First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
The slowest speed?
Posted 7/3/08
Just a little interesting question: Is it possible to slow something down to where its impossible to go any slower and that object has to seize to be in motion?

Since there are quantums of energy, and motion is kinetic energy, there has to be a slowest speed right?
3264 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Los Angeles
Offline
Posted 7/3/08
Isn't that absolute zero or someshit?
−273.15 °C
Posted 7/3/08 , edited 7/3/08
Well, this is opinion on one of the people on the physics forum (from where I originaly attempted to ask the question) and I agree on his opinion and no I didn't originaly stated it:

Yes, or even less than that all the way to 0.

The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the ‘quantum of length’, the smallest measurement of length with any meaning.

And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a proton.

The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to across a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the ‘quantum of time’, the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10-43 seconds. No smaller division of time has any meaning. With in the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, we can say only that the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds.

Beyond that you would not be considered to be moving in a classical sense. Distance and time lose their meaning beyond this point. The molecules that make your body are still moving.

Actually I was preety bored when I asked this question anyway.
Posted 7/3/08
I need answers. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
3856 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / Outer Heaven
Offline
Posted 7/3/08
Unless there is a point of absolutely no friction or movement, then and only then can you consider the object to be stationary. Anything else means movement, no matter how slow. :B
Posted 7/3/08 , edited 7/3/08
Okay... maybe when some crazy theorist thinks of some new theory that can be applied to this then their will be a coherent answer... A question like this is like asking somebody if the color blue has a girlfriend.
16324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bangalore,India
Offline
Posted 7/3/08
theorists have a lot of time on their hands...
Posted 7/3/08

Bern34 wrote:


RihgisKhan wrote:

Well, this is my opinion:

Yes, or even less than that all the way to 0.

The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the ‘quantum of length’, the smallest measurement of length with any meaning.

And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a proton.

The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to across a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the ‘quantum of time’, the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10-43 seconds. No smaller division of time has any meaning. With in the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, we can say only that the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds.

Beyond that you would not be considered to be moving in a classical sense. Distance and time lose their meaning beyond this point. The molecules that make your body are still moving.

Actually I was preety bored when I asked this question anyway.


You fucking fail, you pretentious fucktard.
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-74177.html

An attempt to sound smart? Please, just die.


Yeah I know. I was one of the people who was whit discussing that.

So I copyed that 1st question from the guy on the physics forum. Because I was one of the guys who discussed in that forum. That's the reason. And yes I am to layz to say it my words so I did said that I agree. Okay I'l go edit. Edit sir!

Here if you want to I will put that link on the top and say it?
104093 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / This Dying World
Online
Posted 7/3/08

Bern34 wrote:


RihgisKhan wrote:

Yeah I know. I was one of the people who was whit discussing that.

So I copyed that 1st question from the guy on the physics forum. Because I was one of the guys who discussed in that forum. That's the reason. And yes I am to layz to say it my words so I did said that I agree. Okay I'l go edit. Edit sir!

Here if you want to I will put that link on the top and say it?


And then you copied the knowledgeable one's opinion, and claimed it to be yours. You're one fucking pretentious dumbfuck. Isn't this called plagiarism?


it is plagiarism Xd

checkmate
Posted 7/3/08

RihgisKhan wrote:


Bern34 wrote:


RihgisKhan wrote:

Well, this is my opinion:

Yes, or even less than that all the way to 0.

The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the ‘quantum of length’, the smallest measurement of length with any meaning.

And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a proton.

The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to across a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the ‘quantum of time’, the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10-43 seconds. No smaller division of time has any meaning. With in the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, we can say only that the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds.

Beyond that you would not be considered to be moving in a classical sense. Distance and time lose their meaning beyond this point. The molecules that make your body are still moving.

Actually I was preety bored when I asked this question anyway.


You fucking fail, you pretentious fucktard.
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-74177.html

An attempt to sound smart? Please, just die.


Yeah I know. I was one of the people who was whit discussing that.

So I copyed that 1st question from the guy on the physics forum. Because I was one of the guys who discussed in that forum. That's the reason. And yes I am to layz to say it my words so I did said that I agree. Okay I'l go edit. Edit sir!

Here if you want to I will put that link on the top and say it?


Go burn in the flames of Tartarus. Lazy fags like you deserves to be PWNED.
Posted 7/3/08

Bern34 wrote:


RihgisKhan wrote:

Yeah I know. I was one of the people who was whit discussing that.

So I copyed that 1st question from the guy on the physics forum. Because I was one of the guys who discussed in that forum. That's the reason. And yes I am to layz to say it my words so I did said that I agree. Okay I'l go edit. Edit sir!

Here if you want to I will put that link on the top and say it?


And then you copied the knowledgeable one's opinion, and claimed it to be yours. You're one fucking pretentious dumbfuck. Isn't this called plagiarism?


It isn't my opinion, I said that I agree on it and yes now I edit the post.

I just wanted to share the QUESTION because I was interesed in it that topic. NOT the ANSWER. That is all. Yes I understand what you're trying to say. Could we not argue.

I understand why you're angry, cause you think I had copied the opinion I have copied the question actually I said I agree on man's opinion.

And no I'm no trying to pretend. Because on this point it would be useless and stupid.

Okay I understand why you flamed me.
2119 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41 / M / southern ontario
Offline
Posted 7/3/08
So much hate this early in the morning.

Take a deep breathe....lol
Posted 7/3/08

Bern34 wrote:


padjoy wrote:

Go burn in the flames of Tartarus. Lazy fags like you deserves to be PWNED.


AnimeKami wrote:

it is plagiarism Xd

checkmate


Haha! That bastard nuked himself!


Lol really??? *checks it out*
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.