That is an important piece of info for sure.
The Speed Of Light ??
- Thread starter billt460
- Start date
I have a hard time with the "being accelerated" part, because 180 degrees opposite of me there is some guy sitting in a chair on Christmas Island being "accelerated" in the exact opposite direction..... Yet we're both going nowhere.
By the way, I’ve heard that Han Solo’s original line was scientifically accurate but that Harrison Ford kinda blew it.
He’s not an astronomer.
So, when he said “made the Kessel run in 12 parsecs” - they just left it as filmed. Nonsensical for those who understand astronomy but didn’t affect the movie for the other 99.9%.
Fans have retconned it to have it make sense, but that’s not what happened in filming.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
Think of it this way ... (as applied to our Earthly realm; not being in space)
Acceleration is a noun. Its definition is conceptually that it is a component of force; a tendency to move toward something.
Accelerating is a verb. Its definition is conceptually that movement is present in an ever escalating (or de-escalating) motion; a change in velocity.
They are related; they are NOT the same thing.
"Acceleration" becomes "accelerating" when the opposite forces are no longer in balance.
Acceleration is always present if a force is present. But that does not require a mass to be in motion.
F=MA ... force is a product of mass multiplied by acceleration. (Not "accelerating").
This is where most folks get lost. They think something must be moving for acceleration to be present; they confuse "acceleration" with "accelerating".
Does that help?
That makes sense. As crazy as it sounds, the Apollo astronauts literally fell to Earth from the Moon...... They were accelerating all the way until they hit the atmosphere at 25,000 MPH. Yet they were weightless all the way until they started to decelerate in the atmosphere.
One other thought.
Most stars exist in what is known as the “main sequence“. Those are stars of average mass, and they go through a normal life cycle. Our sun is in that main sequence and it is roughly middle aged.
So, yes, stars vary in luminosity throughout their life cycle.
Which is why Hubble could not use regular stars for that determination of distance.
Cepheid variables are another matter. Luminosity was established in those types through parallax measurement of distance.
Then, once the relationship between period and luminosity was verified, they became the “standard candles”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheid_variable
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence
I see. You get my question. I just have to wonder, and it is part of my being, to ask questions. Interesting subject.
I'm the same way. The problem is for every question you find a plausible answer to, it brings up another question or questions.
In many ways, the history of science, the evolution of thought, and how the discoveries were made, are more interesting than the science itself.
Life is for learning. I love this thread.
The Stanford KIPAC lectures and the others around Silicon Valley, are incredible. I always look forward to them.
I highly suggest searching out similar opportunities in your area. I post links to the KIPAC lectures; they are streamed.
This is because the same force of gravity was the only acceleration on both the ship and the crew, and it accelerated everything at the same rate. When there is an external force affecting only the ship such as the rocket engine or atmospheric drag, the crew experiences "weight" pressing themselves against the ship to force them to accelerate with it. In a house or in an airplane in level flight, or a space capsule after it lands, the people feel "weight" forcing them toward the floor because there is an external force on the floor (the foundation or the wings) holding it still against gravity, but the people are free to fall.
Last edited:
It sure got a set of legs, didn't it? 172 posts and counting.
I like comparisons. It helps put some of this stuff into perspective. I read that if you could steadily accelerate at 1G, it would take .95 of a year to reach the speed of light.
1G is supposedly what that new 1,063 H.P. Corvette is able to provide. (There are several other supercars that claim that same rate of acceleration)...... But sadly not for a year.
1G is supposedly what that new 1,063 H.P. Corvette is able to provide. (There are several other supercars that claim that same rate of acceleration)...... But sadly not for a year.
IMO, this is an important thread. Get's people thinking and contributing. We are all on different levels, but together we cover a lot of bases. I salute you for your posts. Honest and open minded. Bravo!
Speaking of G forces, have you been in a sub 3 second 0-60, 10 second qtr mile car? Lotta pull...
---------------------
I have been thinking about this some more. Space itself being expanding between said distant object and us could mean that the expansion itself would prevent gravity effects from ever reaching us, or at least add to the time required for it to reach us.
And also when did said distant object or the components that make it, first come into existance?
Owen Lucas
$100 Site Donor 2023
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2021
- Messages
- 3,588
Wow, we've got some seriously smart people here on BITOG!
Have mercy... Now, how do I quantify that into my use case? Gotta work on that.
No, just Astro14
Yep. And @billt460 for starting this thread! And everyone for reading...
