mars in a second

2) Light travels at exactly a certain speed, why ? and why not look at new forms of energy that can travel faster ? ok, I am spewing
but we cannot be limited by the pond, we have to think outside the pond,
That post reminds me of the poem by Emily Dickenson.

When first my way to fair I took
Few pence in purse had I,
And long I used to stand and look
At things I could not buy.

Now times are altered: if I care
To buy a thing, I can;
The pence are here and here's the fair,
But where's the lost young man?

--To think that two and two are four
And neither five nor three
The heart of man has long been sore
And long 'tis like to be.
 
Top Bottom