Recent content by bluesurge863

Yes, it seems reasonable. That's the problem with heat - there's a whole lot of it, but we can utilize only small fractions to make it do what we want.

Approximately 8 minutes. Gravitational disturbances travel at the speed of light. The sun is 93 million miles away. This, divided by c (the speed of light) gives a time of around 8 minutes.

Well, the RCE degree actually is a MSME, just with a concentration on renewable energy technology, such as solar panel and wind turbine efficiency.

Well, fortitude, it's going to be tough. Even under the best of circumstances, a natural sciences degree takes a great deal of effort, and higher math is always involved at some point. If you feel like you can rise to the challenge - especially considering the additional difficulties you face...

So, here's the situation: I'm a second-year engineering student at a not-exactly-prestigious school (Wright State University for the morbidly curious), and my current plan is to carry my education all the way through to a Master of Science in Renewable and Clean Energy. Do you really think...

Well, as sophiecentaur said, of course we can consider distance separately from time, but that wasn't the question. The question is whether or not it is possible for one to exist and not the other.

Sorry, I misunderstood what you said. I'm not entirely sure it's meaningful to assign a rate to time at all, so to say it can pass with a certain speed is sort of playing fast and loose with the underlying concepts. I think of time as more of a continuum that can be stretched (slowing down)...

But it wouldn't have to move at infinite speed. Due to relativistic effects, it would only have to travel at the speed of light. (And by the way, I didn't say that travel would have to occur, just time would be sped up to the point where instantaneous travel would be possible. :wink: )

OK, so let's run that thought experiment. Say we want to speed up time to the point where travel is instantaneous. Is it meaningful to have instantaneous travel with nonzero distance?

If you can show an example of an object travelling a specific distance in no time (blithely putting relativistic effects to the side), then you will have shown that time and distance aren't related. In both of those cases, you have an object travelling a distance over a time interval.

You're not the only one. :confused:

I don't think the poster fully understood what you meant, and so deleted his post.

I assume you mean a 287 TeV lead ion beam, a la the Large Hadron Collider? Well, I wouldn't recommend standing in the way of it, if you catch my drift. That much energy requires an awful lot of speed behind it.

General relativity says no, you cannot have one without the other. They are deeply interwoven at a fundamental level.

That was sloppy wording on my part and I apologize (although that would be a nice segue into a conversation about impulse and momentum ...) Anyway, at the end of the day what you should realize is this: work done is a measure of how much energy is added to an object by a force that causes it...