Math Questions

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gawin

Guest
This is a 2 part question that i have wondered about for many years.<br /><br />Part 1<br /><br />when sitting still in my house <lets say the chair is exactly on the equator /> How fast am i actualy moving. As im moving from the earth rotating, earth moving around the sun, sun moving around the galaxy, the galaxy moving around the universe. so wile im sitting still just how fast am i moving.<br /><br />Part 2<br /><br />How much force would it take a space craft to obtain a true dead stop.<br /><br />if anyone knows please post <br /><br />thanks <br /><br />gawin
 
V

vogon13

Guest
Q2:<br /><br />Zero, everything is relative to the spaceship.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
<font color="yellow">when sitting still in my house <lets say the chair is exactly on the equator> How fast am i actualy moving. As im moving from the earth rotating, earth moving around the sun, sun moving around the galaxy, the galaxy moving around the universe. so wile im sitting still just how fast am i moving.</font><br /><br />Your orbit around the earth (on the equator) is about 460 m/s.<br />Your orbit around the sun is about 30000±460 m/s.<br />Your orbit around the galaxy is about 220000±30460 m/s<br /><br /><font color="yellow">How much force would it take a space craft to obtain a true dead stop.</font><br /><br />Impulse = Force * Time = Mass * Velocity<br />link<br /><br />Force = Mass * Velocity / Time<br /><br />The greater the mass, obviously, the more force has to be applied. The less time in which the force is applied, the more the force has to be.
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
And Q1:<br /><br />Relative to what? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
O

oscar1

Guest
Quite so, a dead stop is out of the question. I suppose that a 'deadly stop' is the nearest one can get to it
 
V

vandivx

Guest
<"And Q1:<br /><br />Relative to what?" /><br /><br />good question, I believe he means how fast he is moving in absolute terms, that is relative to 'space' as such or what is also called 'ether' or space manifold as Einstein called it<br /><br />modern physics holds that all motion is relative, however there are phenomena such as cosmic microwave background radiation that might be taken as absolute reference point <br /><br />there is currently also a discussion of twin paradox on another thread here, taking cue from there, I would say that if uniform motion does have effect on clock rate, then we could determine that we are at rest relative to space/ether when our clock would show greatest lapse of time over any other clocks moving relative to it, that is tick fastest<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
I wouldn't think the CMBR would be a good reference point for determining one's absolute velocity. After all, it arrives from all directions in space. So again, "relative to what?"<br /><br />Although I see your point about using Spacetime itself as one's reference point. The problem is, how does on do so, and even if one could, it's still an arbitrary reference point.<br /><br />Interesting question anyways. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
I suppose with CMBR if you put yourself into rest relative to it (I believe we are currently moving relative to CMBR, it is not symmetrically redshifted around us), then you might consider to be at rest to universe and to space given that this radiation is supposed to be universe wide event, not just some local one, its origin in early smaller universe (I don't believe in singularity) would seem to imply it is centered on it and hence if you are not moving relative to it, you are at rest within space<br />CMB is like closed system black body radiation cavity filled with radiation <br /><br />perhaps it might be taken as at least as approximating absolute rest even if one doesn't subscribe to Big Bang theory provided one believes in absolute space in the first place<br /><br />I myself believe that physics will return back to absolute space before long (again) despite Einstein<br /><br />once you could establish such reference point, it wouldn't be arbitrary since as I said, it would be the absolute rest point where clocks would run fastest in absolute terms (you would age fastest), so it would have definite or absolute physical justification and could be scientifically determined<br /><br />I have some ideas how to rework/understand special relativity so that it would remain valid even in the context of absolute space, mainly how the invariance of the speed of light could be preserved in such absolute space, ie how to have relativity within absolute space... <br /><br />that's where my belief in absolute space comes from in the first place and unless the thread starter wants to deal with absolute space and all it involves his query begs that question 'relative to what'<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
G

gawin

Guest
all good points and thanks for the info as i have now been reading as to what would be the relative at rest for what i have been thinking. as thier aparently is no finite center of the universe that is not moving I will have to rethink my entire idea of truly as a stop.<br /><br />thanks all for the input. You raised more questions then answers and that is always good when you never had eaven thought of the questions raised.
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<i>You raised more questions then answers and that is always good when you never had eaven thought of the questions raised.</i><br /><br />Such is the nature of Science and Physics... never enough answers. Questions seem to grow exponentially with the number of answers you find. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
S

shawking

Guest
Gawin,<br /><br />Your questions reminds me of the Michelson-Morely experiment, conducted in 1887. They tried to determine Earth's "absolute" motion relative to the "truly" stationary "ether." To their surprise, their data indicated that the Earth was not moving at all. This is explained by Einstein's theory of relativity, which says that the laws of physics are observed to be the same in any reference frame, so there are no true, absolute frames. (But no false ones either!).<br /><br />So the speed of an object only has meaning when it is defined in relation to another object. Sitting in your chair, you are stationary relative to the surface of the Earth, but not to the core of the Earth, or the sun, or the galaxy, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts