I wonder if thousands of satellites will mess up astronomy. Right now, when I take a 30 minute exposure, it is very unusual for a satellite to pass through the frame destroying the image. (Maybe a few times per thousand hours of observing.) But with thousands of satellites or potentially one day millions of satellites...
The acceleration experienced by Osiris-Rex while in orbit = G m / r_oribit^2 = (6*10^-11)*(6*10^10)/(1700^2) = 1*10^-6 m/sec^2
The force exerted on by Bennu on Osiris-Rex (assuming mass of 880 kg) while in orbit = G m_B m_OR / r_orbit^2 = 880*(6*10^-11)*(6*10^10)/(1700^2) = 0.001 Newtons.
Tidal force of sun on Osiris-Rex = G m_OR m_Sun r_orbit / (1 AU)^3 = 6*10^-11*880*2*10^30*1700/(150*10^9)^3 = 50 nano-Newtons.
Light pressure from sun = A_OR S_Sun/c = A_OR*P = 6*4.5^10^-6 = 30 micro-Newtons.
Thermal Radiation Pressure from Bennu = S_B A / c = alpha_B S_Sun * pi r_B^2 / (4 pi r_orbit^2) A/c = alpha_B S_Sun *r_B^2 / (4 r_orbit^2) A/c = 0.05*1300*262^2/(4*1700^2)*6/(3*10^8) = 7 nano-Newtons.
It's been like 10 years since I audited my only two astronomy courses, so regard the numbers above with skepticism.
I wonder how much the Coriolis force would affect the travel time.
I guess the Coriolis affect would not affect the train's travel time because F_Cor = - 2 Omega x Vel and thus it is perpendicular to the direction of travel.
Mathematically it's an example of a degenerate orbit with one zero semi-axis, and the orbital period can be simply calculated from Kepler's laws.
What's more interesting, it even holds true if you do not move through the center of the Earth! For example, a train from any place on Earth to any other place on Earth will move all by itself and always arrive at destination in about 45 minutes (neglecting the oblateness of the Earth and need to compensate for Coriolis forces and friction) if you put it inside a completely straight tunnel.
Nope, this is not "an example of a degenerate orbit with one zero semi-axis" and Kepler's first and third laws do not apply. Kepler's laws do not apply when you are falling through a sphere (or ellipsoid) that has its mass spread throughout its volume.
The orbit is not elliptical. Because the acceleration is not at all proportional to inverse of the squared distance. But if you plot the orbit, it does look a lot like an ellipse with a small semi-axis.
Kepler's second law applies due to conservation of angular momentum.
The calculation of the orbit is made more difficult because the density of the Earth varies from about 3 g/cm^3 to 13 g/cm^3. (We should be able to compute it pretty easily with Runge-Kutta.) To computer the orbit, we could reference the acceleration graph on the "Structure of the Earth" Wikipedia page.
Mnemosyne, Anki, and SuperMemo are great learning systems. Although they are frequently used for learning a language, they can be used to memorize almost anything. Mnemosyne is simple, free, and opensource. SuperMemo is complex. I have not used Anki.
Microsoft does not make it's operating systems faster. (Windows 7 might be an exception.) Instead, it adds more capabilities. Why? Consider Microsoft's incentives for increasing the speed of its operating system. Basically, Microsoft increases its profits if money invested in improving operating system speed creates more money through sales i.e. the derivative of profit from sales with respect to the cost of improving speed is greater than 1.
Let
PFS be Profit From Sales NPP be Net Profit per sale PS be Products Sold S be Speed CI be the cost of improvement D(x) be the differential of x.
Microsoft does not improve the speed of it's operating systems too much because the consumer does not respond to a 10% improvement in speed with more sales or by paying more for each sale.
On the other hand, if Google were running a Google specific operating system on many machines, then the economics are very different. I am guessing that Google has spent about 1 billion dollars on computer hardware. They may be running the equivalent of 1 million desktop computers at a cost of say 200 million dollars a year in maintenance. If they can improve the speed of their operating system by 10%, then they save 20 million dollars per year. So if it costs them 40 million dollars to make a 10% speed improvement, they should (and probably will) do it. Forty million dollars corresponds to about 400,000 programmer hours or 200 programmer-years. So if in one year 200 programmers could improve the speed of Google's machines by 10%, then Google will do that.
The pressure on Microsoft to increase it's speed is not nearly as strong.
'detail'....if by this you mean 'angular resolution' then no, a 6" telescope can NEVER beat a 24" one, the angular resolution [THETA] is determined by the equation sin THETA = 1.22 X [wavelength of light] / [telescope diameter], so a 24" scope will *always* have 4 times better (ie smaller) angular resolution than a 6" does.
If I look through a 6" telescope on a typical evening here in Pennsylvania, I will have a resolution of about 2 arcseconds.
If I look through a 24" telescope on a typical evening here in Pennsylvania, I will have a resolution of about 2 arcseconds.
Back when gold and silver coins were money and governments were absolute Monarchies, people would literally bury their money to avoid government seizure by greedy monarchs. Burying money is wasteful. Once property rights were recognized, people could safely put their money in banks. Those banks made loans and economies grew.
Today, information is valuable. People and companies expend effort to protect their information. The more the government seeks access that information, the more people will expend resources to protect that information.
The problem is that religion is inherently *irrational*. There are crazy, stupid, irrational atheists, no one would dispute that.
But if you follow and believe in (almost) any religion, it means you believe things that are by definition unprovable, irrational, and supernatural. A person who is ready to believe such things might be more ready to believe other irrational things than someone who bases his thoughts on rational explanations. Very Nice. I agree. There are some exceptions. For example, Unitary Universalists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism is a group that claims to be a religion, but does not require or even recommend belief in "things that are by definition unprovable, irrational, and supernatural".
I have never used Linux before, but I did use Unix on Sun workstations for a little while in the 90's. I own about 10 windows based computers.
Here are my comments on the Walmart computer.
Good - Cheap! $200. - Very Quiet! - Seems stable. - Comes with lots of installed software: Word Processor, Photo Editing, Spreadsheet, a PDF viewer, FireFox,....
Bad - Somewhat slow (which I had expected.) - I think that it will take me a long time to get used to GOS (Linux?), but my kids are doing fine with it. It took me about 5 minutes to figure out how to change the screen resolution. There are icons that I can't seem to get rid of, but I haven't tried too much. - The little documentation that came with the machine was not 100% correct.
Overall: Seems like a great cheap computer for the kids and it may even be good for surfing the Web and learning about computers in general.
> Living-costs are high, especialy services are expensive. This is a result of the fact that your waitress, your hairdresser and your burgerflipper earns a decent living.
I believe the minimum wage in Norway is approximately 20 U.S. Dollars per hour.
>(1) Being more sick more often won't actually make a difference to how long you can expect to live? Sounds implausible.
Agreed.
>(2) Americans get sick more often but their health care is better so they live just as long or longer? Sounds more plausible, although it seems like too much of a coincidence that better healthcare is almost exactly balancing worse health.
I think this is plausible. I don't see the coincidence. When comparing life span, we must compare similar groups. For non-hispanic whites, americans live longer (i.e. the health care more than compensates for the high rate of illness.)
>(3) Maybe better access to health care in the US results in a higher rate of diagnosis, rather than a higher rate of illness? That would explain the nearly identical lifespan, but only if the better access to healthcare makes little difference to lifespan.
I imagine that heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes (type II) might be diagnosed more often in the US, but cancer, lung disease, and stroke seem much easier to diagnose and much harder to live without seeing a doctor.
>(4) A difference in medical culture, where doctors in the US are more likely to diagnose and attempt to treat problems that doctors in the UK would just tell their patients to live with? I know that psychiatrists and psychologists in the US are very quick to diagnose and prescribe drugs compared to Japan or New Zealand (the other two countries that I am familiar with). Maybe there is something similar going on with the medical profession in general.
See comment (3).
I would add
(5) Maybe the Brits don't like to report they have a disease and americans exaggerate. (Note that the incidence rate was self reported.)
>(1) Being more sick more often won't actually make a difference to how long you can expect to live? Sounds implausible.
Agreed.
>(2) Americans get sick more often but their health care is better so they live just as long or longer? Sounds more plausible, although it seems like too much of a coincidence that better healthcare is almost exactly balancing worse health.
I think this is plausible. I don't see the coincidence. When comparing life span, we must compare similar groups. For non-hispanic whites, americans live longer (i.e. the health care more than compensates for the high rate of illness.)
>(3) Maybe better access to health care in the US results in a higher rate of diagnosis, rather than a higher rate of illness? That would explain the nearly identical lifespan, but only if the better access to healthcare makes little difference to lifespan.
I imagine that heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes (type II) might be diagnosed more often in the US, but cancer, lung disease, and stroke seem much easier to diagnose and much harder to live without seeing a doctor.
>(4) A difference in medical culture, where doctors in the US are more likely to diagnose and attempt to treat problems that doctors in the UK would just tell their patients to live with? I know that psychiatrists and psychologists in the US are very quick to diagnose and prescribe drugs compared to Japan or New Zealand (the other two countries that I am familiar with). Maybe there is something similar going on with the medical profession in general.
See comment 3.
I would add
(5) Maybe the Brits don't like to report they have a disease and americans exaggerate. (Note that the incidence rate was self reported.)
My daughter is in fourth grade and has spent about 2 weeks in a standard class room. The rest of the time she learned over the internet (PA virtual charter school) or, sometimes, she learned from her mother. Now days she gets up at 6 AM, starts reading, and is usually done by 10 or 11 AM, then she has fun while waiting for her friends to get home from school.
Channard wrote:
>are sustained by an IV feeding beef stew directly into their bodies and hence never have to leave their desks. Ever....
You think this is funny now, but 20 years from now, the IV hookup might be the standard way to enjoy your gaming un-interupted.
I notice that it took about 180 seconds for the best contestants to memorize a card deck. What's their bandwidth? The amount of information in a card deck is log(52!)/log(2) = 225 bits. That's 1.25 bits per second.
What about the number lists? The best contestants memorized about 100 digits in 5 minutes. 100 digits contain log(10^100) / log(2) = 332 bits. That's 1.1 bits per second.
So, over a lifetime, the most anyone can memorize is about (1 bit/sec)*(3600 sec/hr)*(15 hr/day)*(365 day/year)*(80 years/lifetime) = 1.6 Gigabits = 200 Megabytes. Hmm.
Assuming that the mass that leaves the earth and the earth are a closed system then angular momentum must be conserved.
Angular momentum of the earth.
L = (Mass Earth)*(Radius)^2/(Period)*(Some constant)
The mass of the earth is about 6*10^24 Kg.
To change the period of the eath's rotation by 1 sec per year, we would need a change of momentum of 1 part in 365*24*3600 = 3 * 10^7. So the mass removed to the L1 point would be on the order of
6*10^24/(3*10^7) = 2 * 10^17 Kg.
(Plus or minus a factor of 10.)
(Assuming that all the mass ejected from the rocket falls back to earth without being affected by the solar wind or other stuff. Also, the earth would spin faster, not slower.)
Kurzweil has been making predictions like this for many years.
http://www.kurzweilai.net
He has given a very detailed explanation why robots and thinking machines will create extraordinary change in the next century in his article "Law of Accelerated Returns"
(Oops, accentally hit submit. Here is the correctly formatted version.)
Gold Makes the following claim:
"For example: take a black (light absorbing) body, initially at rest with a transmitter of radiation. Have the transmitter turn on a beam focused entirely on the body, for an interval during which the total amount of energy emitted is E. The momentum ascribed to this is then E/c, where c is the speed of light. If the entire energy E is used to accelerate the body, the kinetic energy it will then possess is given by 1/2(Mv^2) where M is the mass of the body, while the conservation of momentum with the radiation would have demanded an acceleration of the body to an energy content of Mvc, which is always more than 1/2(Mv^2)while the momentum of the radiation would have to accelerate the body to an energy content of Mvc."
Gold claims that conservation of momentum would "accelerate the body to an energy content of Mvc." Assuming the object of mass M is initially at rest and radiation of energy E is shined upon the object and absorbed, then the "Resulting Kinetic Energy from conservation of momentum" is E^2/(2 c^2 M ) which is much not the same as Mvc unless v = 2 c. (A rather high velocity.) Check my math here.
Conservation of momentum:
Momentum from Light = E/c
Momentum imparted to object = E/c
Resulting velocity = v = E/(cM)
Resulting Kinetic Energy from conservation of momentum = RKEFCOM
= 1/2 M v^2 = Mvc * (v/2 c) = 1/2*M*(E/(cM))^2 = E^2/(2 c^2 M )
This is clearly not Mvc as Gold claims unless v = 2 c. Maybe I am misunderstanding what he means by v. Also, if all the incoming energy were converted to kinetic energy, then we get a "resulting kinetic energy from complete conversion" of RKEFCC = E. Notice that
RKEFCOM / RKEFCC = E/(2 M c^2).
So, unless the incoming energy is less than twice the total energy obtained from converting the object to pure energy,
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if thousands of satellites will mess up astronomy. Right now, when I take a 30 minute exposure, it is very unusual for a satellite to pass through the frame destroying the image. (Maybe a few times per thousand hours of observing.) But with thousands of satellites or potentially one day millions of satellites...
I think the thermal pressure calculation should not include albedo.
Thermal Radiation Pressure from Bennu = S_B A / c /c = S_Sun *r_B^2 / (4 r_orbit^2) A/c
= S_Sun * pi r_B^2 / (4 pi r_orbit^2) A
= 1300*262^2/(4*1700^2)*6/(3*10^8) = 150 nano-Newtons.
The acceleration experienced by Osiris-Rex while in orbit = G m / r_oribit^2
= (6*10^-11)*(6*10^10)/(1700^2) = 1*10^-6 m/sec^2
The force exerted on by Bennu on Osiris-Rex (assuming mass of 880 kg) while in orbit = G m_B m_OR / r_orbit^2
= 880*(6*10^-11)*(6*10^10)/(1700^2) = 0.001 Newtons.
Tidal force of sun on Osiris-Rex = G m_OR m_Sun r_orbit / (1 AU)^3 = 6*10^-11*880*2*10^30*1700/(150*10^9)^3
= 50 nano-Newtons.
Light pressure from sun = A_OR S_Sun/c = A_OR*P = 6*4.5^10^-6 = 30 micro-Newtons.
Thermal Radiation Pressure from Bennu = S_B A / c /c = alpha_B S_Sun *r_B^2 / (4 r_orbit^2) A/c
= alpha_B S_Sun * pi r_B^2 / (4 pi r_orbit^2) A
= 0.05*1300*262^2/(4*1700^2)*6/(3*10^8) = 7 nano-Newtons.
It's been like 10 years since I audited my only two astronomy courses, so regard the numbers above with skepticism.
I wonder how much the Coriolis force would affect the travel time.
I guess the Coriolis affect would not affect the train's travel time because F_Cor = - 2 Omega x Vel and thus it is perpendicular to the direction of travel.
How much would the orbit change if we took the Moon into account?
Mathematically it's an example of a degenerate orbit with one zero semi-axis, and the orbital period can be simply calculated from Kepler's laws. What's more interesting, it even holds true if you do not move through the center of the Earth! For example, a train from any place on Earth to any other place on Earth will move all by itself and always arrive at destination in about 45 minutes (neglecting the oblateness of the Earth and need to compensate for Coriolis forces and friction) if you put it inside a completely straight tunnel.
Nope, this is not "an example of a degenerate orbit with one zero semi-axis" and Kepler's first and third laws do not apply. Kepler's laws do not apply when you are falling through a sphere (or ellipsoid) that has its mass spread throughout its volume.
The orbit is not elliptical. Because the acceleration is not at all proportional to inverse of the squared distance. But if you plot the orbit, it does look a lot like an ellipse with a small semi-axis.
Kepler's second law applies due to conservation of angular momentum.
The calculation of the orbit is made more difficult because the density of the Earth varies from about 3 g/cm^3 to 13 g/cm^3. (We should be able to compute it pretty easily with Runge-Kutta.) To computer the orbit, we could reference the acceleration graph on the "Structure of the Earth" Wikipedia page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Cyberax's second comment about the train (on a frictionless track) is really cool. I wonder how much the Coriolis force would affect the travel time.
Mnemosyne, Anki, and SuperMemo are great learning systems. Although they are frequently used for learning a language, they can be used to memorize almost anything. Mnemosyne is simple, free, and opensource. SuperMemo is complex. I have not used Anki.
That was a great post.
Microsoft does not make it's operating systems faster. (Windows 7 might be an exception.) Instead, it adds more capabilities. Why? Consider Microsoft's incentives for increasing the speed of its operating system. Basically, Microsoft increases its profits if money invested in improving operating system speed creates more money through sales i.e. the derivative of profit from sales with respect to the cost of improving speed is greater than 1.
Let
PFS be Profit From Sales
NPP be Net Profit per sale
PS be Products Sold
S be Speed
CI be the cost of improvement
D(x) be the differential of x.
Then
PFS = NPP * PS.
D(PFS) / D(CI)
= D(PFS) / D(S) * D(S)/ D(CI)
= (PS* D(NPP) / D(S) + NPP * D(PS) / D(S)) * D(S) / D(CI)
Microsoft does not improve the speed of it's operating systems too much because the consumer does not respond to a 10% improvement in speed with more sales or by paying more for each sale.
On the other hand, if Google were running a Google specific operating system on many machines, then the economics are very different. I am guessing that Google has spent about 1 billion dollars on computer hardware. They may be running the equivalent of 1 million desktop computers at a cost of say 200 million dollars a year in maintenance. If they can improve the speed of their operating system by 10%, then they save 20 million dollars per year. So if it costs them 40 million dollars to make a 10% speed improvement, they should (and probably will) do it. Forty million dollars corresponds to about 400,000 programmer hours or 200 programmer-years. So if in one year 200 programmers could improve the speed of Google's machines by 10%, then Google will do that.
The pressure on Microsoft to increase it's speed is not nearly as strong.
'detail'....if by this you mean 'angular resolution' then no, a 6" telescope can NEVER beat a 24" one, the angular resolution [THETA] is determined by the equation sin THETA = 1.22 X [wavelength of light] / [telescope diameter], so a 24" scope will *always* have 4 times better (ie smaller) angular resolution than a 6" does.
If I look through a 6" telescope on a typical evening here in Pennsylvania, I will have a resolution of about 2 arcseconds.
If I look through a 24" telescope on a typical evening here in Pennsylvania, I will have a resolution of about 2 arcseconds.
The limiting factor is Astronomical Seeing not the Rayleigh criterion which you stated quite correctly.
Today, information is valuable. People and companies expend effort to protect their information. The more the government seeks access that information, the more people will expend resources to protect that information.
This leads to waste.
I have never used Linux before, but I did use Unix on Sun workstations for a little while in the 90's. I own about 10 windows based computers.
....
Here are my comments on the Walmart computer.
Good
- Cheap! $200.
- Very Quiet!
- Seems stable.
- Comes with lots of installed software: Word Processor, Photo Editing, Spreadsheet, a PDF viewer, FireFox,
Bad
- Somewhat slow (which I had expected.)
- I think that it will take me a long time to get used to GOS (Linux?), but my kids are doing fine with it. It took me about 5 minutes to figure out how to change the screen resolution. There are icons that I can't seem to get rid of, but I haven't tried too much.
- The little documentation that came with the machine was not 100% correct.
Overall: Seems like a great cheap computer for the kids and it may even be good for surfing the Web and learning about computers in general.
> About five people in Asia died from it and it was reported as a 'worldwide pandemic.' Why exaggerate? (More like 800 deaths.) http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Nook/5440/WHO-SARS-d ata-fits.html
If you type "10^11 eV / meter in lb" into a google box, you get (10^11) (eV / meter) = 3.60183597 × 10^-9 pound force
I believe the minimum wage in Norway is approximately 20 U.S. Dollars per hour.
>(1) Being more sick more often won't actually make a difference to how long you can expect to live? Sounds implausible.
Agreed.
>(2) Americans get sick more often but their health care is better so they live just as long or longer? Sounds more plausible, although it seems like too much of a coincidence that better healthcare is almost exactly balancing worse health.
I think this is plausible. I don't see the coincidence. When comparing life span, we must compare similar groups. For non-hispanic whites, americans live longer (i.e. the health care more than compensates for the high rate of illness.)
>(3) Maybe better access to health care in the US results in a higher rate of diagnosis, rather than a higher rate of illness? That would explain the nearly identical lifespan, but only if the better access to healthcare makes little difference to lifespan.
I imagine that heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes (type II) might be diagnosed more often in the US, but cancer, lung disease, and stroke seem much easier to diagnose and much harder to live without seeing a doctor.
>(4) A difference in medical culture, where doctors in the US are more likely to diagnose and attempt to treat problems that doctors in the UK would just tell their patients to live with? I know that psychiatrists and psychologists in the US are very quick to diagnose and prescribe drugs compared to Japan or New Zealand (the other two countries that I am familiar with). Maybe there is something similar going on with the medical profession in general.
See comment (3).
I would add
(5) Maybe the Brits don't like to report they have a disease and americans exaggerate. (Note that the incidence rate was self reported.)
>(1) Being more sick more often won't actually make a difference to how long you can expect to live? Sounds implausible. Agreed. >(2) Americans get sick more often but their health care is better so they live just as long or longer? Sounds more plausible, although it seems like too much of a coincidence that better healthcare is almost exactly balancing worse health. I think this is plausible. I don't see the coincidence. When comparing life span, we must compare similar groups. For non-hispanic whites, americans live longer (i.e. the health care more than compensates for the high rate of illness.) >(3) Maybe better access to health care in the US results in a higher rate of diagnosis, rather than a higher rate of illness? That would explain the nearly identical lifespan, but only if the better access to healthcare makes little difference to lifespan. I imagine that heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes (type II) might be diagnosed more often in the US, but cancer, lung disease, and stroke seem much easier to diagnose and much harder to live without seeing a doctor. >(4) A difference in medical culture, where doctors in the US are more likely to diagnose and attempt to treat problems that doctors in the UK would just tell their patients to live with? I know that psychiatrists and psychologists in the US are very quick to diagnose and prescribe drugs compared to Japan or New Zealand (the other two countries that I am familiar with). Maybe there is something similar going on with the medical profession in general. See comment 3. I would add (5) Maybe the Brits don't like to report they have a disease and americans exaggerate. (Note that the incidence rate was self reported.)
Do you have access to Mathematica now? Is there any use for Mathematica in your current work environment?
My daughter is in fourth grade and has spent about 2 weeks in a standard class room. The rest of the time she learned over the internet (PA virtual charter school) or, sometimes, she learned from her mother. Now days she gets up at 6 AM, starts reading, and is usually done by 10 or 11 AM, then she has fun while waiting for her friends to get home from school.
Channard wrote: >are sustained by an IV feeding beef stew directly into their bodies and hence never have to leave their desks. Ever.... You think this is funny now, but 20 years from now, the IV hookup might be the standard way to enjoy your gaming un-interupted.
What about the number lists? The best contestants memorized about 100 digits in 5 minutes. 100 digits contain log(10^100) / log(2) = 332 bits. That's 1.1 bits per second.
So, over a lifetime, the most anyone can memorize is about (1 bit/sec)*(3600 sec/hr)*(15 hr/day)*(365 day/year)*(80 years/lifetime) = 1.6 Gigabits = 200 Megabytes. Hmm.
Angular momentum of the earth.
L = (Mass Earth)*(Radius)^2/(Period)*(Some constant)
The mass of the earth is about 6*10^24 Kg.
To change the period of the eath's rotation by 1 sec per year, we would need a change of momentum of 1 part in 365*24*3600 = 3 * 10^7. So the mass removed to the L1 point would be on the order of
6*10^24/(3*10^7) = 2 * 10^17 Kg.
(Plus or minus a factor of 10.)
(Assuming that all the mass ejected from the rocket falls back to earth without being affected by the solar wind or other stuff. Also, the earth would spin faster, not slower.)
The nice thing about voice recognition is that you don't have to carry around a key board.
Kurzweil has been making predictions like this for many years.
http://www.kurzweilai.net
He has given a very detailed explanation why robots and thinking machines will create extraordinary change in the next century in his article "Law of Accelerated Returns"
http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?pr intable=1
and his books: "The age of Spiritual Machines" and "Are We Spiritual Machines?"
CMU robotics researcher Hans P. Moravec echos many of these thoughts in "Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind"
Bill Joy has a less optimistic response in Wired "Why the future doesn't need us".
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html(Oops, accentally hit submit. Here is the correctly formatted version.)
Gold Makes the following claim:
Gold claims that conservation of momentum would "accelerate the body to an energy content of Mvc." Assuming the object of mass M is initially at rest and radiation of energy E is shined upon the object and absorbed, then the "Resulting Kinetic Energy from conservation of momentum" is E^2/(2 c^2 M ) which is much not the same as Mvc unless v = 2 c. (A rather high velocity.) Check my math here.
Conservation of momentum:This is clearly not Mvc as Gold claims unless v = 2 c. Maybe I am misunderstanding what he means by v. Also, if all the incoming energy were converted to kinetic energy, then we get a "resulting kinetic energy from complete conversion" of RKEFCC = E. Notice that
So, unless the incoming energy is less than twice the total energy obtained from converting the object to pure energy,
Is there anything wrong with this argument?