J.C.MacSwell

Looking at buying a new comb?

It could be shielded by a Hoover Dam...

Any frame dragging effect would be imperceptibly small. You could easily calculate the loss of mass associated with the rotation, but I expect that would create an immeasurable effect also.

Yes. Pretty much all of this remains undiscovered...

That was how I took it also. Does my answer make sense in that context?

My understanding of the theory (not an expert by any stretch but my understanding of the way the theory works, so feel free to correct me) is that one point is insufficient to account for the effect, where the sum of probabilities does.

You would get more energy from combusting the farts.

I would say so. I am impressed with the athleticism, which I somewhat understand, and also the aesthetics...but not really sure why with the aesthetics.

You can break down a simple spin into vectors, say x,y, and z axis components. I don't think that will give you much of an impression of spin about those axes. But you could recognize rotations of sub systems (body parts) and sum them to find the net rotation of the system (body)

There are an infinite number of ways to break down the rotation into vectors...a number of which could be natural and/or useful...as long as the net rotation is constant unless you have external torques. So the axes of rotations you believe you are seeing are not unique in that respect. (so that can be correct if broken down properly)

One could say that.

First off +1 for the video (and incredible that the diver that hit his head still managed to hit the water without seriously maiming or killing himself) They are "rearranging" body parts about the only axis of rotation (air/wind affects aside) that they have after their feet leave the platform. This gives the "impression" of rotation about other axes. Note that any body parts can have different axes of rotation from the "system" (the body), and they can change as they are not isolated where the "system" is isolated (minor air affects aside).

Interesting (though no doubt expensive) idea as you might match the power of the mix to maintain the grid power the field normally generates, effectively at least for smaller hurricanes.

"Hurricane mode" is feathered (not turning and not producing power) so as not to expose the blades to 8 times times the energy going through the disc for every doubling of wind speed. From your quote: "Sandy’s wind speeds dropped below hurricane status just before landfall, but the Infigen turbines still withstood sustained winds of 65 mph [105 kph] or so, with gusts reaching much higher, as the center of Sandy passed right over them. The turbines were undamaged, said Matthew McGowan of Infigen, and were soon generating 1.5 megawatts of electricity again." As impressive as this might sound, they were feathered/not turning at the 65mph quoted...which is barely over 1/5 of the wind energy going through the disc than it would be at the 110mph wind speed claimed by the writer of your original post for the Cuban turbines.

Where did you read it? (I know the quote implies it, but could be taken as a little ambiguous) From a quick search: https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1161711/turbines-left-broadly-unaffected-hurricane-sandy "Sandy was a category 2 hurricane as it tore through the Caribbean and ripped into Cuba on 25 October, with winds of nearly 50 metres per second (m/s). Two small wind projects in Cuba's hard-hit Holguin province were not seriously damaged and were soon providing electricity again to the grid, the government reported."

"However, in the province of Holguín, there were two wind farms installed in 2008 and 2010 one with six 850 kW turbines and the other with six 750 kW machines. Both of those wind farms were hit by hurricane Sandy with wind speeds of up to 110 miles per hour and neither of them had any major damage and continued to provide electricity for the local grid." Am I going out on a limb suggesting they were probably shut down during the storm , not damaged, and then restarted afterward?

Mass of the gas in the inflated balloon: You need to know: 1. weight of balloon empty 2. pressure of gas when full 3. Volume of gas when full (volume of balloon) 4. Ambient air temperature, pressure and relative humidity (to give you air density of displaced air, you can google this as Phi suggests) 5. weight of balloon full/or force required to stop it lifting skyward 6. Some equations (google again) and some math

I think you require FTL in at least two different frames to break causality.

How expensive is it (rhetorically speaking) to build a system where you have a chance to optimize the use of the waste fuel (wood being an example), concentrated and controlled at a particular point? Now compare this with something that is random and dispersed in both time and space. What chance do you have of a fleeting return, where you can point and say "hey, that was temporarily recouping some of the investment faster than the interest was mounting on it"

rho is density, mass per unit volume of the displaced fluid.

What is the mass of the drone? Do you want to know the forces when hovering or accelerating as well?

My point is that it doesn't hold for a ring. You need the rest of the spherical shell as well or it doesn't work. If you were inside a ring, you would be attracted to the nearest part of it. So for a disc Galaxy you can't ignore what is outside of the orbit.

Only true for a homogenous spherical mass distribution.

No. The missing pieces of the hollow sphere would have the exact opposite affect, such that all put together it sums to zero net force.

It would be attracted more to the near stars without full compensation from the greater number of distant stars in the disc (or whatever you call a disc with the centre disc removed) Generally this should be a net drag affect on the star in question.