J.C.MacSwell

I don't think we can manipulate any dimension can we?

Thinking in SR terms we can manipulate time and one direction we choose to move in.

Since we are the product of evolution ( Man from Apes ) and apes from ocean dwelling animals that crawled onto land to become what we are, Them why did evolution stop ?.

We lived for thousands of years to record history of mankind and animal specie.

Why did our ocean stopped producing new kinds of animals to this day ?.

 

Is evolution just an imaginary joke played out by Darwin ?.

I sure would like to see our oceans produce more Dinosaur animals. Also Apes evolve into man.

Was Charles Darwin in his right mind or hir delusion a mith ?.

Unfortunately "what you would like to see" isn't a necessary part of the theory.

Fair enough - I don't pretend to understand string theory. But still, the dimensions wouldn't be some "other place," right? It would just be directions in which most aspects of us (except for gravity, etc.) have zero extension, just as if we encountered a 2D flatlander drifting around our 3D space. Or am I way off?

Not on the same (gravity) point, but another way for us to be unaware of a dimension would be if we were fully extended or immersed in it. We couldn't move in that direction, because we are already there.

Fro Woody Allen: (Annie Hall)

Mother(to doctor): He's been depressed. All of a sudden, he can't do anything.

Doc: Why are you depressed, Alvy?

Mother: Tell doctor Flicker. It's something he read.

Doc: Something you read, heah?

Alvy: The universe is expanding.

Doc: The universe is expanding?

Alvy: Well, the universe is everything, and if it's expanding, someday it will break apart and that would be the end of everything!

Mother(shouting): What is that your business? (to doctor) He stopped doing his homework.

Alvy: What's the point?

Mother: What has the universe got to do with it? You're here in Brooklyn! Brooklyn is not expanding!

It's possible I'm being a bit too pedantic, but, since it spins, I'd presume it bulges at the center, hence... not a sphere. Is that not the case? Wouldn't it look more like a soccer ball with someone sitting on top than an actual sphere?

A spinning mass inside the event horizon would certainly have an event horizon that was non-spherical while collapsing. So at least temporarily that would be correct (I think?)

The event horizon of a single black hole is spherically symmetric. There is a high chance it and it's accretion disk are spinning though. What do you mean about it's poles?

 

A black hole is just an object with all of it's mass within it's schwartzchild radius.

Using the event horizon as the definition, it could be non-spherical while absorbing mass.

One might argue that the straight line really isn't an orbit, either. More of a poor lifestyle choice.

One might argue the parabola and hyperbola aren't either.

Is straight really that bad a lifestyle choice?

Not that there's anything right with it!

The universe only exists “now”. Its past is but history reflected in present “now” Its future is yet to be.

It would seem that the flow of “now” would have to be at least that of the speed of light to prevent light from running into the yet to exist future.

With such speed it would seem near impossible for the “now” of an event to match exactly with the “now” of its measurement or observation. This could account for Uncertainty.

This could account for some uncertainty in a classical sense.

A quick question about spring cleaning.

 

If one inhales the odor of household bleach (at <%5 but >%4 strength) without dilution, is it harmful?

 

Or is the odor of full strength bleach just benign and yet irritating?

 

thanks

 

P.S. (no mixing with ammonia or the such involved, just straight household bleach)

http://greenopolis.com/myopolis/blogs/ecodiscoveries/chlorine-bleach-can-cause-asthma

The answer is subtle but there's a clue in what Sisyphus explained.

 

There is no perfectly rigid object, so there is a slight bend as you move outward. That means there is both a force toward the center (centripetal force), required for circular motion, but also a tangential force, required to speed the arm up. This tangential force does work, and because the path is longer as the radius increases, it does more work as r increases, and being a maximum at the tip. Proximity to the energy source does not mandate that the energy transferred be a maximum there. Energy is transmitted through forces (i.e. doing work) and at the center the force is entirely centripetal. And centripetal forces do no work.

There should be a torque and an additional non centripetal reaction force at the center as well if the clock motor is accelerating the arm or compensating for drag.

After the first 10 seconds how far will they be apart?

After 15 seconds how far will they be apart?

You won't be "prohibited," but you'll be noted to be outside of the mainstream, since practically no physicist worth his salt refers to "relativistic mass" any more.

What term would you use? Or do you not find the concept useful at all?

Just a question: (I think we have discussed this before somewhat differently)

Say you had a "black box" or better yet "black sphere", in space, and you cannot look inside.

Assuming it is at rest, how do you measure the mass of it?

Would you consider your answer to be the mass of the sphere, or the "rest mass" of the sphere, or the sum of the "relativistic mass" components of the sphere?

"chocolate-relativistic mass"??

 

The faster I go, the more chocolate I have?

 

I like physics!

The more chocolate I eat, the relatively fatter I get.

I hate biology!

It doesn't. You have a biased point of view because you live on the surface of the Earth and you live in California. Your point of view would be different if you lived aloft at extreme altitude or if you lived elsewhere on the surface of the Earth. Between roughly 30 south and 30 north latitude the surface winds are predominantly from the west. Google "trade winds" for more info.

From the east?

I'm holding out for something even simpler.

That is all.

Hasn't this been discussed to death already? Don't we have any forum rules prohibiting people from bringing up the same old chestnuts again and again?

But...we can't help it!

Four New Rules:

 

1. We're now on the "Friend Standard" economy. Your wealth depends on how many people like you.

 

2. Everyone has to wear a name tag ("Hi, My Name Is BOB").

 

3. No weapons allowed that are more sophisticated than were available in the 13th century.

 

4. War is allowed, but before you kill an enemy soldier, you have to call him by name ("Take THAT, Bob!").

Good rules Bob. Just for clarification; when releasing a stone from a catapult into a mob of Bob's, would "Take THAT, Bob's!" be appropriate?

The ring with mass n*m has a movement with some linear momentum.

After conversion without extra linear momentum.

The chain with mass (n-1)*m has a movement with some linear momentum.

 

Both of them part othe isolated system. But this is not means if little human pushh tje ring system will stay. System will start move to oppsite direction. If little human catch the ring system will stop. Push and catch this ring to opposite direction will return system to initial point.

 

Here is complete different behavior with ring and chain. The little human push the ring with one mass, but chain is stopping with other mass. Even if momentums are same, the surface mass will change at conversion moment. The red element stop without extra momentum.

I'm sorry ABV but if I guessed what the above meant, I think I would be doing you a disservice to answer. You are probably doing an excellent attempt at translation, much better than I could do, but I cannot tell exactly what you mean. Most of it I think I understand.

I will add this. If the isolated system, in summation, has no net linear momentum, the center of mass will never move, it will constantly remain in the same place.

The Chain n-1 will have a ring net momentum.

 

But the surface won't return to initial velocity because the surface mass has been changed.

Yes it will because the additional mass, the ring, was originally at rest with respect to the surface.

Yeah, but little human push rolling body with mass n*m.

And surface accept momentum back from chain with mass (n-1)*m.

In this case chain return back momentum to surface with different mass M(surface)+m(red element).

No body turn red element to linear velocity zero. No extra momentum for this action. It means the surface won't return to initial velocity after all.

 

----

If red element takes mass zero then the surface return back to initial velocity. But on real world each element has a mass.

The red element has no linear momentum.

Opposite the red element, at the highest point on the ring, there is an element with double the average linear momentum of the ring.

Removing the red element from consideration increases the average linear momentum of the remaining elements.

Which means the surface will return to initial velocity after all.

1. Just static friction should be there.

2. Translation with rotation motion gives different linear velocity at surface point. Red piece shows V=0. 2V(not shown) on the top of this ring.

image from upenn:

http://dept.physics.upenn.edu/courses/gladney/mathphys/java/sect4/subsubsection4_1_4_3.html

3. The piece with zelo linear velocity must be join to the surface as solid material at stop point (just for modeling).

 

The Idea is stop red piece and cut the ring at the same time.

Rest of the ring return whole momentum to the surface back. But surface mass(M(surface) + m(red piece) is different from initial mass M(surface) at this time.

The surface velocity V1<>0 will be different from initial velocity V0=0 because momentum returns back to different platform (the surface mass has been changed).

P=mV=const

m1V1=m2V2

So...the momentum does get transferred to the surface and the surface (which has increased in mass) is now moving...at the same velocity it had prior to the little human on the left giving the ring the initial push.

No problem.

I don't think it would change me personally. I think given the power to do everything I wanted everyone would be better off, at least after they got used to worshiping me once a week and never taking my name in vain.

Please look on this picture for better understanding.

Not sure what you are getting at but I hope you don't think the rolling object will come to a halt without transferring any of it's momentum to the surface.

your sense of ownership must not exceed the level of a two year old. you cannot simply point at something and yell 'MINE' and make it yours. this is not the way the world works.

Exactly. In the adult world you must yell "Mine" much longer and louder than anyone else, and have bigger guns.