J.C.MacSwell

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    3440
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by J.C.MacSwell

  1. Concave I would expect from experience with similar kites. Wouldn't it effect the shape detrimentally otherwise? Is there a possibility 10 is on the upper side, but the 8s underneath?
  2. That is equivalent to claiming no force is required. If unbalanced forces are already present, it's already accelerating.
  3. Sorry Mordred. That simply is not true. Unless by "correct amount" you mean anything greater than none at all. There is no minimum requirement.
  4. How about 1% of revenues? Harder to hide market share than profits and multi-National Corporations pretty much control where their profits show up...to the lowest bidder in terms of taxes.
  5. Pulling on my bootstraps...can't seem to pull with 240# of force...so still on the ground...
  6. If you can prove any "magic", it is then called science. So the answer is no, until proven otherwise...and then no again.
  7. Wow...so you're saying they've done it more than once? Now I'll read the OP and the article...
  8. Law of gravity...though I'm probably only looking at the "upside" of the changes I'd make...
  9. I guess the assumption would be that it isn't a rigid body.
  10. It can't be described by a single vector. If the body was expanding away from some central point (and say, each point proportionally to the distance from that point) the vector concept can help describe it. Each vector would point in one direction.
  11. Yes. Based only on the set of assumptions we are wired with it certainly does. But there is no reason to believe that set of assumptions is correct. There is no evidence or requirement for it.
  12. No. I think we count it as part of our imaginations. There is absolutely no evidence that it is there, and there is no requirement for it aside from the way we tend to think.
  13. Yes. Relative to the "tiny experimental uncertainties" referred to by John Cuthbert, all the distances/displacements, velocities, the masses, etc, all have much, much greater uncertainty than that. Do you think otherwise?
  14. Fair enough. Just note that on galactic and greater scales, the (observation based) uncertainties are considerable.
  15. ...and untrue of GR for the last 50+ years unless you invoke unproven dark matter ad hoc You or anyone else guessing doesn't change that. No. At that time (as I stated... prior to 1859) it was not. As I stated your statements may seem reasonable... We don't know that they are true.
  16. Both of these statements seem reasonable...but could have been stated just as reasonably about Newtonian gravity at one time. (Say prior to 1859 with Le Verrier's reporting of observations of Mercury's perhelion, though I think even today the the rotational speeds of Galaxies not matching GR would be more than comparable)
  17. as you suspected: https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/09/politics/tom-steyer-presidential-campaign/index.html
  18. Still closed...but not an isolated system. Conservation of momentum applies to all systems, but closed systems can be accelerated.
  19. Presumably. It depends on how strictly you define universe.