No. When it changes it changes in all respects. When you do potassium-argon dating the argon you extract from the mineral is a gas, not a solid.
-
Features
The dumb questions thread
- Thread starter NobleSavage
- Start date
No. When it changes it changes in all respects. When you do potassium-argon dating the argon you extract from the mineral is a gas, not a solid.
Everyone who measures the second will get the same answer no matter how fast they are going.
However, when they try to communicate that answer to someone going at a different speed they'll find they disagree.
- - - Updated - - -
Huh? A while back I was trying to work out what it would cost--and found the cost, even with a perfect way of doing it--was more than the cost of gold.
beero1000
Veteran Member
Gold isn't regularly made commercially from other metals, but every particle accelerator that uses lead or mercury will make gold in small amounts. And that's not counting all of the other (non-human caused) reactions going on in the universe.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
humblenan
The key to understanding relativity is the the relative part of the word...yes sarcasm.
Some phenomena are called invariant under traslation between inertial frames, some are not. The speed of light is invariant, all observers will measure the same vale.
Maxwell's Equations are not. A static electric filed on a moving train will appear dynamic to an observer on the ground.
For a variable to be invariant observers in all frames measure the same value.
Motion is relative and not invariant. A ball dropped straight down on a moving train appears to fall in a parabolic arc to an observer on the ground.
To an observer on the train holding a ball ball has zero kinetic energy. To an observer on the ground the kinetic energy is 0.5mv^2.
The key to understanding relativity is the the relative part of the word...yes sarcasm.
Some phenomena are called invariant under traslation between inertial frames, some are not. The speed of light is invariant, all observers will measure the same vale.
Maxwell's Equations are not. A static electric filed on a moving train will appear dynamic to an observer on the ground.
For a variable to be invariant observers in all frames measure the same value.
Motion is relative and not invariant. A ball dropped straight down on a moving train appears to fall in a parabolic arc to an observer on the ground.
To an observer on the train holding a ball ball has zero kinetic energy. To an observer on the ground the kinetic energy is 0.5mv^2.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,896
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
All the gold that exists was made from other elements. Mostly in supernovae. This process is ongoing.
The mercury isotope 196Hg, which occurs with a frequency of 0.15% in natural mercury, can be converted to gold by slow neutron capture, and (following electron capture), decays into gold's only stable isotope, 197Au. This reaction occurs in tiny amounts in commercial nuclear reactors; But as the 196Hg is only a trace contaminant in the nuclear fuel pellets, you would need to run a reactor for millions of years to gain a dollar's worth of gold - and then you have the cost of separating it from the other components of the reactor fuel. It's a LOT cheaper (and faster) to dig marginal gold ores out of the ground and refine them into gold via non-nuclear processing techniques.
Nucleosynthesis is not an effective way to make a lot of anything, at human scales, because E=mc2, and c2 is a BIG number. So any element you try to make either requires, or liberates, a LOT of energy.
For example, if you generated all of the world's energy needs (in the order of 1021 Joules/year) from nuclear fusion, the amount of 4He produced (and the amount of H required) would be in the order of 1000 tonnes, which is only about 0.5% of the world's Helium demand. To make all the He we use per annum, we would need to generate (and either find a use for, or radiate into space) about 200 times our current total planetary energy usage. And that's just for one element, for which total demand is rather low.
The only elements that it is worth the effort to manufacture are those with no stable isotopes, but which have useful unstable isotopes - for example Tc, used in medical imaging; Or Pu, used in nuclear reactors (and weapons).
The mercury isotope 196Hg, which occurs with a frequency of 0.15% in natural mercury, can be converted to gold by slow neutron capture, and (following electron capture), decays into gold's only stable isotope, 197Au. This reaction occurs in tiny amounts in commercial nuclear reactors; But as the 196Hg is only a trace contaminant in the nuclear fuel pellets, you would need to run a reactor for millions of years to gain a dollar's worth of gold - and then you have the cost of separating it from the other components of the reactor fuel. It's a LOT cheaper (and faster) to dig marginal gold ores out of the ground and refine them into gold via non-nuclear processing techniques.
Nucleosynthesis is not an effective way to make a lot of anything, at human scales, because E=mc2, and c2 is a BIG number. So any element you try to make either requires, or liberates, a LOT of energy.
For example, if you generated all of the world's energy needs (in the order of 1021 Joules/year) from nuclear fusion, the amount of 4He produced (and the amount of H required) would be in the order of 1000 tonnes, which is only about 0.5% of the world's Helium demand. To make all the He we use per annum, we would need to generate (and either find a use for, or radiate into space) about 200 times our current total planetary energy usage. And that's just for one element, for which total demand is rather low.
The only elements that it is worth the effort to manufacture are those with no stable isotopes, but which have useful unstable isotopes - for example Tc, used in medical imaging; Or Pu, used in nuclear reactors (and weapons).
Last edited:
You are talking of the point of view of the observer which will be conditioned to illusions of motion and distance.
But, exactly, what happens when the ball drops down from a moving train? It will depend on the speed of the vehicle, that's all.
Simple physics. I don't know why you love confusing yourself with good for nothing theories.
Lets see.
Is that a threat?
Dumb question
This is of course a hypothetical scenario because the ridiculous of its content, but is a question based in abstract event, mere imagination.
A vehicle is traveling close to the speed of light, from a different frame of reference the observer can see inside the space ship that the clock shows slowing tic, the astronaut aging is slowed, however the motor which forces the spaceship keeps working like if nothing is affecting it... duh?
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
You must be a student of Trump, utterly ignorant and substitutes personal comments for substance. You are far from unique, and are utterly transparent to us here. If you don't grasp Newton's laws of motion, then I can see why relativity is intellectually challenging for you.
By the way. If you fly a Boeing 777 or 757 your flight safety is in some small ways courtesy of yours truly..and all those theories. Scary thought, ain't it?
Ok, I can easily see incidental creation in atom smashers.
Asimov? had a good short about a goose that laid golden eggs. He found a pair of reactions that are almost perfectly in balance so if you had some way of doing both reactions together it would go but wouldn't cook the goose.
What I see is that you write and write crap and don't show anything.
Besides my writings explaining my thoughts, I'm showing images and videos based on solid evidence and experimental data. Sometimes funny, but usually related to the topic.
With the video from above, explain why the ball doesn't appear to fall in parabolic arc as you predicted, and as the theory used by you also has predicted. The answer was very simple, and those dudes of the video weren't blah blah blah but doers... they don't act by "faith" alone but are doers. And doers are the ones who prove things. The big talkers don't do anything but talk to talk.
No comments?
At least show here a dude in the train station capable to see a train passing by very fast and check if the dude really can see the clock inside the wagon going slow. At least show if the dude can see a clock inside the wagon. At least show if the dude can recognize something inside the wagon.
All your knowledge is based in thought experiments which are nothing but garbage to the square. Can't you see it?
Dumb question
No theoretical answers but please I need to know the answer based on a real test.
What is the test proving that you can see objects as if they were in their past because these are far away from you?
Light never travels faster than c, but there are galaxies that are moving away from each other faster than c. They can do this--seemingly breaking the cosmic speed limit--because the space between galaxies is expanding. As a result, there are galaxies far away from the Milky Way, beyond the cosmological event horizon, that are moving away from us so quickly (due to the expansion of space) that the light they emit will never reach us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
I put "mechanism" is quotes because it was your choice of terminology.
fast
Contributor
Holy contradiction Batman!
X can't do Y, but X does Y, and here is why.
X can't do Y, but X does Y, and here is why.
No, nothing is travelling faster than c--the space between galaxies is expanding.
Light travels through space at c. If space increases in size then light will take longer to traverse the space between two points. As a result, two points in space can get farther apart without moving with respect to their local reference frame.
Intuitively, we are used to space remaining constant: we assume the distance between two objects cannot increase unless one of them moves. This assumption works fine at human scales (where the metric expansion of space is negligible), but fails when dealing with intergalactic distances.
Last edited:
Try looking up at night: every star you see is an image of how it looked in the past, because light travels at a finite speed.
The finite speed of light was first demonstrated in 1676, by Ole Rømer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rømer's_determination_of_the_speed_of_light
Jokodo
Veteran Member
Every laser distance ranger ever works by measuring the light's travel time. It wouldn't work if light were instant.
You have set up a situation where there can be no answer without a far higher level of technology. The problem is you want a real test--but that involves a fast-moving clock and you claim that moving the clock fast causes it to be wrong.
The only things we can move to speeds where the effects are obvious are atoms and it's pretty hard for an atom to perceive time. The only time measurement we have is radioactive decay and that's an awfully sloppy clock. However, even then we can see particles living longer on average than they should.
Simple: Lets look at a clock in the sky. Specifically, Jupiter's moons. While they aren't calibrated into nice, neat minute and hour hands they can be treated as clock hands. Observe them and you can tell what time it is. They read 17 minutes earlier when Earth and Jupiter are at their closest vs when they are at their farthest.
- - - Updated - - -
No. What he's saying is that while X can't do Y there's an effect that makes it look like X is doing Y when it actually isn't.
Now, if you actually want a holy contradiction:
Genesis 1:24-27 King James Version (KJV)
Genesis 1:24-26 said:
Genesis 2:19 said:
Well, which came first?
That is a weird opinion, because there is not an instrument capable to detect expansion of space. Otherwise, it should have been tested first, copyrighted later, and used as a tool.
No description of any device made by humans have the feature of measuring expansion of space. Your link is a joke.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
On the contrary, the wrong terminology is "expansion of time", the right term is "relativity is wrong".
fast
Contributor
If there are two ants walking at opposite ends of a rubber band holding a steady pace and the rubber band is stretched, one might conclude that the perceived speeds have increased while the actual speeds have not. I got that. The problem is that the formula for calculating their relativistic speed isn't supposed to account for the difference.