sun's destruction's effect

Other scientific, philosophical, mathematical etc. topics go here.

sun's destruction's effect

Postby papernuke » Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:15 pm

This might be a revive but its a good topic nevertheless. its discussed in a lot of other fourms too.

If the sun were to suddenly dissapear, what would happen? The electromagnetic waves from the sun would still be coming after 7 min, but what would happen with the gravity? Will it instantaneously dissapear or will it also have a residual effect like the light?
"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe."
-H.G. Wells
papernuke
Tetronian
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: California, US of A

Postby wendy » Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:36 am

Were the sun to become a black hole, then gravity should not disappear.

Were the sun th vanish from space, then gravity (which travels at the EM velocity constant), would have no effect until some 499.012 seconds after the disappearence of the sun (some 8m, 19s, 1th).

The EM velocity constant is 983574900 ft/s, or about 30 ohms.

At the time of disappearence there will be a wave that corresponds to how the sun disappear, and then the planets will start to proceed in the direction they were last travelling. There might be some post-disappearence shockwaves, but this is dependent on the manner of disappearence of the sun.
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.

\ ( \(\LaTeX\ \) \ ) [no spaces] at https://greasyfork.org/en/users/188714-wendy-krieger
User avatar
wendy
Pentonian
 
Posts: 2014
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby Nick » Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:07 pm

Newton originally thought that if the sun were to suddenly disappear, planets would instantly go along the path they were just and float away. However, Einstein proved that nothing can ever move faster than the speed of light; so now we think that we would see the sun burn out before our planet actually began spinning away, instead of at the same time.
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby papernuke » Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:54 am

to Wendy: whats the EM velocity constant? is it the electromagnetic velocity constant?.. but light doesnt go that slowly.

to Nick: but when the REALLY burns out, it takes about 7 min. for the light from after the burnout to reach us, so it would be about the same that the gravity ceases to pull on us..
"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe."
-H.G. Wells
papernuke
Tetronian
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: California, US of A

Postby wendy » Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:32 am

The EM velocity constant appears first in this relation.

Suppose you have two parallel wires, of infinite length. A charge of so V verbers over L feet, gives rise to an electrostatic charge of F poundals per foot.

Now, the same setup, involving an electric current of V verbers in T seconds, giving rise to the same force of F pdl/ft, defines a value T.

Regardless of this setup, L/T is constant. In terms of CGS units, the em unit of charge is of dimensions dyn^½ . s, and in esu, dyn½ cm, the equal measure of these gives T emu = L esu, where L/T is the em velocity.

We see that if an oscillator with an induction of L1 emu, and a capacitor of C1 esu (both measured in L), the radian-rate (ie 2pi.frequency) is T, and that C1.L1/T² is the em velocity constant, squared.

Maxwell proved that from an Electromagnetic oscillator, such as an rotating magnet, that the field state radiates at the velocity of L/T, and noting that it was fairly close to the measured speed of light, that "light travels in the same medium as EM waves".

Henrich Hertz constructed an EM oscillator as described above, and showed that the resulting waves have the properties of light.

Since maxwell's equations are independent on the proper motion, the equations indicate relativity of frames of reference are something different to the Newtonian time-space idiom.

Since Newtonian relativity should indicate that the EM velocity should be altered, and this is not the case (ie there is no etherfer), we have then that space and time are connected at the rate of EM velocity, and that a space-time that allows observers to convert an event's space-time such that space and time convert at the EM velocity, is what is needed.

Einstein showed in 1905 the general theory, and in 1911, Minkowski provided the geometric framework for this model. The geometry of this is different to the geometry of four spacial dimensions, since the distance between points can be the square root of a number of any sign.
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.

\ ( \(\LaTeX\ \) \ ) [no spaces] at https://greasyfork.org/en/users/188714-wendy-krieger
User avatar
wendy
Pentonian
 
Posts: 2014
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia


Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron