PDA

View Full Version : Proof that I'm faster than I used to be...



Geek
December 30th, 2004, 02:25 PM
Earthquake speeds up Earth's spin

Dec 29, 2004

The deadly Asian earthquake may have permanently accelerated the Earth's rotation -- shortening days by a fraction of a second -- and caused the planet to wobble on its axis, US scientists say.

Richard Gross, a geophysicist with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, theorized that a shift of mass toward the Earth's center during the quake on Sunday caused the planet to spin 3 microseconds, or one millionth of a second, faster and to tilt about 2.5 cm on its axis.

When one huge tectonic plate beneath the Indian Ocean was forced below the edge of another "it had the effect of making the Earth more compact and spinning faster," Gross said.

Gross said changes predicted by his model probably are too minuscule to be detected by a global positioning satellite network that routinely measures changes in Earth's spin, but said the data may reveal a slight wobble.

The Earth's poles travel a circular path that normally varies by about 10 metres, so an added wobble of an 2.5 cm is unlikely to cause long-term effects, he said.

"That continual motion is just used to changing," Gross said. "The rotation is not actually that precise. The Earth does slow down and change its rate of rotation."

When those tiny variations accumulate, planetary scientists must add a "leap second" to the end of a year, something that has not been done in many years, Gross said.

Scientists have long theorized that changes on the Earth's surface such as tide and groundwater shifts and weather could affect its spin but they have not had precise measurements to prove it, Caltech seismologist Hiroo Kanamori said.

"Even for a very large event, the effect is very small," Kanamori said. "It's very difficult to change the rotation rate substantially."

929er
December 30th, 2004, 02:51 PM
Well, being the the moon is slowing leaving our pull and thus slowing down the Earth's rotation at the rate of 2 milliseconds per year, I guess it all evens out.

-=sean)=-
December 30th, 2004, 04:22 PM
Well, the scientist guy said the change in speed might be undetectable, but the effects of the wobble might show up.. that would explain the wobbling on some of the wheelies. tongue.gif

[ December 30, 2004, 16:23: Message edited by: -=sean)=- ]

bvia
January 1st, 2005, 10:44 AM
The earth already wobbles due to the mass and movement of the liquid under the crust (as proven by the magnetic poles' movements...scientists say we are coming up on a magnetic pole flip-flop again soon...in geological time anyways)and the effect of the moon on the ocean...

Also, the higher you go, the slower time becomes, so I guess telling someone who want's to be faster to "Go to hell" is really just me trying to be helpful...;)>

Bill

rtbain
January 1st, 2005, 11:19 AM
Using surface of the earth as a reference point let's have a look. A good analogy is a spinning record (if anyone remembers those).

If you place object “A” near the center of the record its speed in feet per second (fps) is slower than object “B” which is placed near the outer rim of the record. While both have the same rpm their speeds are different. Using this analogy the higher an object is relative to the surface of the earth the faster it is going.

As speed increases, time “ticks” slower. Since time ticks slower the faster you go, the slower you age relative to the person at “A”. The funny thing about all of this is that it takes the same amount of ticks in both scenarios to accomplish a certain task.

Lets assume it takes ten ticks to tie you shoes in “A”. It will take ten clicks to tie your shoes in “B”. But since “B” is moving faster compared to “A” you will use less time relative to “A” because time is ticking slower at “B”.

The real trick to relativity is that it all depends on what you use as a reference. There is no absolute speed (except for the speed of light). There is only velocity measured between two or more objects.

Time changes, space deforms due to the effect of mass (planets and particles), the only constant is the speed of light.

Loyed Hinkel
January 1st, 2005, 03:10 PM
You guys make my brain hurt! ;)

Vee4Rider
January 1st, 2005, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by L0weed:
You guys make my brain hurt! ;) Still have a hangover????? ;) ;)

bvia
January 2nd, 2005, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by Randy Bain:
If you place object “A” near the center of the record its speed in feet per second (fps) is slower than object “B” which is placed near the outer rim of the record. While both have the same rpm their speeds are different. Using this analogy the higher an object is relative to the surface of the earth the faster it is going.

Time changes, space deforms due to the effect of mass (planets and particles), the only constant is the speed of light. So, since I got it backwards, me telling folks to "go to hell" is just me being a dick?...Thanks Randy...;)>

Bill

p.s. If light has mass (as "proven" by the black hole theory) and can therefore be affected by gravity, how can the speed of light be constant????

rtbain
January 2nd, 2005, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by bill via:
So, since I got it backwards, me telling folks to "go to hell" is just me being a dick?...Thanks Randy...;)

Bill

p.s. If light has mass (as "proven" by the black hole theory) and can therefore be affected by gravity, how can the speed of light be constant???? First off you didn’t get it backwards. You were spot on but I just could not resist entering the fray. For some reason the subject has always fascinated me.

My understanding of the subject is we don’t know why the speed of light is constant irrespective of the observer, it just is. But the fact that the speed of light is constant makes everything else about spacetime possible.

A classic thought experiment sheds light on the question Suppose you have a girl in a truck traveling 20 mph. She can throw a ball 30mph. We have a stationary catcher with a radar gun. (**** cops are everywhere). If she throws the ball in the direction of travel the velocities sum and the ball is clocked at 50 mph by our stationary observer. If she throws the ball opposite the direction of travel the velocities sum again but this time resulting in a speed of 10mph clocked by our stationary observer. In short velocities are dependant on the observer and the direction of travel of the object being observed. Makes sense.

Until you reach the speed of light. It was found that the speed of light remained constant regardless of the direction light approached the “stationary” observer. Common sense tells us (as the above experiment shows) that the speed of light should change a bit depending on how it approaches our observer. But it doesn’t. Many experiments were performed to prove that this could just not be. They all failed. This problem was finally solved by Einstein. If the speed of light does not change spacetime must change at that velocity.

It gets better.

Light is made up of photons. Photons have a “resting mass” of zero. Resting mass refers to the mass of an object that is not moving relative to the observer. Remember that all motion is relative. Since photons are never at rest they will always have mass. Only sub-light speed particles can be without mass.

Since photons have mass, they are affected by gravity. Anything with mass creates a gravity well, a dimple in the fabric of spacetime. The greater the mass the larger the dimple.

If a photon is cruising along fat dumb and happy it will go straight like Newton said. But if it encounters a gravity well one of two things will happen depending on the “strength” of the well and where the photon passes.

Lets say we have a black hole. A black hole is basically a very small entity with a very large mass. Its gravity well is such that at a certain point everything falls down the well and nothings can climb back out. As you get farther away from the black hold the effects of its gravity well lessen. The point at which the black hole’s gravity well sucks everything in is called the event horizon.

If our photon passes the back hole outside the event horizon its course will be deflected depending on how close it comes to the gravity well. If the photon’s path takes it past the event horizon it will disappear into, well I sure don’t know. The laws of classical physics and quantum mechanics are not able (to my meager knowledge) to predict what will happen to matter that falls past the event horizon. Suffice to say it probably gets ugly in there.

And yes this does have real world significance. Lets look at the space shuttle. Its onboard clock is synchronized with the mission control clock. When the shuttle is launched its clock goes faster than the mission control clock. The space shuttle clock ticks slower resulting in a time differential with the mission control clock upon return to earth (and the return to the same speed as mission control).

So if you want to live longer (relative to those who sit on the couch and was football) wick the throttle open.

Rlhay2
January 3rd, 2005, 10:10 AM
If light has mass, how can the speed of light be constant?Dusting of the the ol' quantam mechanics book: One theory is thatlight can be assumed to be constant since its mass has a neglible effect in regards to its velocity.

Newton's conservation of momentum: P=m(1)*v(1)=m(2)* v(2) and Einsteins theory of relativity: E=mc^2 are more a function of lights velocity not its weight.

Does your weight decrease as you dim the lights? Perhaps, but not on a measurable scale using conventional methods.

Thus the weight of light is effectively neglible with regards to its velocity.


When the shuttle is launched its clock goes faster than the mission control clock.Great example but I think you meant to type slower than faster.

Relative to a stationary object, time moves slower for the moving object.
--
Ronnie

Geek
January 3rd, 2005, 11:21 AM
And hence we digress into the theory of time travel.

If you could use something such as a black hole to accelerate beyond the speed of light, when you stopped and looked back you'd be looking at light arriving from the past.

Then.. you turn around and head home faster than the speed of light and end up in the past?

;) tongue.gif

we're a bunch of Hawkins wannabes. :D

geckosvs
January 3rd, 2005, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Geek:

Then.. you turn around and head home faster than the speed of light and end up in the past?Which would be a feat of some kind of strength, because wouldn't your body mass be compacted to the size of less than a pin point while you were passing through Cygnus X-1? tongue.gif

Sunshine Cowboy
January 3rd, 2005, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Ric Martin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Geek:

Then.. you turn around and head home faster than the speed of light and end up in the past?Which would be a feat of some kind of strength, because wouldn't your body mass be compacted to the size of less than a pin point while you were passing through Cygnus X-1? tongue.gif </font>[/QUOTE]SMART A$! tongue.gif

Mel
January 3rd, 2005, 02:46 PM
All I have to add is the fact that Ed's Yammi has been sitting in the garage more. :eek: smile.gif

-=sean)=-
January 3rd, 2005, 05:53 PM
Nothing moves, things just have a higher probability of being somewhere else at different quantas. And time is just an illusion from changes in the state of all things.

It's just a math model that tries to describe our physical world, people.. Quit using colorful metaphors to embellish the simple concepts. Genious? Yes. Complete? No. It works for medium-sized things moving at sub-light speeds within the known volume of space over a period measured by the independent variable known as "time".

PS: I can see what Ed's saying, though. His bike is still sitting in the garage, but because the earth is spinning faster relative to its previous rate of spin.. well, you got it on the first post. ;)

[ January 03, 2005, 17:55: Message edited by: -=sean)=- ]

bvia
January 3rd, 2005, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by Randy Bain:

So if you want to live longer (relative to those who sit on the couch and was football) wick the throttle open. The great thing about theories is they are just that.."educated guesses". Einstein's theory was "proven" (as stated in Hawking's book, a not-so brief history of time) by use of a clock and a solar event (in this case an eclipse). I can go into further detail, but won't...;)&gt;

Stephen says that once the black hole is created (black hole versus super nova creation is one of mass X size) nothing that enters the Event Horizon escapes, which of course includes light photons. Now, theoretically there is nothing to keep a black hole from continuing to grow because once it collapses into itself, it continues to collapse (actually the gravity is constantly rising as the particle condense in mass and create more gravity...ad finitum)...

So if we somehow launched Geek into a black hole, he would continue to accelerate and collapse upon himself...forever. This seems like a better answer than impeachment...;)&gt;

Anyone up for some string theory debating?...;)&gt;

Bill

p.s. time vs gravity was proven with the help of the Concorde. One clock was flown first class (all Concorde seats are such) from New York to London and back, and the other clock, both in synch, was left in New York. While only a few milliseconds, there WAS a difference between the two clock once they were compared to each other!!!The one that took the trip (and therefore was further away from the Earth's gravity) ended up "losing time".

PBS and NOVA is a GOOD thing ;)&gt;

p.p.s. Anyone else read about this stuff, race car engineering and aerodynamic theories for fun, or is it just me?

Geek
January 3rd, 2005, 09:04 PM
Not just you. Hence my nick name smile.gif

So I'm moving to the mountains where time is slower. Life's too fast at this altitude.

Its just a side benefit that the roads are better ;)

[ January 03, 2005, 21:04: Message edited by: Geek ]

bvia
January 3rd, 2005, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by Geek:
Not just you. Hence my nick name smile.gif

So I'm moving to the mountains where time is slower. Life's too fast at this altitude.

Its just a side benefit that the roads are better ;) HUH?...I thought GEEK was canuck for "bald guy who loves sheep"...;)&gt;

Bill

p.s. Maybe the roads are "better" 'cause you're riding them at a slower pace...;)&gt;

Geek
January 3rd, 2005, 11:25 PM
Hmmmm.. since the older I get, the faster time goes, does that mean I'm shrinking?

Vee4Rider
January 4th, 2005, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by Geek:
Hmmmm.. since the older I get, the faster time goes, does that mean I'm shrinking? Just our hair!!! ;) ;)

rtbain
January 4th, 2005, 04:29 AM
Originally posted by Ronnie H.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If light has mass, how can the speed of light be constant?Dusting of the the ol' quantam mechanics book: One theory is thatlight can be assumed to be constant since its mass has a neglible effect in regards to its velocity.

Newton's conservation of momentum: P=m(1)*v(1)=m(2)* v(2) and Einsteins theory of relativity: E=mc^2 are more a function of lights velocity not its weight.

Does your weight decrease as you dim the lights? Perhaps, but not on a measurable scale using conventional methods.

Thus the weight of light is effectively neglible with regards to its velocity.


When the shuttle is launched its clock goes faster than the mission control clock.Great example but I think you meant to type slower than faster.

Relative to a stationary object, time moves slower for the moving object.
--
Ronnie </font>[/QUOTE]Oops, you are absolutely correct. My bad. I need to start reading my stuff before hitting the "Add Reply" button.

I also must have muffed up my explanation of why photons have mass(or was just plan wrong). It’s my understanding that only sub-light particles can exist as mass less entities.

I say we get Newton, Einstein and Bohr into a cage match. Last man standing wins. I sure hope I am around when someone proves super strings (or some other mechanism) and comes up with a grand unifying theory. That would be cool indeed.

Of course I would then need someone to explain it to me.

Randy

bvia
January 4th, 2005, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Randy Bain:
I say we get Newton, Einstein and Bohr into a cage match. Last man standing wins. I sure hope I am around when someone proves super strings (or some other mechanism) and comes up with a grand unifying theory. That would be cool indeed.

Of course I would then need someone to explain it to me.

Randy Let's add Hawking and Chandrasekhar...just to be fair!

Bill