If I am inside a sphere 1AU in radius and turn a laser pointer at 60rpm for a long time (more than 16 minutes), I will see a laser spot on the sphere rotating at a rate of a billion km/sec, which is thousands of times the speed of light.
I disagree. I think that if you had a visual acuity good enough to see this hypothetical spot, you'd also be able to see the laser's photon wave as it spiraled around from the central point, twising at 60rpm and expanding to 1 AU at approximately c (need to account for travel time to reach the viewer.)
That's ridiculous. You don't see light passing away from you through a vacuum. How would it get to your eye?
Perhaps I can preempt your next argument, that space is not a perfect vacuum. Well, it's still many, many orders of magnitude less reflective than our hypothetical sphere, so there's no reason to think anyone capable of seeing the laser spot on the sphere would see the spiral.
So what? If you wait for 16 minutes (round-trip time) and then observe the location of the spot, it will move faster than the speed of light. I'm not sure exactly why this bugs you.
If I am inside a sphere 1AU in radius and turn a laser pointer at 60rpm for a long time (more than 16 minutes), I will see a laser spot on the sphere rotating at a rate of a billion km/sec, which is thousands of times the speed of light.
You really can't think of a solution to this? (Hint: The virtual meat grinder problem about as serious a threat as a computer virus reprogramming my monitor to shoot a lethal electron beam into my eyes.)
Ah, long live the Slashdot Naysayer, trying to get modded as Insightful by listing a bunch of ill-conceived bogus showstopping problems without having read the article.
Re:more good news :-)....
on
UT2003 Demo Ready
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
That's the hard way. You'd have to make the remaining piece of moon fire toward the earth at such a high velocity that its existing tengential velocity (you know, that velocity that keeps it in orbit?) becomes negligible.
A much easier way to make the moon hit the earth is to slow it down, so that it takes up an elliptical transfer orbit with the perihelion underground.
Here, I drew some pictures. The one on the left has its orbit altered drastically, but it still misses the earth. The one on the right is slowed down enough so it falls into the earth; and it didn't need as much of a push.
Another one I heard was that it's not a moon if its orbit is convex; that is, its center of curvature is always toward the sun. In that case, the moon fails, and therefore the moon is not a moon.
Actually, it's both. There is a small (5-minute-walk diameter) park north of the government buildings. Of the Queen's Park oval, probably 40% of it is buildings. (It's the gray part of the map.)
No, that's RAED: Redundant Array of Expensive Disks.
Anyway, RAID is not backup. If you have two of these monsters, you could put them in different machines in different rooms, or even at a different site, and that would protect against things like big rocks falling on your computer, where RAID wouldn't.
My guess: they don't want to bring tons and tons of ice to the surface just to decrease the pressure and release a little methane. It would be better to bring up only the methane.
A quick Google search shows that Georgia State University seem to think they are equal ("The mass of an object is a fundamental property of the object; a numerical measure of its inertia..."), and the University of Cincinati indicates that the m in f=ma represents inertia ("inertia is the resistance to changes in velocity").
If you can find a reference that claims they are not equal, I'd love to see it. In the mean time, you might want to consider lightening up a bit. You seem to have totally missed the point of my post in a misguided effort to discredit an essentially irrelevant physics analogy.
Saying "inertia slows acceleration" doesn't exactly demonstrate good knowledge of physics. Inertia is no force, and thus it cannot "slow acceleration" in any way. It's just how stuff works when force translates to acceleration and not speed.
Oh, please. I'm not sure why you want to try to show me up on this (especially when we agree on the issue that matters here) but here goes...
f=ma, and so a=f/m. Hence, if you look really closely, you'll see that force f is not the only thing that affects acceleration. (Did you think I meant that inertia slows velocity?)
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I can preempt your next argument, that space is not a perfect vacuum. Well, it's still many, many orders of magnitude less reflective than our hypothetical sphere, so there's no reason to think anyone capable of seeing the laser spot on the sphere would see the spiral.
I was JUST going to do the group velocity spiel. Thanks for saving me the trouble.
Electrons don't move in orbits. That's SO 19th century.
If I am inside a sphere 1AU in radius and turn a laser pointer at 60rpm for a long time (more than 16 minutes), I will see a laser spot on the sphere rotating at a rate of a billion km/sec, which is thousands of times the speed of light.
Please stop before you reach this level.
Right on. The mods here have become very closed-minded lately (in the last six months or so). I don't know what has changed, but it sucks.
Actually, a 747 is a pretty good glider, and can go a long, long way with no engines at all.
Ah, long live the Slashdot Naysayer, trying to get modded as Insightful by listing a bunch of ill-conceived bogus showstopping problems without having read the article.
Check your sig. If it's based on the Van Halen song, the line is "Right now, someone is working too hard for minimum wage ", not "wages".
Methinks someone missed the joke.
I find it interesting that the upside-down smiley (-: was first seen less than 30 hours after the smiley's invention.
A much easier way to make the moon hit the earth is to slow it down, so that it takes up an elliptical transfer orbit with the perihelion underground.
Here, I drew some pictures. The one on the left has its orbit altered drastically, but it still misses the earth. The one on the right is slowed down enough so it falls into the earth; and it didn't need as much of a push.
Another one I heard was that it's not a moon if its orbit is convex; that is, its center of curvature is always toward the sun. In that case, the moon fails, and therefore the moon is not a moon.
The mods seem pretty anal lately. I have received a LOT of "Overrated". I wish they would just reply instead.
Good lord, imagine the gall of playing the movie in a theatre. Of all the nerve.
Actually, it's both. There is a small (5-minute-walk diameter) park north of the government buildings. Of the Queen's Park oval, probably 40% of it is buildings. (It's the gray part of the map.)
Besides, by that argument, we should stop using transistors, because they're almost 60 years old.
Anyway, RAID is not backup. If you have two of these monsters, you could put them in different machines in different rooms, or even at a different site, and that would protect against things like big rocks falling on your computer, where RAID wouldn't.
Buy two.
My guess: they don't want to bring tons and tons of ice to the surface just to decrease the pressure and release a little methane. It would be better to bring up only the methane.
A quick Google search shows that Georgia State University seem to think they are equal ("The mass of an object is a fundamental property of the object; a numerical measure of its inertia..."), and the University of Cincinati indicates that the m in f=ma represents inertia ("inertia is the resistance to changes in velocity").
If you can find a reference that claims they are not equal, I'd love to see it. In the mean time, you might want to consider lightening up a bit. You seem to have totally missed the point of my post in a misguided effort to discredit an essentially irrelevant physics analogy.
f=ma, and so a=f/m. Hence, if you look really closely, you'll see that force f is not the only thing that affects acceleration. (Did you think I meant that inertia slows velocity?)
Thank you! I was trying to figure this one out, and your explanation make more sense than any other I thought of (or read here).