Which is better, bishop or knight?
World's Biggest Question?
Sort:
AnthonyCG wrote:
The Riddle
bobbyDK wrote:
I think the worlds biggest chess questions is "how to solve chess completely" - even with the worlds best supercomputers - we cannot.
This guy may have a point about the Big question to chess.
I don't know, maybe
Why do you insist on wearing those ugly, putid, purple and pink striped, new, dirty, shoes every day of th week?
Or something else with huge font, lots of adjectives, etc.
Bur_Oak wrote:
"Just will not agree with you as you have absolutely no convincng physics arguments or proof of what you are advancing."
It doesn't require argument or proof. It's a definition. "Light year" is a unit of distance, period. Learn it.
"Did you ever consider outside of physics and all of the theories that it takes time to travel a distance?"
Of course it takes time to travel a distance. Nowhere did I dispute that. But the time it takes your friend to walk from his house to yours is not a factor in the distance. A meter is a meter. A mile is a mile. A light year is a light year. Anything or anybody travelling that distance, or the time it takes to do so may be relevant to them or it, but it is entirely irrelevant to the distance. You are adding something else to the equation and claiming it fundamentally alters a constant. Ridiculous.
Can we just resolve this by saying that the distance in light years between our planets will be the number of years it takes for us to communicate our moves?
Incidentally I was interested about gravity changing light's direction and wavelength, but not altering its speed. The speed of light can be changed by going through material, why can gravity not slow light?
For the world's biggest chess question, just use something related to chess.
The world's most thought provoking question, however, is much harder to determine.
The world's biggest question would be: WHY ARE WE DOING THIS?
paul211 wrote:
Hypocrism wrote:
Bur_Oak wrote:
"Just will not agree with you as you have absolutely no convincng physics arguments or proof of what you are advancing."
It doesn't require argument or proof. It's a definition. "Light year" is a unit of distance, period. Learn it.
"Did you ever consider outside of physics and all of the theories that it takes time to travel a distance?"
Of course it takes time to travel a distance. Nowhere did I dispute that. But the time it takes your friend to walk from his house to yours is not a factor in the distance. A meter is a meter. A mile is a mile. A light year is a light year. Anything or anybody travelling that distance, or the time it takes to do so may be relevant to them or it, but it is entirely irrelevant to the distance. You are adding something else to the equation and claiming it fundamentally alters a constant. Ridiculous.
Can we just resolve this by saying that the distance in light years between our planets will be the number of years it takes for us to communicate our moves?
Incidentally I was interested about gravity changing light's direction and wavelength, but not altering its speed. The speed of light can be changed by going through material, why can gravity not slow light?
This is a very acute question and I had to do research to try to give a full explanation.
The gravitational waves (assume they are waves, and that they exist as such) would be of extremely long wavelengths. As a consequence, the virtual particles would not act as a barrier to them any more than dust particles act as a barrier to infrared light. Therefore it may well be that if gravitational waves exist; their speed will be that of the original speed of light and not the speed of light now.
What is gravity? We think of it as the attraction of one MASS to another, but it is rather the effect of electromagnetic fields sent out by charged particles in motion (due to the battering of the ZPE). Thus, the denser the mass, the more charged particles are there, the more motion they exhibit, the denser the electromagnetic field. This is the attractive force we perceive as gravity. As a result, this greater electromagnetic field will produce a greater number of virtual particles at any one time in any given volume. Thus light is slowed even more in these areas and we then see it as gravity 'bending' light. What we are actually seeing is light which is slowed more than normal in local denser fields of the ZPE.
Gravity affects the speed of light by a very small amount.
Gravitational force, or gravity, is the mutual attraction between all masses in the universe. Most scientists assume that gravity travels at the speed of light, which is actually the propagation speed of electromagnetic waves (such as light) in a vacuum. The speed of light is a physical constant equal to exactly 299,792.458 kilometers per second.
Gravity is caused by the mass-energy density of space. This mass-energy density of space is determined by the square of the Wave-Amplitude and is always positive (squares are always positive). The Wave-Velocity is inversely proportional to the square root of the mass-energy density of space, the higher the mass-energy density of space, the slower the Wave-Velocity. As Matter and its resultant mass-energy density of space are always positive, this causes a slowing of In-Waves as they travel through other matter/wave-motions, and it is this property of Space that causes the natural ‘Gravitational’ attraction of all bodies, and explains why Gravity is always attractive.
Thus we realize that the presence of another ‘particle’ (as the Wave-Center of a Spherical Standing Wave/electron) will add to the density of space and slow down and thus distort the in-waves. Part of the in-wave near the other particle will travel slower. Thus the slower part will cause the center of the in-wave to continually move. We will observe this as motion of the ‘particle’ though it is actually caused by a succession of wave-centers forming in different locations in Space. Slowing occurs because the presence of the waves of the other particle increases the mass-energy density of space. This increase is very slight compared the whole density of Space which is determined by the sum of the waves of all the matter in our Hubble Universe This Mass-energy density of space rule is Principle Two, an extended version of Mach's Principle. The small effect of one particle is the reason why gravity is such a small force - that is, about 10^-40 times smaller than the electric force.
Now You Understand the Origin of Gravity. That is it! Gravity is a result of the slowing of the In-Waves causing the wave center to move towards other Wave-Centers. Gravity has been touted as the most puzzling of the forces. Indeed, before the Wave Structure of Matter was discovered there were no explanations of gravity, only speculations. Millions of research dollars have been, and still are being spent trying to find 'gravitons', a mythical particle similar to the 'photon' which supposedly carried energy like a pack horse between two particles. In fact we now realize that this fundamental concept of motion is the cause of all the forces in nature. This is logical thinking because the motion concept contains the meaning of force.
Is there gravity in space?
There is gravity in space... only it's very, very small. It's called "microgravity" because it is so small. Gravity affects everything, everywhere, although in space it is usually such a small effect that it can be ignored.
Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole?
Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light. But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light (gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight" is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still constant.
Dr. Eric Christian
The speed of light isn't always constant. A team from Harvard university had manged to shine it through rubhinstium (bad spelling) bec (Bose-Einstein condensate, which is matter cooled to almost absolute zero), and brought light to a complete standstill.
Th record before that was 38 kph, slower than a bicycle. Light is always slower when it shines through something. Many people believe the difference is insignifigant unless under extreme conditions. This isn't true. For example, light is about half as fast when shining through diamonds at normal temperatures. Only when in a vacum does it reach its maxinum speed of nearly 300,000 kilometers per second. Light's speed isn't affected by gravity, though.
The biggest question is: Why should we answer it?
OH, darn it.
MichaelCole wrote:
What is 9 times 6
(Hint. The answer is 42)
Another version:
What great and universal question can be answered by "42?"
jim995 wrote:
The speed of light isn't always constant. A team from Harvard university had manged to shine it through rubhinstium (bad spelling) bec (Bose-Einstein condensate, which is matter cooled to almost absolute zero), and brought light to a complete standstill.
Th record before that was 38 kph, slower than a bicycle. Light is always slower when it shines through something. Many people believe the difference is insignifigant unless under extreme conditions. This isn't true. For example, light is about half as fast when shining through diamonds at normal temperatures. Only when in a vacum does it reach its maxinum speed of nearly 300,000 kilometers per second. Light's speed isn't affected by gravity, though.
It also depends on what you mean by "speed." In some materials, the front velocity of light exceeds c.
But the more important fact here is that c is a fundamental constant that in no way depends on light. Light moves through a vacuum at c because it is massless, not because it is part of the definition.
As for the value of c changing over the eons, I'm pretty sure that is a very unattractive idea to most phycisists and certainly isn't substantiated by any evidence. But I suppose it is theoretically possible.
On topic:
While we all know the greatest chess question is "what is the meaning of strategically position?" I propose that the second biggest question is:
What does this man know?
paul211 wrote
I agree on the definition of a light year but perhaps reread my post that a light emission sent 1,000 years ago is the TIME it took to reach us here on earth.
"...sent 1,000 years ago..."
Precisely what I said: "YEARS." The time is in years. Just years. Time is not measured in light years. It is measured in years. Do not use "light year" as a unit of time, and we have no argument.
(Also, while it hasn't come up, never say "centrifugal force" to a physicist unless you want to sound like an idiot. There is no such thing.)
Bur_Oak wrote:
paul211 wrote
I agree on the definition of a light year but perhaps reread my post that a light emission sent 1,000 years ago is the TIME it took to reach us here on earth.
"...sent 1,000 years ago..."
Precisely what I said: "YEARS." The time is in years. Just years. Time is not measured in light years. It is measured in years. Do not use "light year" as a unit of time, and we have no argument.
(Also, while it hasn't come up, never say "centrifugal force" to a physicist unless you want to sound like an idiot. There is no such thing.)
As a physics student myself, I just had to say: technically there is, in some sense; though only if you use a moving reference frame (i.e. the reference frame of the object moving in a circle). I've used it to simplify one or two questions in Newtonian mechanics.
Obligatory xkcd link: http://xkcd.com/123/
Oct 5, 2010
0
#76
Bur_Oak wrote: (Also, while it hasn't come up, never say "centrifugal force" to a physicist unless you want to sound like an idiot. There is no such thing.)
tyzebug wrote: As a physics student myself, I just had to say: technically there is, in some sense; though only if you use a moving reference frame (i.e. the reference frame of the object moving in a circle). I've used it to simplify one or two questions in Newtonian mechanics.
Obligatory xkcd link: http://xkcd.com/123/
Apparatus for Facilitating the Birth of a Child by Centrifugal Force.
There is no question about it. Haha. :]
tyzebug wrote:
Bur_Oak wrote:
paul211 wrote
I agree on the definition of a light year but perhaps reread my post that a light emission sent 1,000 years ago is the TIME it took to reach us here on earth.
"...sent 1,000 years ago..."
Precisely what I said: "YEARS." The time is in years. Just years. Time is not measured in light years. It is measured in years. Do not use "light year" as a unit of time, and we have no argument.
(Also, while it hasn't come up, never say "centrifugal force" to a physicist unless you want to sound like an idiot. There is no such thing.)
As a physics student myself, I just had to say: technically there is, in some sense; though only if you use a moving reference frame (i.e. the reference frame of the object moving in a circle). I've used it to simplify one or two questions in Newtonian mechanics.
Obligatory xkcd link: http://xkcd.com/123/
xkcd is awesome
by the way the most important question is the one with the answer 42 as people rightly noted.
tyzebug wrote:
... technically there is, in some sense; though only if you use a moving reference frame (i.e. the reference frame of the object moving in a circle).
Technically, there isn't. What arises is a perception problem from an improperly chosen frame of reference. It's like constructing a model of the universe with Earth as the fixed frame of reference, and trying to come up with equations that explain how the entire universe can revolve around it every 24 hours without flying apart.
The object moving in a circle has its motion defined in a frame of reference not its own. In that frame of reference, which is the only one that can properly explain its motion, centrifugal force is a myth. The only factors are momentum and centripetal acceleration -- the deflection of the object inward.
Like a friend's physics teacher used to say: "F=ma, and you can't push on a rope."
That's cool.