[youtube]JVRsWAjvQSg[/youtube]
This is a very interesting discussion on the subject of Intelligent Design by Brown University’s Kenneth Miller. It’s just under two hours long, and if you have the time I highly recommend watching it. There is even a mention of Pastafarianism at around 90 minutes.
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. This means you're free to use the content but not sell it. More Details |
@Red DutchPasta Kidd Apr 9th, 2007 at 8:25 am
“Have another carrot, that should make you feel better soon.”
For the pot you mean?
Warning to the wabbit…do not bend over in front of Red DutchPasta Kidd.
She has constantly mentioned her taste for wabbit stew and has been drooling about you
ever since you arrived. :))
Wench Nikkiee, I meant no such thing. I was simply referring to the traditional fondness for carrots of wabbits. It is not nice being ill you know…
.
(I did have some deer tonight, in a red wine sauce, absolutly delicious!I mean Bambi is cute and very tasty too!)
@DutchPastaGuy
Hi again.
I think to bring me up to speed maybe you can tell me the formula you’re using. It can’t be
tv/t0=sgrt(1-v^2/c^2) because there the negative velocity would be the same as the positive. So, if it’s not too much trouble can you show me the equation. I’m not familiar with it.
@ bill and DPG - I’ve always thought that relative velocities had more to do with how fast you are traveling relative to the speed of light…I am having a hard time getting my head around this, but it’s very interesting!
@Bill
Actually I was using the equation you quote. So when looking at it from earth, brother one first moves away at velocity of 1/3 the speed of light and then moves back at also 1/3 the speed of light. I had assumed that time was passing at the same lower pace for the brother aboard the rocket on both legs of the trip when seen by the brother on earth. Is that wrong?
.
For the other scenario I assumed the reference system to be moving at 1/3 c away from earth. So the rocket is standing still on the first half of the trip, moving at -2/3 c for the second half. This gave me another problematiic thought. What if the rocket was moving at 2/3 c, as would be the reference system? On the way back the rocket would be moving back at 4/3 c, so > c? What is wrong there?
.
As you can see: I’ve reached beyond the limits of my knowledge of relativity.
@ DPG/bill - I love this discussion but just for now my brain is full! I’ll be back later… :)
@ DPG/bill - I love this discussion but just for now my brain is full! I’ll be back later… :)
Didn’t post the first time…
@DutchPastaGuy
I thought it was this: Moving away is 1/3 c and coming back is -1/3 c relative to earth frame and travellers frame. See what I mean?
Note that if the astronaut is coming back at the same speed that he went on, it should take him the same amount of his time to come back as it did to go, for when he’s stopped at say alpha centauri, if alpha centarui is roughly 0 velocity with respect to the earth, he could measure the distance back and it should be the same distance he measure before he started. You have him coming back twice as fast as when he left but going in the opposite direction.
Velocities aren’t additive. For instance, if I am going away from earth at 2/3 the speed of light and then fire a life pod in the direction I am going at 2/3 c with respect to my ship, then the velocity of the life pod measured from earth is not 4/3 c but is instead faster than 2/3 c but not quite the speed of light. I would guess that it would be 8/9 C but its purely a guess, adding 2/3s of the 1/3 c remaining. I think this might be similar to the problem you are bothered by.
@Dutchpastaguy
P.S. So the situation is symmetric in both directions without considering the inertial frame change of the traveller.
@Bill
“You have him coming back twice as fast as when he left but going in the opposite direction.”
Not exactly. From the earth reference point he would fly away and back at the same pace, from the moving reference point he would have 0 velocity on his way out, -2v on his way back in my original thinking. Your info that velocity isn’t additive is very useful, as I was stuck in Newtonian vector adding here. That did cause me to get greater velocities on the return trip whenever the brother travelled at more than half the speed of light. It also caused the two parts to take different times. So thanks, your post is helpful.
I guess I shoud look up the equation that governs the total velocity under relativity some time. But later.
@DutchPastaGuy
O.K. I see what your doing. From earth’s perspect that treats it’s own speed as 0 it sees the traveller going away at v and coming back at minus v.
For the traveller you are having him judging his speed with respest to his original relative speed of 0. And so I see how you get to 0 and -2v. But that’s not where the symmetry argument comes from and I think it would give you some odd velocities for v>.5c
When he starts he notes that the earth is moving away from him at v and then when he turns around, the earth is moving towards him at -v. So from each twins perspective they observe the other as moving away and then returning at the same measured velocity, v and -v.
Sorry to keep pushing this but I want to make sure that I really understand and am not missing something,
I think your -2v does show a difference, but I’m not sure you can use relativity on that number. The symmetry does break down because the earth travels at 0 with repect to itself for both parts of the astronauts trip but the astronaut frame does change. But change in velocity is acceleration. Note also that if his destination were a black hole, by coming close enough to it he could whip around and reverse direction without feeling any G’s at all. There are other problems with such a manuver. If you are that close to a black hole, the parts of your body near the black hole are pulled with more force than the parts further away from the hole, leading to serious discomfort. :-)
@ bill - “If you are that close to a black hole, the parts of your body near the black hole are pulled with more force than the parts further away from the hole, leading to serious discomfort.” Wasn’t that the basis for the medieval torture device, the rack? Did they know more back then than they let on?
Just playing with that -popped into my head. But if you guys are going to start talking about black holes now I need some pain meds! My head will hurt for days… :)
@Bill
“For the traveller you are having him judging his speed with respest to his original relative speed of 0. And so I see how you get to 0 and -2v. But that’s not where the symmetry argument comes from and I think it would give you some odd velocities for v>.5c”
Exactly, that’s where my problem for v>0.5 c came from. I can complicate things further by bringing in triplets of brothers. Two blast of at 2/3 c, after some years one of them turns around and flies back at -2/3 c, while the first one flies on at +2/3 c.
In the case of the two brothers you pointed out how they see each other always separating/closing in at velocity 2/3c. So you worked around the 0 to -2v problem. But now with the third brother travelling on, one of them is on a reference system that should see the brother on earth at -2/3c. So at what speed does he see the one that turned around? I think the need for that equation that governs how to add velocities in relativity is popping up again.
@Rowdy Wench
Yep,
But on the other hand the rack and black holes are at least less painful than yoga, and much more meditative, if you can ignore the screaming.
I think my brain just went into a black hole :(
@ bill - “But on the other hand the rack and black holes are at least less painful than yoga, and much more meditative, if you can ignore the screaming.” Wahahahaha! Just got done with a bit of yoga and Pilates myself. My abs are still telling me about it!
@ Booty - Yeah, these guys have been having quite the discussion!
I still need to eat lunch…and then go to the barn. Catch you all later!
@DPG and Rowdy Wench
Some hold that from our perspective nothing actually falls into a black hole. Note that as an object falls towards a black hole it takes longer and longer for the light to get to us because it is being retarded by the black hole’s gravity. So we see an object falling towards the event horizon of a black hole forever, the light from it’s wavelength stretches more and more. So from our perspective an object never gets to the event horizon of a black hole, it is always just approaching it. It that’s the case, there is nothing inside.
The event horizon of a black hole is the balancing point where light cannot escape because the gravitational pull is strong enough to keep light from leaving. There is another interesting feature of black hole, just outside the event horizon is a place where light rays orbit the black hole indefinitely. It’s called a photon sphere and it’s radius is 1.5 times the radius of the event horizon.
@ bill - By FSM we live in a fascinating universe! I love all this stuff. But, must run…I’m such an addict! :)
My brain hurts……yarrrr