It wasn't 'obscure', not at all, more like "Where did all the matter from the Big Bang come from?", everyone knew of it but it wasn't something you could write up a formal scientific paper on because it is frowned on to say "I have no fucking clue" at the end of a long treatise. It wasn't publish or perish at the time, it was don't publish unless you had something pretty solid. The concept is routinely referred to back then though and in a very everybody-knows kind of way.
The moon has had a fair share of paradoxes around it as has both Jupiter and Saturn's. Look up "1003 Second Delay" or "Abberation of Light" sometime for Jupiter and there's all sorts of horrible conundrums involving Saturn's rings and our own moon. Not all are resolved yet either, for instance while we now know those rings aren't literal thin discs obviously proving God's existence we've got a lot of issues involving their composition and brightness that contradict various age estimates in favor of others that haven't been resolved, including the one band that rotates backwards.
I am enough of a layman that saying something is "is Rindler in terms of tau=t/4M and rho=2u" tells me very little. I can see how we end up with an equation where T is equal to a formula with M in the denominator, but that does not explain the mechanics in operation. It only relates to temperature (i.e. elctromagnetic radiation) though, so the same relationship would not necessarily follow for some kind of stimulated graviton emission, which one would expect to be proportional to mass to at least some degree. It was just a spur of the moment notion though, spitballing; I am certainly not married to it, but am curious about the nuts and bolts (even if I may not have the math to follow them.)Learn calculus and they'll make more sense
We've found quite a few particles by predicting something of about X mass needed to exist then hunting for one by creating collisions of that energy range. There's nothing wrong with predicting that way, so long as you label it a theoretical particle until you find one.
"Absolute Energy" is an iffy concept. An object moving fast relative to you has to be treated as having gravity equal to that extra mass energy. Temperature is also subject to relativity. Brightness, a somewhat vague term, does change, as a billion red photons are not as bright as a billion blue ones but much brighter then a billion infrared ones. An object emits X number of photons as blackbody, that's set, linear to surface area and to the cube of temperature. That's number of photons, power output goes as the 4th power of temp because the frequency/energy of photons goes linear to the temp. Those individual photons exist, their number is not relative. The energy of them is, so a hot blackbody racing past us, much like a vehicle siren sounding higher pitched till it passes us then lower pitched, can change. If I take a big mile wide orb and heat it up to 5000 kelvin and shoot it from a rail gun at Jupiter aimed to fly past Earth missing it by a thousand miles it will appear Green when it launches, but blue once it reaches its peak speed, until it flies past us and turns red. During that time that it is very close to Earth so that the light hitting us is moving at a steep angle relative to it's direction of motion it will dip to bluish green then green then yellow, orange, and finally red. Never did the number of photons change, but the energy of them, to us, did. Now our eyes are way too logarithmic, not too mention differently sensitive to red, blue, and green specifically, to notice, especially with the object having inverse-square alteration to its brightness from getting closer then further away, but the object will be dimming as it approaches and shifts redder as it no longer is as relativistic to us, even as it grows brighter form being closer.
Joel, momentum transfer doesn't work that way, objects do not transfer disproportionate momentum. The pebble hit by a mountain moving 100 miles an hour is the same as a stationary mountain being hit by a pebble moving 100 miles an hour, it can absorb a maximum of twice it's momentum on impact, allowing it, if perfectly elastic, to leave in the opposite direction with the same speed.
And still practically useless for the reason you state. It cannot be random AND uniform, by definition though: If random it is uneven; if non-random, even. Then again, that really depends on space, which depends on gravity, which may not even operate at heat death. I guess the issue is what we specify by "disorder." I take your larger point though, and do not dispute it.Something can be uniformly random, that's how gases in a room function. Two rooms, touching each other, each 200 and 300 kelvin respectively, can not have work done inside them, they are uniformly random, if I open the gate between them though I can accomplish work during the heat flow as they attempt to become a single uniformly random object at 250 k. If I'm using that work to turn a flywheel then they will equalize lower, maybe 240 K, slowly rising to 250 k as the flywheel encounters drag and friction and slows down, producing heat in the process.
Yes, but the nice thing about answering "How does momentum transfer work?" as opposed to "If a tree falls in the woods..." is that the former lets you build engines to move things and make electricity.
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
- 28/07/2013 04:17:47 AM
435 Views
*NM*
- 28/07/2013 10:29:48 PM
206 Views