Notices
Results 1 to 31 of 31

Thread: THE TORSION REVOLUTION

  1. #1 THE TORSION REVOLUTION 
    Forum Freshman Nikomo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Izhevsk, Russia
    Posts
    5
    It is shocking!..

    The all world scientific public have been revolted by the behaviour of Russian Academy of sciences (RAS) and by that persecution that fell to the modern russian physicests Anatoly Akimov and Hennady Shipov, to the creators of the famous theory of the physical vacuum and torsion theory. Theese scientists yet 20 years ago discoveried the new fifth kind of interaction — torsion interaction, which may be probably consolidate the all known today kinds of interaction: gravitational, electromagnetism, Strong and Weak nuclear forces.

    They courageously declared: the forces of inertia which appear after beginning of rotating of the any body are real, and hence we must count them in all our calculations.
    After many years of persistent work Shipov and Akimov came to the result: the forces of inertia generate the new torsion field having very unusual properties.

    In accordance with their theory any rotating generate theese field. So as electron as Galaxy have the torsion field.

    Now it is difficult to imagine that great changes will can happen if the torsion theory will be recognized on the global level!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    like totally


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,452
    On that note....I have an axle, I attach spokes to it, the spokes are long enough so that the most distant point on any one travels 10 times farther then the point where it attaches to the axle when the axle is rotated.

    Will I be able to spin the axle so the point of attachment travels close to c or am I restricted to .1 of the outer point's speed? Or will I be able to spin the axle close to c? There is no way the outer point will rotate 10 times faster, I assume the spokes contract as the axle spins faster.

    What if I was to attach a rim to the spokes' outer points? The most outer part of the rim should contract should it not, but what happens to the spokes? Same question, will I be able to spin the axle close to c or am I restricted? As long as they are attached to the rim the outermost point on the spoke will be going 10 times faster? This has puzzled me for some time. Can anyone shed some light?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    On that note....I have an axle, I attach spokes to it, the spokes are long enough so that the most distant point on any one travels 10 times farther then the point where it attaches to the axle when the axle is rotated.

    Will I be able to spin the axle so the point of attachment travels close to c or am I restricted to .1 of the outer point's speed? Or will I be able to spin the axle close to c? There is no way the outer point will rotate 10 times faster, I assume the spokes contract as the axle spins faster.

    What if I was to attach a rim to the spokes' outer points? The most outer part of the rim should contract should it not, but what happens to the spokes? Same question, will I be able to spin the axle close to c or am I restricted? As long as they are attached to the rim the outermost point on the spoke will be going 10 times faster? This has puzzled me for some time. Can anyone shed some light?
    contraction occurs reletive to the observer, the spokes do not actually contract.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,452
    Yes of course, but then does that mean that somewhere along the spoke the light barrier is breached? what of the rim?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    130
    The light speed barrier cannot be overcome by this method. No mass can be accelerated up to light speed.

    Secondly, the basic physics of materials will cause the structure to fly apart & be destroyed, well before the outer rotating material gets anywhere near light speed, due to centrifugal forces. One could reach high speeds, but not even a tiny fraction of light speed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,452
    Interesting that you would say that. I did indicate in my 1st post that I didn't think c could be breached.

    Would it be different for a black hole? A black hole spinning near its equator at c , despite a gravitational pull that won't let light escape it and an event horizon that swallows everything that passes by would fly apart in the same manner? To where?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    black holes are a very high energy system and thus any assumptions made about what happens near or inside of them remain purely mathematical and purely hypothetical.

    most of what i have read would suggest that black holes are not made of matter and thus would have no problem rotating at the speed of light.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman Yevaud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    87
    By definition, a Black Hole is a Singularity - where our modelling and understanding of Physics breaks down. Hence the term "Singularity" (Black Hole is merely a popularized word for it).

    I imagine beneath the Event Horizon, as it's an entirely detached region of space with incredibly distorted metric, possibly. But I doubt we'll ever know for certain.
    *Welcome, my friends, to the show that never ends*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    The Universe is a black hole, so we can say quite a lot of interesting things go on inside one. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    i just hope the inside of a black hole doesn't expand then.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,452
    I should have started a new thread or maybe this should be moved. I love listening to physicists, cosmologists, etc. talk or is it argue? My mind sometimes comes up with strange concepts or images and I hope somewhere along the way I get straightend out by someone more knowledgeable. I'll change things up a bit.....

    If I was to change my spinning wheel to a solid ring , a torus, where it would have inner and outer circumferences then I could not rotate a point on the outer circumference faster than c. That would mean a point on the inner circumference or any point inwards towards the center is also restricted to a maximum speed but not of light.

    What occurs if I suddenly give the spinning torus forward velocity approaching c? A point on the outer surface is spinning at c while the ring is hurtling thru space towards c. As the entire ring approaches c would the spin slow or stop, the ring change shape, become a single point, a ball of energy? I'm thinking that it would become more massive and stop spinning. Would that mean no spinning object can maintain its spin at lightspeed?

    Sorry about all the questions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    well no object with mass can ever approach light speed as is would require and infinite mass to accelerate it closer, hence the only things in this universe that can be accelerated to light speed are objects with zero mass such as light.

    so as your ring will have a certain speed that it can accelerate to and after that the amount of energy/mass needed to accelerate it further will be infinte preventing the ring from getting to light speed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman Nikomo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Izhevsk, Russia
    Posts
    5
    Steve wrote: “The light speed barrier cannot be overcome by this method. No mass can be accelerated up to light speed”

    It is yet one prejudice that interferes to quick development of physics. After 100 years of delusions we at last known the true: Einstein’s postulates about limit of the physical interaction is myth. Russian senior lecturer of the Moscow institute of the communications and information sciences Peter Popov and its colleagues made the discovery in 1994 year. They found out that Mycelson made an error at the time of his work with interferometer.

    Hence we can untwist and accelerate always any body to speed of the light.

    As I said higher, any rotating body have the torsion field and hence the space energy. If certain reasons are executed rotating body will probabely use its energy of the torsion field for own acceleration. Such engines exist already. They can accelerate themself without the access of the additional energy.

    Detailer about such (and not only) engines you can know here
    http://shipov.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman Nikomo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Izhevsk, Russia
    Posts
    5
    However, I didn’t understand such scepticism accosiated with this problem.
    I want to ask you What do you think about this very interesting hypotesis.
    Of course, the results of torsion theory can turn our representation about reality!..
    But I have the real proof of the existance of the unknown kind of energy which appear after rotating of the any body.

    In the my example I considered the rotating ring. After mathematical calculations I found that the full energy of the ring increases in the time.

    If you have the elementary knowleges in the mathematical sphere you ‘ll understand this proof and you ‘ll can rate the all paradoxicality of the results of this work.

    The full version of my proof is here
    http://n-primatov.narod.ru/towest.htm
    Mother-Land is calling!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,452
    I wish I possessed the mathematical mind. Alas I am forced to hypothesize and conject with only limited faculties. Substituting of one component of an equation with one of another is all fine and good but somewhere along the line it loses me. Wasn't there a book written recently where someone did the equation substitution thing to disprove Einstein?(Gravity is a Push, or something like that)

    Anyway, if someone could put into words what Nikomo's figures mean, it would be appreciated.

    The one thing I can't understand when it comes to rotating rings is why the particles inside the outer rim that are towards the center have their speeds restricted by the speed of the particles that are more towards the outer rim. I understand that they are all of the same structure. Some say that the inner particles can reach the higher speeds but only at the expense of the ring disintegrating? This doesn't seem right. If I was to slow the rotation down would I still have the same ring as I started with?

    I'm imagining standing on the outer rim of a very big rotating disc 10 light secs in circumference. I notice it takes just over 10 secs for the sky to revolve around me so the sky appears to be revolving at close to c. I look back towards the inner rim towards an inner rim, which incidentally looks the same no matter where I go along the outer rim. I now walk towards the inner rim. The sky, no matter where I go will always appear to move at the same speed. Let's say I'm halfway between both rims, nothing is different except I know that I should be moving slower because of my position on the ring except everything is as it was before I started my walk. Does this mean that the outer rim doesn't exist or does it exist in a way I can't observe it because if I was to look behind me would the part of the ring I just left be there? Would it be considered moving faster than light? I know it was there a while ago. Does my beforehand knowledge allow me to accept that there are things out there faster than c.

    No matter where I position myself on that disc the apparent rotation of the sky remains a little more than 10 secs. Is the speed of light like this spinning sky?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    The one thing I can't understand when it comes to rotating rings is why the particles inside the outer rim that are towards the center have their speeds restricted by the speed of the particles that are more towards the outer rim. I understand that they are all of the same structure. Some say that the inner particles can reach the higher speeds but only at the expense of the ring disintegrating? This doesn't seem right. If I was to slow the rotation down would I still have the same ring as I started with?
    the particles close to the center of the ring can't travel faster than the outer part of the ring or else there would be 2 different rotating rings, as the material would stretch and break.

    if the outer ring was travelling at the speed of light then center of the ring must also travel at the speed of light, i did math which proved this, the particles just have a higher rotational frequency than the outer part of the ring due to the smaller circumference that the particles travel on.

    oops dinner time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    JS
    JS is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    On that note....I have an axle, I attach spokes to it, the spokes are long enough so that the most distant point on any one travels 10 times farther then the point where it attaches to the axle when the axle is rotated.

    Will I be able to spin the axle so the point of attachment travels close to c or am I restricted to .1 of the outer point's speed?
    You can, of course, accelerate the point of attatchment to near-light velocities.

    Or will I be able to spin the axle close to c? There is no way the outer point will rotate 10 times faster, I assume the spokes contract as the axle spins faster.
    Contraction occurs only parallel with the direction of motion. So if the spokes remain ridgid (which they won't, but I'll get to that in a moment), there will be no lengthwise contraction, since the lenght of the spokes is perpendicular to the direction of motion at all times.

    What if I was to attach a rim to the spokes' outer points? The most outer part of the rim should contract should it not, but what happens to the spokes?
    The rim would contract. What would happen to the spokes, I cannot say with any authority. We're looking at an accelerated system, and that falls within the realm of general relativity, not special which I have so far employed. General rel does funny things to geometry.

    But my guess - and bearing in mind that a guess is really all it is (I can look it up for you if you really want me to) - would be that the acceleration reduces the total angle of the circle, so the spokes can move closer together and still be placed equidistantly around the circle.

    I have, for simplicity, assumed that the wheel is turning at a slow enough rate that the spokes can remain rigid.

    The final question you ask is what happens if you spin the wheel at a rate that would classically put the translational speed of the edge above c. The answer is that the spokes would bend (assuming of course that they won't simply break). The reason is this:

    As the spokes are subjected to angular acceleration, the inner points on the spokes move less rapidly than the outer points. This means that the outer points will be less easy to accelerate, and, since there is a finite upper limit on the force each point on the spoke can excert on its neighbours, at some point the outer points of the spoke will start to accelerate more slowly than the inner points.

    That would cause the spoke to bend. The end result would be something that looked like a central rod with scythe blades attatched to it. The amount of curving of the blades would depend on the angular velocity of the rod in the centre.

    Calculating the transients is a little more involved. I can do the math if you really want me to, but my first guess would be some kind of wave motion. Transients usually are.

    contraction occurs reletive to the observer, the spokes do not actually contract.
    Wrong. Lorentz contraction is a physical effect. There are a host of reasons why that must be so, but the most intuitive is that if there was no contraction, then time dilatation could not occur:

    Suppose you drive in a train at a speed relative to the ground of sqrt(3)/2c. Suppose you have a friend standing on the ground. For symmetry reasons you will agree with your friend on the speed with which you are travelling relative to each other.

    You pass your friend at a time t = 0. Note that you and your friend agree on that, since all four spacetime coordinates coincide. You then pass through a tunnel. At a time t_1 - as measured by your clocks - you spraypaint a tag on the tunnel wall.

    When your friend then walks through the tunnel, he will spot the tag at a distance of sqrt(3)c*t_1 from his original location (since the train is moving at sqrt(3)/2c and his clock runs slow by a factor of two relative to yours due to the dilatation effect).

    In your rest frame, however, you have only moved sqrt(3)/2c*t_1 relative to your friend's original position. The only possible explaination of this discrepancy is that in your frame, the ground between your friend and your tag has been Lorentz contracted (your friend is at rest relative to the ground, so he won't be measuring any relativistic effects vis-a-vis the ground.

    Would it be different for a black hole? A black hole spinning near its equator at c , despite a gravitational pull that won't let light escape it and an event horizon that swallows everything that passes by would fly apart in the same manner? To where?
    Black holes are ugly, mathematically speaking, and AFAIK there is some controversy as to exactly what happens on the horizon. But if we ignore the nasty little fact that the gravitational gradient would rip asunder any known material, it would behave exactly as any other wheel if we attatched spokes to it.

    most of what i have read would suggest that black holes are not made of matter and thus would have no problem rotating at the speed of light.
    Black holes are certainly made of matter - or energy - or whatever you want to think of it as. But they do have both an inertial mass and cause a gravitational field. I'd have to look it up to be sure, but my money's saying they have an angular momentum and moment of inertia too. So no, rotating at the speed of light would be a problem for a black hole. Of course gravitational singularities do nasty things to spacetime geometry.

    By definition, a Black Hole is a Singularity - where our modelling and understanding of Physics breaks down. Hence the term "Singularity" (Black Hole is merely a popularized word for it).
    'Black hole' is one physical example of a singularity. You have them all the time. The Bose-Einstein distribution being one example (although the chemical potential shields that one nicely). The potential energy of a point charge in classical electrodynamics is another (that one's recoverable too, but I don't know exactly how).

    I imagine beneath the Event Horizon, as it's an entirely detached region of space with incredibly distorted metric, possibly. But I doubt we'll ever know for certain.
    Personally I'd like to think that the GUT will shed some light (you should pardon the pun) on the issue.

    If I was to change my spinning wheel to a solid ring , a torus, where it would have inner and outer circumferences then I could not rotate a point on the outer circumference faster than c. That would mean a point on the inner circumference or any point inwards towards the center is also restricted to a maximum speed but not of light.
    Nope. You'd get some kind of shear during the acceleration. I'm not sure that one is a solveable problem without Gen. Rel. (though I'd be happy to give it my best shot if I can find the time and anybody's interested).

    What occurs if I suddenly give the spinning torus forward velocity approaching c?
    The motion could be decomposed into a translational and a rotational component which could be added together using the relativistic velocity transformations. They are a little involved to explain, but reasonably simple to use.

    A point on the outer surface is spinning at c while the ring is hurtling thru space towards c. As the entire ring approaches c would the spin slow or stop,
    Probably slow. At least at some points on the circumference.

    the ring change shape,
    Definitely. It would get squashed lenghtwise.

    become a single point,
    Nope. Can't happen. The different points on the ring are seperated spacewise, so they'll never coincide for any observer.

    Sorry about all the questions.
    Questions are good. Asking lets you learn. Shutting up and pretending to know only reinforces ignorance.

    the only things in this universe that can be accelerated to light speed are objects with zero mass such as light.
    Not quite. Light (in vacuum) always moves at c. It's possible to slow light down by making it move through a medium, of course, and that has some interesting consequences such as Cherenkov radiation - but that's for another time and another post.

    so as your ring will have a certain speed that it can accelerate to and after that the amount of energy/mass needed to accelerate it further will be infinte preventing the ring from getting to light speed.
    Not quite. You can always accelerate it further. Its speed just aproaches c asymptotically - that is, you can never hit it or trancend it. But you can (in principle) get as close as you want to.

    Hence we can untwist and accelerate always any body to speed of the light.
    Uh-huh. I think I know a few blokes at CERN you'd want to talk with. They've been tryin' mighty hard to make stuff go as fast as humanly (or, in this case, electronly) possible. And they keep hitting a limit. 300 Mm/s. It's not just a good idea, it's the law.

    Such engines exist already. They can accelerate themself without the access of the additional energy.
    Once upon a time lived a guy called Carnot. He made a little engine. It was named after him. I suggest that you go look him up. An while you're at it, I humbly submit that your machine violates at least one law of thermodynamics.

    I wish I possessed the mathematical mind. Alas I am forced to hypothesize and conject with only limited faculties. Substituting of one component of an equation with one of another is all fine and good but somewhere along the line it loses me.
    Then I'd suggest The New World of Mr. Tompkins by George Gamow (yes that's the Big Bang Gamow) and Russell Stannard, (c) 1999 Cambridge University Press. It does a really nice job of explaining most modern physics and doesn't go overboard on the math.

    Wasn't there a book written recently where someone did the equation substitution thing to disprove Einstein?(Gravity is a Push, or something like that)
    Lots of books like that get published. None - tellingly - in the peer-reviewed litterature. Relativity-disprovers are kinda like creationists in that respect.

    Anyway, if someone could put into words what Nikomo's figures mean, it would be appreciated.
    I don't think anybody could. It looks to me like he's pulling your proverbial legs. Perpetual Motion Machines are a Bad Idea, and the thing about 'new scientific paradigm' rings every warning bell in The Book. And quite a few not in The Book. I could try to make a 'reader's digest' version if you really want me to, but I can't promise I'll get it done soon.

    I'm imagining standing on the outer rim of a very big rotating disc 10 light secs in circumference. [...] I now walk towards the inner rim.
    Even at non-relativistic velocities that's a distinctly non-trivial problem. Heck, 2/3 of my term flunked that exam.

    You've probably noticed that cloud formations look like spirals, right? And you may have noticed that on the Northern hemisphere they always spiral the same way, right? That's the Coriolis force. It's a fictional force like centrifugal force.

    It arises because the Earth is rotating, and when the clouds move North-South, they move over parts of the Earth that rotate slower or faster than they do. So winds are twisted right relative to their direction of motion on the Northern hemisphere and left on the Southern. The same effect applies to your disk (at non-relativistic velocities). The calculations get a little involved and I've already written a long post by now, but I'd be happy to go over them another time.

    the particles close to the center of the ring can't travel faster than the outer part of the ring or else there would be 2 different rotating rings, as the material would stretch and break.
    Depends on whether you're talking about angular or translational velocities.

    if the outer ring was travelling at the speed of light then center of the ring must also travel at the speed of light, i did math which proved this, the particles just have a higher rotational frequency than the outer part of the ring due to the smaller circumference that the particles travel on.
    I'd like to go over that math with you, if you don't mind, because my math (and my textbook, for that matter) says something different.
    And God said: Div(E) = \rho / \epsilon_0, Curl(E) = - \partial(B,t), Div(B) = 0, Curl(B) = \mu_0 (j + \epsilon_0 \partial(E,t)). And there was light.

    [...]

    And thus God sent forth Man from the Garden of Eden after a heated discussion of dresscodes and eating habits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,452
    js.....I'm not going to quote your whole text but I thought it was terrific. For a neophyte like myself, I can only trust what your saying is true but it sure sounds plausible to me. I never really dabbled in this before so excuse my ignorance whenever it shows.

    I suppose an outside observer of the person walking towards the center of a spinning disc would actually see someone spiralling in. I guess that is the classic 'if both observers agree on the time then they will disagree on the distance'.

    I thought I was on to something when the constant speed of apparent sky revolutions would never vary time wise. If anything I stumbled on a scenario that shows a constant time. If you didn't know you were on a spinning disc I think it would be a conclusion one could reach.

    Black holes are just dense collections of matter. If they are spinning fast and also moving through spacetime then can I assume that as fast it moves forward, it will slow down its rotation? I mean a black hole is massive to start with but it will gain mass the more it moves. Somewhere along the line motion must be infinitely close to cessation, no? If all the mass in the universe was concentrated in a single black hole could motion exist?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by JS
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    so as your ring will have a certain speed that it can accelerate to and after that the amount of energy/mass needed to accelerate it further will be infinte preventing the ring from getting to light speed.
    Not quite. You can always accelerate it further. Its speed just aproaches c asymptotically - that is, you can never hit it or trancend it. But you can (in principle) get as close as you want to.
    so if i understand correctly you could in theory accelerate an object infinitely closer to the light speed barrier without hitting it?

    Quote Originally Posted by JS
    the particles close to the center of the ring can't travel faster than the outer part of the ring or else there would be 2 different rotating rings, as the material would stretch and break.
    Depends on whether you're talking about angular or translational velocities.
    i have no idea what either of those 2 are.

    if the outer ring was travelling at the speed of light then center of the ring must also travel at the speed of light, i did math which proved this, the particles just have a higher rotational frequency than the outer part of the ring due to the smaller circumference that the particles travel on.
    Quote Originally Posted by JS
    I'd like to go over that math with you, if you don't mind, because my math (and my textbook, for that matter) says something different.
    yeah i thought this might happen.

    because you see i just went through a big old, 1956, eddition of analytical and expertimental physics.
    to my non physics educated mind i resoned that i should read the part about uniform circular motion and apply that.
    so after reading the problem above my previous post and applying the equations of uniform circular motion i found in the big book besides me, i reached the conclusion that 2 different points on the rotating ring would travel at the same speed, i must say i only used the approxamation of the speed of light. (300,000km/s)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    JS
    JS is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    29
    I suppose an outside observer of the person walking towards the center of a spinning disc would actually see someone spiralling in. I guess that is the classic 'if both observers agree on the time then they will disagree on the distance'.
    Yes and no. If the person on the disk tries to walk towards the centre of the disk at all times, an inertial observer would see him moving in a curved track. The reason is that when you move towards the centre of the disk, you move into regions that move slower than you do (they cover less circumference in the same angular velocity - that translates to a lower translational velocity).

    So, when you take a step towards the centre of the disk, your foot moves faster than the point on the disk you're aiming for - causing you to veer to one side (you veer right if you're on the 'north' side of the disk, left if you're on the 'south' side). On your next step you'd try to move towards the centre from your new location, and the same thing would happen. The resultant curve gets a little involved, and I'd have to do some math and/or run a simulation to be able to tell you exactly how it would look.

    To an inertial observer (i.e. one that isn't spinning himself), you'd look like you were spiralling in.

    That's what would happen in the non-relativistic situation. The relativistic one gets a lot more involved. I haven't done the actual math, but my money says it'll be somewhat the same thing, only with a less uniform motion.

    I thought I was on to something when the constant speed of apparent sky revolutions would never vary time wise.
    The outer points on the disk still move faster than the inner ones. Remember than no point on the disk can move at a speed of c. So one point might be moving at .9999c and a point further out might move at .99999c. For all intents and purposes, the sky would move at the speed of light relative to you no matter where on the disk you were. But you'd most definitely notice at least one thing on your way to the centre of the disk: The Doppler shift would change.

    The frequency of light changes when you move relative to the source. The actual formula is
    f_1 = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)*f_0
    Positive v direction is towards you. If the source is moving away from you, the sign of v changes. Notice that the denominator will never be zero, even for negative v, since v =< c

    So if you moved from a frame moving at .99999c relative to some emitter to a frame that moved at .9999c relative to the same emitter, the frequency of the light you recieved would change by a factor of more than 3. The light that looked blue at the start of your journey would drop clear into infrared.

    Black holes are just dense collections of matter. If they are spinning fast and also moving through spacetime then can I assume that as fast it moves forward, it will slow down its rotation? I mean a black hole is massive to start with but it will gain mass the more it moves. Somewhere along the line motion must be infinitely close to cessation, no?
    Ï would think so, but I'm far from sure. Relativistic calculations for extended bodies get really messy, really fast.

    so if i understand correctly you could in theory accelerate an object infinitely closer to the light speed barrier without hitting it?
    Yes. A good analogy is the hyperbolic function 1/x. In fact, the Lorentz transformations can be shown to be hyperbolic so the analogy is more than just good. But for our purposes, just consider the function 1/x. If you double x, you halve the value of the function. If you further double the value of x you further halve the value of the function. You'll never hit 0, but you can get infinitely close, in the sense that if I give you a number y it is always possible to find an x so that 1/x < y The same thing applies to relativistic motion. You'll never get to c, but on the other hand you can get as close as you want (if you have enough energy to pump into the project, of course).

    i have no idea what either of those 2 are.
    The angular velocity (\omega) of a spinning object is 2\pi divided by the rotational frequency. The translational velocity of a point on the object at a radius r from the axis of rotation is r*\omega. A train moving along a straight track has only translational velocity. A spinning wheel has angular velocity (and may or may not have translational as well, depending on your frame of reference).

    yeah i thought this might happen.

    because you see i just went through a big old, 1956, eddition of analytical and expertimental physics.
    to my non physics educated mind i resoned that i should read the part about uniform circular motion and apply that.
    so after reading the problem above my previous post and applying the equations of uniform circular motion i found in the big book besides me, i reached the conclusion that 2 different points on the rotating ring would travel at the same speed, i must say i only used the approxamation of the speed of light. (300,000km/s)
    Oh. Sure. Two different points on the ring. We were talking about a disk. Two different points at the same radius from the axis of rotation have to move at the same translational and angular velocity. Two different points at different radii from the axis of rotation, however, must move with the same angular velocity. And that means that they must move at different translational velocities. Assuming of course that the disk is a rigid body.
    And God said: Div(E) = \rho / \epsilon_0, Curl(E) = - \partial(B,t), Div(B) = 0, Curl(B) = \mu_0 (j + \epsilon_0 \partial(E,t)). And there was light.

    [...]

    And thus God sent forth Man from the Garden of Eden after a heated discussion of dresscodes and eating habits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by JS
    Oh. Sure. Two different points on the ring. We were talking about a disk. Two different points at the same radius from the axis of rotation have to move at the same translational and angular velocity. Two different points at different radii from the axis of rotation, however, must move with the same angular velocity. And that means that they must move at different translational velocities. Assuming of course that the disk is a rigid body.
    yeah i recalculated and i stand corrected.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,452
    The outer points on the disk still move faster than the inner ones. Remember than no point on the disk can move at a speed of c. So one point might be moving at .9999c and a point further out might move at .99999c. For all intents and purposes, the sky would move at the speed of light relative to you no matter where on the disk you were. But you'd most definitely notice at least one thing on your way to the centre of the disk: The Doppler shift would change.
    I think this could open up a discussion as to the actual shape of the universe. Although I'm sure someone has thought of this before, the same effects should be seen if one was at a point on a spinning cone.

    So if you moved from a frame moving at .99999c relative to some emitter to a frame that moved at .9999c relative to the same emitter, the frequency of the light you recieved would change by a factor of more than 3. The light that looked blue at the start of your journey would drop clear into infrared.
    In essence we are spiralling in towards the nuclear bulge at the center of the galaxy. Should we not expect the same effects? Why wouldn't everything else appear to be red shifted? Could expansion simply be an illusion created by our star's fall into the center?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    JS
    JS is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    I think this could open up a discussion as to the actual shape of the universe. Although I'm sure someone has thought of this before, the same effects should be seen if one was at a point on a spinning cone.
    Well, yes, we are looking at an accelerated coordinate system. That does funny things to geometry. So in a sense you're right that the problem is partly about the shape of the universe. But IIRC a cone is just as flat - geometrically speaking - as a disk. So yeah, you'd see the same standing on a cone, but that's not a particularly interesting result.

    In essence we are spiralling in towards the nuclear bulge at the center of the galaxy.
    Not quite. We're orbiting around it. The distance to the centre of the galaxy remains (roughly) the same througout.

    Should we not expect the same effects? Why wouldn't everything else appear to be red shifted? Could expansion simply be an illusion created by our star's fall into the center?
    Nope. Redshift is a measure of the speed with which galaxies move apart. The distances and speeds involved make our piddling little orbit around the galactic core more or less insignificant. Besides, if that were the cause, we should (all other things being equal) see half of the stars red-shifted and the other half blue-shifted, since we'd be moving towards some stars and away from others.

    But beyond this, I'm really not the guy you want to ask about cosmology.
    And God said: Div(E) = \rho / \epsilon_0, Curl(E) = - \partial(B,t), Div(B) = 0, Curl(B) = \mu_0 (j + \epsilon_0 \partial(E,t)). And there was light.

    [...]

    And thus God sent forth Man from the Garden of Eden after a heated discussion of dresscodes and eating habits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    130
    There's no such thing like "torsion interaction".
    Rotating is just a type of movement.

    @zinjanthropos:

    The thing is that when moving - translational or rotational movement - then your coordinate axes change (depending on which system you're in). Also, the different points of a rotating object are NOT frames of inertia, since they experience radial acceleration.

    All atoms on a ring are in rest relative to each other though.
    I am.
    You can't deny it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    On that note....I have an axle, I attach spokes to it, the spokes are long enough so that the most distant point on any one travels 10 times farther then the point where it attaches to the axle when the axle is rotated.

    Will I be able to spin the axle so the point of attachment travels close to c or am I restricted to .1 of the outer point's speed? Or will I be able to spin the axle close to c? There is no way the outer point will rotate 10 times faster, I assume the spokes contract as the axle spins faster.

    What if I was to attach a rim to the spokes' outer points? The most outer part of the rim should contract should it not, but what happens to the spokes? Same question, will I be able to spin the axle close to c or am I restricted? As long as they are attached to the rim the outermost point on the spoke will be going 10 times faster? This has puzzled me for some time. Can anyone shed some light?
    The experiment you're proposing is essentially the Ehrenfest paradox. Details can be found in the Wikipedia article about it here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox

    Chris
    It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow.
    Robert H. Goddard - 1904
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    ...In essence we are spiralling in towards the nuclear bulge at the center of the galaxy. Should we not expect the same effects? Why wouldn't everything else appear to be red shifted? Could expansion simply be an illusion created by our star's fall into the center?
    You may have gotten this idea from the images of spiral galaxies that have been photographed. The spiral arms do not trace the path of stars in these galaxies, though. The spiral structure is thought to be the result of density waves. A discussion of this phenomenom and density wave theory can be found here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_wave_theory

    Chris
    It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow.
    Robert H. Goddard - 1904
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    This thread is over 5 years old. I'm pretty sure yall won't get a response.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    162
    How embarrasing

    Chris
    It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow.
    Robert H. Goddard - 1904
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,293
    Quote Originally Posted by CSMYTH3025
    How embarrasing

    Chris
    You shouldn't feel that embarrassed, "mastermind" was the necro who went into the graveyard with a shovel.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,452
    Quote Originally Posted by CSMYTH3025
    How embarrasing

    Chris
    I'm slow when it comes to physics so waiting 5 years for a reply just feels right
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •