Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
Quote:
|
(I see I've had this page open too long, and Sylas has beat me to the answer, but mine is also valid.)
|
Ah, so your answer is based on "nice numbers that fit onto the back of an envelope" too! Very scientific
Cheers,
Lyndon |
I was expecting you to misinterpret that. As Sylas says in his most recent post, it is a valid upper bound. That makes it very back-of-the-envelope. But it is okay to test the water temperature with your toe instead of doing a cannonball into the deep end. It could save you some trauma in the end, as well.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tobin Dax
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
Sylas,
In your fairy tale over the page why did you choose:
Quote:
|
I'll pick a really generous time. Let's use about the time it would take a photon to get to the next particle in the plasma. This is 3.33e-9 s
|
What has this got to do with anything?
Cheers,
Lyndon. |
It's the time it takes for the next particle over to be able to have any reaction to event at the electron we're looking at. EM forces propogate at the speed of light, so the light-travel time is a reasonable limiting timescale to use to look the actions of electrons in your theory, Lyndon. |
So the 'reaction' is passed on 'one electron at a time?' Is this what you are saying? |
Nope. What I'm saying is that the change in the properties of an electron can only propogate at the speed of light (unless your paradox here has some "proof" that this aspect of GR is wrong). It's postion, velocity, etc, will be transmitted and responded to at this speed. So your "restoring forces" and "SHM" won't start until the light-travel time (between the electron in question and any other particle) has passed after the collision. That's what I'm saying.