As far as I'm going to write about highly advanced physics, I think it is necesseray for me to write this bill in shakespeare's language. A friend, let us call him Eve, recently told me that, according to brand new superstring theory developpements, there was no direct neither indirect correlation between weight and speed, on a bike or wherever.
"Are you kidding me ?" did I say "this results are not compatible with the structure of the universe described by the Bogdanov bros in their masterpiece, the alpha-globitchovosky quantic gravity loop for dummies." Let me explain you why you're saying sheet of paper please, yeah thanks, what was I saying ? Oh yeah, why you're saying unaccurate things from a relativist point of view.
Let us consider a macro-sized, super scalar structure, in a 3D hyperplane. The plane old equations of quantic gravitation fastly lead to this conclusion : the object is accelerated if any heap of matter-energy is present in this universe. Oh yeah, ok, let us take a simple example. In empty space, a light and a heavy stuff will reach the same speed in the same time if placed in identical conditions, because acceleration of the objects is the same. Yeah, cool. But what if something is on the floor, let us say a bike ? The bike is not strictly falling freely, the resulting acceleration it is submitted to is given by the gravitation and the reaction of the floor...which is proportionnal to the weight ! Yeah. And guess what ? If you're not on a horizontal ground, this last acceleration will provide a work, because the scalar product between this acceleration and the speed does not, this time, equal zero.
That explains why big yellow for example is far faster than I am on descending parts.
And the frictions do not counterbalance this phenomenon.
Thank you for reading me,
Sincerely, honestly, friendly,
Taïg khrys
20 juillet 2005
High level physics
2 commentaires:
Just got through your post mate, it's just seemed you are quite right, still i'm wondering if there is not another phenomenon that is hiding in ... I want to say : a phenomenon that you didn't explain.
Let's do some basic physics :
let us place in a world where there is no loss of Energy (for example, we are in a Flash Movie). We know that Ep = -m*g*z. Then, since Ec = 1/2*m*v^2 (we will acknowledge that m is constant in the heliocentric referential), and furthermore Em=Ec+Ep (where Em is constant), this leads to the fact that Ec is increasing while Ep is decreasing (when you are downhilling).
From that point of view, it is natural to say that m has nothing to do in the story ! If we restrict to imaginery world, I think YvesWhoHasATinyTinyDick is right.
Merci fast and handsome yellow pour ces précisions de bon aloi.
Ce billet est l'exemple typique de ce qu'il ne faut pas faire (quand l'url du blog ne contient pas sky): poster d'abord, et réfléchir ensuite. Car en effet, j'ai dit de la merde. La réaction du support ne travaille jamais, la réaction étant toujours orthogonale à la vitesse.
Voilà, c'est fait, désolé Eve, tu ne pourras pas me détruire, juste te fouttre de ma gueule.
Bref c'était un sujet trop compliqué pour moi, la prochaine fois je parlerais de trucs plus simples.
Enregistrer un commentaire