| |
Main
Date: 07 Apr 2007 08:26:58
From: marian.rosenberg@gmail.com
Subject: The Speed of Light
|
The very first time I went up Ertouling I timed myself. I wanted to
see how fast I could go. I wasn't really setting my baseline since
I'd done 140 km the day before and was travelling with luggage but it
seemed to be a good start.
The next time I went up Ertouling (significantly more rested and
luggage free) I cut 9 minutes off of my time.
This prompted a friend of mine to ask me how much weight I'd need to
lose before I could travel up the mountain at light speed. And
because it's raining outside I have nothing much better to do than to
actually attempt to figure out that answer.
Light travels at 299,792.458 km/s
At 9.2 kilometers meters It would take light .0000306878967 seconds to
go the same distance. Rounding that to six signifcant digits gives us
.000031 seconds.
My first trip up the mountain took 61 minutes.
At 95 kilos + perhaps 4 kilo in luggage and 12 kilo in bike I'm
clearly not very light.
The second trip up the mountain took 52 minutes.
This was 95 kilos + 12 kilos in bike, no luggage.
96.4% of the weight = 85.3% of the time
Let's assume a linear progression. There are a number of different
ways the equation can be run but I'm going to assume linear weight
loss = linear time loss.
The first time I run the equation I get 103.1 kilo and 44 minutes 18
seconds. We'll ignore the inconvenient part of reality where I now
know I can do the mountain in 46 minutes and small change because
that's well, inconvenient, and doesn't have "useful" data points
regarding removal of weight from the bike + rider combo.
The second time I run the equation I get 99.4 kilo and 37 minutes 51
seconds. Since the regulations regarding stupid expensive uber light
race bikes are hovering around 7 kilo _obviously_ all I need to do is
lose 3 kilo and buy a new bike and I can chop 15 minutes off my time.
Round three gets me 95.9 kilo and 32 minutes 17 seconds. My actual
target weight is around 85 kilo so if I could get there I ought to be
able to ride my current bike to the top of the mountain at about the
same speed as some of the better of the local men, right?
At 92.4 kilo combined bike and rider the equation produces 27 minutes
31 seconds. Target weight + uber wonder bike and it logically follows
that I should be beating the best of local men.
Another round gives me 89.1 kilo and 23 minutes 30 seconds. That's
better than the time some of the professional riders did in the Tour
de Hainan. Wow.
Following this tortured train of logic and bad math we see that by the
time I get down to 61.7 kilo I should be able to go up the mountain in
4 minutes 47 seconds.
At a skeletal 42.8 kilo using a bike made out of spiderwebs, spun
glass, and lots of drilled components I break the one minute mark.
By the time I reach 16.5 kilo I should be able to go up the mountain
in under 1 second. But I'm still not fast enough. I'm still not
light enough.
At 7.6 kilo it should take a mere 33 thousandths of a second. That's
the margin by which Ah Ling beat me in our improbable photo finish at
the Guangzhou Bikers' Festival in July. Still not entirely sure how
those little radio transponders calculated thousandths of a second or
why they didn't just declare us a tie.
By the time I reach 5.7 kilo I will finally break the hundredth of a
second mark. And at 3.3 kilo I'll break the thousandth of a second
mark.
But it isn't until 2.5 kilos that I finally break the laws of physics
and manage to go up Ertouling faster than the speed of light.
-M
|
|
| |
Date: 02 May 2007 01:23:32
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
In article <584lmnF2fdr75U1@mid.individual.net >,
"Pat" <Pat@overtheprairie.com > writes:
> And a bluejay has been
>> lingering nearby, bawling out passers-by.
>>
>>
>> cheers, & The word of the Day: femtosecond,
>> Tom
>
> Add a cat to the equation and see the fun the bluejay has!
In my neighbourhood, we have these horse chestnut trees.
Crows like to nest in them. But the raccoons also like
to get amorous in them. Right in front of the crows,
right up next to the crows' nests.
The raccoons do the rockin' and the crows do the squawkin'.
That's what happens when the liberals outweigh the
conservatives, or vice versa -- a bunch of useless,
irritating noise, and then, life as per usual.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | |
Date: 02 May 2007 15:50:01
From: Bill
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <584lmnF2fdr75U1@mid.individual.net>,
> "Pat" <Pat@overtheprairie.com> writes:
>> And a bluejay has been
>>> lingering nearby, bawling out passers-by.
>>>
>>>
>>> cheers, & The word of the Day: femtosecond,
>>> Tom
>> Add a cat to the equation and see the fun the bluejay has!
>
> In my neighbourhood, we have these horse chestnut trees.
> Crows like to nest in them. But the raccoons also like
> to get amorous in them. Right in front of the crows,
> right up next to the crows' nests.
>
> The raccoons do the rockin' and the crows do the squawkin'.
>
> That's what happens when the liberals outweigh the
> conservatives, or vice versa -- a bunch of useless,
> irritating noise, and then, life as per usual.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>
You just defined politics as usual.
Bill
|
| |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 19:44:02
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
In article <fMUSh.279022$5j1.203795@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net >,
"Leo Lichtman" <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net > writes:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Silly, but interesting to contemplate. When the light is turned on in a
> dark room, a spherical light front emanates from the bulb, and then a
> complex set of refletions and re-reflections from the walls takes place,
> until, in less than a microsecond, the room is filled with a uniform
> criss-crossing of light beams. When the light is turned off, a spherical
> field of darkness emanates from the bulb, reaching and reflecting from the
> walls in precisely the same sequence, and the room "gradually" becomes dark
> in less than a microsecond. A good programmer could probably analyze this
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think you mean a good mathematician.
Maybe computer modeling could be done with the
help of Arbitrary Precision Arithmetic, and
a really long word-size (data bus) processor.
But we're talking huge (as in long) rational numbers,
possibly beyond the scope of any 8086 descendant.
Then there's the old headache of rounding-off/up binary
irrational numbers. I don't even wanna think about it.
I have a garden to weed. And a discarded half-bike
(Peugot Rapport) to dismantle and salvage the alloy 27"
rims, whatever hubs, and the Shimano 105 pedals with
their proprietary Aero 3-screw toeclips -- they'll go
well on the old "12-speed" I just built up out of parts
from several other discarded bikes. I think I've pretty
much got a lifetime supply of alloy-rimmed 27" wheels now.
> growth and decay process, and reveal it a a slower pace so we can visualize
> it. Maybe someone smarter than me could do this, and post the results for
> the rest of us to enjoy. I don't have a high speed internet connection, so
> I would like this to take just a minute or so.
Ride reports are more entertaining.
I saw my first robin of the season over the weekend.
And a few fuzzy bumblebees. Fewer of those slick,
caramel-coloured worker bees. And a bluejay has been
lingering nearby, bawling out passers-by.
cheers, & The word of the Day: femtosecond,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 12:53:42
From: Pat
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
And a bluejay has been
> lingering nearby, bawling out passers-by.
>
>
> cheers, & The word of the Day: femtosecond,
> Tom
Add a cat to the equation and see the fun the bluejay has!
|
| | |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 14:13:16
From: nash
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
"Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:i1ihve.c8k.ln@bud.garden.local...
> In article <fMUSh.279022$5j1.203795@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Leo Lichtman" <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Silly, but interesting to contemplate. When the light is turned on in a
>> dark room, a spherical light front emanates from the bulb, and then a
>> complex set of refletions and re-reflections from the walls takes place,
>> until, in less than a microsecond, the room is filled with a uniform
>> criss-crossing of light beams. When the light is turned off, a spherical
>> field of darkness emanates from the bulb, reaching and reflecting from
>> the
>> walls in precisely the same sequence, and the room "gradually" becomes
>> dark
>> in less than a microsecond. A good programmer could probably analyze
>> this
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I think you mean a good mathematician.
>
> Maybe computer modeling could be done with the
> help of Arbitrary Precision Arithmetic, and
> a really long word-size (data bus) processor.
> But we're talking huge (as in long) rational numbers,
> possibly beyond the scope of any 8086 descendant.
> Then there's the old headache of rounding-off/up binary
> irrational numbers. I don't even wanna think about it.
> I have a garden to weed. And a discarded half-bike
> (Peugot Rapport) to dismantle and salvage the alloy 27"
> rims, whatever hubs, and the Shimano 105 pedals with
> their proprietary Aero 3-screw toeclips -- they'll go
> well on the old "12-speed" I just built up out of parts
> from several other discarded bikes. I think I've pretty
> much got a lifetime supply of alloy-rimmed 27" wheels now.
>
>> growth and decay process, and reveal it a a slower pace so we can
>> visualize
>> it. Maybe someone smarter than me could do this, and post the results
>> for
>> the rest of us to enjoy. I don't have a high speed internet connection,
>> so
>> I would like this to take just a minute or so.
>
> Ride reports are more entertaining.
>
> I saw my first robin of the season over the weekend.
> And a few fuzzy bumblebees. Fewer of those slick,
> caramel-coloured worker bees. And a bluejay has been
> lingering nearby, bawling out passers-by.
>
>
> cheers, & The word of the Day: femtosecond,
> Tom
>
> --
> Nothing is safe from me.
> Above address is just a spam midden.
> I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
You sound like a hermit Tom. I live in the Surrey part of the GVRD
They have all been here for 3 months if they left at all?
The bumble bees, yes, got them 3 weeks ago.
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 04:28:12
From: Bill
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
nash wrote:
> "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i1ihve.c8k.ln@bud.garden.local...
>> In article <fMUSh.279022$5j1.203795@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> "Leo Lichtman" <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> Silly, but interesting to contemplate. When the light is turned on in a
>>> dark room, a spherical light front emanates from the bulb, and then a
>>> complex set of refletions and re-reflections from the walls takes place,
>>> until, in less than a microsecond, the room is filled with a uniform
>>> criss-crossing of light beams. When the light is turned off, a spherical
>>> field of darkness emanates from the bulb, reaching and reflecting from
>>> the
>>> walls in precisely the same sequence, and the room "gradually" becomes
>>> dark
>>> in less than a microsecond. A good programmer could probably analyze
>>> this
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> I think you mean a good mathematician.
A good mathematician and a good programmer both.
>>
>> Maybe computer modeling could be done with the
>> help of Arbitrary Precision Arithmetic, and
>> a really long word-size (data bus) processor.
>> But we're talking huge (as in long) rational numbers,
>> possibly beyond the scope of any 8086 descendant.
>> Then there's the old headache of rounding-off/up binary
>> irrational numbers. I don't even wanna think about it.
>> I have a garden to weed. And a discarded half-bike
>> (Peugot Rapport) to dismantle and salvage the alloy 27"
>> rims, whatever hubs, and the Shimano 105 pedals with
>> their proprietary Aero 3-screw toeclips -- they'll go
>> well on the old "12-speed" I just built up out of parts
>> from several other discarded bikes. I think I've pretty
>> much got a lifetime supply of alloy-rimmed 27" wheels now.
>>
>>> growth and decay process, and reveal it a a slower pace so we can
>>> visualize
>>> it. Maybe someone smarter than me could do this, and post the results
>>> for
>>> the rest of us to enjoy. I don't have a high speed internet connection,
>>> so
>>> I would like this to take just a minute or so.
>> Ride reports are more entertaining.
>>
>> I saw my first robin of the season over the weekend.
>> And a few fuzzy bumblebees. Fewer of those slick,
>> caramel-coloured worker bees. And a bluejay has been
>> lingering nearby, bawling out passers-by.
We have a bee shortage that is said to be the downfall of many
California crops this year. One of my rides takes me past a bee farm,
one that is notably devoid of bees or hive boxes this year.
This could be the year of really high fruit prices in addition to those
gas prices.
>>
>>
>> cheers, & The word of the Day: femtosecond,
>> Tom
>>
>> --
>> Nothing is safe from me.
>> Above address is just a spam midden.
>> I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
>
> You sound like a hermit Tom. I live in the Surrey part of the GVRD
> They have all been here for 3 months if they left at all?
> The bumble bees, yes, got them 3 weeks ago.
>
>
Bill (bee-less so far) Baka
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 16:19:02
From: nash
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:BW6Th.2233$Q23.1322@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
> nash wrote:
>> "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:i1ihve.c8k.ln@bud.garden.local...
>>> In article <fMUSh.279022$5j1.203795@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>>> "Leo Lichtman" <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> Silly, but interesting to contemplate. When the light is turned on in
>>>> a
>>>> dark room, a spherical light front emanates from the bulb, and then a
>>>> complex set of refletions and re-reflections from the walls takes
>>>> place,
>>>> until, in less than a microsecond, the room is filled with a uniform
>>>> criss-crossing of light beams. When the light is turned off, a
>>>> spherical
>>>> field of darkness emanates from the bulb, reaching and reflecting from
>>>> the
>>>> walls in precisely the same sequence, and the room "gradually" becomes
>>>> dark
>>>> in less than a microsecond. A good programmer could probably analyze
>>>> this
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> I think you mean a good mathematician.
>
> A good mathematician and a good programmer both.
>>>
>>> Maybe computer modeling could be done with the
>>> help of Arbitrary Precision Arithmetic, and
>>> a really long word-size (data bus) processor.
>>> But we're talking huge (as in long) rational numbers,
>>> possibly beyond the scope of any 8086 descendant.
>>> Then there's the old headache of rounding-off/up binary
>>> irrational numbers. I don't even wanna think about it.
>>> I have a garden to weed. And a discarded half-bike
>>> (Peugot Rapport) to dismantle and salvage the alloy 27"
>>> rims, whatever hubs, and the Shimano 105 pedals with
>>> their proprietary Aero 3-screw toeclips -- they'll go
>>> well on the old "12-speed" I just built up out of parts
>>> from several other discarded bikes. I think I've pretty
>>> much got a lifetime supply of alloy-rimmed 27" wheels now.
>>>
>>>> growth and decay process, and reveal it a a slower pace so we can
>>>> visualize
>>>> it. Maybe someone smarter than me could do this, and post the results
>>>> for
>>>> the rest of us to enjoy. I don't have a high speed internet
>>>> connection, so
>>>> I would like this to take just a minute or so.
>>> Ride reports are more entertaining.
>>>
>>> I saw my first robin of the season over the weekend.
>>> And a few fuzzy bumblebees. Fewer of those slick,
>>> caramel-coloured worker bees. And a bluejay has been
>>> lingering nearby, bawling out passers-by.
>
> We have a bee shortage that is said to be the downfall of many California
> crops this year. One of my rides takes me past a bee farm, one that is
> notably devoid of bees or hive boxes this year.
> This could be the year of really high fruit prices in addition to those
> gas prices.
>>>
>>>
>>> cheers, & The word of the Day: femtosecond,
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> --
>>> Nothing is safe from me.
>>> Above address is just a spam midden.
>>> I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
>>
>> You sound like a hermit Tom. I live in the Surrey part of the GVRD
>> They have all been here for 3 months if they left at all?
>> The bumble bees, yes, got them 3 weeks ago.
> Bill (bee-less so far) Baka
Add to that the cost of corn feed has doubled since ethanol so you can drive
to the store but cannot buy your milk.
Corn is the new gold.
Also heard BB, that alot of Americans think you are going into recession.
Have not heard that kind of negative sentiment for a long time or was it
just last week. heh heh
I'm gonna buy a double inverse bear Dow cause they are probably right.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 16:47:32
From: nash
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in message
news:WT7Th.57058$aG1.7491@pd7urf3no...
>
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:BW6Th.2233$Q23.1322@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
>> nash wrote:
>>> "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:i1ihve.c8k.ln@bud.garden.local...
>>>> In article
>>>> <fMUSh.279022$5j1.203795@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>> "Leo Lichtman" <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>> Silly, but interesting to contemplate. When the light is turned on in
>>>>> a
>>>>> dark room, a spherical light front emanates from the bulb, and then a
>>>>> complex set of refletions and re-reflections from the walls takes
>>>>> place,
>>>>> until, in less than a microsecond, the room is filled with a uniform
>>>>> criss-crossing of light beams. When the light is turned off, a
>>>>> spherical
>>>>> field of darkness emanates from the bulb, reaching and reflecting from
>>>>> the
>>>>> walls in precisely the same sequence, and the room "gradually" becomes
>>>>> dark
>>>>> in less than a microsecond. A good programmer could probably analyze
>>>>> this
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>
>>>> I think you mean a good mathematician.
>>
>> A good mathematician and a good programmer both.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe computer modeling could be done with the
>>>> help of Arbitrary Precision Arithmetic, and
>>>> a really long word-size (data bus) processor.
>>>> But we're talking huge (as in long) rational numbers,
>>>> possibly beyond the scope of any 8086 descendant.
>>>> Then there's the old headache of rounding-off/up binary
>>>> irrational numbers. I don't even wanna think about it.
>>>> I have a garden to weed. And a discarded half-bike
>>>> (Peugot Rapport) to dismantle and salvage the alloy 27"
>>>> rims, whatever hubs, and the Shimano 105 pedals with
>>>> their proprietary Aero 3-screw toeclips -- they'll go
>>>> well on the old "12-speed" I just built up out of parts
>>>> from several other discarded bikes. I think I've pretty
>>>> much got a lifetime supply of alloy-rimmed 27" wheels now.
>>>>
>>>>> growth and decay process, and reveal it a a slower pace so we can
>>>>> visualize
>>>>> it. Maybe someone smarter than me could do this, and post the results
>>>>> for
>>>>> the rest of us to enjoy. I don't have a high speed internet
>>>>> connection, so
>>>>> I would like this to take just a minute or so.
>>>> Ride reports are more entertaining.
>>>>
>>>> I saw my first robin of the season over the weekend.
>>>> And a few fuzzy bumblebees. Fewer of those slick,
>>>> caramel-coloured worker bees. And a bluejay has been
>>>> lingering nearby, bawling out passers-by.
>>
>> We have a bee shortage that is said to be the downfall of many California
>> crops this year. One of my rides takes me past a bee farm, one that is
>> notably devoid of bees or hive boxes this year.
>> This could be the year of really high fruit prices in addition to those
>> gas prices.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cheers, & The word of the Day: femtosecond,
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Nothing is safe from me.
>>>> Above address is just a spam midden.
>>>> I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
>>>
>>> You sound like a hermit Tom. I live in the Surrey part of the GVRD
>>> They have all been here for 3 months if they left at all?
>>> The bumble bees, yes, got them 3 weeks ago.
>> Bill (bee-less so far) Baka
>
> Add to that the cost of corn feed has doubled since ethanol so you can
> drive to the store but cannot buy your milk.
> Corn is the new gold.
> Also heard BB, that alot of Americans think you are going into recession.
> Have not heard that kind of negative sentiment for a long time or was it
> just last week. heh heh
> I'm gonna buy a double inverse bear Dow cause they are probably right.
I just think this is so funny. Now you get a choice of eating or driving
but not both.
We have come a long way baby.
|
| |
Date: 08 Apr 2007 13:48:41
From: Pat
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
We have a radio program in Dallas where people call in questions every
Friday and other callers will provide answers. Imagine my astonishment when
a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of dark." The host said his
version of "huh"? and the man said, "Well, we are always being told about
the speed of light, so I figured why don't we ever hear about the speed of
dark?" The host replied, "but, dark is the absence of light." and the man
said, "So how fast is it?"
Pat in TX
|
| | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 14:31:19
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
Pat <Pat@overtheprairie.com > wrote:
> We have a radio program in Dallas where people call in questions every
> Friday and other callers will provide answers. Imagine my astonishment when
> a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of dark." The host said his
> version of "huh"? and the man said, "Well, we are always being told about
> the speed of light, so I figured why don't we ever hear about the speed of
> dark?" The host replied, "but, dark is the absence of light." and the man
> said, "So how fast is it?"
Well, if you take it as a serious question, you can get a real answer.
If you're talking about a typical room, you have lots of light colored
walls that will reflect light, so with reflections and re-reflections
it could actually be a much slower speed to total darkness than strictly
light speed. And it would not necessary be an integer division either,
with incidence angles and multiple reflections. And it would be
different for every environment...
Still it is a silly question.
--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
That money talks,
I'll not deny,
I heard it once,
It said "Good-bye.
-- Richard Armour
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 21:57:31
From: Bill
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
Dane Buson wrote:
> Pat <Pat@overtheprairie.com> wrote:
>> We have a radio program in Dallas where people call in questions every
>> Friday and other callers will provide answers. Imagine my astonishment when
>> a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of dark." The host said his
>> version of "huh"? and the man said, "Well, we are always being told about
>> the speed of light, so I figured why don't we ever hear about the speed of
>> dark?" The host replied, "but, dark is the absence of light." and the man
>> said, "So how fast is it?"
>
> Well, if you take it as a serious question, you can get a real answer.
> If you're talking about a typical room, you have lots of light colored
> walls that will reflect light, so with reflections and re-reflections
> it could actually be a much slower speed to total darkness than strictly
> light speed. And it would not necessary be an integer division either,
> with incidence angles and multiple reflections. And it would be
> different for every environment...
>
> Still it is a silly question.
>
Yes, It was a bit silly, hence the silly answers.
Even if you take a room full of mirrors, walls, ceiling, everything,
the losses will absorb the light in under a microsecond, which is
something like 0.18 mile.
Strange topic, even for this group.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 23:06:51
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:fLTSh.15928$Um6.1370@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
> Dane Buson wrote:
>> Pat <Pat@overtheprairie.com> wrote:
>>> We have a radio program in Dallas where people call in questions every
>>> Friday and other callers will provide answers. Imagine my astonishment
>>> when a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of dark." The host
>>> said his version of "huh"? and the man said, "Well, we are always being
>>> told about the speed of light, so I figured why don't we ever hear about
>>> the speed of dark?" The host replied, "but, dark is the absence of
>>> light." and the man said, "So how fast is it?"
>>
>> Well, if you take it as a serious question, you can get a real answer.
>> If you're talking about a typical room, you have lots of light colored
>> walls that will reflect light, so with reflections and re-reflections
>> it could actually be a much slower speed to total darkness than strictly
>> light speed. And it would not necessary be an integer division either,
>> with incidence angles and multiple reflections. And it would be
>> different for every environment...
>>
>> Still it is a silly question.
>>
> Yes, It was a bit silly, hence the silly answers. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Silly, but interesting to contemplate. When the light is turned on in a
dark room, a spherical light front emanates from the bulb, and then a
complex set of refletions and re-reflections from the walls takes place,
until, in less than a microsecond, the room is filled with a uniform
criss-crossing of light beams. When the light is turned off, a spherical
field of darkness emanates from the bulb, reaching and reflecting from the
walls in precisely the same sequence, and the room "gradually" becomes dark
in less than a microsecond. A good programmer could probably analyze this
growth and decay process, and reveal it a a slower pace so we can visualize
it. Maybe someone smarter than me could do this, and post the results for
the rest of us to enjoy. I don't have a high speed internet connection, so
I would like this to take just a minute or so.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 14:29:33
From: skiffrun
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
Leo Lichtman;193568 Wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:fLTSh.15928$Um6.1370@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
> > Dane Buson wrote:
> >> Pat <Pat@overtheprairie.com> wrote:
> >>> We have a radio program in Dallas where people call in questions
> every
> >>> Friday and other callers will provide answers. Imagine my
> astonishment
> >>> when a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of dark." The
> host
> >>> said his version of "huh"? and the man said, "Well, we are always
> being
> >>> told about the speed of light, so I figured why don't we ever hear
> about
> >>> the speed of dark?" The host replied, "but, dark is the absence of
>
> >>> light." and the man said, "So how fast is it?"
> >>
> >> Well, if you take it as a serious question, you can get a real
> answer.
> >> If you're talking about a typical room, you have lots of light
> colored
> >> walls that will reflect light, so with reflections and
> re-reflections
> >> it could actually be a much slower speed to total darkness than
> strictly
> >> light speed. And it would not necessary be an integer division
> either,
> >> with incidence angles and multiple reflections. And it would be
> >> different for every environment...
> >>
> >> Still it is a silly question.
> >>
> > Yes, It was a bit silly, hence the silly answers. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Silly, but interesting to contemplate. When the light is turned on in
> a
> dark room, a spherical light front emanates from the bulb, and then a
> complex set of refletions and re-reflections from the walls takes
> place,
> until, in less than a microsecond, the room is filled with a uniform
> criss-crossing of light beams. When the light is turned off, a
> spherical
> field of darkness emanates from the bulb, reaching and reflecting from
> the
> walls in precisely the same sequence, and the room "gradually" becomes
> dark
> in less than a microsecond. A good programmer could probably analyze
> this
> growth and decay process, and reveal it a a slower pace so we can
> visualize
> it. Maybe someone smarter than me could do this, and post the results
> for
> the rest of us to enjoy. I don't have a high speed internet
> connection, so
> I would like this to take just a minute or so.If the room is criss-crossed with reflected beams of light, then the
darkness will not intially emerge as a spherical field because the
sphere is penetrated by the criss-crossing reflected lights. Be
consistent.
--
skiffrun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
skiffrun's Profile: http://www.trianglecycling.com/member.php?userid=28
View this thread: http://www.trianglecycling.com/showthread.php?t=19093
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 22:08:04
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
"skiffrun" wrote: If the room is criss-crossed with reflected beams of
light, then the darkness will not intially emerge as a spherical field
because the sphere is penetrated by the criss-crossing reflected lights. Be
consistent.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
By referring to a "spherical field of darkness" I meant the trailing surface
of the light field travelling away from the source at the speed of light (or
speed of darkness.) If you read my entire statement...oh Hell, I don't
think you're serious.
Why don't you pick on my assertion that darkness is reflected from the walls
in the same way as light? How about the statement that the room gets dark
in less than a microsecond, whereas the light bulb takes at least a tenth of
a second to cool?
Oh, and another thing: If light is criss-crossing the room and not
impinging on anything, it is not visible, so there really is a sphere of
darkness.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 12:32:59
From: Bill
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
Leo Lichtman wrote:
> "skiffrun" wrote: If the room is criss-crossed with reflected beams of
> light, then the darkness will not intially emerge as a spherical field
> because the sphere is penetrated by the criss-crossing reflected lights. Be
> consistent.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Fortunately, light rays can go right through each other without
interference. Kind of shoots down the whole quantum 'Photon' theory.
> By referring to a "spherical field of darkness" I meant the trailing surface
> of the light field travelling away from the source at the speed of light (or
> speed of darkness.) If you read my entire statement...oh Hell, I don't
> think you're serious.
Seriously, it will be a spherical field of darkness since the reflected
light will be so little compared to the main light.
>
> Why don't you pick on my assertion that darkness is reflected from the walls
> in the same way as light? How about the statement that the room gets dark
> in less than a microsecond, whereas the light bulb takes at least a tenth of
> a second to cool?
That one is a catch. The filament will radiate for some time but the
wavelength goes up as the temperature goes down. Hot Tungsten still
radiates but it is infrared, still a kind of light, just not visible.
>
> Oh, and another thing: If light is criss-crossing the room and not
> impinging on anything, it is not visible, so there really is a sphere of
> darkness.
>
>
Yeah,
A so called 'Photon' (one complete cycle of light) is hard to see unless
there is smoke in the room or something to bounce the light in the air.
If you want to start an argument between the Photon people and the
energy wave people, just ask how one Photon can go in all directions at
once, or how a Photon can follow a line for 14 billion years to give us
light from the farthest galaxies.
Couldn't resist that one.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Apr 2007 02:39:46
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
"Bill" wrote: Fortunately, light rays can go right through each other
without interference. Kind of shoots down the whole quantum 'Photon'
theory. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bill, where do you stand on the flat earth question?
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 16:58:47
From: Bill
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
Leo Lichtman wrote:
> "Bill" wrote: Fortunately, light rays can go right through each other
> without interference. Kind of shoots down the whole quantum 'Photon'
> theory. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Bill, where do you stand on the flat earth question?
>
>
Round.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Apr 2007 11:29:34
From: Alex Colvin
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
>> "Bill" wrote: Fortunately, light rays can go right through each other
>> without interference. Kind of shoots down the whole quantum 'Photon'
>> theory. (clip)
In fact, interference is the standard demonstration of the wave
nature of light.
As to photons going through each other - they're bosons.
--
mac the naïf
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Apr 2007 06:14:42
From: Bill
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
Alex Colvin wrote:
>>> "Bill" wrote: Fortunately, light rays can go right through each other
>>> without interference. Kind of shoots down the whole quantum 'Photon'
>>> theory. (clip)
>
>
> In fact, interference is the standard demonstration of the wave
> nature of light.
> As to photons going through each other - they're bosons.
>
>
They can be frequency multiplied, that much I am sure about, since
wavelength halving gets down to the absurdly small features on today's
semiconductors. That much interaction is there.
Bosons would seem to indicate a physical photon to be acted upon
somehow. Light has already been proved to be at the extreme upper end of
the electromagnetic spectrum, where it goes from wire to free space
propagation.
Long subject so not here.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 22:19:48
From: di
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
"Leo Lichtman" <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:SZgTh.36313$VU4.35489@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Bill" wrote: Fortunately, light rays can go right through each other
> without interference. Kind of shoots down the whole quantum 'Photon'
> theory. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Bill, where do you stand on the flat earth question?
>
When you ride a bike, you quickly find out there is no such thing as a flat
earth.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 22:16:26
From: Pat
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
>
> "Bill" wrote: Fortunately, light rays can go right through each other
> without interference. Kind of shoots down the whole quantum 'Photon'
> theory. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Bill, where do you stand on the flat earth question?
Here's what our "friends" at conservapedia say about the flat earth:
"The Flat Earth theory was mostly invented and promoted by evolutionists for
the purpose of slandering Christians."
>
>
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 14:07:49
From: nash
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
"Leo Lichtman" <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:fMUSh.279022$5j1.203795@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:fLTSh.15928$Um6.1370@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>> Dane Buson wrote:
>>> Pat <Pat@overtheprairie.com> wrote:
>>>> We have a radio program in Dallas where people call in questions every
>>>> Friday and other callers will provide answers. Imagine my astonishment
>>>> when a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of dark." The host
>>>> said his version of "huh"? and the man said, "Well, we are always being
>>>> told about the speed of light, so I figured why don't we ever hear
>>>> about the speed of dark?" The host replied, "but, dark is the absence
>>>> of light." and the man said, "So how fast is it?"
>>>
>>> Well, if you take it as a serious question, you can get a real answer.
>>> If you're talking about a typical room, you have lots of light colored
>>> walls that will reflect light, so with reflections and re-reflections
>>> it could actually be a much slower speed to total darkness than strictly
>>> light speed. And it would not necessary be an integer division either,
>>> with incidence angles and multiple reflections. And it would be
>>> different for every environment...
>>>
>>> Still it is a silly question.
>>>
>> Yes, It was a bit silly, hence the silly answers. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Silly, but interesting to contemplate. When the light is turned on in a
> dark room, a spherical light front emanates from the bulb, and then a
> complex set of refletions and re-reflections from the walls takes place,
> until, in less than a microsecond, the room is filled with a uniform
> criss-crossing of light beams. When the light is turned off, a spherical
> field of darkness emanates from the bulb, reaching and reflecting from the
> walls in precisely the same sequence, and the room "gradually" becomes
> dark in less than a microsecond. A good programmer could probably analyze
> this growth and decay process, and reveal it a a slower pace so we can
> visualize it. Maybe someone smarter than me could do this, and post the
> results for the rest of us to enjoy. I don't have a high speed internet
> connection, so I would like this to take just a minute or so.
Sorry to disappoint Leo. Even in a room with re-reflections it takes as
long to come as to go. Just listen to you techno geaks. lol
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 01:59:49
From: Bill
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
Leo Lichtman wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:fLTSh.15928$Um6.1370@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>> Dane Buson wrote:
>>> Pat <Pat@overtheprairie.com> wrote:
>>>> We have a radio program in Dallas where people call in questions every
>>>> Friday and other callers will provide answers. Imagine my astonishment
>>>> when a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of dark." The host
>>>> said his version of "huh"? and the man said, "Well, we are always being
>>>> told about the speed of light, so I figured why don't we ever hear about
>>>> the speed of dark?" The host replied, "but, dark is the absence of
>>>> light." and the man said, "So how fast is it?"
>>> Well, if you take it as a serious question, you can get a real answer.
>>> If you're talking about a typical room, you have lots of light colored
>>> walls that will reflect light, so with reflections and re-reflections
>>> it could actually be a much slower speed to total darkness than strictly
>>> light speed. And it would not necessary be an integer division either,
>>> with incidence angles and multiple reflections. And it would be
>>> different for every environment...
>>>
>>> Still it is a silly question.
>>>
>> Yes, It was a bit silly, hence the silly answers. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Silly, but interesting to contemplate. When the light is turned on in a
> dark room, a spherical light front emanates from the bulb, and then a
> complex set of refletions and re-reflections from the walls takes place,
> until, in less than a microsecond, the room is filled with a uniform
> criss-crossing of light beams. When the light is turned off, a spherical
> field of darkness emanates from the bulb, reaching and reflecting from the
> walls in precisely the same sequence, and the room "gradually" becomes dark
> in less than a microsecond. A good programmer could probably analyze this
> growth and decay process, and reveal it a a slower pace so we can visualize
> it. Maybe someone smarter than me could do this, and post the results for
> the rest of us to enjoy. I don't have a high speed internet connection, so
> I would like this to take just a minute or so.
>
>
That could probably be modeled in some form of CAD program, maybe
Autocad, (Mostly mechanical), or in one of the scientific analysis
programs, of which there are many.
Things to consider;
1. A filament lamp takes time to heat up and cool down.
1. B. A filament lamp usually burns out in a supernova flashbulb fashion.
2. A fluorescent bulb takes its' time doing anything.
3. About 5 years ago (if not more) there was a big deal about rendering
a gathering of reflective (steel?) spheres and what they would look like
under certain lighting conditions. Even that fairly short time ago it
took almost a supercomputer to model all the possibilities, which in a
complex room would probably choke even a new Teraflop supercomputer.
4. There aren't any programmers ***THAT*** good.
If the number of variables would boggle a supercomputer, pity the poor
programmer.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 03:02:02
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
"Bill" (clip) About 5 years ago (if not more) there was a big deal about
rendering a gathering of reflective (steel?) spheres and what they would
look like under certain lighting conditions.(clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Too bad Escher isn't still around. He could probably have sketched it
freehand.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 21:19:07
From: di
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:piXSh.15966$Um6.6674@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
> Leo Lichtman wrote:
>> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:fLTSh.15928$Um6.1370@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>>> Dane Buson wrote:
>>>> Pat <Pat@overtheprairie.com> wrote:
>>>>> We have a radio program in Dallas where people call in questions every
>>>>> Friday and other callers will provide answers. Imagine my astonishment
>>>>> when a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of dark." The host
>>>>> said his version of "huh"? and the man said, "Well, we are always
>>>>> being told about the speed of light, so I figured why don't we ever
>>>>> hear about the speed of dark?" The host replied, "but, dark is the
>>>>> absence of light." and the man said, "So how fast is it?"
>>>> Well, if you take it as a serious question, you can get a real answer.
>>>> If you're talking about a typical room, you have lots of light colored
>>>> walls that will reflect light, so with reflections and re-reflections
>>>> it could actually be a much slower speed to total darkness than
>>>> strictly
>>>> light speed. And it would not necessary be an integer division either,
>>>> with incidence angles and multiple reflections. And it would be
>>>> different for every environment...
>>>>
>>>> Still it is a silly question.
>>>>
>>> Yes, It was a bit silly, hence the silly answers. (clip)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Silly, but interesting to contemplate. When the light is turned on in a
>> dark room, a spherical light front emanates from the bulb, and then a
>> complex set of refletions and re-reflections from the walls takes place,
>> until, in less than a microsecond, the room is filled with a uniform
>> criss-crossing of light beams. When the light is turned off, a spherical
>> field of darkness emanates from the bulb, reaching and reflecting from
>> the walls in precisely the same sequence, and the room "gradually"
>> becomes dark in less than a microsecond. A good programmer could
>> probably analyze this growth and decay process, and reveal it a a slower
>> pace so we can visualize it. Maybe someone smarter than me could do
>> this, and post the results for the rest of us to enjoy. I don't have a
>> high speed internet connection, so I would like this to take just a
>> minute or so.
> That could probably be modeled in some form of CAD program, maybe Autocad,
> (Mostly mechanical), or in one of the scientific analysis programs, of
> which there are many.
> Things to consider;
> 1. A filament lamp takes time to heat up and cool down.
> 1. B. A filament lamp usually burns out in a supernova flashbulb fashion.
> 2. A fluorescent bulb takes its' time doing anything.
> 3. About 5 years ago (if not more) there was a big deal about rendering a
> gathering of reflective (steel?) spheres and what they would look like
> under certain lighting conditions. Even that fairly short time ago it took
> almost a supercomputer to model all the possibilities, which in a complex
> room would probably choke even a new Teraflop supercomputer.
> 4. There aren't any programmers ***THAT*** good.
> If the number of variables would boggle a supercomputer, pity the poor
> programmer.
> Bill Baka
Exactly what I was thinking, (yawn)
|
| | |
Date: 08 Apr 2007 21:04:05
From: Bill
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
Pat wrote:
> We have a radio program in Dallas where people call in questions every
> Friday and other callers will provide answers. Imagine my astonishment when
> a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of dark." The host said his
> version of "huh"? and the man said, "Well, we are always being told about
> the speed of light, so I figured why don't we ever hear about the speed of
> dark?" The host replied, "but, dark is the absence of light." and the man
> said, "So how fast is it?"
>
> Pat in TX
>
>
How about the speed of gravity, or magnetism?
Tough problems all.
The caller in Dallas was an obvious troll since the answer is so easy.
Bill Baka
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Apr 2007 21:40:07
From: Pat
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
> How about the speed of gravity, or magnetism?
> Tough problems all.
> The caller in Dallas was an obvious troll since the answer is so easy.
> Bill Baka
That's the scary part of it. I don't think he was a troll. He sounded like
an older, rural-type of person. You want to get a laugh, try
www.conservapedia.com They don't believe in gravity. That's a site put out
there by the son of Phyllis Schlafly....evolution is a theory? so is
gravity!
Pat in TX
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 07:17:41
From: Bill
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
Pat wrote:
>> How about the speed of gravity, or magnetism?
>> Tough problems all.
>> The caller in Dallas was an obvious troll since the answer is so easy.
>> Bill Baka
>
> That's the scary part of it. I don't think he was a troll. He sounded like
> an older, rural-type of person. You want to get a laugh, try
> www.conservapedia.com They don't believe in gravity. That's a site put out
> there by the son of Phyllis Schlafly....evolution is a theory? so is
> gravity!
>
> Pat in TX
>
>
You mean there are people more isolated than Paris Hilton, the dumb
blond personified? The only way I could not believe in gravity was if
time was running in reverse and things were really repelling each other.
That would make the 'Big bang' the big ending.
Chew on that bit of reverse logic and it could make sense.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Apr 2007 19:43:47
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:pMlSh.8054$YL5.1728@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Pat wrote:
> >> How about the speed of gravity, or magnetism?
> >> Tough problems all.
> >> The caller in Dallas was an obvious troll since the answer is so easy.
> >> Bill Baka
> >
> > That's the scary part of it. I don't think he was a troll. He sounded
like
> > an older, rural-type of person. You want to get a laugh, try
> > www.conservapedia.com They don't believe in gravity. That's a site put
out
> > there by the son of Phyllis Schlafly....evolution is a theory? so is
> > gravity!
> >
> > Pat in TX
> >
> >
> You mean there are people more isolated than Paris Hilton, the dumb
> blond personified? The only way I could not believe in gravity was if
> time was running in reverse and things were really repelling each other.
> That would make the 'Big bang' the big ending.
> Chew on that bit of reverse logic and it could make sense.
> Bill Baka
Reverse logic? Is that a sexual position? (shaking blond hair from side to
side)
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 01:05:35
From: Mike Kruger
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
Bill wrote:
> Pat wrote:
>> We have a radio program in Dallas where people call in questions
>> every Friday and other callers will provide answers. Imagine my
>> astonishment when a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of
>> dark."
> How about the speed of gravity, or magnetism?
> Tough problems all.
> The caller in Dallas was an obvious troll since the answer is so easy.
> Bill Baka
Yes, trolling is almost a certainty. It's like calling up and asking "Do you
have Prince Albert in a can?" or "Is your refrigerator running?"
--
Mike Kruger
The speed of sound is about 770 mph. What's the speed of quiet?
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Apr 2007 22:48:23
From: nash
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:9NcSh.7894$YL5.6965@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Pat wrote:
>> We have a radio program in Dallas where people call in questions every
>> Friday and other callers will provide answers. Imagine my astonishment
>> when a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of dark." The host
>> said his version of "huh"? and the man said, "Well, we are always being
>> told about the speed of light, so I figured why don't we ever hear about
>> the speed of dark?" The host replied, "but, dark is the absence of
>> light." and the man said, "So how fast is it?"
>>
>> Pat in TX
> How about the speed of gravity, or magnetism?
> Tough problems all.
> The caller in Dallas was an obvious troll since the answer is so easy.
> Bill Baka
If it takes 50 years for a stars light to hit Earth. Then it takes 50 years
for the last part of ray to hit and be gone. Comes and goes at the same
speed.
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 07:14:00
From: Bill
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
nash wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:9NcSh.7894$YL5.6965@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> Pat wrote:
>>> We have a radio program in Dallas where people call in questions every
>>> Friday and other callers will provide answers. Imagine my astonishment
>>> when a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of dark." The host
>>> said his version of "huh"? and the man said, "Well, we are always being
>>> told about the speed of light, so I figured why don't we ever hear about
>>> the speed of dark?" The host replied, "but, dark is the absence of
>>> light." and the man said, "So how fast is it?"
>>>
>>> Pat in TX
>> How about the speed of gravity, or magnetism?
>> Tough problems all.
>> The caller in Dallas was an obvious troll since the answer is so easy.
>> Bill Baka
>
> If it takes 50 years for a stars light to hit Earth. Then it takes 50 years
> for the last part of ray to hit and be gone. Comes and goes at the same
> speed.
>
>
Even with my different take on things....HUH?
Are you talking about time distortion or another side effect of going
the speed of light?
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 23:51:23
From: nash
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:YIlSh.8053$YL5.4972@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> nash wrote:
>> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:9NcSh.7894$YL5.6965@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>> Pat wrote:
>>>> We have a radio program in Dallas where people call in questions every
>>>> Friday and other callers will provide answers. Imagine my astonishment
>>>> when a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of dark." The host
>>>> said his version of "huh"? and the man said, "Well, we are always being
>>>> told about the speed of light, so I figured why don't we ever hear
>>>> about the speed of dark?" The host replied, "but, dark is the absence
>>>> of light." and the man said, "So how fast is it?"
>>>>
>>>> Pat in TX
>>> How about the speed of gravity, or magnetism?
>>> Tough problems all.
>>> The caller in Dallas was an obvious troll since the answer is so easy.
>>> Bill Baka
>>
>> If it takes 50 years for a stars light to hit Earth. Then it takes 50
>> years for the last part of ray to hit and be gone. Comes and goes at the
>> same speed.
> Even with my different take on things....HUH?
> Are you talking about time distortion or another side effect of going the
> speed of light?
> Bill Baka
Light that is 50 years away from a star to earth would not be seen as a dead
star until 50 years later. Hypothetically speaking. Maybe smaller numbers
would help.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 18:58:40
From: Bill
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
nash wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:YIlSh.8053$YL5.4972@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> nash wrote:
>>> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:9NcSh.7894$YL5.6965@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>>> Pat wrote:
>>>>> We have a radio program in Dallas where people call in questions every
>>>>> Friday and other callers will provide answers. Imagine my astonishment
>>>>> when a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of dark." The host
>>>>> said his version of "huh"? and the man said, "Well, we are always being
>>>>> told about the speed of light, so I figured why don't we ever hear
>>>>> about the speed of dark?" The host replied, "but, dark is the absence
>>>>> of light." and the man said, "So how fast is it?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Pat in TX
>>>> How about the speed of gravity, or magnetism?
>>>> Tough problems all.
>>>> The caller in Dallas was an obvious troll since the answer is so easy.
>>>> Bill Baka
>>> If it takes 50 years for a stars light to hit Earth. Then it takes 50
>>> years for the last part of ray to hit and be gone. Comes and goes at the
>>> same speed.
>> Even with my different take on things....HUH?
>> Are you talking about time distortion or another side effect of going the
>> speed of light?
>> Bill Baka
>
> Light that is 50 years away from a star to earth would not be seen as a dead
> star until 50 years later. Hypothetically speaking. Maybe smaller numbers
> would help.
>
>
Christ, I know THAT!!! You made it sound as though one burst of light
would be visible for 50 years due to differences in propagation speed.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 14:26:20
From: nash
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:FuFSh.2531$zC.800@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> nash wrote:
>> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:YIlSh.8053$YL5.4972@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>> nash wrote:
>>>> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:9NcSh.7894$YL5.6965@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>> Pat wrote:
>>>>>> We have a radio program in Dallas where people call in questions
>>>>>> every Friday and other callers will provide answers. Imagine my
>>>>>> astonishment when a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of
>>>>>> dark." The host said his version of "huh"? and the man said, "Well,
>>>>>> we are always being told about the speed of light, so I figured why
>>>>>> don't we ever hear about the speed of dark?" The host replied, "but,
>>>>>> dark is the absence of light." and the man said, "So how fast is it?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pat in TX
>>>>> How about the speed of gravity, or magnetism?
>>>>> Tough problems all.
>>>>> The caller in Dallas was an obvious troll since the answer is so easy.
>>>>> Bill Baka
>>>> If it takes 50 years for a stars light to hit Earth. Then it takes 50
>>>> years for the last part of ray to hit and be gone. Comes and goes at
>>>> the same speed.
>>> Even with my different take on things....HUH?
>>> Are you talking about time distortion or another side effect of going
>>> the speed of light?
>>> Bill Baka
>>
>> Light that is 50 years away from a star to earth would not be seen as a
>> dead star until 50 years later. Hypothetically speaking. Maybe smaller
>> numbers would help.
> Christ, I know THAT!!! You made it sound as though one burst of light
> would be visible for 50 years due to differences in propagation speed.
> Bill Baka
Huh? I did not mention speed in the equation.
You are getting too complicated for me now.
Did just not know the term for the end of transmission/emission of light.
So, light comes and goes at the same speed right? Or is that just dumb?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 21:10:05
From: Bill
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
nash wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:FuFSh.2531$zC.800@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>> nash wrote:
>>> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:YIlSh.8053$YL5.4972@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>>> nash wrote:
>>>>> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:9NcSh.7894$YL5.6965@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>>> Pat wrote:
>>>>>>> We have a radio program in Dallas where people call in questions
>>>>>>> every Friday and other callers will provide answers. Imagine my
>>>>>>> astonishment when a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of
>>>>>>> dark." The host said his version of "huh"? and the man said, "Well,
>>>>>>> we are always being told about the speed of light, so I figured why
>>>>>>> don't we ever hear about the speed of dark?" The host replied, "but,
>>>>>>> dark is the absence of light." and the man said, "So how fast is it?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pat in TX
>>>>>> How about the speed of gravity, or magnetism?
>>>>>> Tough problems all.
>>>>>> The caller in Dallas was an obvious troll since the answer is so easy.
>>>>>> Bill Baka
>>>>> If it takes 50 years for a stars light to hit Earth. Then it takes 50
>>>>> years for the last part of ray to hit and be gone. Comes and goes at
>>>>> the same speed.
>>>> Even with my different take on things....HUH?
>>>> Are you talking about time distortion or another side effect of going
>>>> the speed of light?
>>>> Bill Baka
>>> Light that is 50 years away from a star to earth would not be seen as a
>>> dead star until 50 years later. Hypothetically speaking. Maybe smaller
>>> numbers would help.
>> Christ, I know THAT!!! You made it sound as though one burst of light
>> would be visible for 50 years due to differences in propagation speed.
>> Bill Baka
>
> Huh? I did not mention speed in the equation.
> You are getting too complicated for me now.
> Did just not know the term for the end of transmission/emission of light.
> So, light comes and goes at the same speed right? Or is that just dumb?
>
>
You are correct that light comes and goes at the same speed. If it took
50 years to get here then it would take 50 years to reflect back on the
place where it came from. Of course in 100 years the star would be
somewhere else, left, right, up, down, closer, further....
I only threw that at you because your answer sounded like the typical
wise crack to be found on this group.
Sorry.
Bill Baka
|
| | |
Date: 08 Apr 2007 20:02:22
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
"Pat" wrote: (clip) a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of dark."
(clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Does dark matter? Or should I ask, "Does dark matter exist?"
"Do not leave the door to the photolab open, or the dark will escape."
|
| |
Date: 08 Apr 2007 09:13:32
From: Eric
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
On Apr 7, 9:26 am, "marian.rosenb...@gmail.com"
<marian.rosenb...@gmail.com > wrote:
> The very first time I went up Ertouling I timed myself. I wanted to
> see how fast I could go. I wasn't really setting my baseline since
> I'd done 140 km the day before and was travelling with luggage but it
> seemed to be a good start.
>
> The next time I went up Ertouling (significantly more rested and
> luggage free) I cut 9 minutes off of my time.
>
> This prompted a friend of mine to ask me how much weight I'd need to
> lose before I could travel up the mountain at light speed. And
> because it's raining outside I have nothing much better to do than to
> actually attempt to figure out that answer.
>
> Light travels at 299,792.458 km/s
>
> At 9.2 kilometers meters It would take light .0000306878967 seconds to
> go the same distance. Rounding that to six signifcant digits gives us
> .000031 seconds.
>
> My first trip up the mountain took 61 minutes.
> At 95 kilos + perhaps 4 kilo in luggage and 12 kilo in bike I'm
> clearly not very light.
>
> The second trip up the mountain took 52 minutes.
> This was 95 kilos + 12 kilos in bike, no luggage.
>
> 96.4% of the weight = 85.3% of the time
>
> Let's assume a linear progression. There are a number of different
> ways the equation can be run but I'm going to assume linear weight
> loss = linear time loss.
>
> The first time I run the equation I get 103.1 kilo and 44 minutes 18
> seconds. We'll ignore the inconvenient part of reality where I now
> know I can do the mountain in 46 minutes and small change because
> that's well, inconvenient, and doesn't have "useful" data points
> regarding removal of weight from the bike + rider combo.
>
> The second time I run the equation I get 99.4 kilo and 37 minutes 51
> seconds. Since the regulations regarding stupid expensive uber light
> race bikes are hovering around 7 kilo _obviously_ all I need to do is
> lose 3 kilo and buy a new bike and I can chop 15 minutes off my time.
>
> Round three gets me 95.9 kilo and 32 minutes 17 seconds. My actual
> target weight is around 85 kilo so if I could get there I ought to be
> able to ride my current bike to the top of the mountain at about the
> same speed as some of the better of the local men, right?
>
> At 92.4 kilo combined bike and rider the equation produces 27 minutes
> 31 seconds. Target weight + uber wonder bike and it logically follows
> that I should be beating the best of local men.
>
> Another round gives me 89.1 kilo and 23 minutes 30 seconds. That's
> better than the time some of the professional riders did in the Tour
> de Hainan. Wow.
>
> Following this tortured train of logic and bad math we see that by the
> time I get down to 61.7 kilo I should be able to go up the mountain in
> 4 minutes 47 seconds.
>
> At a skeletal 42.8 kilo using a bike made out of spiderwebs, spun
> glass, and lots of drilled components I break the one minute mark.
>
> By the time I reach 16.5 kilo I should be able to go up the mountain
> in under 1 second. But I'm still not fast enough. I'm still not
> light enough.
>
> At 7.6 kilo it should take a mere 33 thousandths of a second. That's
> the margin by which Ah Ling beat me in our improbable photo finish at
> the Guangzhou Bikers' Festival in July. Still not entirely sure how
> those little radio transponders calculated thousandths of a second or
> why they didn't just declare us a tie.
>
> By the time I reach 5.7 kilo I will finally break the hundredth of a
> second mark. And at 3.3 kilo I'll break the thousandth of a second
> mark.
>
> But it isn't until 2.5 kilos that I finally break the laws of physics
> and manage to go up Ertouling faster than the speed of light.
>
> -M
Except that as you approach the speed of light your mass increases,
approaching infinity. But at least time will pass more slowly for you,
so it may seem like a leisurely ride to you, but an observer will not
even notice your presence (or is that the other way around... been a
while since I read _The_Elegant_Universe_
|
| | |
Date: 08 Apr 2007 21:01:50
From: Bill
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
Eric wrote:
>
> Except that as you approach the speed of light your mass increases,
> approaching infinity. But at least time will pass more slowly for you,
> so it may seem like a leisurely ride to you, but an observer will not
> even notice your presence (or is that the other way around... been a
> while since I read _The_Elegant_Universe_
>
It may not be a brick wall. 60 years ago the sound barrier was thought
to be unbreakable, yet Chuck Yeager broke it.
I think we would need a fusion powered space ship to get that fast.
The speed of light may be breakable, but not in even our grandchildrens'
lifetime.
Bill Baka
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 11:38:33
From: Paul O
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
Bill wrote:
> Eric wrote:
>>
>> Except that as you approach the speed of light your mass increases,
>> approaching infinity. But at least time will pass more slowly for you,
>> so it may seem like a leisurely ride to you, but an observer will not
>> even notice your presence (or is that the other way around... been a
>> while since I read _The_Elegant_Universe_
>>
> It may not be a brick wall. 60 years ago the sound barrier was thought
> to be unbreakable, yet Chuck Yeager broke it.
> I think we would need a fusion powered space ship to get that fast.
> The speed of light may be breakable, but not in even our grandchildrens'
> lifetime.
> Bill Baka
Bill-
60 years ago aircraft designers were well aware that their was no
physical limitation that prevented objects from traveling faster that
the speed of sound. It was well known that rifle bullets and many type
of artillery shells traveled at speeds well in excess of Mach 1. All
that was needed to get an aircraft to travel faster the the speed of
sound was to add enough horsepower (and get rid of the propellers).
The big problem was that it was believed that an aircraft would become
uncontrollable as speeds approached Mach 1. Aircraft designers had
strong anecdotal evidence that this was indeed the case. Many pilots had
reported that they had trouble pulling out of high speed dives. It
seemed that their control surfaces were not working at high very high
speeds.
It turned out that there were were several ways to overcome these
control problems and aircraft designers and test pilots later showed
that so-called "sound barrier" was not a barrier at all.
Paul O.
--
Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)
|
| |
Date: 07 Apr 2007 15:41:38
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
<marian.rosenberg@gmail.com > wrote: (clip) But it isn't until 2.5 kilos
that I finally break the laws of physics and manage to go up Ertouling
faster than the speed of light.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's what Albert Einstein was trying to figure out when that famous
picture of him wobbling on a bicycle was taken. He obviously got it wrong
since he claimed it couldn't be done. Well, what do you expect? He was an
old man.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Apr 2007 21:51:07
From: Bill
Subject: Re: The Speed of Light
|
Leo Lichtman wrote:
> <marian.rosenberg@gmail.com> wrote: (clip) But it isn't until 2.5 kilos
> that I finally break the laws of physics and manage to go up Ertouling
> faster than the speed of light.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> That's what Albert Einstein was trying to figure out when that famous
> picture of him wobbling on a bicycle was taken. He obviously got it wrong
> since he claimed it couldn't be done. Well, what do you expect? He was an
> old man.
>
>
Maybe he just needed a haircut to take a load off his mind.
Bill Baka
|
|
