What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
43 Comments
- mercano, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How can you have 2 objects orbiting each other???? Do they mean two stars that are caught in the same gravity well?
Then are both orbiting their common center of gravity. (The center of gravity of the two star unit.) Technically, the same thing hapens between the Earth and the Sun, but as the Sun is so much more masive then the earth, the center of graivity of Earth+Sun is a trival distance from the center of gravity Sun itself, so we don't really notice. However, the displacement of a star by it's orbiting planets is one of the techniques we use to discover planets in other solar systems, tough it only works for Jupiter+ size planets. - mr_mechanics, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To illdourmum, I suggest you to study up on the theory of relativity, because the fundamental axiom of special relativity is that the speed of light is the same for all observers, hence regardless of relative velocities, the maximum velocity you could measure would be the speed of light. If a light source is moving away from you at a relativistic speed, and sends out a light pulse every second, you will still measure the speed of the light as c, but the time between the observed pulses would not be one second. This is known as the Doppler effect.
- emiles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hey, while I'm throwing a wrench into things, check this out:
http://www.oufusion.org.uk/PhotoelectricEffect.htm
This guy also published his ideas in a highly regarded physics research journal (I've read the paper) so he's not just some naysayer. Anyway, we shouldn't be too surprised that the photoelectric equation is just sort of approximate. Really, the fact that it's held in such high esteem further validates the claim that we have deified Einstein, and I think the Nobel prize for that matter.
Don't get me wrong, though. Einstein was a really good physicist. He'd probably be one of the first to get ticked off at the way people fail to question him. If there's anything we can learn from him, it's actually to question everything. - scottbrown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1parks: yes, they mean that they are caught in a gravity well. but try to explain that to joe six-pack. it's better to say that they are orbiting each other.
- Parks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How can you have 2 objects orbiting each other???? Do they mean two stars that are caught in the same gravity well?
- gwyrrdin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0According to my converter widget, 621,000 mph is the same as 999,374.16 km/h.
That is nearly 3 times as much as the speed of light (299.792.458 m / sec, or nearly 300.000 km/h).
Is someone with more scientific knowledge able to explain to me how a star is able to travel faster as light? - KidVicious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"How can you have 2 objects orbiting each other???? Do they mean two stars that are caught in the same gravity well?"
Did you really need to ask that question, you sound like you should have already known the answer. - capran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0621,000 MPH is fast by human standards, but its still less than 1/10 of 1% of c.
c = approx 186,290 miles per SECOND, x 3600 seconds/hour = 670,644,000 miles/hour!
621,000/670,644,000 = 0.00092598 c.
Wake me up when we see something fast. - gregbarr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Re: Speed of light
http://www.google.com/search?q=speed%20of%20light%20in%20mph - Slinker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0We Americans are stuborn, we don't want to change to metric. ;)
- foxsynergy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0gwyrrdin, the speed of light is measured at roughly 186,000 miles per *second*. =)
- strangeloops, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The reason that Americans won't accept the metric system is that they don't want no foreign ruler.
- mikeon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0A British website using imperial?! Man, I wish the US would have switched to metric a long time ago or just start now. In school I first learned imperial, then in science classes we had to learn metric. Then back to other classes it was imperial.
We need one system of measurments damn it!
One thing I found fascinating in physics class was learning that the center of gravicty/mass between the Earth and Moon is inside the earth but not at the center, more like a chord in a circle. - oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"relative to us, the stars are traveling faster than light"
Actually, relative to us, the stars are travelling ~0.1% of c - mercano, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"According to my converter widget, 621,000 mph is the same as 999,374.16 km/h.
That is nearly 3 times as much as the speed of light (299.792.458 m / sec, or nearly 300.000 km/h).
Is someone with more scientific knowledge able to explain to me how a star is able to travel faster as light?"
Your conversion is off. 299.792.458 m / sec is nearly 300.000 km/SEC. You divided by 1000 for the m->km conversion, but didn't multiply by 3600 for the 1/sec-1/hr conversion. If you google "c in mph" you will find the speed of light to be 670,616,629 mph, or 1,079,252,850 km/hr. These guys are going close to lightspeed, but not quite. - capran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0gwyrrdin. I'm glad you don't work for NASA (neither do I)...cause you just made an error of a factor of 3600 (60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour.)
- Corny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0A science article using imperial units... Very strange.
Way to go Einstein! :) - emiles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Let's clear a few things up.
The whole purpose of the special theory of relativity was to argue against illdourmum's statement, which was the point of view of scientists before Einstein. Relativity theory is not just throwing the word "relative" into everything you say. The main axiom of special relativity is that, the closer an objects velocity is to the speed of light, the more it appears to be going the exact same speed relative to everyone, regardless of how fast they are moving relative to each other and the object.
As far as two objects orbiting each other, think about it. Anything with mass exerts gravity. So, would it be correct only to say that the moon orbits the earth? What about the moon's gravity? Doesn't it count too? If not, at what strength would it start counting? In fact, it always counts because one object doesn't orbit the other, but instead both orbit around their shared center of mass. It's just that the center of mass for the earth-moon system is very close to the center of the earth. - gwyrrdin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0haha
oops
sorry guys
all those metrics (ashamed) - j.carcinogen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It is not a gravity well. The two stars orbit around a common gravitational midpoint.
- j.carcinogen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0sorry I just noticed mercano said the same thing basically. >
- krisse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Interesting article despite the lack of information.
SI > *
The Photoelectric experiment suggested that energy is quantized - that’s how far Einstein went. (After that he almost didn't believe anything that came out of the QM field of research).
The Theory of Relativity suggested that our notion of space and time is false - that’s how far Einstein went - and the reason, I think, that it got so much attention from the public was that it seems like a much more interesting theory. Who would care about some metal plate getting hit by electrons - no biggie.. :P
Oh, and if you want to know how a binary star system works check out this nice simulation:
http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/astro101/java/binary/binary.htm - 7of7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I won't believe it until it's no longer associated with Einstein. He has a cult of personality, thus any group of people following him can be discounted as a herd. If someone unpopular, like Bill Gates, theorized this, no one would care.
- dpk87, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0sometime in the past century (I obviously dont remember the particular period) their were a wave of campaigns that attempted to get America to use the metric system. However, after doing some research, it turned out that the change would cost billions of billions of dollars. Think about manufacturing, think about tools and constructions materials, think about all the products (almost everything) that use the imperial system in some way. Its not as easy a changing the markings on a ruler.
- Kashey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Einstein theory will hold even when we are able to travel faster then light. It even hold when we will reach twice or even more the speed of light. Even when Ether will be proofed right. Until we got rid of professors and scientists who made their carers and diplomas on Einstein and who will do anything to defend him, we will see more and more of that nonsense . We made a cult of Einstein and because of that he is always right. He is like GOD. If GOD is saying - it must be true. If he didn't say that some people will put those words into GODs mouth. So a new generation will worship the GOD.
"I won't believe it until it's no longer associated with Einstein. He has a cult of personality, thus any group of people following him can be discounted as a herd. If someone unpopular, like Bill Gates, theorized this, no one would care."
Amen - mikeon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Now here's a question. Say, in theory if it were possible, a car is going at the speed of light. It turns on it's headlights. What will happen?
- swilldo74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The average speed of ejaculation is 28/mph
- dbrodbeck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0switching to metric obviously destroyed the economies of the UK, Canada and Australia...
- st0ney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Greatest Theory = Photoelectric Effect
- paintball102089, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0yes for all of u confused read all of his theories like me and emiles. that is a great discovery though.
- smada, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I'm Joe Six-Pack and you guys can go orbit yourselves.
- paintball102089, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0300,000*
- paintball102089, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0the speed of light is 300,00 kilometers pere sec not hour dumbass
- spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0even when others were calling einstein nuts i believed in him. i new he was a smart guy.
- illdourmum, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0speed of light is relative
relative to us, the stars are traveling faster than light
relative to the stars, speed to light is the normal speed
go study the theory of special relativity - woden, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0It seems like every science story on digg ends up with people waffling on about how dumb it is for the US to use imperial measurements, and waxing rhapsodic about the glorious metric system. Who Cares? It's trivial enough to convert from one to the other, so just convert it and stop bitching already.
And, it's worth noting that this particular article comes from a British newspaper, quoting British scientists. - gamefreak42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0yeah... I wouldn't call his theory of relatiy Einstein's greatest. how about the one he actually won the nobel prize for? The Photoelectric Effect
- illdourmum, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"relative to us, the stars are traveling faster than light"
"Actually, relative to us, the stars are travelling ~0.1% of c"
i was answering the question of Mercano......
""According to my converter widget, 621,000 mph is the same as 999,374.16 km/h.
That is nearly 3 times as much as the speed of light (299.792.458 m / sec, or nearly 300.000 km/h).
Is someone with more scientific knowledge able to explain to me how a star is able to travel faster as light?"
Your conversion is off. 299.792.458 m / sec is nearly 300.000 km/SEC. You divided by 1000 for the m->km conversion, but didn't multiply by 3600 for the 1/sec-1/hr conversion. If you google "c in mph" you will find the speed of light to be 670,616,629 mph, or 1,079,252,850 km/hr. These guys are going close to lightspeed, but not quite." - celeb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1oops, wrong kind of "exotic stars" my bad
- peerk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0In the season finale of Justice League Unlimited the flash defeated a Brainiac suped up Lex Luther by going the speed of light.
After seeing that this article seems kinda lame.
No digg from me. - GoChris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0lousy non metric measurements...pfft, who in the world is still silly enough to use those. btw, cool story, dugg.
- celeb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1jenna jameson and jelena jensen?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0the ultimate genius
http://www.geek2us.net/bogeydope
-mrglass
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is