Re: speed limits for macroscopic bodies


Bilge ha scritto:

> beda pietanza:
>
> >If we accelerate slowly a macroscopic body, in to the outer space, at
> >the low range of speed we will find that our every day physics holds,
> >but as we get to very high speed many exotic effects would come into
> >play, surely the know laws of physics don't apply simply as that.
> >
> >I am not challenging you on anything.
> >
> >Only I want to go deep into is what happen to macroscopic bodies at
> >very high speed.
>
> Then the place to start is getting a clear understanding of
> what velocity means.

A object moving at very high velocity versus the ether (say .5 C) this
velocity is practically identical to the one versus a terrestrial lab:
so what happen of a macro object moving at .5 C ????; or why there is
not such a thing ????

>
> >There are good reasons to expect very high speed macro objects coming
> >from the enormous explosions of novae (or the kind), but we don't see
> >them.
> >
> >Of the following two:
> >
> >a)macro objects structure cannot stand high speeds
>
> Start over. Forces cause structural failure. Either redefine
> a force or try to understand what a velocity is and what an
> acceleration is.

There are many other causes that produce structural failures, in the
case I am proposing, the solicitations that produce the structural
failure are generated in to the body structure by the ether drag and
the ether discontinuities and by the weakening of the interatomic
bounding forces due to the spatial continuous relocation of EM fields.

regards

beda pietanza

>
> >
> >b)in a hypothetical warped drive shield in which a macro object travels
> >at a very large speed, once the shield is taken away, the macro object
> >is rapidly dragged down if not melted.
> >
> >I wont go into reasoning again why a macro object cannot stand high
> >speed because of the weakening of its bounding inter atomic forces
> >versus the increased solicitations coming from the its interactions
> >with the discontinuity of the ether.
> >
> >If you don't want to discuss this, is a pity, anyways we won't find the
> >answer in the Newton nor Galilean or Einstein physics, there is not an
> >answer yet, it is gratuitous speculation.
> >
> > I assume that you think newtonian
> >> mechanics and galilean relativity are also wrong.
> >>
> >> >> >One practical prove, that there are no macroscopic bodies travelling at
> >> >> >very high absolute speed, is that we have not experienced such bodies
> >> >> >falling on Earth:just a little stone would be very destructive.
> >> >>
> >> >> Little stones are very destructive. What do you think would
> >> >> happen if you got hot by one of those stones before it burned
> >> >> up in the atmosphere?
> >> >
> >> >Little stones burning in the atmosphere even if they have a speed like
> >> >a
> >> >comet (say 10.000 m/s some 0.00003 C) are very dangerous, what
> >> >would happen if they had a speed of say .5 C, on the Earth are falling
> >> >thousand tons of material each year if only a small part of it had such
> >>
> >> Since the kinetic energy that ultimately gets transferred is
> >> is mv^2/2 (in the newtonian limit) or (\gamma - 1)mc^2 rela-
> >> tivistically, the energy deposited is nominally proportional
> >> to the square of the velocity but directy proportional to the mass.
> >>
> >> >speeds the atmosphere and oceans would disappear in a very short time.
> >>
> >> Instead of speculating, why dont you do an actual calculation and
> >> find the temperature rise to see how large even a chunk of iron
> >> would need to be to keep from melting.
> >>
> >> >Fortunately (and very instructively) there is not such speedy material
> >> >in the skies and we are to worry only for massive yet rather slow and
> >> >very rare objects.
> >>
> >> If you haven't noted the idiotic u.s. ``star wars'' weapons,
> >> search google for ``rods from god'' (seriously). The rods are
> >> hypotheticaly about 10cm radius by up to maybe 5 meters
> >> and made of tungsten. The intent is to drop them from
> >> low orbit satellites. The energy is supposed to be sufficent
> >> to vaporize the tungsten on impact.
> >
> >I am interested in what happen to a tungsten rod moving at .5 C in the
> >ether or in why there is not such a case; the impacts (of objects at
> >orbital speeds) with the atmosphere are well known.
> >
> >regards
> >
> >beda pietanza
> >

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: speed limits for macroscopic bodies
    ... >>I am proposing that macroscopic bodies have discontinuity behaviour: ... a)macro objects structure cannot stand high speeds ... b)in a hypothetical warped drive shield in which a macro object travels ... >>speeds the atmosphere and oceans would disappear in a very short time. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system
    ... >> believed that his equations represented light travelling in the ether. ... You have been working with relativity too ... MMX was a cross roads of physics or more like a T junction. ... >ultimately use relative speeds. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Simple Sagnac
    ... many different ideas about how the "ether" interacted with ordinary ... > relativity) I don't see any way to predict the correct Sagnac fringe ... speeds to account for the observed behavior at all frequencies. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: physical sources, physical observers, physical spaces
    ... >>> dependent upon the speed of the observer. ... >>> stationary w.r.t the ether. ... physics uniquely applied could be identified in nature" - your version ... travelling at two different speeds between S and AB, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Farce that is Called Henri Wilson
    ... Maxwell believed that he had discovered wave equations describing waves in the ether. ... Lorentz's theory said that light travelled in the ether at c but because of the transforms it appeared to every observer that he is stationary w.r.t the ether. ... Despite getting a Nobel prize for discovering the photon Einstein makes no mention of photons in relativity. ... Basically in his mind Light consists of waves propagating IN something and you cannot have waves propagating at different speeds in the same 'something'. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)