Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Fractal Universe.

Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 3:47:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A fractal is "a rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be split into parts, each of which is a reduced-size copy of the whole,"[1] a property called self-similarity.

We humans are always in search of proportion. How big are we? How big is the universe? Am I tiny and insignificant? Or am I giant?

There is a chance that the universe is simply a fractal. We are on one level. There are many (if not infinite) levels above and below us. We live on a particle floating around a bigger particle. We are made of smaller particles (molecules) that are made of particles that are small particles floating around bigger particles (atoms). It is quite easy to see the redundancy in the universe. It would not surprise me if we were just floating on some level of a fractal. Indeed that very well may be so.

The universe is self similar.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 3:50:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2010 3:47:06 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
A fractal is "a rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be split into parts, each of which is a reduced-size copy of the whole,"[1] a property called self-similarity.

We humans are always in search of proportion. How big are we? How big is the universe? Am I tiny and insignificant? Or am I giant?

There is a chance that the universe is simply a fractal. We are on one level. There are many (if not infinite) levels above and below us. We live on a particle floating around a bigger particle. We are made of smaller particles (molecules) that are made of particles that are small particles floating around bigger particles (atoms). It is quite easy to see the redundancy in the universe. It would not surprise me if we were just floating on some level of a fractal. Indeed that very well may be so.

The universe is self similar.

There's some weird sh*t I came across doing research one day. It's like, if you look at a brain cell, and look at "the universe", the two look strikingly similar. Kind of cool.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 5:34:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
When I was twelve I same up with the hypothesis that the smallest particle is the universe, that it is infinitely contained within itself.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 9:12:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2010 5:34:22 PM, FREEDO wrote:
a personal anecdote that sounded deep

*mind explodes*
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2010 8:17:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2010 3:47:06 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
A fractal is "a rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be split into parts, each of which is a reduced-size copy of the whole,"[1] a property called self-similarity.

We humans are always in search of proportion. How big are we? How big is the universe? Am I tiny and insignificant? Or am I giant?

There is a chance that the universe is simply a fractal. We are on one level. There are many (if not infinite) levels above and below us. We live on a particle floating around a bigger particle. We are made of smaller particles (molecules) that are made of particles that are small particles floating around bigger particles (atoms). It is quite easy to see the redundancy in the universe. It would not surprise me if we were just floating on some level of a fractal. Indeed that very well may be so.

The universe is self similar.

Science has proven this, to an extent. According to physics, Euclidean mathematics, and topography, each "level" that you referred to bears the nomenclature "dimension" and becomes exponentially more complex, though analogous, with each rising level.

Rather than mirroring one another, each rests within the constraints of the higher, more complex manifestation of itself, by conforming to the shapes dictated by each dimension. In other words, a 2-manifold object is a single surface that aligns with 3-dimensional space. There is no such thing as a 1-manifold object, because it effectively translates as an edge, which is a much simpler expression of a surface and conforms to that surface's spacial expression. Accordingly, a 3-manifold object curves into a 4-dimensional space as a simpler expression of that higher dimension. This can potentially continue indefinitely, but that remains unknown. The fact is, though, that according to Euclidean mathematics and topography, it must continue forever, since each lower dimension must rest within a space that is complex enough to contain for it to exist. So, logically, it follows, and theoretically, it stands. In mathematics, higher dimensions are accepted all the time, as each respective variable as they apply to each higher dimension is conclusively applied to this equation: http://en.wikipedia.org....

I think we've gotten no farther than 5.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2010 8:23:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
...but, as far as a general structure that appears across all proportions, that should be somewhat obvious, given the same principles and general interactions apply. It isn't quite the shape and expression of energy that varies, but more, the interaction between matter and energy at the quantum level that lacks continuity. For example, although an electron is clearly a particle of light, it moves at a speed considerably slower than what's regarded as "the speed of light."
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2010 11:15:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/19/2010 11:21:52 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
@ren

why are electrons considered light?

Well...

...technically, they are an elementary particle of matter, much like photons, which are elementary particles of matter as well, and which comprise light. I guess it was just easier to say that they're basically synonymous with light, but they behave slightly differently. Formost, rather than existing in corresponding packets in the way that photons do, electrons actually exist so independently that no two electrons can be in the same quantum state at the same time. Another obvious example is that explained above--electrons do not move at the speed of light. However, for the most part, they act the same and play similar roles, such as exhibiting particle-wave dualities and contributing to electromagnetic interactions. In fact, we often use one to exhibit the other--we use light bulbs to create encased electromagnetic arcs--or, electrons that "jump" from one point in the filament to the other, releasing an explosion of photons to illuminate a room.

What I explained was an over-simplified summary and I guess that isn't fair. The reality is that they are two different subatomic particles, but their primary differences are in the role that they play, rather than their application to matter and reality. An electron could not move at the speed of light because it travels within such a small area. Therefore, by design, they would effectively cease to exist, because they would not remain in any one place for long enough to interact with other sources of energy.

I was pretty much using that to explain how everything has continuity, but that degree of continuity varies by proportion.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2010 10:53:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
...technically, they are an elementary particle of matter, much like photons, which are elementary particles of matter as well, and which comprise light. I guess it was just easier to say that they're basically synonymous with light, but they behave slightly differently.

They are both elementary particles of matter and both exhibit the wave-particle duality. There is no logical justification for taking those few similarities and then saying that electrons are basically synonymous with light because it isn't.

However, for the most part, they act the same and play similar roles, such as exhibiting particle-wave dualities and contributing to electromagnetic interactions.

Actually, photons, being the guage bosons of electromagnetic force, are the source of all electromagnetic interaction. The force is generally carried between electrons by photons, but photons are the sole keepers of electromagnetic interaction if you wanted to correctly state the above.

What I explained was an over-simplified summary and I guess that isn't fair.

Well it wasn't fair because it really isn't really true.

The reality is that they are two different subatomic particles, but their primary differences are in the role that they play, rather than their application to matter and reality.

Their primary difference is in almost every aspect except the most generic terms of modeling their behavior.

An electron could not move at the speed of light because it travels within such a small area. Therefore, by design, they would effectively cease to exist, because they would not remain in any one place for long enough to interact with other sources of energy.

The area within which something moves places no limit on its max velocity. Something could easily go very fast while going in a very, very small circle.

An electron can't move at the speed of light because it has mass and therefore under relativity would require infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2010 1:50:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/20/2010 10:53:20 AM, Floid wrote:
They are both elementary particles of matter and both exhibit the wave-particle duality. There is no logical justification for taking those few similarities and then saying that electrons are basically synonymous with light because it isn't.

Within the context of which I was discussing them, it was completely accurate.

Actually, photons, being the guage bosons of electromagnetic force, are the source of all electromagnetic interaction. The force is generally carried between electrons by photons, but photons are the sole keepers of electromagnetic interaction if you wanted to correctly state the above.

Well, genius, that's not entirely true, since we're being so pedantic. Photons are not the source of electromagnetic interaction, they are the sole carriers of electromagnetic force. As I explained, both photons and electrons are the source of electromagnetic interactions. In fact, just as gravity is distinct from matter, but would not exist without it (because it upon what the force of gravity acts), electromagnetism would not exist without electrons.

Well it wasn't fair because it really isn't really true.

An oversimplified version, for all intents and purposes, is never true, but rather, more germane and easier for the speaker. I am not a physics professor, but I do agree that I shouldn't have people calling them the same thing.

Their primary difference is in almost every aspect except the most generic terms of modeling their behavior.

Well... yeah, again, that's what an oversimplification is. Let me ask you something--given my explanation, what was the purpose of this post?

The area within which something moves places no limit on its max velocity.

What? First of all, everything moving in a circle is moving at a velocity of 0. Second, everything has a terminal velocity, after which it begins to disintegrate. That isn't the same as it's max velocity, which is the velocity at which it attains naturally. However, none of this applies to my explanation of the activity of an electron. It is necessary to explain it in that way, because electrons are illuminated and emit photons, but does not travel as fast as they do. Photons do not move in a circle.

Something could easily go very fast while going in a very, very small circle.

Yeah? Like, how fast?

An electron can't move at the speed of light because it has mass and therefore under relativity would require infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light.

I think CERN disagrees. They've gotten close enough to make you sound foolish, anyway.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2010 8:02:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/20/2010 1:50:20 PM, Ren wrote:
At 12/20/2010 10:53:20 AM, Floid wrote:
They are both elementary particles of matter and both exhibit the wave-particle duality. There is no logical justification for taking those few similarities and then saying that electrons are basically synonymous with light because it isn't.

Within the context of which I was discussing them, it was completely accurate.

Saying "For example, although an electron is clearly a particle of light" is never an accurate statement in any context.

Actually, photons, being the guage bosons of electromagnetic force, are the source of all electromagnetic interaction. The force is generally carried between electrons by photons, but photons are the sole keepers of electromagnetic interaction if you wanted to correctly state the above.

Well, genius, that's not entirely true, since we're being so pedantic. Photons are not the source of electromagnetic interaction, they are the sole carriers of electromagnetic force.

As I am sure you where aware but just overlooked, that is the definition of a guage boson. Why repeat what I already said?

In fact, just as gravity is distinct from matter, but would not exist without it (because it upon what the force of gravity acts), electromagnetism would not exist without electrons.

I think you are confusing the idea with something existing and something being in action. If nothing with mass existed, there would be nothing for gravity to act on, but how do you know that would mean gravity didn't exist? I would argue instead that it would be sitting around in its "potential" energy form.

Why? If all matter magically disappeared and this ended the laws of gravity, what would happen if matter magically reappeared? Would gravity spring back into being as well? Would it act exactly the same and if so why? Who or what remembered how gravity was supposed to act since it ceased existing along with matter? Instead I would say gravity still existed but was dormant because it had nothing to act on.

To use Occam's Razor argument (since it appears you have an affinity for it from previous debates), my argument is a much simpler one. Gravity has an independent existence from the things it acts on. The same is true in EM.

Well it wasn't fair because it really isn't really true.

An oversimplified version, for all intents and purposes, is never true, but rather, more germane and easier for the speaker. I am not a physics professor, but I do agree that I shouldn't have people calling them the same thing.

All you had to do is say "you know you are right, I misspoke, electrons are clearly not particles of light". Instead you tried to justify a false statement.

The area within which something moves places no limit on its max velocity.

What? First of all, everything moving in a circle is moving at a velocity of 0.

I think that explains all your previous posts on scientific topics perfectly.

Second, everything has a terminal velocity, after which it begins to disintegrate.

Sadly that isn't true. At exactly what velocity does an electron disintegrate? You can get a PhD in physics from the university of your choice if you can answer that question and back it up with peer reviewable analysis.

Something could easily go very fast while going in a very, very small circle.

Yeah? Like, how fast?

Really close to the speed of light if it has mass, the speed of light if its a photon.

An electron can't move at the speed of light because it has mass and therefore under relativity would require infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light.

I think CERN disagrees. They've gotten close enough to make you sound foolish, anyway.

I think CERN would agree 100% as what I stated is the most basic of physics knowledge. The Hadron Collider is theorized to be able to get subatomic particles to 99.9% the speed of light. But ohh yeah, that really should be 0 because the Hadron Collider accelerates things in a circle and you already stated things moving in a circle don't have a velocity.

Ignoring that nugget of scientific wisdom, what I said was 100% accurate. You can't accelerate a particle with mass to the speed of light. The only person sound foolish is the one that is arguing against a limit by saying "you can get really close to that limit!".
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2010 11:19:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/21/2010 8:02:20 AM, Floid wrote:
Saying "For example, although an electron is clearly a particle of light" is never an accurate statement in any context.

I don't think that it's a statement specific enough to be that conclusively inaccurate. The fact is that photons emanate from electrons, so, as an oversimplification within context, it applies.

As I am sure you where aware but just overlooked, that is the definition of a guage boson. Why repeat what I already said?

Because you indicated that it's what photons are as well, which, under your same stringent and dogmatic interpretation of this conversation, is entirely fallacious.

I think you are confusing the idea with something existing and something being in action. If nothing with mass existed, there would be nothing for gravity to act on, but how do you know that would mean gravity didn't exist? I would argue instead that it would be sitting around in its "potential" energy form.

Ehhh, not quite. With no matter, there is no gravity. Potential energy is stored energy. Gravity without matter would have nowhere to be, as it cannot suspend independently in space. That was actually the point of the metaphor.

Why? If all matter magically disappeared and this ended the laws of gravity, what would happen if matter magically reappeared? Would gravity spring back into being as well?

Yeah.

Would it act exactly the same and if so why?

Depends on whether the nature of matter altered.

Who or what remembered how gravity was supposed to act since it ceased existing along with matter?

This is a conjectural supposition.

Instead I would say gravity still existed but was dormant because it had nothing to act on.

Existent where?

To use Occam's Razor argument (since it appears you have an affinity for it from previous debates),

I do.

my argument is a much simpler one. Gravity has an independent existence from the things it acts on. The same is true in EM.

Yeah? Prove it.

An oversimplified version, for all intents and purposes, is never true, but rather, more germane and easier for the speaker. I am not a physics professor, but I do agree that I shouldn't have people calling them the same thing.
All you had to do is say "you know you are right, I misspoke, electrons are clearly not particles of light". Instead you tried to justify a false statement.

No, I didn't. Way to be quarrelsome, though.

What? First of all, everything moving in a circle is moving at a velocity of 0.

I think that explains all your previous posts on scientific topics perfectly.

I think it better illustrates the underlying issues in this conversation. Velocity is a vector quantity, described mathematically as delta distance/delta time, or change in distance over change in time. Instantaneous velocity (or average velocity, interchangeably) is speed, a scalar quantity known mathematically as simply d/t, or distance over time. Since movement in a circle causes direction to constantly change, its velocity is indefinable, but you can determine projected velocity using vectors a la calculus. Its speed, however, is rather simple to calculate.

Second, everything has a terminal velocity, after which it begins to disintegrate.

Sadly that isn't true. At exactly what velocity does an electron disintegrate? You can get a PhD in physics from the university of your choice if you can answer that question and back it up with peer reviewable analysis.

I don't need to back it up; an electron is an elementary particle, so it is in part into what something would disintegrate.

Really close to the speed of light if it has mass, the speed of light if its a photon.

Wouldn't the proportion of mass determine how close to the speed of light it can get? Funny how subatomic particles can accelerate to the same speed with the same energy acting upon them, though with drastically differing masses.

I think CERN would agree 100% as what I stated is the most basic of physics knowledge. The Hadron Collider is theorized to be able to get subatomic particles to 99.9% the speed of light. But ohh yeah, that really should be 0 because the Hadron Collider accelerates things in a circle and you already stated things moving in a circle don't have a velocity.

They don't. They have a speed. This is why they accelerate things to the speed of light, rather than the velocity of light, which likewise, has no meaning, since photons exhibit that pesky particle-wave duality.

Ignoring that nugget of scientific wisdom,

Hehe.

what I said was 100% accurate.

Nooootttt quite. ;)

You can't accelerate a particle with mass to the speed of light. The only person sound foolish is the one that is arguing against a limit by saying "you can get really close to that limit!".

You can, quite irreverent of an object's (or, in this case, subparticle's) mass.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2010 7:44:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/21/2010 11:19:53 PM, Ren wrote:
At 12/21/2010 8:02:20 AM, Floid wrote:
Saying "For example, although an electron is clearly a particle of light" is never an accurate statement in any context.

I don't think that it's a statement specific enough to be that conclusively inaccurate. The fact is that photons emanate from electrons, so, as an oversimplification within context, it applies.

Yeah, and diamonds are made of iron. They aren't you say? Well diamonds are made of carbon atoms and iron is a type of atom, so in the context in which I made that statement, it isn't inaccurate to say diamonds are made of iron.

Do you see how rediculous what you are suggesting sounds?

The rest of the discussion is pretty pointless. If you really think that the velocity of something going in a circle is zero then any discussion of science with you is futile because there is no basis for communicating ideas.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2010 9:36:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/22/2010 7:44:32 AM, Floid wrote:
At 12/21/2010 11:19:53 PM, Ren wrote:
At 12/21/2010 8:02:20 AM, Floid wrote:
Saying "For example, although an electron is clearly a particle of light" is never an accurate statement in any context.

I don't think that it's a statement specific enough to be that conclusively inaccurate. The fact is that photons emanate from electrons, so, as an oversimplification within context, it applies.

Yeah, and diamonds are made of iron. They aren't you say? Well diamonds are made of carbon atoms and iron is a type of atom, so in the context in which I made that statement, it isn't inaccurate to say diamonds are made of iron.

Are you meaning to tell me that iron releases carbon?

Do you see how rediculous what you are suggesting sounds?

The rest of the discussion is pretty pointless. If you really think that the velocity of something going in a circle is zero then any discussion of science with you is futile because there is no basis for communicating ideas.

"Because the radius of the circle is constant, the radial component of the velocity is zero."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I even explained it to you mathematically.

For shame, Floid. For shame. Thou shalt never cause thy pride to get in the way of thy reasoning.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2010 11:48:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The rest of the discussion is pretty pointless. If you really think that the velocity of something going in a circle is zero then any discussion of science with you is futile because there is no basis for communicating ideas.

"Because the radius of the circle is constant, the radial component of the velocity is zero."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I even explained it to you mathematically.

For shame, Floid. For shame. Thou shalt never cause thy pride to get in the way of thy reasoning.

There is no reason to cite sources you don't even understand. Of course the radial velocity of something travelling in a circle is zero... it wouldn't be travelling in a circle if it was anything else. Since it appears you don't understand the very source you cite, saying the radial velocity is zero means that as an object travels in a circle it stays the same distance from the center. Great find there...

But we aren't discussing radial velocity and that isn't what you said earlier. You said the velocity of an object travelling in a circle is zero, which anyone who understood middle school physics knows is not true.

You then further muddle your understanding of the subject by introducing the concept of velocity as a vector, which you don't understand either. Here is a hint: the direction portion of the velocity vector of an object travelling in a circle is constantly changing. What does that tell us? Well immediately we should no that the objects velocity is not zero because zero is a constant value, so if the velocity is changing how can it be zero as you stated?

In the future, it is much easier to understand scientific ideas if you start with the big picture they describe. Test your statements against common sense applications before you make them. Example:

If an airplane flies around the Earth, does it have a velocity? Of course, its moving. Anything that moves has a velocity. Yet an airplane flying around the Earth it is making a circle, which you state means it has zero velocity. So yet again, immediately you should be able to realize your idea is wrong.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2010 1:41:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/22/2010 11:48:11 AM, Floid wrote:
The rest of the discussion is pretty pointless. If you really think that the velocity of something going in a circle is zero then any discussion of science with you is futile because there is no basis for communicating ideas.

"Because the radius of the circle is constant, the radial component of the velocity is zero."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I even explained it to you mathematically.

For shame, Floid. For shame. Thou shalt never cause thy pride to get in the way of thy reasoning.

There is no reason to cite sources you don't even understand. Of course the radial velocity of something travelling in a circle is zero... it wouldn't be travelling in a circle if it was anything else. Since it appears you don't understand the very source you cite, saying the radial velocity is zero means that as an object travels in a circle it stays the same distance from the center. Great find there...

But we aren't discussing radial velocity and that isn't what you said earlier. You said the velocity of an object travelling in a circle is zero, which anyone who understood middle school physics knows is not true.

Radial velocity is velocity based on direction as it applies to the observer. This is the only real applicable velocity, lest velocity would always be measured based on periodic measurements requiring either the precise measurement of whatever plane on which it's traveling or the tangent function of an object's direction, given it were not travelling on any given plane (which, for all intents and purposes, is wholly impractical on Earth, since it is generally spherical).

After I finished chuckling, it occurred to me that you may not know what radial velocity is, actually.

You then further muddle your understanding of the subject by introducing the concept of velocity as a vector, which you don't understand either. Here is a hint: the direction portion of the velocity vector of an object travelling in a circle is constantly changing. What does that tell us? Well immediately we should no that the objects velocity is not zero because zero is a constant value, so if the velocity is changing how can it be zero as you stated?

That tells us that unless we acknowledge that the Earth's gravity is always applying centripetal force, resulting in no instances of constant direction, and assume that an object travelling in a circle is constantly accelerating, resulting in an approximation at best using pi, we can simply assume that the velocity is undefinable, since we know that our measurement of velocity of an object travelling in a circle cannot predict the position of that object with any degree of precision.

In the future, it is much easier to understand scientific ideas if you start with the big picture they describe. Test your statements against common sense applications before you make them. Example:

If an airplane flies around the Earth, does it have a velocity? Of course, its moving. Anything that moves has a velocity. Yet an airplane flying around the Earth it is making a circle, which you state means it has zero velocity. So yet again, immediately you should be able to realize your idea is wrong.

Do you mean to tell me that it would require a tangent function or the utilization of pi to determine the velocity of an airplane travelling around the Earth?
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2010 4:05:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm not quite sure that I get what the argument is about here...

Based on a centre-point reference, everything that travels in a cirlce has a radial velocity (equal to 0 when the distance to the center doesn't change), an instantaneous linear velocity tangent to the path, and most importantly a non-zero angular velocity (surprised I haven't seen this mentioned at all, considering we're talking about circular motion). Where is the disagreement? There is no global velocity vector that encompasses all three components that you can say is equal to zero... if that's what this is about.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 10:47:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/22/2010 4:05:26 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
I'm not quite sure that I get what the argument is about here...

Based on a centre-point reference, everything that travels in a cirlce has a radial velocity (equal to 0 when the distance to the center doesn't change), an instantaneous linear velocity tangent to the path, and most importantly a non-zero angular velocity (surprised I haven't seen this mentioned at all, considering we're talking about circular motion). Where is the disagreement? There is no global velocity vector that encompasses all three components that you can say is equal to zero... if that's what this is about.

Essentially, Floid is attempting to prove that I know diddly squat about physics. I think it's because I was so derisive in another thread. I think he was playing Devil's Advocate, which was fine, but the way he approached me on the topic was a little irritating, so I pretty much mocked him the entire time.

Can't say it was very mature, but it was fun.

I kind of like Floid, actually. The only real conversation I've had on this site over the last week has been with him.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2010 8:15:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Radial velocity is velocity based on direction as it applies to the observer.

Only if the observer is standing at the center of the circle that the object IN MOTION (i.e. WITH A VELOCITY) is travelling. And then it only means that the object is not changing distance from the observer and not that the object does not have a velocity, which is what we are discussing. We are discussing the velocity of an object moving in a circle and how that applies to the the limits of special relativity which has nothing to do with

lest velocity would always be measured based on periodic measurements requiring either the precise measurement of whatever plane on which it's traveling or the tangent function of an object's direction, given it were not travelling on any given plane (which, for all intents and purposes, is wholly impractical on Earth, since it is generally spherical).

This may come as a complete shock to you, but we are able to model things like spheres mathematically in three dimensions... astounding isn't it?

That tells us that unless we acknowledge that the Earth's gravity is always applying centripetal force, resulting in no instances of constant direction, and assume that an object travelling in a circle is constantly accelerating, resulting in an approximation at best using pi, we can simply assume that the velocity is undefinable, since we know that our measurement of velocity of an object travelling in a circle cannot predict the position of that object with any degree of precision.

What does Earth's gravity have to do with anything. Remember, try to keep it simple because you haven't yet mastered the most basic of concepts. Lets pretend this object is flying in a circle in deep space, where the gravitational forces on it are inconsequential to any calculations.

Now please answer this question: If an object moving in a circle has a constantly changing direction and therefore a constantly changing velocity (since as you pointed out velocity is a vector), how can its velocity be zero as you originally stated?

Do you mean to tell me that it would require a tangent function or the utilization of pi to determine the velocity of an airplane travelling around the Earth?

Sure, why not... and guess what the result would be? NOT ZERO.

You were wrong, just admit it...
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2010 8:18:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Essentially, Floid is attempting to prove that I know diddly squat about physics

"For example, although an electron is clearly a particle of light" - Ren 12/19/2010 at 8:23AM

"What? First of all, everything moving in a circle is moving at a velocity of 0" - Ren 12/20/2010 1:50PM

Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2010 2:25:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Haha, relax, bro.

Velocity is a vector quantity. It requires motion in a given direction, not simply motion. This is what makes it distinct from speed.

All spacial measurements are relative.

You do not need vectors to determine the velocity of an airplane travelling around the earth unless your point of reference were from somewhere other than earth.

Look, dude, it's clear that you know a little bit of physics, but you haven't mastered it.

Certainly not enough to start posting in all bold caps.

Latin isn't impressive, either.

Just chill, review the conversation, and take your medication.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2010 4:43:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
at best something moving in a circle may have an average velocity of zero, depending on what interval you take the average over, and assuming no change in speed throughout (or changes in speed that average out so as to cancel one another). but it always has an angular velocity and an instantaneous translational velocity.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 11:19:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/28/2010 2:25:29 PM, Ren wrote:
Haha, relax, bro.

Velocity is a vector quantity. It requires motion in a given direction, not simply motion. This is what makes it distinct from speed.

All spacial measurements are relative.

You do not need vectors to determine the velocity of an airplane travelling around the earth unless your point of reference were from somewhere other than earth.

A couple of problems here:

The first is that though velocity vector requires both magnitude and direction, the magnitude (speed) alone is enough to know that an object does have a definable velocity vector. If an object is moving, then it has to be moving in some direction, therefore it has a velocity. This is why your original statement than an object moving in a circle has a velocity of zero was so ridiculous. If an object is moving we know automatically that it has a velocity. We might not know what that velocity is, we might not be able to mathematically model it, but we know one thing for certain: the object's velocity is not zero if it is moving.

The second is that you directly contradict yourself from one statement to the other. First you say velocity is a vector quantity and then you say vectors aren't needed to determine the velocity of an airplane. The scientific community has long since come to the consensus of your original statement (velocity is a vector) and that to determine the velocity of an airplane travelling around the Earth you would need to determine that vector's value (or more than likely you would determine the general equation that defines its velocity vector since it is constantly changing). But since your opinions and the scientific consensus seems to diverge on a number of issues, you might as well illuminate us with your opinion on this subject as well.

Look, dude, it's clear that you know a little bit of physics, but you haven't mastered it.

I know very little about physics and you just happened to stumble upon on of the few things I do know:

1.) Light is made of photons and not electrons.
2.) An object in motion has a non-zero velocity.

I might could expand that list to 10 or so if I really tried...

Certainly not enough to start posting in all bold caps.

I was hoping to break the barrier of willfull ignorance with the darker letters. I don't think it worked.

Latin isn't impressive, either.

Come on, it would have been imperssive if I didn't have to look it up. I knew Q.E.D. and what it means, but I did have to google the actual term.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 11:38:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/29/2010 11:19:38 AM, Floid wrote:
I was hoping to break the barrier of willfull ignorance with the darker letters. I don't think it worked.

I think there are more constructive ways you can go about discovering the wonders of mathematics, physics, and aerodynamics. I suggest you start with instantaneous tangential velocity, vector quantity, vector equation of a plane, and angular velocity.

Bear in mind that instantaneous tangential velocity depends on a single moment.

Also consider the fact that angular velocity depends on a single position.

(Here's another hint--your answers lay in Calculus, not physics. You're welcome.)

Come on, it would have been imperssive if I didn't have to look it up. I knew Q.E.D. and what it means, but I did have to google the actual term.

I know, Floid. I know.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2010 12:22:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You know, it's kind of incredible to me that you clearly haven't even so much as looked anything up since this conversation began.