You need to first lock it into a rest frame for that one, right? General universe-wise, the velocity is always relative, thus variable, unless 'v' = 'c'. Otherwise 'v' = '0', general universe-wise. The two I state need no environmental, no specified, rest frame, right? Unless I miss my guess, the one you state fits nicely only as long as you (rest) frame it.Yes, of course and also: K.E = 1/2 mv^2
My observation. ASC opens the door that immense starlight-travel-times to Earth are not a fact. My telescope observations of M31 in Andromeda, the starlight does not need to take millions of years to reach my telescopes today Other groups are researching ASC and its implications in astronomy too.
One light year is approx. 9.4 x 10^12 km or 9.4 x 10^15 m . Speed of Voyager 1 space craft is 60000 kmh or 16600s not 16.6 m. So everything decreased by a thousand so 16 600 years is closer to the mark. It is still a long time. I should add my thanks to helio for setting me right.Did you mean 16.6 thousand years?
9.4E12/62000kph = 151,613,000 hours.One light year is approx. 9.4 x 10^12 km or 9.4 x 10^15 m . Speed of Voyager 1 space craft is 60000 kmh or 16600s not 16.6 m. So everything decreased by a thousand so 16 600 years is closer to the mark. It is still a long time.
I've been off by a factor of 1,000 at least a million times.
I've been off by a factor of 1,000 at least a million times.
Impressive!I may be the record, according to one physicist. I thought the 10^120 difference from quantum physicists was attributable to expansion, but that factor is opposite that, so I said how much I hate being off by by 10^240!! (Yes, this last no. was meant as math hyperbole. )
The only problem is the 67,000 odd years it will take to get there. It is a difficult number to get around. After all how many people live to be a hundred? Not many. In any case I doubt if a hundred year old will be of any use in space or anywhere else. They are more less figureheads or totem pole like figures, their contribution must necessarily be minimal. Roughly 5000 years since the great pyramids of Egypt were built , yet that 5000 years encompasses almost the whole of civilised humanity.The times to stars isn’t too hard to calculate somewhat accurately even though they are moving about the speed of our current rockets. Too often I see erroneous estimates for travel time because, say for Alpha Cen, their use of 4.3 lyrs as the distance is held constant, failing to note that Alpha Cen will get to a little over only 3 lyrs in about 15,000 years, IIRC.
Yes, but it’s remarkable that we have the technology today to build probes capable of arriving our neighbor in only ~21 years by reaching a 0.2c speed. SR grants fun science fiction, but sometimes fiction slips out of the bonds of fantasy, and into reality.
Looked at in a disinterested way, which is what science says should happen, doesn’t this whole theory of fields sound over the top? Firstly, and leaving aside the other (twenty? Thirty? Forty? ), types of fields that must exist if these two fields exist. How likely is it that these two fields the electric field and the magnetic fields exist? How did they come to permeate the entire Universe? How is it that they only manifest in the electron: one field, being present when the electron is stationary and both fields being present when the electron is moving? Further if moving electrons are responsible for a magnetic field, how are permanent magnets formed? Do magnets also exhibit an electric field? Yes, this takes place in the opposite way to which magnetic fields are formed, i.e., a moving magnet produces an electric field. But how true is this statement? Does it mean that no electric fields are present around a permanent magnet? How can the two fields around a permanent magnet be differentiated?Yes, most electric fields are cancelled out by closely lying particles of the opposite charge but EM waves are created by unbalanced moving charges. And you are correct there is not actually two fields, electric and magnetic they are the same thing. Magnetism is simply the consequence of Lorentz contraction applied to a moving charge. The fact a moving charge creates a magnetic field was stated by Maxwell. Einstein saw this and knew that motion was relative. It was one of the things that caused him to write his theories. The Michelson-Morely experiment showed conclusively there was no aether and the speed of light was invariant in inertial frames of reference.
If you have some references that this is what led Einstein to relativity, I'd enjoy seeing them.This is the exact question led Einstein to develop relativity. He observed, by looking at Maxwell's equations, that a stationary electron had only an electric field, while a moving electron added a magnetic field. This led to the observation that a magnetic field could be measured by an observer sitting on a roadside bench as the electron passed by, but an observer riding on the electron would see no magnetic field. Einstein said the magnetic field was relative, thus relativity.
Photons are not like Electrons. Photons have constant Speed C=π Mm/Cs as a shell for every particles and everything is relative "Visibility" to that speed or to its own regular speed beginning from zeros to other levels; Furthermore, Everything "Dark Matter + Matter"is build on Light (Dark Photons "Dark Energy" + Photons "Energy") because light is always in movement and it has its own speed to make spaces from its particles photonics spiral spins. Photons could be found inside protons and neutron, inside darkness "Black holes" and outside the universe. The zeros goes for the deactivated DARK Photons and for the absolute emptiness where the speed is taken into consideration to build space and construct matter. If there is no speed there is no movement and there is no space dimension. "Emptiness is in Light and not Light is in emptiness"."How is it that they only manifest in the electron: one field, being present when the electron is stationary and both fields being present when the electron is moving?" - Jzz
This is the exact question led Einstein to develop relativity. He observed, by looking at Maxwell's equations, that a stationary electron had only an electric field, while a moving electron added a magnetic field. This led to the observation that a magnetic field could be measured by an observer sitting on a roadside bench as the electron passed by, but an observer riding on the electron would see no magnetic field. Einstein said the magnetic field was relative, thus relativity.
Consider two parallel wires with current moving in opposite directions. When an electron moves down a wire, it looks at its fellow electrons and sees no movement but when it looks at the oncoming electrons it sees movement thus Lorentz contraction. It sees more electrons in the other wire thus it repels, thus we get rail guns.
But, we note the electrons are moving very slowly, how can Lorentz contraction kick in so soon? In a #10 wire, at 100 amps, the bulk velocity of the electrons is about 3 mm per second. Lorentz contraction at such a low velocity is around 10^-23. However, the force of the charge is 10^32 times more powerful than what we are used to, gravity. The result is a measurable force.
Magnetism is simply the electric force accounting for relativity. Magnetism does not exist as an "entity". It is a mathematical construct used to easily determine the effects of relativity.
"Further if moving electrons are responsible for a magnetic field, how are permanent magnets formed?" - Jzz
Permanent magnets have atoms with a magnetic moment. That is, they have a bulge on one side with a positive charge and a bulge on the other side with a negative charge. Any such charge imbalance is a tiny magnet. Add them together and you get a big magnet. Why do unbalanced charges on an atom make it a magnet? Because the charge is moving around as it fills the orbital. Such movement invokes relativity.