Starship Asterisk*

mark swain wrote:First... What is the difference, Between Matter traveling at the speed of light? And Spinning at the speed of light? Barring in mind that matter at the speed of light is pure energy?

http://astronomy.colorado.edu/astr2030/astr2030FAQs.html wrote:
<<Frozen stars and black holes denote the same thing, although the names emphasize different aspects of its nature. "Frozen star" was the first widely-used name for black hole. Viewed from a distance, you will never actually see a falling object cross the horizon of a black hole, even though from the object's point of view, it does pass through. So you might imagine that a black hole would appear as the frozen image of everything that ever entered it, plastered against the horizon. This is what people used to think, hence the name. However, the gravitational redshift also means that these images will also fade out (rapidly, it turns out) as the wavelength of signals goes to infinity. (It never officially becomes infinite, but it stretches out beyond all reasonable means of detection.) Thus, you won't actually see a "frozen star" but actually a "black hole" into which things disappear. Another rationale for the "frozen star" idea was that somehow the horizon was a physical surface. We now know that it merely a boundary between visibility and invisibility. All the matter in the BH has collapsed to a singularity at its center.>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole wrote:
<<Oppenheimer and his co-authors used Schwarzschild's system of coordinates (the only coordinates available in 1939), which produced mathematical singularities at the Schwarzschild radius, in other words some of the terms in the equations became infinite at the Schwartschild radius. This was interpreted as indicating that the Schwarzschild radius was the boundary of a bubble in which time stopped. This is a valid point of view for external observers, but not for infalling observers. Because of this property, the collapsed stars were briefly known as "frozen stars,"[citation needed] because an outside observer would see the surface of the star frozen in time at the instant where its collapse takes it inside the Schwarzschild radius. This is a known property of modern black holes, but it must be emphasized that the light from the surface of the frozen star becomes redshifted very fast, turning the black hole black very quickly. Many physicists could not accept the idea of time standing still at the Schwarzschild radius, and there was little interest in the subject for over 20 years.>>

BMAONE23 wrote:If orbital momentum borrows from accelleration to maintain a stable orbit would something require accelleration faster than C to maintain an orbital velocity of C?

neufer wrote:The only matter that approaches traveling at the speed of light in either sense [from the observes point of view] is matter that falls towards the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole either radially or tangentially.

makc wrote:

neufer wrote:The only matter that approaches traveling at the speed of light in either sense [from the observes point of view] is matter that falls towards the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole either radially or tangentially.

I dont know where you are getting that, but light itself, as well as whole electromagnetic spectrum such as radio or television etc, is travelling at the speed of light in either sense.

makc wrote:A variety of heavy matter travels at near-C speeds in cosmic rays, for another example, and finally there are a number of labs in CERN and alike that spin particles at near-C for living.

makc wrote:I assume by "Matter traveling at the speed of light" you mean "in a straight line", and by "Spinning at the speed of light" you mean "in a circular orbit", then obviously the difference is acceleration.

mark swain wrote:This kind of spin is what i meant http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=6473

But what you all posted was interesting to me as well. What i wanted to understand is: Like water has more than one form, is down to the conditions effecting it.. eg: Ice , Gas, and liquid water (heat). Energy and Matter are the same thing But they take a number of different forms,,, They are also effected by other conditions... Like at the speed of light, solid matter becomes energy .. Is this the same for a spinning disk of any sort? At what point does solid Matter become liquid energy? and why?

Chris Peterson wrote:What is "liquid energy"? I've never heard of such at thing; AFAIK there is no such concept in modern physics.

mark swain wrote:Sorry chris.. I was trying to describe hard Matter like a solid neutron star falling past the Event horizon or been dragged around in orbit close to c ,, I was assuming the solid became more flexible liquid.. or was pulled to peaces particle by particle.

The hard solid rock (and) laver inside the earth can also be a liquid. It is liquid matter. The hard solid ice on a glacier is also still liquid

What is the orange stuff that i can see on the sun?

So is it unjust to describe the other end of the scale compacted liquid energy?

but was my only meaning in saying the words liquid energy.. to describe the point at which a spinning object is no longer a solid. But another form of energy.

Chris Peterson wrote: The hard solid rock (and) laver inside the earth can also be a liquid. It is liquid matter. The hard solid ice on a glacier is also still liquid


No, in neither case is the matter normally in a liquid phase (except possibly for lava near the surface). Rather, you are talking about fluid or plastic solid states.

mark swain wrote:This is very wrong mate, even huge mountains are liquid,, nothing is stable ,, everything is fluid. Our hole earth is round because it is fluid.. speed dictates fluid? like i said, i will read up... BRB...

Chris Peterson wrote:There are well defined states of matter: liquid, solid, and gas are the classic divisions, with ionized gas being considered plasma, and more recently the Bose-Einstein condensate being added as a new, distinct state.

Fluids are a substate of matter. All gases are fluids; liquids and solids may be fluids, but are not necessarily so. Mountains are absolutely not liquid. Under certain conditions and time scales they might be considered plastic solids, which have some fluid-like characteristics.

The bulk of the Earth behaves like a fluid, but it certainly is not liquid. The upper crust is not very fluid-like. Stability is not a requirement for a solid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_point wrote:
<<In thermodynamics, the triple point of a substance is the temperature and pressure at which three phases (for example, gas, liquid, and solid) of that substance coexist in thermodynamic equilibrium. For example, the triple point of mercury occurs at a temperature of −38.8344 °C and a pressure of 0.2 mPa. The triple point of water is used to define the kelvin, the SI base unit of thermodynamic temperature. The number given for the temperature of the triple point of water is an exact definition rather than a measured quantity.

The single combination of pressure and temperature at which water, ice, and water vapour can coexist in a stable equilibrium occurs at exactly 273.16 kelvins (0.01 °C) and a pressure of 611.73 pascals (ca. 6 millibars). At that point, it is possible to change all of the substance to ice, water, or steam by making infinitesimally small changes in pressure and temperature. (Note that the pressure referred to here is the vapor pressure of the substance, not the total pressure of the entire system.)

At high temperatures, increasing pressure results in first liquid, and then solid water. At lower temperatures the liquid state ceases to appear with compression causing the state to pass directly from gas to solid. The triple point is the lowest temperature, for any value of the pressure, at which the liquid state is still passed.

At a constant pressure higher than the triple point, heating ice necessarily passes from ice to liquid then to steam. In pressures below the triple point, such as in outer space where the pressure is low, liquid water cannot exist; ice skips the liquid stage and becomes steam on heating, in a process known as sublimation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass

<<Some people consider glass to be a liquid due to its lack of a first-order phase transition where certain thermodynamic variables such as volume, entropy and enthalpy are continuous through the glass transition range. However, the glass transition may be described as analogous to a second-order phase transition where the intensive thermodynamic variables such as the thermal expansivity and heat capacity are discontinuous. Despite this, the equilibrium theory of phase transformations in solids does not entirely hold for glass, and hence the glass transition cannot be classed as one of the classical equilibrium phase transformations in solids.

Glass is generally classed as an amorphous solid rather than a liquid. Glass displays all the mechanical properties of a solid. The notion that glass flows to an appreciable extent over extended periods of time is not supported by empirical research or theoretical analysis. The observation that old windows are often thicker at the bottom than at the top is often offered as supporting evidence for the view that glass flows over a matter of centuries. It is then assumed that the glass was once uniform, but has flowed to its new shape, which is a property of liquid. In actuality, the likely reason for this is that when panes of glass were commonly made by glassblowers, the technique used was to spin molten glass so as to create a round, mostly flat and even plate (the crown glass process, described above). This plate was then cut to fit a window. The pieces were not, however, absolutely flat; the edges of the disk became thicker as the glass spun. When actually installed in a window frame, the glass would be placed thicker side down both for the sake of stability and to prevent water accumulating in the lead cames at the bottom of the window. Occasionally such glass has been found thinner side down or thicker on either side of the window's edge, as would be caused by carelessness at the time of installation.

Several other points exemplify the misconception of the "cathedral glass" theory:

• * Writing in the American Journal of Physics, physicist Edgar D. Zanotto states "...the predicted relaxation time for GeO2 at room temperature is 10^32 years. Hence, the relaxation period (characteristic flow time) of cathedral glasses would be even longer." (10^32 years is much longer than the estimated age of the Universe.)
  
  * If medieval glass has flowed perceptibly, then ancient Roman and Egyptian objects should have flowed proportionately more — but this is not observed. Similarly, prehistoric obsidian blades should have lost their edge; this is not observed either (although obsidian may have a different viscosity from window glass).
  
  * If glass flows at a rate that allows changes to be seen with the naked eye after centuries, then the effect should be noticeable in antique telescopes. Any slight deformation in the antique telescopic lenses would lead to a dramatic decrease in optical performance, a phenomenon that is not observed.
  
  * There are many examples of centuries-old glass shelving which has not bent, even though it is under much higher stress from gravitational loads than vertical window glass.>>

makc wrote:let us not discuss if tar is liquid or solid, and if spinning tar is any more liquid than tar at rest;
I am sure this has little to do with astronomy.

• Twinkle, twinkle, little tar,
  How I wonder what you are!
  Up above the world so high,
  Like a diamond in the sky!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth wrote:
<<Without any idea of the Earth's interior, we can state a "constant density" of 5.515 g/cm³ and, according to theoretical arguments (see Leonhard Euler, etc.), such a [homogeneous fluid] body rotating like the Earth would have a flattening of 1:230. In fact the measured flattening is 1:298.25, which is more similar to a sphere and a strong argument that the Earth's core is very compact. Therefore the density must be a function of the depth, reaching from about 2.7 g/cm³ at the surface (rock density of granite, limestone etc. — see regional geology) up to approximately 15 within the inner core. Modern seismology yields a value of 16 g/cm³ (iron or hydrogen) at the center of the earth.>>

mark swain wrote:Why/How does a spinning Photon live for so long? I Know they are made of, even smaller particles rotating a common center of mass..

mark swain wrote:Why/How does a spinning Photon live for so long?

• -------------------------------------------------
  _World's oldest man, WWI veteran dies_ By DANICA KIRKA (AP)
  
  LONDON — Only death could silence Henry Allingham. He went to war as a teenager, helped keep flimsy aircraft flying, survived his wounds and came home from World War I to a long — very long — and fruitful life. Allingham, who was the world's oldest man when he died Saturday at 113, attributed his remarkable longevity to "cigarettes, whisky and wild, wild women."
  ----------------------------------------------

mark swain wrote:I Know they are made of, even smaller particles rotating a common center of mass..

• photons
  Leptons
  quarks
  W & Z bosons
  gluons

Chris Peterson wrote:

mark swain wrote:Why/How does a spinning Photon live for so long? I Know they are made of, even smaller particles rotating a common center of mass..

Photons are elementary particles: they are not made of smaller particles. And while a photon has a quantum value called "spin" (equal to one), that doesn't mean it is actually spinning in any meaningful physical context. I'm not sure what you're asking with "why" a photon lives "so long". A photon is a stable particle (not the only one), meaning it never decays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip wrote:
<<The Big Rip is a cosmological hypothesis first published in 2003, about the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the matter of universe, from stars and galaxies to atoms and subatomic particles, are progressively torn apart by the expansion of the universe at a certain time in the future. Theoretically, the scale factor of the universe becomes infinite at a finite time in the future.

The hypothesis relies crucially on the type of dark energy in the universe. The key value is the equation of state w, the ratio between the dark energy pressure and its energy density. At w < −1, the universe will eventually be pulled apart. Such energy is called phantom energy, a more extreme form of quintessence.

In a phantom energy-dominated universe, the "fabric" of the universe expands at an ever-increasing rate. However, this implies that the size of the observable universe is continually shrinking; the distance to the edge of the observable universe which is moving away at the speed of light from any point gets ever closer. When the size of the observable universe is smaller than any particular structure, then no interaction between the farthest parts of the structure can occur, neither gravitational nor electromagnetic (nor weak or strong), and they will be ripped apart.

First, the galaxies would be separated from each other. About 60 million years before the end, gravity would be too weak to hold the Milky Way and other individual galaxies together. Approximately three months before the end, the Solar system will be gravitationally unbound. In the last minutes, stars and planets will be torn apart, and an instant before the end, atoms will be destroyed.

The authors of this hypothesis, led by Robert Caldwell of Dartmouth College, calculate that
the end of the universe as we now know it would be in approximately 50 billion years.>>

mark swain wrote:Maybe a little more complex ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle

My Father once told me:

There is as much space, inside the eye of a needle as there is,,, in all we can see in our universe.

Quote:

Historically, the hadrons (mesons and baryons such as the proton and neutron) and even whole atoms were once regarded as elementary particles. A central feature in elementary particle theory is the early 20th century idea of "quanta", which revolutionized the understanding of electromagnetic radiation and brought about quantum mechanics. For mathematical purposes, elementary particles are normally treated as point particles, although some particle theories such as string theory posit a physical dimension.

Things tend to change don,t they..

Now i like that word,, dimension

mark swain wrote:Maybe a little more complex ?

Things tend to change don,t they..

mark swain wrote:Maybe a little more complex ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle

My Father once told me:

There is as much space, inside the eye of a needle as there is,,, in all we can see in our universe.

• ---------------------------------------------------------------
  Young Mark: Dad, do you think there's people inside the eye of this needle?
  
  Mr. Swain: I don't know, Sparks. But I guess I'd say if it is just us... seems like an awful waste of space.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------

mark swain wrote:Quote:

Historically, the hadrons (mesons and baryons such as the proton and neutron) and even whole atoms were once regarded as elementary particles. A central feature in elementary particle theory is the early 20th century idea of "quanta", which revolutionized the understanding of electromagnetic radiation and brought about quantum mechanics. For mathematical purposes, elementary particles are normally treated as point particles, although some particle theories such as string theory posit a physical dimension.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory wrote:
<<Long, light strings can vibrate at different resonant frequencies, each such frequency describing a different elementary particle. So in string limits, any elementary particle should be thought of as a tiny vibrating line, rather than as a point. The string can vibrate in different modes just as a guitar string can produce different notes, and every mode appears as a different particle: electron, photon, gluon, etc.>>

neufer wrote:Young Mark: Dad, do you think there's people inside the eye of this needle?

Mr. Swain: I don't know, Sparks. But I guess I'd say if it is just us... seems like an awful waste of space.