
cybrbeast
Up, then down, then...
Registered: 01/06/03
Posts: 4,777
Loc: event horizon
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months

Re: the infinite wheel [Re: Zekebomb]
#3824395  02/24/05 05:27 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) 


All this infinity talk is weirding me out. But I have a more down to earth question about this wheel. What if you make a really big wheel in space. Then slowly start turning it. While increasing speed there must be a point when the tip starts to reach lightspeed, no? How big must the wheel be to reach lightspeed with one 360 degree revolution per second?

Zekebomb
sociophagus
Registered: 08/25/03
Posts: 1,164
Loc: BC province
Last seen: 15 years, 4 months


>there's a difference between rotating and orbiting, right? The only difference that I see is inclusion.
the way I see it, there is a difference. let's say I am as wide as the axis around which I orbit (I have zero width and length and height. I am a point. my axis is a line, with extension in only one dimension). let's say I'm two inches away from the axis. so around and around I go, yes? my face is always towards the axis as I go round. I am orbiting. now let's say I move to the centre, so that I am exactly on my axis. am I still orbiting? No, but I am still rotating.
pardon me if I fail to remember why this distinction is relevant. I don't have time to root through the posts at present, I have a truckload o' dishes to clean. mmm dinner was fantistic though.

PhanTomCat
Teh Cat....
Registered: 09/07/04
Posts: 5,908
Loc: My Youniverse....
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months

Re: the infinite wheel [Re: cybrbeast]
#3824629  02/24/05 06:05 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) 


Quote:
cybrbeast said: How big must the wheel be to reach lightspeed with one 360 degree revolution per second?
Good question...! I don't know the "Speed of Light", but....
Answer: If you take the speed of light, Divide that number by 3,153,600, Divide that number by Pi, and then, Get the square root of that number,
You will have your radius to which your wheel will be moving at one rotation per second  at light speed.... (Double the radius to get the diameter, you didn't specify....)
GForces are a bitch, better wear a safety helmet....!
 I'll be your midnight French Fry.... "The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...." >^;;^<

brewwhaha1
Stranger thanmost
Registered: 02/14/05
Posts: 253
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months

Re: the infinite wheel [Re: Zekebomb]
#3824684  02/24/05 06:14 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) 


when you speak of infanite you speak of theories and not absolutes. Like absolute freezing zero degrees K. Nothing can be colder than that. And in finding the center of a wheel the point that does not rotate you would require an absolute or a law (lets call it the law of smallness to keep it interesting). In order to prove the law of smallness you would require an instrument that could measure the smallest thing possible. But if the instrument you are using to measure the law of smallness only measures up to a certain point  the percieved smallest thing  is it the fault of the device that it can't measure anything smaller or does it have the capacity to measure things smaller than the smallest thing? If we can measure past the smallest thing how do we know we are measureing anything at all because we have already past the smallest thing and now we are effectivly trying to measure NOTHING. Because if we were measuring something past the smallest thing the smallest thing would no longer be the smallest thing. Therefore: proving the law of smallness is impossible. This results an impossible situation on the probability of finding the infanite centre of a rotating wheel no matter how small the increments become.

PhanTomCat
Teh Cat....
Registered: 09/07/04
Posts: 5,908
Loc: My Youniverse....
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months

Re: the infinite wheel [Re: brewwhaha1]
#3824712  02/24/05 06:19 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) 


You cannot measure a theoretical point.... And a mathematical point IS theoretical....
 I'll be your midnight French Fry.... "The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...." >^;;^<

Zekebomb
sociophagus
Registered: 08/25/03
Posts: 1,164
Loc: BC province
Last seen: 15 years, 4 months

Re: the infinite wheel [Re: brewwhaha1]
#3825010  02/24/05 07:14 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) 


brewhaha, I liked your post about the law of smallness. proving such a law is impossible, you're right. however:
And in finding the center of a wheel the point that does not rotate
I guess I'm bad at expressing myself. my contention (assumption) is that the absolute centre of a rotating wheel (which is a point) does not move (although it does rotate), unlike any other given point in the wheel, which both rotates and moves.
the thing is, I may be wrong. however, I think I'm right. can anyone sink my battleship? if not, then we're all working with the assumption above.
cybrbeast: What if you make a really big wheel in space. Then slowly start turning it. While increasing speed there must be a point when the tip starts to reach lightspeed, no?
that's trippy, because let's say you put a bunch of atomic clocks all along one of the spokes of the wheel, one every ten feet or something. time would get slower and slower as you moved out along the spoke, until eventually you reached the tip, which is moving at light speed. here at the tip, time is at a standstill! plus solid objects (like the wheel) are sort of squashed along the axis of their movement... fuckin trippy I swear to Gead.
so you have a wheel spinning, 360 degrees/second, and at the centre time is ticking along at the proper speed (which is, get this, one second/second), but as you move out, the speed of the wheel's movement is faster and faster yet it takes longer and longer to move at all because time is going slower and slower. at the tip, it is moving at the speed of light (i.e. hellah fast) yet it takes, for all intents and purposes, forever to move! (plus apparently it's all squashed out of shape!) how do you reconcile the inside of the wheel with the outside?!?

PhanTomCat
Teh Cat....
Registered: 09/07/04
Posts: 5,908
Loc: My Youniverse....
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months

Bend it like a Grand Pinwheel..... =P [Re: CJay]
#3825158  02/24/05 07:35 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) 


Profound moment that I JUST realized.... It was said last night, and I totally missed it (wrapped up in my own thoughts).....:
Quote:
redgreenvines said: big wheels bend like galaxies and pinwheels
these huge arrangements seemingly go on forever and have black holes at their centers which do something unspeakable to matter
redgreenvines, kudos to you, mucho~ BRILLIANT....! And it makes perfect sence.....
The spokes would be straight until the point at which the spokes reached the length of "Light Speed", and then because of the physics theory of E=MC?, in theory, the spokes past that point would slow down in the time space "continuum", and start to bend in a swirling effect....
If you thought of that yourself, you *should* get some kind of award, because in theory, that is "FUCKING GRAND"....!
(Am I seeing the makings of a blackhole, in theory....?)

cybrbeast
Up, then down, then...
Registered: 01/06/03
Posts: 4,777
Loc: event horizon
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months

Re: the infinite wheel [Re: PhanTomCat]
#3826168  02/24/05 01:24 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) 


*error*
Edited by cybrbeast (02/25/05 02:19 PM)

brewwhaha1
Stranger thanmost
Registered: 02/14/05
Posts: 253
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months

Re: the infinite wheel [Re: cybrbeast]
#3828988  02/25/05 03:31 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) 


argument #2: Yes the center of the wheel must move regardless of how small it is. Even the most microscopic invisible thing has a center. Since it has a center it must have a radius to get to its outside edge (regardless of how small the measurement is). Because it has a radius it most definitely has a circumference. If the circumference is rotated  the inner most circle must move.
Aside: Let's think about geometry and the center of eternity. If eternity is a line and is drawn out as such: a b <.> it is understood that lines a and b travel for eternity in both directions regardless of measurement units given for the line mm, cm, km etc. The (.) in the center is a stop point. Considering that both lines a and b connect how is it possible to define the measurement between a and b? Smaller and smaller increments of measurement can be given to measure the distance from (.) to a and (.) to b. Theoretically someone could go on forever creating new units of measurement to describe the decreasing distance between lines a and b preventing those two lines from ever touching at the stop point (.) Yet; geometry states that these two lines a and b do in fact connect at a point (.)

PhanTomCat
Teh Cat....
Registered: 09/07/04
Posts: 5,908
Loc: My Youniverse....
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months

Let's Retry this one..... =0 (Infinite wheel formula, TAKE #2...) **CLACK** [Re: cybrbeast]
#3829937  02/25/05 05:42 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) 


EGADS, I are good is math....? I COMPLETELY screwed that up.... What a day....! In the math I use everyday, I do not do velocity, time, or speed calculations and I seemed to have screwed up a bit (MUCH).... This is not an excuse for error, I just screwed up.... (and this is *simple* crap...!?) How I managed to put the formula for getting the area of a circle in there, I will never know.... DUUUuuuhhhh.....
Let me try again, AND show my construction.... (and I will go MUCH slower, and wear a helmet....)
186,000mi/sec = The Speed of Light.... (OR the circumference of the circle traveling at light speed/sec....) ? 3.14159265 = Pi.... = ? 59205.639mi = Diameter to which your wheel will be moving at one rotation per second  at light speed.... ? 2................... = To get the Radius.... = R 29602.816mi = Radius to which your wheel will be moving at one rotation per second  at light speed....
186,000mi/sec = The Speed of Light.... (OR the circumference of the circle traveling light speed/sec....) ? ....360? = Degrees in a circle.... = 516.66666~mi = The distance traveled for Each degree of rotation....
Can I get a checker over here to go over my math...??.???
 I'll be your midnight French Fry.... "The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...." >^;;^<

soulmotion
Professor
Registered: 11/30/04
Posts: 208
Loc: Jumanji
Last seen: 17 years, 19 days

Re: Let's Retry this one..... =0 (Infinite wheel formula, TAKE #2...) **CLACK** [Re: PhanTomCat]
#3833357  02/25/05 11:15 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) 


I guess I'm jumping on this thread kind of late, but I wanted to suggest a couple of ideas if I may...
With respect to the question: ...is there a difference between 'infinitely small' and 'zero'?
This is something that a friend of mine helped me to understand a while ago, and that is: if you could take an object and divide it in half, and then divide each half into halves, and keep doing that forever and ever, the object will disappear to the naked eye, but it would still exist. The moral of the story is, you can't 'eliminate' something by reducing it's relative size (theoretically speaking). The way that this idea relates to your question is, when you say 'infinitely small' you are describing a quantity of something. 'Zero' is simply nothing, and therefore can't be manipulated or reduced because there is nothing to reduce. This explaination may just be restating what other's have already said in this forum, but I'd like to offer another idea relating to your post,
According to the law of universal gravitation, as I understand it, every object in the universe exerts a gravitational force on every other object. So we could assume that the gravitational field of a mass is emited for an indefinite length into outer space. This would be a similar concept to your infinite wheel, where the center of a mass would be the 'hub' of the infinite wheel, and the gravitational field would be the 'spokes' (although I don't think a gravitational field is emited in perfect linear rays the same way spokes extend linearly from a hub). Now; if there was only one mass in the universe, or one 'body' let's say it's the earth then this body's gravitational field would have nothing to interact with. You could say that this one lone mass is the center of the universe. When you add another mass, or another galaxy of masses, all of the sudden it's as if each body is competing for the possition of ' the center of the universe'. This is what creates the dynamics of the universe this competition among the 'masses'. The moral of this story (if there is one) relates to a belief that I have that: matter is in love with itself.
Edited by soulmotion (02/26/05 12:44 AM)

redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 33,859

Re: Let's Retry this one..... =0 (Infinite wheel formula, TAKE #2...) **CLACK** [Re: soulmotion]
#3833461  02/25/05 11:52 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) 


with fractals, and this universe, it seems, no matter how small an interval is it can be halved and no matter how big an interval is it could be doubled.
regarding infinity or infinitesimality one can only take up the directions towards these absolutes, and stretch out someplace inbetween.

cybrbeast
Up, then down, then...
Registered: 01/06/03
Posts: 4,777
Loc: event horizon
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months

Re: Let's Retry this one..... =0 (Infinite wheel formula, TAKE #2...) **CLACK** [Re: redgreenvines]
#3834597  02/26/05 04:45 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) 


Quote:
redgreenvines said: with fractals, and this universe, it seems, no matter how small an interval is it can be halved and no matter how big an interval is it could be doubled.
No there is a limit to how small it can get. At least scientists think there is. It's the planck length. Which is 1.6 x 10^35 m or about 10^20 times the size of a proton.

soulmotion
Professor
Registered: 11/30/04
Posts: 208
Loc: Jumanji
Last seen: 17 years, 19 days

Re: Let's Retry this one..... =0 (Infinite wheel formula, TAKE #2...) **CLACK** [Re: cybrbeast]
#3834784  02/26/05 05:40 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) 


Quote:
cybrbeast said: No there is a limit to how small it can get. At least scientists think there is. It's the planck length. Which is 1.6 x 10^35 m or about 10^20 times the size of a proton.
I think it'd be more appropriate to say, as far as measurements are concerned, "there is a limit to what modern instrumentation can detect". The most important lesson we can learn from the history of science is never to assume that what we know is all that exists. The essense of science is openmindedness. In the world of science, fact is only tentative (this is a rule which applies equally well to life in general).

cybrbeast
Up, then down, then...
Registered: 01/06/03
Posts: 4,777
Loc: event horizon
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months

Re: Let's Retry this one..... =0 (Infinite wheel formula, TAKE #2...) **CLACK** [Re: soulmotion]
#3835944  02/26/05 03:33 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) 


No modern instruments in no way can detect a planck length. It's a theoretical limit. There is also planck time, which is the time it takes for a photon to travel the distance of a planck length. Superstring scientists think there are other dimensions folded up into planck lengths. Which would make them undetectable.

