0 to 100km distance in one second

[geoffrey]

Hi I’m Geoffrey Thomas recently registered. I’ve been working on a project about the potential for Einstein’s theory of relativity time dilation effect at an extreme velocity of 0 to 160km distance (or 100 miles) in one second.
Apart from beining incinerated and polverised to a pulp by the horrific G-force involved the initial acceleration would be 0kmph to 80km distance in half second. After all the maxium speed of star light in the zero reistance of open space travels just under 300 thousand km the same time.

To be stopped at a total of a 160km distance this would have to be terminal I call the terminal acceleration point.

At this point a deceleration to 0kmph in a 80km distance in another half second would need to apply. We have a total distance of 160km in a whole second or by the time we say one thousand and one.

According to Einstein’s theory we should observe the observed environment go though some radical changes during the initial half second of time. The observed environment should stretch out of shape and it’s time slow down during the acceleration. When we hit terminal acceleration the environment’s stretching and time should become a constant.

At this point on deceleration everything should reverse. The observed environment should start compressing back and time speed up back to normal. As we hit 0kmph at 160km distance from point A we’d be in present time only a second latter.

We may observe the normal environment half second stretch longer and longer in time as we accelerate towards terminal acceleration. It would probably appear the equalvialnt minutes, hours or even days who knows.

Just how long the environment would appear constant at the terminal point is not yet assessed But I’m sure we’d observe everything inverted as opposed to accelerating forward would apply at deceleration back to normal once we hit 0kmph at 160km distance from where we started. Only a second latter.

[TjW]

No.

[six7s]

Ask Santa if you can borrow his set-up

Consider the following:

1) No known species of reindeer can fly. But there are 300,000 species of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects and germs, this does not COMPLETELY rule out flying reindeer which only Santa has ever seen.

2) There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world. BUT since Santa doesn't (appear) to handle the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist children, that reduces the workload to 15% of the total - 378 million according to Population Reference Bureau. At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per household, that's 91.8 million homes. One presumes there's at least one good child in each.

3) Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical).

This works out to 822.6 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the sleigh and move on to the next house.

Assuming that each of these 91.8 million stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept), we are now talking about 0.78 miles per household, a total trip of 75.5 million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least once every 31 hours, plus feeding and etc.

This means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man- made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second - a conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour.

4) The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized lego set (2 pounds), the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably described as overweight.

On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that 'flying reindeer' (see point #1) could pull TEN TIMES the normal amount, we cannot do the job with eight, or even nine.

We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload - not even counting the weight of the sleigh - to 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison - this is four times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth.

5) 353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance - this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as spacecraft re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy. Per second. Each.

In short, they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them, and create deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire reindeer team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second.

Santa, meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces 17,500.06 times greater than gravity. A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force.

In conclusion

If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's dead now.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Geoff. How about instead of a word problem you show us some formulas?

[Thabiguy]

Hi I’m Geoffrey Thomas recently registered.

Hi Geoffrey Thomas, and welcome to JREF forum.

I’ve been working on a project about the potential for Einstein’s theory of relativity time dilation effect at an extreme velocity of 0 to 160km distance (or 100 miles) in one second.
Apart from beining incinerated and polverised to a pulp by the horrific G-force involved the initial acceleration would be 0kmph to 80km distance in half second. After all the maxium speed of star light in the zero reistance of open space travels just under 300 thousand km the same time.

To be stopped at a total of a 160km distance this would have to be terminal I call the terminal acceleration point.

At this point a deceleration to 0kmph in a 80km distance in another half second would need to apply. We have a total distance of 160km in a whole second or by the time we say one thousand and one.

This is somewhat vague; I will assume you mean uniform acceleration from rest for 0.5 seconds, followed by uniform deceleration for 0.5 seconds, passing 80 km during each leg, 160 km total.

This implies acceleration 640 km/s2 and maximum velocity 320 km/s.

According to Einstein’s theory we should observe the observed environment go though some radical changes during the initial half second of time. The observed environment should stretch out of shape and it’s time slow down during the acceleration. When we hit terminal acceleration the environment’s stretching and time should become a constant.

First of all, no. The maximum velocity (320 km/s) is far too slow for relativistic effects to be "radical". For example, time dilation would "slow down" time at that velocity by less than one millionth.

If your velocity was much higher, there would indeed be visible changes to the surrounding environment. You may want to look at this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4) which nicely illustrates some of the visual effects expected at relativistic speeds.

At this point on deceleration everything should reverse. The observed environment should start compressing back and time speed up back to normal. As we hit 0kmph at 160km distance from point A we’d be in present time only a second latter.

We may observe the normal environment half second stretch longer and longer in time as we accelerate towards terminal acceleration. It would probably appear the equalvialnt minutes, hours or even days who knows.

The maximum velocity (320 km/s) is far too slow for relativistic effects to be significant. Only the most precise clocks, like atomic clocks, would be able to even measure any difference as a result of that one-second flight.

If your velocity was much higher (for example if the distance to travel in 1 second was way more than 160 km), then you might observe time dilation effects, but not as you describe them. If the experiment setup was specified from the outside point of view, then the surrounding environment will experience exactly the prescribed 1 second after the trip - because that's how they run the experiment. On the other hand, the traveller will experience shorter time than that - for her it will appear that the acceleration was not uniform, steeper than the experimenters claimed, the top speed also higher than the experimenters claimed, and the whole trip took less than a second.

(Or you could setup the experiment in such a way that the trip would seem as a mere second to the traveller, but as minutes to the outside world. But then the traveller would have to travel very close to the speed of light, and she would have to travel many millions of kilometers - the distance that light would travel during all those minutes.)

[erlando]

Your experiment is not even scratching the surface of relativistic speeds. Time dilation effects would be near impossible to measure.

[FireGarden]

This is somewhat vague; I will assume you mean uniform acceleration from rest for 0.5 seconds, followed by uniform deceleration for 0.5 seconds, passing 80 km during each leg, 160 km total.

This implies acceleration 640 km/s2 and maximum velocity 320 km/s.



First of all, no. The maximum velocity (320 km/s) is far too slow for relativistic effects to be "radical". For example, time dilation would "slow down" time at that velocity by less than one millionth.

I thought his point was that the acceleration is huge, and comparing acceleration to gravity. Wouldn't you get time dilation results from that? 640 km/s2 is quite a bit more than g.

[FireGarden]

Actually, looking at the formula given here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
1 + gh / c^2

c is about 1000 times bigger than each of g and h. So not too much time dilation.

[PixyMisa]

Hi I’m Geoffrey Thomas recently registered. I’ve been working on a project about the potential for Einstein’s theory of relativity time dilation effect at an extreme velocity of 0 to 160km distance (or 100 miles) in one second.
That's not extreme.

Now, 100 thousand miles in one second would be extreme. Then you would see some relativistic effects.

[portlandatheist]

a conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour.

I think a conventional reindeer's top speed is more on the order of ~40 miles per hour
:)

[vIQleS]

Geoffrey is a regular customer of mine at the library...

He asked if I could think of anyone that would have a look at his musings and give some friendly helpful critiques.

Of course I immediately thought of the JREF. :-D

He also wanted to post his blog:

http://riplyesbeleiveitornot.blogspot.com/

Have a read and give some feedback...

[drkitten]

Geoffrey is a regular customer of mine at the library...


Have a read and give some feedback...

Wow.

[Molinaro]

A little bit of science never hurt... or maybe it does.

[I Ratant]

I think a conventional reindeer's top speed is more on the order of ~40 miles per hour
:)
.
And the number of "good Christian children" is seriously -overestimated-!

[wollery]

http://riplyesbeleiveitornot.blogspot.com/

Have a read and give some feedback...Extreme misunderstanding of physics, written in almost unintelligible stream of conciousness.

[six7s]

Extreme misunderstanding of physics, written in almost unintelligible stream of conciousness.Fairy Nuff

So... how many reindeer are required, then?

[wollery]

Fairy Nuff

So... how many reindeer are required, then?Conventional or unconventional?

[six7s]

Conventional or unconventional?:confused:

Shirley they haven't got time to attend no conventions

[wollery]

:confused:

Shirley they haven't got time to attend no conventionsThere's plenty of time between Christmases, and don't call me Shirley!

[geoffrey]

Hi Geoffrey Thomas, and welcome to JREF forum.



This is somewhat vague; I will assume you mean uniform acceleration from rest for 0.5 seconds, followed by uniform deceleration for 0.5 seconds, passing 80 km during each leg, 160 km total.

This implies acceleration 640 km/s2 and maximum velocity 320 km/s.



First of all, no. The maximum velocity (320 km/s) is far too slow for relativistic effects to be "radical". For example, time dilation would "slow down" time at that velocity by less than one millionth.

If your velocity was much higher, there would indeed be visible changes to the surrounding environment. You may want to look at which nicely illustrates some of the visual effects expected at relativistic speeds.



The maximum velocity (320 km/s) is far too slow for relativistic effects to be significant. Only the most precise clocks, like atomic clocks, would be able to even measure any difference as a result of that one-second flight.

If your velocity was much higher (for example if the distance to travel in 1 second was way more than 160 km), then you might observe time dilation effects, but not as you describe them. If the experiment setup was specified from the outside point of view, then the surrounding environment will experience exactly the prescribed 1 second after the trip - because that's how they run the experiment. On the other hand, the traveller will experience shorter time than that - for her it will appear that the acceleration was not uniform, steeper than the experimenters claimed, the top speed also higher than the experimenters claimed, and the whole trip took less than a second.

(Or you could setup the experiment in such a way that the trip would seem as a mere second to the traveller, but as minutes to the outside world. But then the traveller would have to travel very close to the speed of light, and she would have to travel many millions of kilometers - the distance that light would travel during all those minutes.)

That I've been corected in my first thread, What I’d like to know now, apart from being crushed, pulverized and then incinerated, what would it be like to do that distance in one second flat? If we were to descibe a scienairo what would we descibe the obsever would expeince?

[Reality Check]

That I've been corected in my first thread, What I’d like to know now, apart from being crushed, pulverized and then incinerated, what would it be like to do that distance in one second flat? If we were to descibe a scienairo what would we descibe the obsever would expeince?
As other posters have stated: The observer would observe about what they would observe at rest. They would see the light from stars in front red-shifted by about 1 part in a million. The light from stars behind them would be blue-shifted by the same amount.

[Gr8wight]

He also wanted to post his blog:

http://riplyesbeleiveitornot.blogspot.com/

Have a read and give some feedback...

Quick bit of feedback for him: there was a spelling mistake in the title of the top article. The misspelled word was, "the." I didn't read any further.

[wollery]

As other posters have stated: The observer would observe about what they would observe at rest. They would see the light from stars in front red-shifted by about 1 part in a million. The light from stars behind them would be blue-shifted by the same amount.I think you've got that the wrong way round. The stars in front would be blue shifted, the ones behind red shifted.

[Dan O.]

That I've been corected in my first thread, What I’d like to know now, apart from being crushed, pulverized and then incinerated, what would it be like to do that distance in one second flat? If we were to descibe a scienairo what would we descibe the obsever would expeince?

Well, take a good look around because with respect to the CMB, we are moving at about 370 km/s.

[arthwollipot]

:popcorn1

[Thabiguy]

That I've been corected in my first thread, What I’d like to know now, apart from being crushed, pulverized and then incinerated, what would it be like to do that distance in one second flat? If we were to descibe a scienairo what would we descibe the obsever would expeince?

I believe I already answered that.

In the experiment that you described, the speed is too small for relativistic effects to be notable, so you wouldn't experience anything special (beside being crushed, pulverized and incinerated).

If the speed was much higher (for example, if you crossed much longer distance during that 1 second), you would experience the following relativistic effects:
- the view of the surrounding world would be distorted (see the video I linked for illustration),
- you would experience time dilation: the trip would take 1 second as measured by bystanders, but for you it would be less than 1 second. So if your clock was synchronized with others before the trip, after the trip it would run late by a part of a second.

[Geckko]

Hi I’m Geoffrey Thomas recently registered. I’ve been working on a project about the potential for Einstein’s theory of relativity time dilation effect at an extreme velocity of 0 to 160km distance (or 100 miles) in one second.
Apart from beining incinerated and polverised to a pulp by the horrific G-force involved the initial acceleration would be 0kmph to 80km distance in half second. After all the maxium speed of star light in the zero reistance of open space travels just under 300 thousand km the same time.

To be stopped at a total of a 160km distance this would have to be terminal I call the terminal acceleration point.

At this point a deceleration to 0kmph in a 80km distance in another half second would need to apply. We have a total distance of 160km in a whole second or by the time we say one thousand and one.

According to Einstein’s theory we should observe the observed environment go though some radical changes during the initial half second of time. The observed environment should stretch out of shape and it’s time slow down during the acceleration. When we hit terminal acceleration the environment’s stretching and time should become a constant.

At this point on deceleration everything should reverse. The observed environment should start compressing back and time speed up back to normal. As we hit 0kmph at 160km distance from point A we’d be in present time only a second latter.

We may observe the normal environment half second stretch longer and longer in time as we accelerate towards terminal acceleration. It would probably appear the equalvialnt minutes, hours or even days who knows.

Just how long the environment would appear constant at the terminal point is not yet assessed But I’m sure we’d observe everything inverted as opposed to accelerating forward would apply at deceleration back to normal once we hit 0kmph at 160km distance from where we started. Only a second latter.

It would be very blurry and you might bring up your lunch.

[Cuddles]

Fairy Nuff

So... how many reindeer are required, then?

African or European?

[Belz...]

Hi I’m Geoffrey Thomas recently registered. I’ve been working on a project about the potential for Einstein’s theory of relativity time dilation effect at an extreme velocity of 0 to 160km distance (or 100 miles) in one second.

A projet about what what ?

Apart from beining incinerated and polverised to a pulp by the horrific G-force involved the initial acceleration would be 0kmph to 80km distance in half second.

That's not how acceleration works.

After all the maxium speed of star light in the zero reistance of open space travels just under 300 thousand km the same time.

Why distinguish "star light" from "light" ? And what's this "maximum speed" nonsense ?

To be stopped at a total of a 160km distance this would have to be terminal I call the terminal acceleration point.

You can call it sweet cakes, if you want.

According to Einstein’s theory we should observe the observed environment go though some radical changes during the initial half second of time. The observed environment should stretch out of shape and it’s time slow down during the acceleration. When we hit terminal acceleration the environment’s stretching and time should become a constant.

No. Light travels at 300,000 km per second. If you do 160 (or 320) km per second you're going at about 0.1% of that speed. I don't think the time dilation would be significant.

[geoffrey]

As other posters have stated: The observer would observe about what they would observe at rest. They would see the light from stars in front red-shifted by about 1 part in a million. The light from stars behind them would be blue-shifted by the same amount.

Boy racers who quote how powerful their cars are refer to 0 to so 60 in so many seconds right?

I’ve heard some petral heads discuss physics terms their vehicle pulls a few G’s and doing the tone. If they use G’s and doing the tone surly they must be aware and learnt from some G-force properties pulling them back into their seats when at competition race take off’s and at maximum speeds.

What about record braking quarter mile drag cars? Surly there’s a fair amount of G-force. Once I saw an example of G-force on TV. A drag car driver shoved back into his seat at take off. Aonther example advetising a shaver showing a jet fighter breaking to peices durying a high speed run.

What about 0 to the maximum speed of a formulae one racing car in several seconds they take to reach maximum speed.

And what about Rolla Coaster rides. They seem to pull a fair amount of G-force at down hill speeds and sharp bends at speed without slowing down.

If G-force is a natural consequence of accelleration physics in every day life what then would happen to 1kg from 0 to 160kmph (or 100mph) in 1 second or to a distance of 160 in the same time.

[six7s]

The thing that separates boy racers from physicists and engineers is that there aren't degree-level courses in boy racing

Luckily, the answers to all of your questions (and much more!) can be found in books, often located in libraries attached to schools that teach things like physics and engineering - coincidence or what?!?!?

[geoffrey]

A projet about what what ?



That's not how acceleration works.



Why distinguish "star light" from "light" ? And what's this "maximum speed" nonsense ?



You can call it sweet cakes, if you want.



No. Light travels at 300,000 km per second. If you do 160 (or 320) km per second you're going at about 0.1% of that speed. I don't think the time dilation would be significant.

I've heard boy racers quote how powerful their cars are when they refer to 0 to 60 in so many seconds.

Some have even discussed some physics terms their vehicle pulls a few G’s and doing the tone. If they use these surly they must be aware and learnt from some G-force properties pulling them back into their seats when at competition race take off modes and whemn they reach maximum speeds.

What about record braking quarter mile drag cars? Surly there’s a fair amount of G-force. Once I saw an example of G-force on TV. A drag car driver shoved back into his seat at take off. Aonther example advetising a shaver when showing a jet fighter breaking to peices durying a high speed run.

What about 0 to the maximum speed of a formulae one racing car in the several seconds they take to reach their maximum speeds.

And what about Rolla Coaster rides. They seem to pull a fair amount of G-force at down hill speeds and sharp bends at speed without slowing down.

If G-force is a natural consequence of accelleration physics in every day life then what would happen to a 1kg mass accelerated from 0 to 160kmph (or 100mph) in 1 second or to a distance of 160 to a stop in the same amonut of time.

[six7s]

If G-force is a natural consequence of accelleration physics in every day life what then would happen to 1kg from 0 to 160kmph (or 100mph) in 1 second or to a distance of 160 in the same time.

If G-force is a natural consequence of accelleration physics in every day life then what would happen to a 1kg mass accelerated from 0 to 160kmph (or 100mph) in 1 second or to a distance of 160 to a stop in the same amonut of time.

Lap time: 14 minutes
Distance: 6cm (approx)
Velocity: 7.1 * 10-5m/s

[politas]

I'm not even going to try to engage that until the author sorts out his units. Distance is a static measure. Velocity is distance travelled over time. Acceleration is change in velocity over time. Phrases like "an extreme velocity of 0 to 160km distance (or 100 miles) in one second" do not make any sense. 0km in one second is not an extreme velocity.

If he is talking about extreme acceleration, he needs to write that, such as "acceleration from 0km/s to 160km/s in one second". As it is written above, it is literally impossible for anyone to really engage with him, since everyone has to continually guess what he actually means.

[Dr. Trintignant]

what would happen to a 1kg mass accelerated from 0 to 160kmph (or 100mph) in 1 second or to a distance of 160 to a stop in the same amonut of time.

Dragsters do that all the time. In fact, they can do 0-100 mph in around 0.8 seconds. Any reasonably healthy human can survive those accelerations with no injuries. Nothing very special happens, and certainly nothing relativistic.

Of course, this is a much, much lower acceleration than what you would need to cover 100 miles in one second, starting from a dead stop (and as stated, the ultimate velocity is still far too low to experience relativistic effects).

- Dr. Trintignant

[erlando]

I remember a trip to Cedar Point where I took a ride on the Top Thrill Dragster. That one does 0-120 mph in 3.8 seconds. Not much time dilation experienced..

The acceleration was notable but certainly not intolerable. 4 times the acceleration would be fun if nothing else.. :-D

[Dr. Trintignant]

I remember a trip to Cedar Point where I took a ride on the Top Thrill Dragster. That one does 0-120 mph in 3.8 seconds. Not much time dilation experienced..

The acceleration was notable but certainly not intolerable. 4 times the acceleration would be fun if nothing else.. :-D

Not bad, though that's still only 1.5 gees. A lot more than you'd experience in an average car, certainly.

There's a carnival ride called the "Gravitron" which spins riders at up to 3 gees. If you're "lucky", the ride operator might crank it a little higher; perhaps up to 4. They're a lot of fun, especially if the operator lets people get up on their knees and crawl around the inside surface.

- Dr. Trintignant

[fuelair]

African or European?
Depends on how much of this they swallow.:)

[the_smasher]

What about 0 to the maximum speed of a formulae one racing car in the several seconds they take to reach their maximum speeds.

Not sure about the "launch" of a formula 1 car, but they can pull around 3.5 g in the corners. Not totally related, but I found this pretty interesting (bolding mine):
Revving to a limited 18,000 RPM, a modern Formula One engine will consume a phenomenal 650 litres of air every second, with race fuel consumption typically around the 75 l/100 km (4 mpg) mark. Revving at such massive speeds equates to an accelerative force on the pistons of nearly 9000 times gravity. Unsurprisingly, engine-related failures remain one of the most common causes of retirements in races.
http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/understanding_the_sport/5280.html

[geoffrey]

As other posters have stated: The observer would observe about what they would observe at rest. They would see the light from stars in front red-shifted by about 1 part in a million. The light from stars behind them would be blue-shifted by the same amount.

The science of extreme acceleration helps me better understand the theory of distorting space and time. I read a lot. Apart from black holes distorting space and time theory the science of extreme acceleration helps me prove either what is and what’s not or possible.

Petrol heads for example bring me to the basic with their 0 to 60 in so many seconds boasting their vehicles performance. It seems enough for them to know using the terms pulling a few G’s and doing the ton assuming of course, when their vehicle is pushed to the maximum speed limit.

0 to 60 in a few seconds may sound impressive enough but I often wander about 0 to a 100 in 1 second. After all we all know light travels 300,000km by the time we say one thousand and one. In petrol head terms 0 to 10, 80,000,000km in 1 second.

[geoffrey]

Extreme misunderstanding of physics, written in almost unintelligible stream of conciousness.

Has anybody challenged mathematics at projecting the effect of a 1kg mass accelerated 80km in half a second followed by coming to a stop in the same distance and time?

Since we come to a stop in 80km in half second after reaching 80km in half second acceleration there’s no constant velocity to calculate I can see.

[six7s]

Geoffrey, it seems as though you are confusing some key concepts such as time, distance, velocity and acceleration

Until you understand and start adhering to the basics, your posts will remain meaningless

[geoffrey]

Fairy Nuff

So... how many reindeer are required, then?

What about the power of muscle cars or drag cars? Has anybody challenged mathematics at projecting how much horse power a drag car needs to accelerate to light speed in a second.

[geoffrey]

Geoffrey, it seems as though you are confusing some key concepts such as time, distance, velocity and acceleration

Until you understand and start adhering to the basics, your posts will remain meaningless

Since G's is a G-rorce wieghing down acceleration what about the power of muscle cars or drag cars at these forces? Has anybody challenged mathematics at projecting the G-forces produced but given in the familiar every day use for weight in the metric prefix Kilograms instead of G’s?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Before we work on your math we have to get your English straight. The math will be straight forward if you can explain your self correctly.

My guess at what you mean: What is the accelaration and velocity function for something that starts from a standstill, is 80 km away after half a second, and 160 km away after another half second. (left out the mass since I don't see how it's relevant to you).

If so, you are right that there is no constant velocity anywhere in this problem. That is no sort of difficulty to the math though. The average speed is 160 km/s since the object covers 160 km in one second. Assuming the simplest case of constant accelaration, it's peak speed is 320 km/second at the half second point. Since it reaches 320km/second in half a second it's accelaration is 640km/sec squared. That is 64,000 earth gravities. The velocity and accelaration are in opposite directions during the first and second half seconds.

[RecoveringYuppy]

What about the power of muscle cars or drag cars? Has anybody challenged mathematics at projecting the G-forces produced but given in the familiar every day use for weight in the metric prefix Kilograms instead of G’s?

As pointed out already, you need to get an understanding of units. Kilograms and G's are not at all the same things. Kilograms are mass, G's are accelaration. The "familiar every day" terms for G factor is distance over time squared. No mass.

I occasionally lapse in to broken Spanish.

[six7s]

What about the power of muscle cars or drag cars? Has anybody challenged mathematics at projecting how much horse power a drag car needs to accelerate to light speed in a second.Yes... or sort of... you can't 'challenge mathematics' cos mathematics isn't a 'thing', its more a tool or a language

Anyhoo... I think I know what you mean

If so, the answer is 'yes'

Although I'm not a physicist or engineer or similar, I do recall (from my school days) that there are simple formulae that deal with stuff

Some that springs to mind are:

d = ut + ½at2
F = (g ∗ m1 ∗ m2) /r2
F = ma


There are many, many books, websites and courses dedicated to this sort of stuff and I sincerely suggest that you make the effort to check them out... I think you'll really enjoy learning why stuff behaves like it does and then going on to consider the possibilities :)

[TjW]

What about the power of muscle cars or drag cars? Has anybody challenged mathematics at projecting how much horse power a drag car needs to accelerate to light speed in a second.

It's a meaningless question. Since drag racers have mass, they cannot be accelerated to the speed of light.

[geoffrey]

There's plenty of time between Christmases, and don't call me Shirley!

I presume means surely. Who ever they are maybe too lazy to finalize their quote with a spell checker.

Anyway.

Question. I read a lot. According the various authors of science books about mass there’s a constant reference to the mass unit in kilograms. Isn’t that the general term for weight? I’m not unmindful of mass and density. I’ve often challenge people with a riddle about it stating which is heavier a 1 kilo of bird feathers or a 1 kilo steel ball?

I’m assuming 1kg on the moon, mass being one sixth on earth will weigh 166 grams in that gravity but still a 1 kilo mass. Is that a fair assessment of the idea?

Operating on the principle of acceleration by racers often boast how powerful their cars are in terms of G’s and doing the tone. They must understand enough from experince G-forces is the result of a gravity generated in a horizontal plain as Isaac Newton described gravity itself as pulling force. Einstein discovered extreme velocity results in an equalvance we call as G-force. It pulls boy races back into their seats in competion race take off's.

If this is so isn’t it a weight weighing acceleration down? If that's so, is there any reason why not we can say G-force weighing acceleration down in kilos instead of mass and G-force values? Can we then mathematicall project how heavier a given mass becomes at any given terminal acceleration into a constant velocity?

Can we do the reverse when at deaccelerating to a stop?

If so I’m also wondering if anybody’s challenged mathematics at projecting G-force properties for 0 to 60 in the several seconds of high performance sports cars in killograms? What about to the maximum speed of light in a second.( 300,000/s. After all light travels that distance in that amount of time I call a light second).

On that note is it fair to say the sun is only eight light minuites (asumming at light speed) away from earth?

An finally has anybody challenged mathematics to project the effect on time if we observe the second hand slowed down we’d normally observe the minute hand.

One last thing. It appears mathematics will project the latter in classical physics. Can mathematics project anything in quantum physics?

[six7s]

I’m assuming 1kg on the moon, mass being one sixth on earth will weigh 166 grams in that gravity but still a 1 kilo mass. Is that a fair assessment of the idea?Fair enough for an 'armchair discussion'

Operating on the principle of acceleration by racers often boast how powerful their cars are in terms of G’s and doing the tone. They must understand enough from experince G-forces is the result of <snip/>

... If this is so isn’t it a weight weighing acceleration down? Now you're getting way too fuzzy

Boy racers don't have to understand anything more than how to drive... and they don't have to be very good at driving, either

Furthermore, it seems like you are confused about acceleration; it's not a 'thing' (that you can touch), it's a rate

Like 'the number of cups of coffee per person per day' or 'the number of typos per person per thread', acceleration is a rate measurement of change, in 'metres per second per second'

In these examples, there are 'variables' (like letters in algebra, trigonometry, etc)

If the variables remain constant, there is no 'change', so a 'rate of change' does not apply

However, if one or more of the variables do change, then there is a measurable 'rate of change'

Until you can demonstrate that you can and do grasp the meaning of fundamental concepts (like velocity, mass, acceleration), then posting on this thread is a waste of your effort

I sincerely suggest that it is highly unlikely that a primarily text-based medium (like this forum) will afford you the best opportunity to learn what you want to know

[SezMe]

An finally has anybody challenged mathematics to project the effect on time if we observe the second hand slowed down we’d normally observe the minute hand.

One last thing. It appears mathematics will project the latter in classical physics. Can mathematics project anything in quantum physics?
Has anybody challenged mathematics to project the acceleration of word salad while doing the tone?

[NobbyNobbs]

I think there are those in this thread who are so used to being snarky that they are now doing it unnecessarily. Geoffrey, while showing his ignorance of physics (which is not to be ashamed of), has also shown his willingness to learn. The top article on his blog is an admittance that he's made a mistake.

Geoffrey: You need to be very careful with your units. Going from 0km to 160km in 1 second is not the same as going from 0km/hr to 160km/hr in one second.

When racers talk about going from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds, they are not talking about position or distance. They are talking about miles per hour, which is a speed.

I'd highly recommend you grab a basic level physics book (Even one of those "Physics for Dummies"..no insult intended, they are quite good for those just starting out.). Start at the beginning, make sure you look at the pictures (drawings are very important in physics), and pay close attention to the terminology.

I wish you well. The subject is a fascinating one, and the more you learn, the more fascinating it gets. Good luck.

[Thabiguy]

Your questions are interesting, Geoffrey. I'll try to answer them.

Question. I read a lot. According the various authors of science books about mass there’s a constant reference to the mass unit in kilograms. Isn’t that the general term for weight? I’m not unmindful of mass and density. I’ve often challenge people with a riddle about it stating which is heavier a 1 kilo of bird feathers or a 1 kilo steel ball?

There's a difference between mass and weight.

- Mass is a way to measure the amount of matter. You can say, "I have 80 kg of mass. This piece of iron has 1 kg of mass." - It remains more or less constant, no matter how the object moves.

- Weight is the force with which the object pushes on the ground as gravity pulls it down. People say, "I weigh 80 kg. This piece of iron weighs 1 kg." - But that isn't constant. It can change, depending on circumstances. For example, if you put everything under water, 1 kg of oil will weigh less than 1 kg of steel. But both will still have the same mass.

(Click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_versus_weight) to learn more about the differences between mass and weight.)

I’m assuming 1kg on the moon, mass being one sixth on earth will weigh 166 grams in that gravity but still a 1 kilo mass. Is that a fair assessment of the idea?

Fair enough, yes. A mass of 1 kg on the Moon will weigh one sixth of what it weighs on Earth. And when it floats around in space, it will weigh nothing at all. It can also be made to weigh nothing here on Earth, for example by letting it fall freely.

But in all these cases, although weight differs, mass is still 1 kg.

Operating on the principle of acceleration by racers often boast how powerful their cars are in terms of G’s and doing the tone. They must understand enough from experince G-forces is the result of a gravity generated in a horizontal plain as Isaac Newton described gravity itself as pulling force. Einstein discovered extreme velocity results in an equalvance we call as G-force. It pulls boy races back into their seats in competion race take off's.

This is somewhat confused. To put it simple, there are 2 theories that Einstein formulated: the Special Theory of Relativity, and the General Theory of Relativity.

Special Theory of Relativity describes what happens when you are moving at extreme velocities, and predicts some changes under those circumstances. When applied to our universe, it assumes a simplified model which doesn't include gravity.

(Click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity) to learn more about Special Relativity.)

General Theory of Relativity is a refinement: it handles everything that Special Relativity does, and it describes gravity and its relationship to general acceleration. It predicts additional effects that gravity or acceleration can cause.

(Click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity) to learn more about General Relativity.)

What you said kinda mixes these two together, and incorrectly associates them with racers. Actually, racers do not experience any of the effects that Einstein's relativity theories predict. What they experience is very well described by the physics we had before Einstein - we call it Newtonian mechanics, or classical mechanics.

(Click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics) to learn more about classical mechanics.)

If this is so isn’t it a weight weighing acceleration down? If that's so, is there any reason why not we can say G-force weighing acceleration down in kilos instead of mass and G-force values? Can we then mathematicall project how heavier a given mass becomes at any given terminal acceleration into a constant velocity?

You said it earlier: mass and weight are two different things. Mass generally remains constant, because it's a measure of the amount of matter, and weight can change, because it's a measure of force.

So yes, there are good and important reasons why the two cannot be used interchangeably, and why we cannot say acceleration changes mass, but only that it can change weight.

(Note: Einstein's relativity theories complicate all that, but only under very extreme circumstances. But still, even under those extreme circumstances, you cannot interchange mass and weight.)

If so I’m also wondering if anybody’s challenged mathematics at projecting G-force properties for 0 to 60 in the several seconds of high performance sports cars in killograms? What about to the maximum speed of light in a second.( 300,000/s. After all light travels that distance in that amount of time I call a light second).

It can be calculated, yes. Such calculation isn't very difficult for physicists.

On that note is it fair to say the sun is only eight light minuites (asumming at light speed) away from earth?

Yes, that is entirely correct. These terms (light seconds, light minutes) are used by physicists in the same way that you use them.

An finally has anybody challenged mathematics to project the effect on time if we observe the second hand slowed down we’d normally observe the minute hand.

It can be calculated, yes. Such calculation isn't very difficult for physicists.

One last thing. It appears mathematics will project the latter in classical physics. Can mathematics project anything in quantum physics?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'latter'. But yes, mathematics can be used to successfully predict the effects of quantum physics. It has been done many times (although the calculations can be demanding).

[NobbyNobbs]

There's a difference between mass and weight.

- Mass is a way to measure the amount of matter. You can say, "I have 80 kg of mass. This piece of iron has 1 kg of mass." - It remains more or less constant, no matter how the object moves.

- Weight is the force with which the object pushes on the ground as gravity pulls it down. People say, "I weigh 80 kg. This piece of iron weighs 1 kg." - But that isn't constant. It can change, depending on circumstances. For example, if you put everything under water, 1 kg of oil will weigh less than 1 kg of steel. But both will still have the same mass.


Part of your confusion, Geoffrey, may also stem from the fact that people very often use "kilograms" and "pounds" to describe the wrong thing.

In the British system, mass is measured in "pounds". Weight is measured in "slugs", "poundals", or, just to make things really confusing, "pounds".

The metric system is easier and I recommend sticking to it. Mass is measured in "kilograms" and weight is measured in "newtons".

I think that because the word "pounds" is used to describe two different things (weight and mass), people have assumed they can take the same liberties with the word "kilogram". Most people don't know that there's already a perfectly good word--newtons--provided to describe weight.

[Thabiguy]

NobbyNobbs made very good points.

I think that because the word "pounds" is used to describe two different things (weight and mass), people have assumed they can take the same liberties with the word "kilogram". Most people don't know that there's already a perfectly good word--newtons--provided to describe weight.

I think the reason might be more mundane - simply that people are used to weighing scales (instruments to measure weight) that show the result in kilograms. This works because from measuring weight, one can (with certain assumptions) approximately calculate mass. What weighing scales show is the result of such calculation.

(Note: this isn't always right. For example, the bathroom scale would show incorrect mass in an accelerating elevator. Also, buoyancy matters - 1 kg of bird feathers will actually measure a little less on the weighing scale than 1 kg of steel, because bird feathers displace more air than steel.)

For ordinary people, the simplification often works, because under common circumstances, mass and weight are closely related. But in some cases, the differences become important. That's why physicists always distinguish mass and weight and do not use the terms and units interchangeably.

Here are some examples of everyday experience of mass and weight: when someone sits on you, what you feel is the person's weight. But when someone runs into you, what you feel is the person's inertia, which is related to the person's mass, not weight.

So when someone sits on you on the Moon, the experience will be less uncomfortable, because weight is less on the Moon. But when someone runs into you on the Moon, you will feel it just as hard as on Earth, because the person's mass hasn't changed.

[Typicallucas]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think acceleration or G-forces CANNOT cause any relativistic effects.

High speed CAUSES relativistic effects:
An object MUST BE moving at a speed near the speed of light to experience those relativistic effects he's hoping for.

Violent acceleration DOES NOT CAUSE any relativistic effects:
Violent acceleration is not necessary, an object moving near the speed of light could coast along quite peacefully if nothing were to get in the way.

G-forces from acceleration DO NOT CAUSE any relativistic effects:
G-forces felt as a result of extreme acceleration wouldn't cause time-dilation or other relativistic effects because G-forces aren't really gravity. It just shares the name with gravity, but it isn't gravity.

Amiright?

[wollery]

I presume means surely. Who ever they are maybe too lazy to finalize their quote with a spell checker. It's an old joke.

Question. I read a lot. According the various authors of science books about mass there’s a constant reference to the mass unit in kilograms. Isn’t that the general term for weight?Kilograms are often used in everyday life as a unit of weight, but that's due to a mistake made by almost everyone. What weighing scales show is the mass, which is possible, because the pull of gravity anywhere on the Earth's surface is near enough to constant that it makes no difference. Weight is a force, and is actually measured in Newtons, which have units of kgms-2, and is calculated as mass x acceleration of gravity. This is just Newtonian mechanics - F=ma.

I’m not unmindful of mass and density. I’ve often challenge people with a riddle about it stating which is heavier a 1 kilo of bird feathers or a 1 kilo steel ball?As someone else noted, on the Earth's surface 1kg of feathers actually weighs slightly less than 1kg of iron, because of the buoyancy of the air, and the low density of the feathers.

I’m assuming 1kg on the moon, mass being one sixth on earth will weigh 166 grams in that gravity but still a 1 kilo mass. Is that a fair assessment of the idea?Again, weight is measured in Newtons, not kg, so on Earth (g=9.8kgms-2) a 1kg mass weighs 9.8N, whereas on the Moon (g=1.63kgms-2) it would weigh 1.63N.

Operating on the principle of acceleration by racers often boast how powerful their cars are in terms of G’s and doing the tone. They must understand enough from experince G-forces is the result of a gravity generated in a horizontal plain as Isaac Newton described gravity itself as pulling force. Einstein discovered extreme velocity results in an equalvance we call as G-force. It pulls boy races back into their seats in competion race take off's.Actually, the G-force created by even the highest performance race car is pretty low, and while it is a force it isn't a gravitational force. Also, velocity doesn't create any G-force, only acceleration creates G-forces.

If this is so isn’t it a weight weighing acceleration down?After a fashion, yes. Since F=ma, that is force is equal to mass times acceleration, and the acceleration is the G-force we experience, then a larger mass, being driven by the same force, will have a lower acceleration, and therefore a lower G-force. This is, again, simple Newtonian mechanics.

If that's so, is there any reason why not we can say G-force weighing acceleration down in kilos instead of mass and G-force values?Not really, because, as I pointed out earlier, kg measures mass, not force, and forces need to be measured in Newtons.

Can we then mathematicall project how heavier a given mass becomes at any given terminal acceleration into a constant velocity?I'm not sure what you're asking here, sorry.

Can we do the reverse when at deaccelerating to a stop?Yes, you only need to do the same maths with a minus sign!

If so I’m also wondering if anybody’s challenged mathematics at projecting G-force properties for 0 to 60 in the several seconds of high performance sports cars in killograms?Again, the question doesn't really make sense in physics terms, because we don't measure force in kg, but I suppose you could talk about what the equivalent mass at a standard 1G at the Earth's surface would be. That would probably help some people to understand the effect.

What about to the maximum speed of light in a second.( 300,000/s. After all light travels that distance in that amount of time I call a light second).Well, only things with no mass can reach the speed of light, so talking about accelerations and G-forces is pointless. Also, we're now getting into Einsteinian relativity with this question, because at large fractions of the speed of light you get relativistic effects on the apparent mass of an object, which begin to affect its acceleration.

On that note is it fair to say the sun is only eight light minuites (asumming at light speed) away from earth?Yes, completely.

An finally has anybody challenged mathematics to project the effect on time if we observe the second hand slowed down we’d normally observe the minute hand.If you were to slow down time so that the second hand were moving at the same speed as the minute hand normally moves then I expect everything else would slow down too. Assuming that you slowed down and everything else stayed at the same speed then you'd see the world rush past at incredible speeds, snails would be burning rubber! Assuming that you stayed at the same speed and everything else was slowed down then things would appear to almost stop moving, you could now outrun cars on the freeway!

One last thing. It appears mathematics will project the latter in classical physics. Can mathematics project anything in quantum physics?Again, I'm afraid that I have no idea what it is that you are actually asking, so without more information I can't answer your question.

[geoffrey]

It would be very blurry and you might bring up your lunch.

About 15 years ago a TV series about an a experiment intended to be an antigravity experiment gone awry. It produced an artificial wormhole instead crossing the boundaries of parallel universes. Whether you know the series or not was called the sliders.

I’m currently reading a book called Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt you by Marcus Chow chapter 3 The Schizophrenic atom I though highly appropriate for this series. The author answers some of my questions how I could duplicate Quinn Mallory’s experiment.

[geoffrey]

It would be very blurry and you might bring up your lunch.

About 15 years ago a TV series about an intended antigravity experiment that had gone awry. It produced an artificial wormhole instead crossing the boundaries of parallel universes form the inventor’s basement. Whether you know the series or not the series was called the sliders.

I’m currently reading a book called Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt you by Marcus Chow chapter 3 The Schizophrenic atom I though highly appropriate for this series. The author enlightened me with some answers if Quinn Mallory’s experiment could be duplicated.

If any body’s interested he begins the chapter about the theory of Quantum computers
devoting the entire chapter explaining how atoms work in the theory of the many worlds theory introducing multiple universes.

[geoffrey]

Dragsters do that all the time. In fact, they can do 0-100 mph in around 0.8 seconds. Any reasonably healthy human can survive those accelerations with no injuries. Nothing very special happens, and certainly nothing relativistic.

Of course, this is a much, much lower acceleration than what you would need to cover 100 miles in one second, starting from a dead stop (and as stated, the ultimate velocity is still far too low to experience relativistic effects).

- Dr. Trintignant

Ohh I see. Then has the maximum level the human body can withstand ever been tested?

[boooeee]

About 15 years ago a TV series about an intended antigravity experiment that had gone awry. It produced an artificial wormhole instead crossing the boundaries of parallel universes form the inventor’s basement. Whether you know the series or not the series was called the sliders.


Now we're getting somewhere. Please continue.

[Dr. Trintignant]

Ohh I see. Then has the maximum level the human body can withstand ever been tested?

Yes. Dr. John Stapp conducted numerous experiments on himself, testing the acceleration limits of the human body. With a proper harness and position, he was able to withstand 45 g without serious injury.

Accident victims can experience even higher peak accelerations (>100 g), but obviously those often end in injury (in part caused by suboptimal harnessing).

- Dr. Trintignant

[arthwollipot]

About 15 years ago a TV series about an intended antigravity experiment that had gone awry. It produced an artificial wormhole instead crossing the boundaries of parallel universes form the inventor’s basement. Whether you know the series or not the series was called the sliders.

I’m currently reading a book called Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt you by Marcus Chow chapter 3 The Schizophrenic atom I though highly appropriate for this series. The author enlightened me with some answers if Quinn Mallory’s experiment could be duplicated.Um, you know Sliders (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112167/) was science fiction, right?

Science... fiction.

[UnrepentantSinner]

(Note: this isn't always right. For example, the bathroom scale would show incorrect mass in an accelerating elevator. Also, buoyancy matters - 1 kg of bird feathers will actually measure a little less on the weighing scale than 1 kg of steel, because bird feathers displace more air than steel.)

Wouldn't they weigh a smidgen more because of the mass of the air? Or are you correcting for that in determining the mass of the feathers before weighing them?

[RossFW]

I kind of dispute the idea that a kilo of feathers weighs any different to a kilo of anything else in the same gravity well.

W=M*g. The kilo of feathers is still exerting 9.8N of force, as is the kilo of Iron, lead or whatever. The fact that the bounancy of the air ALSO exerts a force (in whichever direction) doesn't change the weight of the feathers.

A lighter than air balloon isn't "weightless", it just weighs less than the same volume of the medium it's immersed in.

[Evilgiraffe]

I kind of dispute the idea that a kilo of feathers weighs any different to a kilo of anything else in the same gravity well.

W=M*g. The kilo of feathers is still exerting 9.8N of force, as is the kilo of Iron, lead or whatever. The fact that the bounancy of the air ALSO exerts a force (in whichever direction) doesn't change the weight of the feathers.

A lighter than air balloon isn't "weightless", it just weighs less than the same volume of the medium it's immersed in.

That's true, the Earth is still effecting a gravitational pull of 9.8N on the kilo of feathers. However, any weighing scale measuring that pull will register less than 9.8N due to the buoyancy force of the air displaced by feathers.

The kilo of iron displaces less air, therefore there is less buoyancy from air, and the iron registers more weight on the scales.

This is simply Archimedes' principleWP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy#Archimedes.27_principle)

[TjW]

About 15 years ago a TV series about an a experiment intended to be an antigravity experiment gone awry. It produced an artificial wormhole instead crossing the boundaries of parallel universes. Whether you know the series or not was called the sliders.



Is that the show where they all lived in a White Castle?

[Thabiguy]

Wouldn't they weigh a smidgen more because of the mass of the air? Or are you correcting for that in determining the mass of the feathers before weighing them?

No, the scale will show a little less.

When you put an object on a weighing scale, it will measure the weight of the object (this is g*m, therefore equal for any two objects of the same mass) minus the weight of the displaced air (Archimedes' principle). Feathers are less dense than steel, therefore they occupy more volume than the same mass of steel, therefore the volume - and mass and weight - of the displaced air is greater, making the scale read slightly less.

I kind of dispute the idea that a kilo of feathers weighs any different to a kilo of anything else in the same gravity well.

This is a semantic issue stemming from the difference between 'weight' and 'apparent weight'. What ordinary scales measure is the apparent weight.

On the other hand, the intransitive verb 'to weigh' is not a technical term and can refer to either weight or apparent weight. It would be incorrect to strictly assume the former interpretation (especially considering that the transitive form of the verb is almost exclusively used to denote measuring apparent weight). Context is necessary (and sufficient in this thread, I think) to disambiguate.

Regardless of all that, there is no doubt that 1 kg of feathers will show slightly less on a weighing scale than 1 kg of steel.

[six7s]

No, the scale will show a little lessThis is 'in theory' in contrast with 'in practice', yes?

If not, how can I measure mass (cf weight) accurately?

[drkitten]

This is 'in theory' in contrast with 'in practice', yes?

If not, how can I measure mass (cf weight) accurately?

Set the weighing instrument in a vacuum chamber and evacuate the chamber.

More generally, measure in a hermetically sealed chanber but don't bother to evacuate it; the increased displacement from the feathers will show up as increased pressure on the weighing machine.

[666]

There's plenty of time between Christmases, and don't call me Shirley!

I presume means surely. Who ever they are maybe too lazy to finalize their quote with a spell checker.

It's an old joke.

For anyone too young to be acquainted with this...

HZPVw-Vl1ow

[geoffrey]

Your questions are interesting, Geoffrey. I'll try to answer them.



There's a difference between mass and weight.

- Mass is a way to measure the amount of matter. You can say, "I have 80 kg of mass. This piece of iron has 1 kg of mass." - It remains more or less constant, no matter how the object moves.

- Weight is the force with which the object pushes on the ground as gravity pulls it down. People say, "I weigh 80 kg. This piece of iron weighs 1 kg." - But that isn't constant. It can change, depending on circumstances. For example, if you put everything under water, 1 kg of oil will weigh less than 1 kg of steel. But both will still have the same mass.





Fair enough, yes. A mass of 1 kg on the Moon will weigh one sixth of what it weighs on Earth. And when it floats around in space, it will weigh nothing at all. It can also be made to weigh nothing here on Earth, for example by letting it fall freely.

But in all these cases, although weight differs, mass is still 1 kg.



This is somewhat confused. To put it simple, there are 2 theories that Einstein formulated: the Special Theory of Relativity, and the General Theory of Relativity.

Special Theory of Relativity describes what happens when you are moving at extreme velocities, and predicts some changes under those circumstances. When applied to our universe, it assumes a simplified model which doesn't include gravity.



General Theory of Relativity is a refinement: it handles everything that Special Relativity does, and it describes gravity and its relationship to general acceleration. It predicts additional effects that gravity or acceleration can cause.



What you said kinda mixes these two together, and incorrectly associates them with racers. Actually, racers do not experience any of the effects that Einstein's relativity theories predict. What they experience is very well described by the physics we had before Einstein - we call it Newtonian mechanics, or classical mechanics.





You said it earlier: mass and weight are two different things. Mass generally remains constant, because it's a measure of the amount of matter, and weight can change, because it's a measure of force.

So yes, there are good and important reasons why the two cannot be used interchangeably, and why we cannot say acceleration changes mass, but only that it can change weight.

(Note: Einstein's relativity theories complicate all that, but only under very extreme circumstances. But still, even under those extreme circumstances, you cannot interchange mass and weight.)



It can be calculated, yes. Such calculation isn't very difficult for physicists.



Yes, that is entirely correct. These terms (light seconds, light minutes) are used by physicists in the same way that you use them.



It can be calculated, yes. Such calculation isn't very difficult for physicists.



I'm not sure what you mean by 'latter'. But yes, mathematics can be used to successfully predict the effects of quantum physics. It has been done many times (although the calculations can be demanding).

Some of my friends have said time supposed to stop at light speed. However I wonder if time is slowed down too slow for us to observe moving as the minute and hour hands of clocks appear to be frozen in time at any given moment. Can we say the second hand is moving though time 60 times faster than the minute hand or the minute hand is moving though time to slow for us to observe 60 times slower than the second hand?

What if a person is moved though time the person observes the second hand slowed down they’d normally observe the minute hand? Would this mean mathematics projects the person is moving though time 60 times faster than the observed environment’s second?

Does this mean Einstein’s theory of reality time dilution is applying stretching the environment by 60 times? Does it mean the observer will observe every second of the environments second stretched by a minute? Every minute by an hour every day

From what I can see, the environment will observe the person travelling though time at warp 60. Dose it necessarily mean mathematics projects for every, second, minute hour, day, week month, decades, years, centuries, millennia, million, billion or even trillions of centuries of the environment’s time all 60 times longer proportionally than the person would normally experience?

[geoffrey]

Now we're getting somewhere. Please continue.

I recorded the pilot and most of the first session all gone now recorded over with my other favourite TV programs. I was fascinated with the idea of travelling the universe visiting parallel worlds wondering if I could duplicate Mallory's experiment.

This resulted in a hobby of collecting all my thought's I once put on the internet when I had my web site I called the clipboard.net no longer operating under a folder called Time travel and parallel universes.

Unfortunately due to my financial circumstance I’m operating from a library computer that giving a limited amount of time. I’m about to be kick off any second now. I’ll keep in touch when I can

[boooeee]

I recorded the pilot and most of the first session all gone now recorded over with my other favourite TV programs. I was fascinated with the idea of travelling the universe visiting parallel worlds wondering if I could duplicate Mallory's experiment.

This resulted in a hobby of collecting all my thought's I once put on the internet when I had my web site I called the clipboard.net no longer operating under a folder called Time travel and parallel universes.

Unfortunately due to my financial circumstance I’m operating from a library computer that giving a limited amount of time. I’m about to be kick off any second now. I’ll keep in touch when I can


Thanks geoffrey. Sorry to hear about your financial situation. If you're really hear to learn, I encourage you to do your best to read the feedback you've gotten so far and try to understand it. There are some smart, helpful people on this forum.

[roger]

Geoffrey, since you are at the library anyway, look for the book "Relativity" by Albert Einstein. He wrote it for people who want to understand relativity but don't possess the mathematics necessary for a rigorous presentation. It is very readable, and I think you will find that it answers many of your questions. You will learn, for example, that the slowing down of time really has nothing to do with us watching second and minute hands on a watch.

[Thabiguy]

This is 'in theory' in contrast with 'in practice', yes?

No, it's quite real and observable in practice. I can't tell the exact result for bird feathers, as they don't have a well-defined density, but if you weighed 1 kg of steel and 1 kg of water, the weighing scale would measure a difference of about 1 g. Of course, a bathroom scale won't show such a difference, but a $15 precision scale will.

(Assuming that you could get 1 kg of steel and 1 kg of water with accuracy well below 1 g.)

[Thabiguy]

Some of my friends have said time supposed to stop at light speed. However I wonder if time is slowed down too slow for us to observe moving as the minute and hour hands of clocks appear to be frozen in time at any given moment. Can we say the second hand is moving though time 60 times faster than the minute hand or the minute hand is moving though time to slow for us to observe 60 times slower than the second hand?

What if a person is moved though time the person observes the second hand slowed down they’d normally observe the minute hand? Would this mean mathematics projects the person is moving though time 60 times faster than the observed environment’s second?

I'm not sure if you have the correct idea of how time dilation works. It's not that you would see your own clock to slow down when you move fast.

When something is moving extremely fast, its time will appear to slow down to outside, "stationary" observers. For example, if you moved a clock very fast (and you didn't move), you would observe its second hand to move more slowly. But if you moved very fast along with the clock, you would see it tick just fine.

It's also important to note that the effect is not absolute. You can't measure how fast something is "moving through time", in absolute terms, just as you can't measure how fast something is moving through space in absolute terms. You can only tell that from some observer's perspective, and then the answer can differ depending on the chosen observer.

Does this mean Einstein’s theory of reality time dilution is applying stretching the environment by 60 times? Does it mean the observer will observe every second of the environments second stretched by a minute? Every minute by an hour every day

It's not simple to describe what will happen. If you were moving extremely fast, near the speed of light, and you were making turns to stay around the place (otherwise you would of course fly away very quickly), you would find that time progresses faster in the surrounding environment. Depending on your speed, perhaps 1 day would pass for you, but 60 days for stuff around you that doesn't move. In this case, it would be the turns you're making that would result in seeing the world around age faster.

In practice, the surrounding world would appear very distorted and its time would progress in a weird way, depending on how you make the turns. But once you stopped moving, you would see that indeed your clock is showing less time passed than the clocks that didn't move.

From what I can see, the environment will observe the person travelling though time at warp 60.

I have no idea what you mean by "warp 60". But the environment will simply observe the travelling person as aging more slowly.

Dose it necessarily mean mathematics projects for every, second, minute hour, day, week month, decades, years, centuries, millennia, million, billion or even trillions of centuries of the environment’s time all 60 times longer proportionally than the person would normally experience?

I'm not really sure what you're asking here.

Time dilation occurs as long as something is moving very fast with respect to an inertial observer. When it stops moving, there is no more time dilation.

[geoffrey]

Boy racers who quote how powerful their cars are refer to 0 to so 60 in so many seconds right?

I’ve heard some petral heads discuss physics terms their vehicle pulls a few G’s and doing the tone. If they use G’s and doing the tone surly they must be aware and learnt from some G-force properties pulling them back into their seats when at competition race take off’s and at maximum speeds.

What about record braking quarter mile drag cars? Surly there’s a fair amount of G-force. Once I saw an example of G-force on TV. A drag car driver shoved back into his seat at take off. Aonther example advetising a shaver showing a jet fighter breaking to peices durying a high speed run.

What about 0 to the maximum speed of a formulae one racing car in several seconds they take to reach maximum speed.

And what about Rolla Coaster rides. They seem to pull a fair amount of G-force at down hill speeds and sharp bends at speed without slowing down.

If G-force is a natural consequence of accelleration physics in every day life what then would happen to 1kg from 0 to 160kmph (or 100mph) in 1 second or to a distance of 160 in the same time.

I’m wondering about the state of the time. Looking at the minute and hour hands compared to the second hand they are moving though time to slow for us to observe moving. Can we say the second hand is sped up in time 60 times faster than the minute hand and 86,400 times as fast as the hour hand?

[geoffrey]

Geoffrey, it seems as though you are confusing some key concepts such as time, distance, velocity and acceleration

Until you understand and start adhering to the basics, your posts will remain meaningless

I’m wondering about the state of the time. Looking at the minute and hour hands compared to the second hand they are moving though time to slow for us to observe moving. Can we say the second hand is sped up in time 60 times faster than the minute hand and 3600 times as fast as the hour hand?

If this is so then we can say any two dollar calculator tells us when we add up all the seconds of a day would be the reciprical giving us 1 second as 86,400th of a day.

[geoffrey]

I’m wondering about the state of the time. Looking at the minute and hour hands compared to the second hand they are moving though time to slow for us to observe moving. Can we say the second hand is sped up in time 60 times faster than the minute hand and 3600 times as fast as the hour hand?

If this is so then we can say any two dollar calculator tells us when we add up all the seconds of a day would be the reciprical giving us 1 second as 86,400th of a day.

What does anybody think could happen to the laws of physics and will Etesian’s theory of relativity when a person moves though time observing the second hand slowed down we’d normally observe the minute hand? How bout when the person observes the second hand slowed down we’d normally observe the hour hand respectively

[TjW]

And what would happen if it were a digital watch with no hands at all?

[dudalb]

Arrrrgggghhhh....cannot resist it......



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_188404a00dbf58362d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16231)

[roger]

What does anybody think could happen to the laws of physics and will Etesian’s theory of relativity when a person moves though time observing the second hand slowed down we’d normally observe the minute hand? How bout when the person observes the second hand slowed down we’d normally observe the hour hand respectivelyYou really need to read the Einstein book I referenced earlier. You aren't ever going to see your own clock slowed down (or sped up). Your clock is always going to be moving at normal speed.

[vIQleS]

It's not simple to describe what will happen. If you were moving extremely fast, near the speed of light, and you were making turns to stay around the place (otherwise you would of course fly away very quickly), you would find that time progresses faster in the surrounding environment. Depending on your speed, perhaps 1 day would pass for you, but 60 days for stuff around you that doesn't move. In this case, it would be the turns you're making that would result in seeing the world around age faster.


Wait - you're saying that if I fly really really fast around the earth, it wouldn't go back in time and save Lois Lane?

[six7s]

Wait - you're saying that if I fly really really fast around the earth, it wouldn't go back in time and save Lois Lane?You have to fly so fast that your underpants end up on the outside...

When you can do that, then Lois is your grrrrrrrrrl (assuming she is the sort of woman who simply falls for her rescuer... this might be stretching probability just a tad too much)

[Thabiguy]

I’m wondering about the state of the time. Looking at the minute and hour hands compared to the second hand they are moving though time to slow for us to observe moving. Can we say the second hand is sped up in time 60 times faster than the minute hand and 3600 times as fast as the hour hand?

No. The second hand does not "move through time" any faster than the minute hand. It simply moves faster, through space - around the clockface.

In the same way that a train can move faster than a bicycle, but it doesn't "move through time" any faster.

The difference between the movement of the second hand and the minute hand does not involve any time dilation.

If this is so then we can say any two dollar calculator tells us when we add up all the seconds of a day would be the reciprical giving us 1 second as 86,400th of a day.

One day usually has 86,400 seconds, yes. And you can indeed calculate that on any two dollar calculator.

What does anybody think could happen to the laws of physics and will Etesian’s theory of relativity when a person moves though time observing the second hand slowed down we’d normally observe the minute hand? How bout when the person observes the second hand slowed down we’d normally observe the hour hand respectively

Are you listening to what people are telling you here?

[Cuddles]

And what would happen if it were a digital watch with no hands at all?

But how does it smell?

[TjW]

But how does it smell?

It can't. It doesn't have a nose.

[geoffrey]

Your experiment is not even scratching the surface of relativistic speeds. Time dilation effects would be near impossible to measure.

With respect to relativisttic speeds here is a though experiment of mine


Questions about time.

Is it true a common two dollar calculator projects one second equates to 86,400th of a day?

Can we say a day see's us sped up in time by that amount during the day; an hour 3600; a minute see's us 60 times and a second see's as sped up zero?

Some of my friends have said time comes to a stop at light speed. Is this true, or is it true only slows down to slow for us to observe moving.

If two slow to observe moving is the speed of light a point where we observe the second hand of clocks slowed down in time we normally observe the minute hand? What about if we observe the second hand slowed down we normally observe the hour hand?

If we move though time observing the second hand move as slow as the minute hand will we observe Einstein's theory of reality stretch the environment visually 60 times and each second to a minute?

If a person observes the second hand move as slow as the hour hand. would he observe the observed environment stretched visually 3600 times and a of the environment becomes and hour.

What if he observed the second hand moved round the clock face twice in we normally observe the hour hand twice in a day? Would that mean? Is the environment stretched visually 86,400 times and the time equally as fast?

What about in a week? A month? A year? A decade observing in a century and so on. Is it possible time cannot be stopped?

[geoffrey]

Your experiment is not even scratching the surface of relativistic speeds. Time dilation effects would be near impossible to measure.

With respect to relativisttic speeds here is a though experiment of mine


Questions about time.

Is it true a common two dollar calculator projects one second equates to 86,400th of a day?

Can we say a day see's us sped up in time by that amount during the day; an hour 3600; a minute see's us 60 times and a second see's as sped up zero?

Some of my friends have said time comes to a stop at light speed. Is this true, or is it true only slows down to slow for us to observe moving.

If too slow to observe moving is the speed of light a point where we observe the second hand of clocks slowed down in time we normally observe the minute hand? What about if we observe the second hand slowed down we normally observe the hour hand?

If we move though time observing the second hand move as slow as the minute hand will we observe Einstein's theory of reality stretch the environment visually 60 times and each second to a minute?

If a person observes the second hand move as slow as the hour hand. would he observe the observed environment stretched visually 3600 times and a of the environment becomes and hour.

What if he observed the second hand moved round the clock face twice in we normally observe the hour hand twice in a day? Would that mean? Is the environment stretched visually 86,400 times and the time equally as fast?

What about in a week? A month? A year? A decade observing in a century and so on. Is it possible time cannot be stopped?

[Typicallucas]

Huh?

I think you should pay attention to what roger is saying:
You really need to read the Einstein book I referenced earlier. You aren't ever going to see your own clock slowed down (or sped up). Your clock is always going to be moving at normal speed.

Geoffrey, since you are at the library anyway, look for the book "Relativity" by Albert Einstein. He wrote it for people who want to understand relativity but don't possess the mathematics necessary for a rigorous presentation. It is very readable, and I think you will find that it answers many of your questions. You will learn, for example, that the slowing down of time really has nothing to do with us watching second and minute hands on a watch.

Get up from the computer and find the book Relativity by Albert Einstein.

[geoffrey]

Have you read a book about titled Quantum theory cannot Hurt you by Marcus Chown? I have. I found chapter 3 the schizophrenia atom how an atom can be in many places at once and do many things at once particularly usfull appendex to the series.

It was a excelent sample of how Mallory’s antigravity experiment may have worked. An interesting subtile multiple universe fits extremely well.

Then there’s Chapter 5 the telepathic universe how atoms can influence each other instantly even when on the opposite side of the universe another ideal appendix for the series. The spooky action at a distance, entanglement and teleportation is covered and ideal partner to describe how Mallory’s antigravity experiment may have produced the artificial wormhole.

[geoffrey]

Now we're getting somewhere. Please continue.

Have you read a book titled Quantum theory cannot Hurt you by Marcus Chown? I have. Chapter 3 the schizophrenia atom: how an atom can be in many places at once and do many things at once will be of particular interest for the series fans as I am.

I found it an excellent example how Mallory’s antigravity experiment may have swung the physics to do it. An interesting subtile called multiple universe is interesting.

Then there’s Chapter 5 the telepathic universe: how atoms can influence each other instantly even when on the opposite side of the universe another ideal appendix. The spooky action at a distance, entanglement and teleportation is covered and ideal hand in hand guide in describe how Mallory’s antigravity experiment may have produced the artificial wormhole.

I've allso come across another book tiled intanglement that is dedicated to the whole theme.

[geoffrey]

Ask Santa if you can borrow his set-up

Consider the following:

1) No known species of reindeer can fly. But there are 300,000 species of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects and germs, this does not COMPLETELY rule out flying reindeer which only Santa has ever seen.

2) There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world. BUT since Santa doesn't (appear) to handle the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist children, that reduces the workload to 15% of the total - 378 million according to Population Reference Bureau. At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per household, that's 91.8 million homes. One presumes there's at least one good child in each.

3) Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical).

This works out to 822.6 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the sleigh and move on to the next house.

Assuming that each of these 91.8 million stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept), we are now talking about 0.78 miles per household, a total trip of 75.5 million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least once every 31 hours, plus feeding and etc.

This means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man- made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second - a conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour.

4) The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized lego set (2 pounds), the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably described as overweight.

On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that 'flying reindeer' (see point #1) could pull TEN TIMES the normal amount, we cannot do the job with eight, or even nine.

We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload - not even counting the weight of the sleigh - to 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison - this is four times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth.

5) 353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance - this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as spacecraft re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy. Per second. Each.

In short, they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them, and create deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire reindeer team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second.

Santa, meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces 17,500.06 times greater than gravity. A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force.

In conclusion

If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's dead now.

I'm awear of that story as I've writen it once before for my web site I once owned.

[Thabiguy]

Is it true a common two dollar calculator projects one second equates to 86,400th of a day?

Yes.

Can we say a day see's us sped up in time by that amount during the day; an hour 3600; a minute see's us 60 times and a second see's as sped up zero?

I guess nothing prevents you from saying that, but it doesn't make much sense.

Some of my friends have said time comes to a stop at light speed. Is this true, or is it true only slows down to slow for us to observe moving.

If an object could reach the speed of light, its time (as observed by others) would stop completely, rather than just becoming too slow to notice.

If too slow to observe moving is the speed of light a point where we observe the second hand of clocks slowed down in time we normally observe the minute hand? What about if we observe the second hand slowed down we normally observe the hour hand?

Time is dilated 60 times at about 99.986% of speed of light, and 3,600 times at about 99.999996% of speed of light.

If we move though time observing the second hand move as slow as the minute hand will we observe Einstein's theory of reality stretch the environment visually 60 times and each second to a minute?

You would not observe the second hand move slow on the clock that travels with you. The surrounding environment would appear dramatically distorted (I don't know what "stretched visually 60 times" is supposed to mean; I have already linked a video illustrating optical effects expected at relativistic speeds, here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4) it is again) and its time would flow weirdly (if you passed a line of clocks, each would tick slower than yours, but the time shown as you move from clock to clock would increase faster than the time on your clock).

If a person observes the second hand move as slow as the hour hand. would he observe the observed environment stretched visually 3600 times and a of the environment becomes and hour.

What if he observed the second hand moved round the clock face twice in we normally observe the hour hand twice in a day? Would that mean? Is the environment stretched visually 86,400 times and the time equally as fast?

Same answer, just with greater distortion and time dilation.

What about in a week? A month? A year? A decade observing in a century and so on. Is it possible time cannot be stopped?

Time cannot be stopped.

[six7s]

Is it true a common two dollar calculator projects one second equates to 86,400th of a day?Yes.But only in the hands of someone who both knows the basics of multiplication and is capable of turning the calculator on

[arthwollipot]

There's... like... English words - lots of them...

[six7s]

There's... like... English words - lots of them...Yes... and more than three... that's no secret

[geoffrey]

Ask Santa if you can borrow his set-up

Consider the following:

1) No known species of reindeer can fly. But there are 300,000 species of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects and germs, this does not COMPLETELY rule out flying reindeer which only Santa has ever seen.

2) There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world. BUT since Santa doesn't (appear) to handle the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist children, that reduces the workload to 15% of the total - 378 million according to Population Reference Bureau. At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per household, that's 91.8 million homes. One presumes there's at least one good child in each.

3) Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical).

This works out to 822.6 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the sleigh and move on to the next house.

Assuming that each of these 91.8 million stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept), we are now talking about 0.78 miles per household, a total trip of 75.5 million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least once every 31 hours, plus feeding and etc.

This means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man- made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second - a conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour.

4) The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized lego set (2 pounds), the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably described as overweight.

On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that 'flying reindeer' (see point #1) could pull TEN TIMES the normal amount, we cannot do the job with eight, or even nine.

We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload - not even counting the weight of the sleigh - to 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison - this is four times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth.

5) 353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance - this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as spacecraft re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy. Per second. Each.

In short, they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them, and create deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire reindeer team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second.

Santa, meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces 17,500.06 times greater than gravity. A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force.

In conclusion

If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's dead now.

Yes I know. Some of theses things are indeed impossible in a classical physics sense. I’m currently reading a book about Quantum physics called Quantum physics can’t hurt you by Marches Chown. It seems Quantum physics (or Quantum mechanics as it’s often known ) has something else to say about all this.

[geoffrey]

[QUOTE=dudalb;4685264]Arrrrgggghhhh....cannot resist it......



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_188404a00dbf58362d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16231)[/QUOTE

I know of the flash TV series. I once recorded a few episodes and reviewd them a couple of times. He could out run record breaking drag cars. I had a reply to my thread they are capable of 0 to a 100mph in less than a second (0.8 to be exact) I berleive.

[geoffrey]

Wait - you're saying that if I fly really really fast around the earth, it wouldn't go back in time and save Lois Lane?

Mathematics does project at light speed we can race round the entire earth seven times in a second. I don't know whether classical physics will permit going back in time to save Loris Lane but from what I can see from quantum physics though it has something else to say about that sort of thing.

[geoffrey]

You have to fly so fast that your underpants end up on the outside...

When you can do that, then Lois is your grrrrrrrrrl (assuming she is the sort of woman who simply falls for her rescuer... this might be stretching probability just a tad too much)

We may be thinking to much about classical physics point of view. From what I can see from Quantum Physics (or mechanics as it’s called) has something to say about superman’s powers of changing the laws of physics to save Lois lane in the past.

[geoffrey]

No. The second hand does not "move through time" any faster than the minute hand. It simply moves faster, through space - around the clockface.

In the same way that a train can move faster than a bicycle, but it doesn't "move through time" any faster.

The difference between the movement of the second hand and the minute hand does not involve any time dilation.

One day usually has 86,400 seconds, yes. And you can indeed calculate that on any two dollar calculator.

Are you listening to what people are telling you here?

OK. Reminds me of the phrase "Space Time”. What I'm thinking of, light speed travels just under 300,000km per second right?. Can that also mean 300,000km distance by a second? Can we say that is a light second? Is by the time we say one thousand and one recognized as the time of a second and 300,000km distance a space? Or I’m getting mixed up with the word space for distance or does space time mean out a space?

If we add up all the seconds of an hour each second a distance of 300,000km can we say light travels that distance by the time a one hour TV program?

[geoffrey]

But how does it smell?

I didn't know time had a smell!

Never the less referring to digital time piece the right hand column is changing numbers every second as equally the second hand of analogue clocks move a single division.

[geoffrey]

Yes I know. Some of theses things are indeed impossible in a classical physics sense. I’m currently reading a book about Quantum physics called Quantum physics can’t hurt you by Marches Chown. It seems Quantum physics (or Quantum mechanics as it’s often known ) has something else to say about all this.

Chapter 9 title is iontetresting tiled The force of gravioty dose not Exist. Do you agree with this? Another auuthor

Chapter 9 of Marcus’s book is interesting as it deals with the force of gravity thatt's suposed to not Exist. ( I wonder what Netwon would have said) Do you agree with this?

And another author Paul Davies the Matter Myth has something to say about that too. I’m currently looking over another of Paul’s books The Goldilocks Enigma again Quantum physics ideas come into the picture and how the universe began . Everything seam’s to be Quantum physics theses days.

[wollery]

Chapter 9 title is iontetresting tiled The force of gravioty dose not Exist. Do you agree with this? Another auuthor

Chapter 9 of Marcus’s book is interesting as it deals with the force of gravity thatt's suposed to not Exist. ( I wonder what Netwon would have said) Do you agree with this? Wait. What? Why the hell aren't I floating off into space then?

And another author Paul Davies the Matter Myth has something to say about that too. I’m currently looking over another of Paul’s books The Goldilocks Enigma again Quantum physics ideas come into the picture and how the universe began . Everything seam’s to be Quantum physics theses days.Well everything but Newtonian mechanics, relativity, electromagnetism.......

[Typicallucas]

Chapter 9 title is iontetresting tiled The force of gravioty dose not Exist. Do you agree with this? Another auuthor

Chapter 9 of Marcus’s book is interesting as it deals with the force of gravity thatt's suposed to not Exist. ( I wonder what Netwon would have said) Do you agree with this?

And another author Paul Davies the Matter Myth has something to say about that too. I’m currently looking over another of Paul’s books The Goldilocks Enigma again Quantum physics ideas come into the picture and how the universe began . Everything seam’s to be Quantum physics theses days.

Geoffrey... we are trying to help you, but you don't seem to be reading our advice. Here is my final attempt. READ THIS:

1) You are trying to run before you can walk. Read Einstein's book Relativity, if you don't understand it go back and take a class in introductory physics, cosmology, or astronomy.
link: http://books.google.com/books?id=gQ8LAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=relativity+by+einstein

2) If you don't take care with your writing (spelling, grammar, punctuation, sentence structure) you aren't going to be taken seriously. Sloppy writers are sloppy thinkers.

3) Learn how to ask a clear and concise question. I suggest you take a basic English class (this will help you with your spelling too) and a Speech class.

[Cuddles]

Geoffrey, serious question. Is English not your first language? When it's just the physics that's the problem we can help explain things, but a lot of your posts are simply incoherent, and you don't appear to be understanding anything anyone says. If you don't speak English as a first language, you'd probably be better off asking questions somewhere where you can speak your native language, or possibly finding someone to translate for you here, since I really don't see this thread going anywhere if it carries on like this.

[geoffrey]

A block of ice to a wormhole

It's said one of the most important works on space and time ion physics is Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. According to his 1905 special theory observers at extreme velocity is supposed to observe clocks slow down dramatically. There's debate whether anything than light speed will be cut it. Are we thinking to much in terms of classical physics?

What about Quantum physics (I seen it sometimes expressed Quantum mechanics). Quantum physics has something else to say about the rules of classic physics. There's a lot of contradictories expressed as Quantum weirdness.

This is my contribution of a Quantum physics perspective.

From a block of ice to a wormhole.

Standing on a coral island a gleaming block of ice, sparkles in the sunlight like a jewel in on the desert island. The warm sea breeze and the smell the salt air blows over the serine island. The barely audible whispering of a tiny water ripples nearby.

We feel a slight tug sensation. We hardly noticeable it as it was just a blink of an eye flash for a split second. We'd swear something had happened. Other the sublime feeling nothing has appeared to have happen. Frowning, we notice the picturesque tranquility has frozen in time. But it's not still like a photograph but to our curiosity shimmering slightly like heat in hot desert.

The block of ice catches our attention. Curiously we study it in more detail. It's shimmering with energy despite the rest of the scene paused in time. Little do we know we had had just sped up faster than speed of light.

Some of us believe time comes to a stop and as we slow down we start going back in time. But in this case we’re witnessing first hand the sparkling of the environment. What we are witnessing are the atomic molecules of the cool air vigorously vibrating. It seems time hasn't freeze the energy entirely.

Our attention is drawn to a muffled soft rumble for a second.

We look to the slowly increasing gathering out of focus shimmering cloud moving towards us. We watch with curiosity the beginning of a nuclear detonation taking place. From our point of view were witnessing less than a second of the environment’s real time seems stretched to the equivalent of a few minutes.

We wait a few agonizing minutes for the scene to slowly increase it's pace increasingly distorting the landscape. It takes a couple of more minutes for the shimmering air to look like an angry swarm of bee's slowing moving across a field.

Our attention is caught by the block of ice slowly melting into a pool of cold water shimmering vigorously unlike any water we've ever seen. We're witnessing first and the vigorously vibrating cold water molecules in action. We're observing cold water as an observer see's it at the extreme velocity beyond the light speed.

Traveling faster than the speed of light, we observe with curiously the whole compresses into a skinny tall picture. We walk over to the puddle and stoop curiously probing the water with our finger. The vigorously vibrating pool moves in waves like a water bottle wobble.

We back off as the molecules increase vibration. The thermal nuclear heat from the detonation is starting to heat the water. We don't see steam as we know it but waves of vigorously vibrating particles drift across the surface of the desert disappearing in the swarm engulfing the landscape rolling across it. The water vapor is not familiar steam but as the vigorously vibrating molecules steam really is. By this time the scene round us is no longer just a vigorous mass of molecules.

We stiffen with nervousness as the vibration doesn't stop there. We start to see the orbiting outer particles called electrons one by one start to move out from from their orbits .

A crowing exodus ensues gathering pace pouring in streams exposing the cores of atoms they were racing round equally vibrating. We have just witnessed first of the high temperature has climbing. We see the extreme heat as individual vigorously vibrating electrons and the core of atoms. To observe atomic particles this intimately we realize with sudden awe the normal environment time is being compressed smaller and smaller by the extreme velocity we regularly refer to as G-forces generated by the extreme compression of beyond light speed.

The nuclear heat has heated to enormous incinerating temperatures. We realize we're watching, with world eyed fascination the nature of atomic parties jiggling about at a million times slower than tour normal environment's second. We realize at this point is where we were taught things are supposed to come to a saturation halt or it would be a situation of the disastrous ultra violet light catastrophe effect that is supposed to not happen in nature.

We watch alarmingly the vigorously vibrating particles showing no signs of stopping exceeding the forces holding the cores of the atoms together. One by one vibrating and spinning they drift away the cores slowly dissembling right before our very eyes. At this stage we are alarmed atoms are no longer atoms, but have become sparsely spread out particle of what's left of atoms. We realize we are observing a further range of particles that once held together the protons and neutrons together against the attempts at escaping. With an anxious realization this has got to be the effect of increasing temperature continuing to rise.

We become alarmed as it seems suspiciously like it's running out of control. We are effectively running into the ultraviolet light catastrophe. The vibrations has surpassed the energy of hundreds of thousands of degrees centigrade.

To our shock horror the temperature seam’s to be running out of control that has just reached ten billion Klein more than a billion degreases calcareous. To our surprise we find the core particles of the atom have departed significantly into an ever increasing stream swirling about us. These smaller particles are the hidden particles called Quarks and leptons and many others.

We realize we are watching the single outer orbiting particle of the hydgreon atom (called an a electron) being squeezed tight into the core by the extreme compression of the velocity were currently traveling at fusing into helium atoms.

To our shock we have just witnessed the extreme compression equivalent to a gravity beyond the maximum speed of light turn all the matter of the scene before our eyes into the birth of a stare.

At this point all the extreme gravitational compression has become the energy of a pure gravitational force. The temperature’s way beyond trillions upon trillions of digress Celsius for that to be able to possible. We realized created by the extreme velocity compression beyond the maximum speed of light. There's so much are gravity compressed into a tiny we are beginning to witnesses first hand vibrating strings forming.

We look round to see we are no longer on an island not even in the center of a star anymore but in space beginning to distort before our very eyes. As the temperature begins to climb some more we spot a rip ahead of us opening up a freighting evil black void. As we gasp in horror the evil looking black hole forms.

Suddenly a burst of energy as what's left of matter spreads out in a vortex cone before our eyes. We're sucked in suddenly reminiscent of falling from the top floor of a tall sky scrapper vertically riding the inside the vortex to some unknown destination. But all that's just academic anyway, as we would have been incinerated ourselves as we are made up of atoms dissembled the same way in during the nuclear detonation.

[realpaladin]

Hello Geoffrey. Welcome!

I have two possibilities for you;

1 - You are a cunning troll eating up lots of time. But I deem that unlikely.

2 - You are interested in matters that are 'yet' a little bit out of your league.

I would like to point out to you that all (mentioned) theories (Newtonian Physics, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory) are just that: theories.

In science, a theory tries to explain what is already observed and it can make predictions on future observations.

When you state things like 'gravity does not exist' or 'Quantum Mechanics says something else' (too lazy to quote, so paraphrasing here) it means nothing more that in that specific theory there is an alternate explanation that works better there.

It does not mean that you should throw out the other theories.

In fact, it is quite accepted that different theories are being used at different scales because it would be too cumbersome to do otherwise.

A good example is biology, chemistry and physics; while, in theory (could not resist), one could explain the workings of the Swine-Flu by using physics (sub-atomic particles->atoms->molecules->DNA->cells etc) but that is unworkable. Even using chemistry it would be too cumbersome. So biology is used.

What I would recommend to you is to first read up on scientific methodology and then classify your problems and questions accordingly.
It will help you immensely to use a theory that fits the problem rather than using the most impressive guns out there.

'If your only tool is a hammer, then all the world is a nail' (or something :) )

[tsig]

A block of ice to a wormhole

It's said one of the most important works on space and time ion physics is Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. According to his 1905 special theory observers at extreme velocity is supposed to observe clocks slow down dramatically. There's debate whether anything than light speed will be cut it. Are we thinking to much in terms of classical physics?

What about Quantum physics (I seen it sometimes expressed Quantum mechanics). Quantum physics has something else to say about the rules of classic physics. There's a lot of contradictories expressed as Quantum weirdness.

This is my contribution of a Quantum physics perspective.

From a block of ice to a wormhole.

Standing on a coral island a gleaming block of ice, sparkles in the sunlight like a jewel in on the desert island. The warm sea breeze and the smell the salt air blows over the serine island. The barely audible whispering of a tiny water ripples nearby.

We feel a slight tug sensation. We hardly noticeable it as it was just a blink of an eye flash for a split second. We'd swear something had happened. Other the sublime feeling nothing has appeared to have happen. Frowning, we notice the picturesque tranquility has frozen in time. But it's not still like a photograph but to our curiosity shimmering slightly like heat in hot desert.

The block of ice catches our attention. Curiously we study it in more detail. It's shimmering with energy despite the rest of the scene paused in time. Little do we know we had had just sped up faster than speed of light.

Some of us believe time comes to a stop and as we slow down we start going back in time. But in this case we’re witnessing first hand the sparkling of the environment. What we are witnessing are the atomic molecules of the cool air vigorously vibrating. It seems time hasn't freeze the energy entirely.

Our attention is drawn to a muffled soft rumble for a second.

We look to the slowly increasing gathering out of focus shimmering cloud moving towards us. We watch with curiosity the beginning of a nuclear detonation taking place. From our point of view were witnessing less than a second of the environment’s real time seems stretched to the equivalent of a few minutes.

We wait a few agonizing minutes for the scene to slowly increase it's pace increasingly distorting the landscape. It takes a couple of more minutes for the shimmering air to look like an angry swarm of bee's slowing moving across a field.

Our attention is caught by the block of ice slowly melting into a pool of cold water shimmering vigorously unlike any water we've ever seen. We're witnessing first and the vigorously vibrating cold water molecules in action. We're observing cold water as an observer see's it at the extreme velocity beyond the light speed.

Traveling faster than the speed of light, we observe with curiously the whole compresses into a skinny tall picture. We walk over to the puddle and stoop curiously probing the water with our finger. The vigorously vibrating pool moves in waves like a water bottle wobble.

We back off as the molecules increase vibration. The thermal nuclear heat from the detonation is starting to heat the water. We don't see steam as we know it but waves of vigorously vibrating particles drift across the surface of the desert disappearing in the swarm engulfing the landscape rolling across it. The water vapor is not familiar steam but as the vigorously vibrating molecules steam really is. By this time the scene round us is no longer just a vigorous mass of molecules.

We stiffen with nervousness as the vibration doesn't stop there. We start to see the orbiting outer particles called electrons one by one start to move out from from their orbits .

A crowing exodus ensues gathering pace pouring in streams exposing the cores of atoms they were racing round equally vibrating. We have just witnessed first of the high temperature has climbing. We see the extreme heat as individual vigorously vibrating electrons and the core of atoms. To observe atomic particles this intimately we realize with sudden awe the normal environment time is being compressed smaller and smaller by the extreme velocity we regularly refer to as G-forces generated by the extreme compression of beyond light speed.

The nuclear heat has heated to enormous incinerating temperatures. We realize we're watching, with world eyed fascination the nature of atomic parties jiggling about at a million times slower than tour normal environment's second. We realize at this point is where we were taught things are supposed to come to a saturation halt or it would be a situation of the disastrous ultra violet light catastrophe effect that is supposed to not happen in nature.

We watch alarmingly the vigorously vibrating particles showing no signs of stopping exceeding the forces holding the cores of the atoms together. One by one vibrating and spinning they drift away the cores slowly dissembling right before our very eyes. At this stage we are alarmed atoms are no longer atoms, but have become sparsely spread out particle of what's left of atoms. We realize we are observing a further range of particles that once held together the protons and neutrons together against the attempts at escaping. With an anxious realization this has got to be the effect of increasing temperature continuing to rise.

We become alarmed as it seems suspiciously like it's running out of control. We are effectively running into the ultraviolet light catastrophe. The vibrations has surpassed the energy of hundreds of thousands of degrees centigrade.

To our shock horror the temperature seam’s to be running out of control that has just reached ten billion Klein more than a billion degreases calcareous. To our surprise we find the core particles of the atom have departed significantly into an ever increasing stream swirling about us. These smaller particles are the hidden particles called Quarks and leptons and many others.

We realize we are watching the single outer orbiting particle of the hydgreon atom (called an a electron) being squeezed tight into the core by the extreme compression of the velocity were currently traveling at fusing into helium atoms.

To our shock we have just witnessed the extreme compression equivalent to a gravity beyond the maximum speed of light turn all the matter of the scene before our eyes into the birth of a stare.

At this point all the extreme gravitational compression has become the energy of a pure gravitational force. The temperature’s way beyond trillions upon trillions of digress Celsius for that to be able to possible. We realized created by the extreme velocity compression beyond the maximum speed of light. There's so much are gravity compressed into a tiny we are beginning to witnesses first hand vibrating strings forming.

We look round to see we are no longer on an island not even in the center of a star anymore but in space beginning to distort before our very eyes. As the temperature begins to climb some more we spot a rip ahead of us opening up a freighting evil black void. As we gasp in horror the evil looking black hole forms.

Suddenly a burst of energy as what's left of matter spreads out in a vortex cone before our eyes. We're sucked in suddenly reminiscent of falling from the top floor of a tall sky scrapper vertically riding the inside the vortex to some unknown destination. But all that's just academic anyway, as we would have been incinerated ourselves as we are made up of atoms dissembled the same way in during the nuclear detonation.

Are you channeling James Joyce?

[politas]

Deleted - self-censorship.

[dafydd]

Geoffrey is a regular customer of mine at the library...

He asked if I could think of anyone that would have a look at his musings and give some friendly helpful critiques.

Of course I immediately thought of the JREF. :-D

He also wanted to post his blog:

http://riplyesbeleiveitornot.blogspot.com/

Have a read and give some feedback...


I think that the key phrase from his blog is 'According to my understanding of physics'.

[dafydd]

What about the power of muscle cars or drag cars? Has anybody challenged mathematics at projecting how much horse power a drag car needs to accelerate to light speed in a second.

I'm off to the drag strip to see that!

[dafydd]

Geoffrey, since you are at the library anyway, look for the book "Relativity" by Albert Einstein. He wrote it for people who want to understand relativity but don't possess the mathematics necessary for a rigorous presentation. It is very readable, and I think you will find that it answers many of your questions. You will learn, for example, that the slowing down of time really has nothing to do with us watching second and minute hands on a watch.

Or 'The ABC Of Relativity' by Bertrand Russell.

[dafydd]

Yes I know. Some of theses things are indeed impossible in a classical physics sense. I’m currently reading a book about Quantum physics called Quantum physics can’t hurt you by Marches Chown. It seems Quantum physics (or Quantum mechanics as it’s often known ) has something else to say about all this.

Here is a review of the book.

New Humanist, December 2007

This brief, non-mathematical introduction to quantum theory and relativity aims to “help ordinary people understand
the principal ideas of 21st-century physics”, and it succeeds magnificently. It succeeds because Marcus Chown is a
skilled and capable writer who clearly understands his subject and knows just how far to push and analogy or
metaphor. Instead of simply rehashing the inadequate explanatory devices of those who have previously tried to
popularise this most abstract science, Chown sets out on his own journey. Freed from the need to re-present the
analogies and metaphors of others, he has relied on his own insights and understanding to come up with a story which
has the narrative drive and explanatory force that this vitally important subject merits. One of the great achievements of
this short book – just 200 pages – is that it explains the basics of modern physics without the need to resort to anything
that could be considered mystical, spiritual or theological. The book has already been passed to by 16-year-old
daughter. I can’t think of a better way of giving her a sound understanding of our current model of the how the
Universe works than this excellent and accessible book.

Note the phrase 'a sound understanding'.

[geoffrey]

What are the health benefits of regularly drinking backing Soda?

[vIQleS]

Hello Geoffrey. Welcome!

I have two possibilities for you;

1 - You are a cunning troll eating up lots of time. But I deem that unlikely.


He's not - you have my personal assurance on that...

Despite all evidence to the contrary... (Makes me wonder about all the other 'obvious troll' threads I've read...)

[realpaladin]

He's not - you have my personal assurance on that...

Despite all evidence to the contrary... (Makes me wonder about all the other 'obvious troll' threads I've read...)

From Quantum Mechanics to health benefits of drinking baking soda? Help me out here...

[gumboot]

I believe David Purley is thought to have survived the highest g-force of any human - 179.8 G's when his racing car crashed after it got a jammed throttle and he went from 173km/h to 0km/h in the space of 66cm.

Unfortunately he died years later in a place crash so you can't ask him about it.

[NobbyNobbs]

We may be thinking <snip>

What's this "we" stuff?


I honestly think that Geoffrey isn't even noticing that other people are posting here, much less reading and understanding those posts.

[six7s]

What's this "we" stuff?


I honestly think that Geoffrey isn't even noticing that other people are posting here, much less reading and understanding those posts.The "we" is accurate...

He's not reading what he writes, either:

If G-force is a natural consequence of accelleration physics in every day life what then would happen to 1kg from 0 to 160kmph (or 100mph) in 1 second or to a distance of 160 in the same time.

If G-force is a natural consequence of accelleration physics in every day life then what would happen to a 1kg mass accelerated from 0 to 160kmph (or 100mph) in 1 second or to a distance of 160 to a stop in the same amonut of time.

:rolleyes:

[six7s]

Ummmm........

Maybe we're being too harsh

Geoffrey's blog suggests that he is trying to understand and, most importantly, he ain't afraid to freely admit his errors :)

See http://riplyesbeleiveitornot.blogspot.com/

Ripley's believe or not

Quantum theory (physics or mechanics as it's so often expressed)opens up a whole new meaning of Ripley's believe it or not in physics.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Corection of 0 to 160km distance by the time we say one thousand and one I’ve been corrected concerning 0 to 160km distance by the time we say one thousand and one (in one second) I pointed out in my previous posts.

It appears my descriptions of an observer observing the environment a 160km distance in one second is wrong to the extent requires the maximum speed of star light to achieve my described dilution effect of Einstein's theory of relativity applying. We need to do a distance the maximum speed of star light travels in a second. (299.8 thousand Kilometres often rounded off to 300,000km) And even at light speed is very minimal, not as dramatic as I made it out to be.

Still, the physics of extreme acceleration is an interesting one.
<snip/>

[FireGarden]

I believe David Purley is thought to have survived the highest g-force of any human - 179.8 G's when his racing car crashed after it got a jammed throttle and he went from 173km/h to 0km/h in the space of 66cm.

Unfortunately he died years later in a place crash so you can't ask him about it.

Is that "years" for us or him?

[wollery]

What are the health benefits of regularly drinking backing Soda?Strengthens the vertebrae? :boggled:






By the way, geoffrey, that's a joke.

[realpaladin]

Let me have another go at this (apologies to the rest of you guys):

Jeffrey, this is a forum, not a blog! We discuss things. This means we write and we read what the other person says. Then we reply to that.

Can you read this?

Hope that helps

[vIQleS]

From Quantum Mechanics to health benefits of drinking baking soda? Help me out here...

Geoffrey's a bit of a newbie on the internet, and isn't fully confident on the forum software yet. I'm helping him as and when I can... (he comes in everyday, but sometimes I'm not here or I'm busy with others...)

I think that's a perfectly valid question... (I'm assuming it's something he's heard somewhere...), but it needs to be posted in a new thread...

I've explained to him that its needs its own thread, but he's a little bit frustrated with the forum at the moment.

I've told him to take a couple of days and then come back when he's feeling less stressed.

I'd just like to extend my personal thanks to everyone who's been trying to offer constructive advice and information. I have to say that my original post was a little bit tongue-in-cheek... (I knew there'd be some people to give him a hard time...)

I'm always really impressed with how patient and helpful people on the JREF forum are.

I'm proud to call you all my friends... <Sob>

</oscar scene>

:-D

[realpaladin]

Well, Jeffrey is welcome to ask questions anytime, he just needs to muster the patience to hear the answers as well :)

I am willing to do this for him: if he is not sure what to do, let him PM me and I will either start a new thread or help him formulate his questions.

[vIQleS]

Well, Jeffrey is welcome to ask questions anytime, he just needs to muster the patience to hear the answers as well :)

I am willing to do this for him: if he is not sure what to do, let him PM me and I will either start a new thread or help him formulate his questions.

I suggested that as well - I figured there'd be someone who would be willing to help him with posts before posting... I don't think he's quite there yet...

[wollery]

Oh, and I minor point with regards to the OP.

I study stars in the local Solar neighbourhood (out to about 300 parsecs, almost 1000 light years) and some of them travel at speeds of 300km/s relative to us, which is more than 6 times faster than Geoffrey's suggested experiment, and I don't have to take relativistic effects into account, because there aren't any. Or rather, the relativistic effects are so small that they're unnoticeable.

[vIQleS]

What are the health benefits of regularly drinking backing Soda?

Just FYI:

Possible Dangers:

http://www.earthclinic.com/Remedies/baking_soda.html
http://www.drugs.com/enc/baking-soda-overdose.html

And because he told me he feels better:

The placebo effect: (feeling better because you think you should - not because of the product you're taking)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo
http://www.skepdic.com/placebo.html