How fast can I really ride - physics

[smoky]

The sun is shining, the world is turning - and I wondered;
If the world is 40,300 Kilometres in circumference, and it rotates once every 24 hours, then it is rotating at 1,679 Kilometres per hour
So if I were to travel in the direction the sun is traveling in, at 100 Klm/hr an hour on my bike - would my true speed be 1,779 Klm/hr, of course I would need to multiply that by the cosine of my particular latitude wouldn't I ?
:crazy:

I am working on calculating the speed of the Earth as it orbits the Sun. Not sure why.
It's about a 940 million kilometre trip annually, so if I divide that by the hours in a year (8544) that should give me the orbital speed in kilometres per hour (110,019 Klm/hr) - look at that, a first preliminary attempt at geophysics
:woohoo:

[hayd3n]

:
huh?????:eek5::wacko::crazy:
isint the world square?

[oldrider]

The sun is shining, the world is turning - and I wondered;
If the world is 40,300 Kilometres in circumference, and it rotates once every 24 hours, then it is rotating at 1,679 Kilometres per hour
So if I were to travel in the direction the sun is traveling in, at 100 Klm/hr an hour on my bike - would my true speed be 1,779 Klm/hr, of course I would need to multiply that by the cosine of my particular latitude wouldn't I ?
:crazy:

I am working on calculating the speed of the Earth as it orbits the Sun. Not sure why.
It's about a 940 million kilometre trip annually, so if I divide that by the hours in a year (8544) that should give me the orbital speed in kilometres per hour (110,019 Klm/hr) - look at that, a first preliminary attempt at geophysics
:woohoo:

Careful, they might add that onto your next ticket, then again if you were going the other way.............Hmmm! :wacko:

[Mikkel]

The sun is shining, the world is turning - and I wondered;
If the world is 40,300 Kilometres in circumference, and it rotates once every 24 hours, then it is rotating at 1,679 Kilometres per hour
So if I were to travel in the direction the sun is traveling in, at 100 Klm/hr an hour on my bike - would my true speed be 1,779 Klm/hr, of course I would need to multiply that by the cosine of my particular latitude wouldn't I ?
:crazy:

I am working on calculating the speed of the Earth as it orbits the Sun. Not sure why.
It's about a 940 million kilometre trip annually, so if I divide that by the hours in a year (8544) that should give me the orbital speed in kilometres per hour (110,019 Klm/hr) - look at that, a first preliminary attempt at geophysics
:woohoo:

Besides the, obviously, pointlessness of this exercise you're going the wrong way. If you travel the same way that the sun is - east to west - you'll be going the other way compared to the rotation of the earth. Also, you would need to do it at equator.

Now figure out your speed compared to:

1. The center of the Milkyway.
2. The Andromeda galaxy.
3. The furthest quasar.

Have fun. :yes:

[p.dath]

Your making the rather obvious mistake of assuming our universe is standing still. It is not. It is currently expanding, so your speed would be much more than you think (assuming you are calculating your speed relative to the where the universe is exploding from).

[p.dath]

How about this. The image of you on your bike is travelling much faster than you again.

[Forest]

Your making the rather obvious mistake of assuming our universe is standing still. It is not. It is currently expanding, so your speed would be much more than you think (assuming you are calculating your speed relative to the where the universe is exploding from).

The universe is expanding, but don't make the mistake of thinking that it is expanding into empty space.

In other words, it isn't an outward explosion from a specific point or location.

[munster]

Here, this will clear things up for you

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dvwH8Qij0JY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dvwH8Qij0JY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[icekiwi]

huh?????:eek5::wacko::crazy:
isint the world square?

Don't be silly its Flat....

[smoky]

I was hoping to keep the thread on topic - speed on earth, but if you really want to know;

I am still unconvinced about the ever expanding universe and the conclusions science has drawn from unproven hypothetical suppositions.
I liken the reality we live in to a constrained illusion created by the expansion of 4 dimensions, 4 of a possible 11. What science can see - what is in the heavens, is just a reflection of a far greater reality - we see thru a glass dimly

The exponential possibilities of what reality could mean, the share magnitude of an unfathomable universe so far more complex and incomprehensible to beings locked in these limited dimensions - can not be understood, nor even reasoned by mere mortal - it rests beyond the curtain of carbon based life

Some ideas around 'string theory', and the latest scientific research and conjecture (the theory of everything), are the closest we have come to even understanding our reality, and it serves to show us how much we will never be able to comprehend outside of our dimensional space. We are proving that the universe may well be beyond our understanding, and even in observing it we change it's very nature.
time creates a reality that creates illusion

[NDORFN]

Good luck with that.

[imdying]

Besides the, obviously, pointlessness of this exercise you're going the wrong way. If you travel the same way that the sun is - east to west - you'll be going the other way compared to the rotation of the earth. Also, you would need to do it at equator.

Now figure out your speed compared to:

1. The center of the Milkyway.
2. The Andromeda galaxy.
3. The furthest quasar.

Have fun. :yes:How did I know that you'd be the one pointing out blatantly obvious to the OP :rofl:

[Finn]

I don't know much about science but you better make sure you check your tire pressures before trying any of this.

[smoky]

B...you're going the wrong way. If you travel the same way that the sun is - east to west - you'll be going the other way compared to the rotation of the earth.

well picked up - my mistake, just shows how important pair review is


Also, you would need to do it at equator.


Not if I multiply it by the cosine of my particular latitude I wouldn't, surely?

[Mikkel]

How did I know that you'd be the one pointing out blatantly obvious to the OP :rofl:

How did I know you'd post a completely unhelpful comment upon the fact I was pointing out the blatantly obvious? :lol:


Not if I multiply it by the cosine of my particular latitude I wouldn't, surely?

Yes, you are most correct. I just missed the last part of the paragraph, my bad.

Now tell me, what is the relative decrease in your tyres' contact patches - due to the centripetal force - depending upon whether you ride at equator or one of the poles. :D

[smoky]

Now tell me, what is the relative decrease in your tyres' contact patches - due to the centripetal force - depending upon whether you ride at equator or one of the poles. :D

Purely speaking we could calculate that using gravitational constant, denoted G, is an empirical physical constant, calculating the gravitational attraction between objects with a given mass (m1 and m2), being inversely proportional to the square of the distance (r) between them, then divide by the effective gravitational decline per distance from the pole – it could be done as a theoretical exercise

If you could measure the global distributions of meso-scale variances and refraction index “dry temperature” at different altitudes and continents, and the variances can obtained for each individual tyre type, compound and profile, from the manufacturers – we may be able to prove that calculation. Of course that’s predicated on the fact the tyre has been dry compressed filled from a clean air source with no greater than a 5% atmospheric discrepancy and a humidity factor of less than 30
Measuring humidity inside a tyre does present a small obstacle.
Then calculate that relative to the effect of weather on the weight of air to figure out what the pressure differential is between the internal tyer (Ipsi) and the external air pressure (Epsi) is at given speeds
That’s with out taking the fluxuating nature of gravity into consideration.

Could be an interesting thing to try

[Winston001]

I am still unconvinced about the ever expanding universe and the conclusions science has drawn from unproven hypothetical suppositions.

This isn't hypothetical. The expansion - and indeed acceleration - of the universe has been known for many years.

Where the debate in astrophysics lies is whether all of the forces in the universe add up to 1. If more than 1 = infinite expansion. Less than 1 = collapse and rebirth. Right now the numbers are slightly on the continued expansion side but we don't yet understand gravity, dark matter, or dark energy.



I liken the reality we live in to a constrained illusion created by the expansion of 4 dimensions, 4 of a possible 11. What science can see - what is in the heavens, is just a reflection of a far greater reality - we see thru a glass dimly


Some ideas around 'string theory', and the latest scientific research and conjecture (the theory of everything), are the closest we have come to even understanding our reality.....

String theory allows for up to 26 dimensions at quantum level so its not exactly intuitive. Support for string (or brane) theory ebbs and flows and it isn't the only idea out there to explain quantum fields.

As for the GUT = Grand Unified Theory - it will be discovered but if guys like Stephen Hawkings struggle with it, well........:dodge:

I think you should just go for a ride and enjoy the cosmos wherever you happen to be. :D

[NighthawkNZ]

huh?????:eek5::wacko::crazy:
isint the world square?

yes its a big borg cube...


ummmmm 42

[Edbear]

well picked up - my mistake, just shows how important pair review is

There were two of them? :rolleyes:

[smoky]

This isn't hypothetical. The expansion - and indeed acceleration - of the universe has been known for many years.
Known? what is the acceptable level of knowing that becomes truth
It is still hypothetical - yes it is generally agreed..... but you cannot say for certain. It is mostly predicated on math and observation, both may well be flawed by the limitations of our limited dimensional understanding, or the granularity in which we inhabit


String theory allows for up to 26 dimensions at quantum level so its not exactly intuitive. Support for string (or brane) theory ebbs and flows and it isn't the only idea out there to explain quantum fields.
THE ONLY IDEA OUT THERE? thats a very narrow view. The existence of parallel or interconnected dimensions was believed by cultures as far back as 500AD (probably even earlier). the teaching of some Kabbulah prophets thru their study of numerology have talked of the possibility of 11 dimensions or levels.
The bible even refers to a believe in dimensional space, and 7 more levels of existence beyond our habitat; when trying to describe the realm of heaven and it's omnipotence

Science is only just starting to catch up - in my humble opinion (which as you point out is worthless and a waste of time)



As for the GUT = Grand Unified Theory - it will be discovered but if guys like Stephen Hawkings struggle with it, well........:dodge:

I think you should just go for a ride and enjoy the cosmos wherever you happen to be. :D
So we should accept the fact we are just dumb, that scientist are right, and we should just stick to riding our bikes?
You may have a valid point

[Winston001]

Known? what is the acceptable level of knowing that becomes truth
It is still hypothetical - yes it is generally agreed..... but you cannot say for certain. It is mostly predicated on math and observation, both may well be flawed by the limitations of our limited dimensional understanding, or the granularity in which we inhabit.

Mate - that stuff you are smoking is pretty good - I'll pm my address..... :rolleyes: Red-shifts, lenticular clouds, gravitational bending of light - none of this is hypothetical. Hasn't been since Einstein correctly predicted the precession of Mercury.





THE ONLY IDEA OUT THERE? that's a very narrow view.....

I think you misread my post. Not quite sure how we've jumped from calculating your speed relative to the universe to multiverses but what the heck. Personally it gives me a headache but quantum synchronocity says alternative universes are possible.



So we should accept the fact we are just dumb, that scientist are right, and we should just stick to riding our bikes?


We sure as heck aren't dumb, but those intuitive leaps which individuals such as Einstein, Newton, Heisenburg etc have are very rare events. And as Newton said, "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

Damn I wish I could get the bike out. :dodge:

[Laxi]

some people have WAY WAY too much time on thier hands:no:

[madbikeboy]

Okay, all that math stuff is kind of interesting.

But, could someone explain the inner workings of a woman's mind?