1. ## studiot

Senior Members

2

12156

1

3856

Moderators

1

44349

Moderators

1

19894

## Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/22/20 in all areas

1. 2 points

## What is the meaning behind multiplication in physics?

Multiplication is a term with a very wide scope in both Mathematics and Physics, where it means (in both) Multiplication is a binary operation combining two mathematical objects or physical entities to produce a defined result according to stated rules. Binary means there are two participating objects or entities. That wide meaning gives rise to a whole host of uses or interpretations since it depends upon the objects or entities and the rules of combination and in some cases the order in which the operation(s) are carried out. In Mathematics we would expect the result of the multiplication to be another mathematical object In Physics we would expect the result to be another physical entity. The nature of the physical entity give rise to both the meaning and motiviation. But In Physics it is possible to have more than one result. For instance Force x Distance can result in a moment or energy, which are different physical entities. Does this help?
2. 1 point

## ESO images a planet forming around a star

This is awesome. A picture of the dust cloud around a star 520 light years away. But better than that, there are signs that a planet is forming. Full story here: https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso2008/ Note that this is a real image, not a simulation or "artists impression"
3. 1 point

## What is the meaning behind multiplication in physics?

"I am not sure what I am asking"
4. 1 point

## 'Jane Roe' in Roe vs Wade revealed

To paraphrase George Carlin, her thrust was to prick holes in the stiff front erected by the porn dealers.
5. 1 point

## PAPER: A Fluid Model of Matter

Why does that matter? Most of them are very short-lived, so we could not use them anyway. But I think we do well with the neutrons, protons and electrons that persist. Because it's not a mechanical effect, i.e. it's not a force or interaction. However, it is an easily-derived consequence of c being invariant. It's not like relativity was fabricated from nothing. Models work if they match experimental results, and allow us to predict results before we do the experiment. Models describe behavior, not truth/reality. e.g. a phonon does not need to physically exist for it to be useful in describing nature. Don't make the mistake or reifying what is used in models as an argument against the model. The ultimate question is whether or not your (or anybody's) model matches what nature does. For the ones you have described that comprise mainstream physics, the answer is "yes, the model matches experiment"
6. 1 point

## Paper: A causal mechanism for gravity

It's a good thought, but I believe in this very thread we've had links showing that linear momentum is a source of gravitational attraction.
7. 1 point

## Is there a value or something else that indicates the orientation of an orbit?

Venus orbits the same direction as all the other planets. But it spins on its own axis backwards, so it has one more day per year than its sidereal spin rate, as opposed to one less like all the other planets. Earth for instance experiences 365.25 days per year, but spins at a rate of about 366.25 times. Venus spins so slow that it goes around about once per Venus year, giving it just two days in its year.
8. 1 point

9. -1 points

## Paper: A causal mechanism for gravity

I believe that in accordance with the third law of Hegel's dialectics ( development goes in a spiral), physics will somehow return to the ether as a medium for the propagation of interactions. Of course, not to the Lorentz model, but on a new level. Most likely, the term "ether" itself will be replaced with another one.However, this is already happening, because the vacuum in the modern sense is not a void.
×