J.C.MacSwell

:

That post deserves the loftiest kind of praise! (Rep points granted).

Always wondered why Swantsont had so many rep points.

Now I know!

My suspicion that it had something to do with Physics was way off base.

You mean like this:

http://digg.com/d1ZOHO

Ok so like I have no real evidence because aliens stole it from my house, BUT I can link you to some obscure math I really don't understand myself, and relate it some how to my theory....then I am going to make a logical jump based of a wiki entry.

 

then act like everyone else is the crazy one.

I have traveled back in time, from June 14, 2019, on a machine designed from your very theories to say:

Well done!

It occurred to me the other day that Einstein's special theory of relativity should never have been accepted unless he supplied the general theory with it. The special theory, on its own, leads to the twin paradox. You need GR to resolve this. But SR was proposed in 1905. GR was proposed and proven in 1920 - 15 years later.

 

I don't know my history that well, so maybe the answer is that SR wasn't accept until GR was proven... or maybe scientific theories are accepted regardless of whether they make sense or not so long as they pass experimental testing... or maybe physicists were desperate for something to solve the paradoxes of light that the Michelson-Morley experiment made evident.

 

Please enlighten me.

Einstein was given the Nobel Prize in 1921 for his work in theoretical Physics, especially for his description of the photoelectrical effect, but at that time they intentionally chose to avoid mentioning his work on relativity (SR or GR). At that time I think it was still controversial.

Well, I can’t see the reason why torque not to be constant during precession. The magnitude of torque has influence on the speed of precession but this speed is constant.

 

Gyroscope just has strange reaction on torque. And this reaction is a criminal – it rudely breaks Newton’s laws:

 

Let’s imagine a stone with a gyroscope inside and we don’t know that. The gyroscope inside have constant angular velocity. And let’s imagine that we are in space without gravity.

1. Now there are no outside actions and noting happened – first Newton’s law is satisfied.

2. We decide to action on that stone with a constant torque (with two small jets for example) and, according to Newton’s second law, we expect this stone to start rotation with increasing angular velocity (angular acceleration). But stone respond us with rotation where angular velocity is constant. The second Newton’s law is broken.

3. According to Newton’s third law we expect equal and opposite reaction but what we find? Reaction in another direction. The third Newton’s law is broken.

The magnitude of torque, may be constant, but the direction (axis) of that torque constantly changes. (compare it, say, at 180 degrees of precession)

2,3. None of Newton's laws are broken

I'm just reading about these 2 forces but I'm not really getting the difference

 

Electromagnetic force is about attraction or repulsion between the nuclear particles of atoms, but the then what's electrostatic force?

 

What's the link between these 2 forces and Coulomb's law: F= kQ1Q2/r^2?

 

Please Help I'm really confused:-(

Electromagnetic forces are electrostatic and electro-"nonstatic" forces.

Coulombs law is for the forces between static charges.

Ok, I understand that I have to push something to get its reaction to push me, but by the same reason I can get a torque without being on a surface and there is no need to block the rotation to have a torque – if I rotate something it rotates me but there is a torque. So, this device could work if precession was a linear motion, but not angular.

I can’t answer to the question how is linear momentum being conserved here, because I don’t think that this device will work (for the present:-)), but the things are not always so clear.

What will you say about that:

While a torque acts on an object (gyroscope) the result is a CONSTANT angular speed motion (precession).

Instead of:

While a torque acts on an object the result is ACCELERATING angular speed motion.

Look carefully at the torque during precession. Is it constant?

I don't see your problem?

Usually the blade are angled so that the turbine faces the wind. Thus the wind direction will face the upper side of the blades.

I assumed upper side meant the side facing away from the wind since that would correspond to the upper side of a wing with a similar angle of attack. Not sure why you would call it "upper" otherwise.

But if that is the case, your explanation in post 5 is incorrect.

Reminds me of the kid with the slide rule:

"2 X 3 is 5.9...looking closely...5.99...what the heck, let's call it 6!"

Opening case will void warranty and minor planetary systems.

LOL, that line is classic!

If you ask me – I don’t know the equation. Here is my reason to believe. I hope you can read from picture. I just check this with the simulating program. If this reasoning is wrong, where is the mistake?

The green arrows represent a vertical force if and only if there is an equal and opposite force to offset it. The reaction shows a torque or moment but if that point was fixed there would be a reactionary force there as well. If it is free to move at that point, that point will accelerate downward due to this equal and opposite force that is not shown. There will be no net lift. The thing might be able to jump, but it will never hover.

Yes, but this software uses Newton's physics and it is not in violation with Newton's third law.

Why is there a net force pointing upwards? - In this video is explained why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q87-Lt8sCsY

Because the computer is program is not consistent with physical law. Otherwise it can only be present while in contact with the ground or" jump" as YT points out.

Thanks for replies.

I have figured this out. The blades are angled in such a way, that the relative wind to the blade is moving faster on the upper side, than the lower side (upper side faces wind direction). By Bernoullis principle, this causes the pressure on the bottom side to exeed the pressure of the upper side, causing a lift force on the bottom side. A component of the lift is in the direction of rotation, thereby adding force to the rotor.

Everything else makes sense if you got that part wrong, the bolded part, somehow.

(The wind direction is the direction the wind is coming from, just in case that might be the error)

Now, paint this thing black and add some sun to this thing.

Now, before I ask, I know about moment of inertia, or rotational inertia, and I know you may bring that up to answer my question instead just regular inertia. I do not want this question to be answered with the mentioning of moment of inertia. I just want regular, linear inertia to be part of the answer instead.

 

So for the question, how does inertia, the resistance to acceleration (or change in velocity) affect how spectacular, amazing or cool the routine or trick is when a gymnast is performing those stunts? How does inertia affect the overall routine and performance a gymnast does in the air, or tumbling or something else?

It makes it much more spectacular, amazing and cool, because without it, we all could do it, and more, in no time at all.

No, it does not.An analogy with magnets is just going to be needlessly confusing, I think. It works quite differently.

EDIT: Just so there's no confusion, there are some weak magnetic fields on the Moon from various sources, but nothing analogous to the Earth's global magnetic field:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field_of_the_Moon

I agree, a magnetic orbit would be unstable. The inverse squared gravitational field is what "makes the world go 'round".

A sphere minimizes the energy of a system with a radial force that depends inversely on distance. The moon is spherical for the same reason that the other planets, and the sun, are round. Gravity.

Add that the reason many smaller moons are not round is because due to their smaller size they are strong enough to resist the lesser forces that are involved that would otherwise force them into a round shape. So it depends on there mass and their make up and time.

The moon is also probably very (very, very) slightly egg shaped, with the pointy end pointing toward Earth, as the tidal forces would be strongest there, and the gradient of the tidal forces slightly higher than on the opposite side where the tidal forces are weakest.

I think Pascla's wager does a fine job of illustration religious bigotry (though, to be fair in his time it would have been exected of him). He only seems to have considered one form of religion and one possible God.

To ignore the fact that there are many "Gods" makes rather a mess of the betting.

If there are, for example, threee major religions then you have a two in three chance of picking the wrong one and suffering etermal damnation for "worshiping false idols" or its equivalent. With odd like that you might as well forget the whole thing

Pascal assumes it's a 50/50, and therefore nothing to lose and infinite heaven to gain.

You don't just throw that away if it drops to a 1 in 6 chance that you could be right. (assuming God/No God remains 50/50).

Unless you fear "extra" eternal damnation for taking that chance.

God rewards belief

Richard Dawkins[19] suggests that the wager does not account for the possibility that there is a god that rewards honest attempted reasoning and indeed might punish blind or feigned faith. Richard Carrier expands this argument as such:

“ Suppose there is a God who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. For all others are untrustworthy, being cognitively or morally inferior, or both. They will also be less likely ever to discover and commit to true beliefs about right and wrong. That is, if they have a significant and trustworthy concern for doing right and avoiding wrong, it follows necessarily that they must have a significant and trustworthy concern for knowing right and wrong. Since this knowledge requires knowledge about many fundamental facts of the universe (such as whether there is a god), it follows necessarily that such people must have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about such things are probably correct. Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven — unless god wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy"

Hmm...wonder if anyone yet has been conceived in space?

Well, with the starting premise that black (let's say "dark" cars, since navy blue should not be an exception) retain more heat than lighter cars, it's simple fact that having more darker cars will result in more retained heat, and thus higher annual global average temperatures.

 

Following from that, the fewer darker cars you have, the less heat will be retained by these dark colored car surfaces.

 

The "drop in the bucket" comment was meant to suggest that, just because the heat contribution from each individual car seems negligible, and just because we mere humans struggle to wrap our tiny little brains around it, when you add up the contribution of all those millions of dark cars being driven around in California, the rest of the country, and the rest of the planet... the heat retention impact becomes quite real... much more noticable, and measurable.

 

We are living in a time with our climate where we really need to fundamentally rethink our approach, and no change is too minor to make if it can help us. My suggestion is that every little bit helps, just like every single drop of water will slowly fill the bucket until it eventually overflows.

Not likely. With all these black cars it will likely evaporate.

People died... it's his fault... he was criminally negligent

Going by the article it sounds like he was certainly at fault, at least partially. I just don't see how it is criminal, if he succumbed to panic. Praying may have been his attempt to control his panic.

I thought the Cyclical Universe idea was thrown out with the discovery of dark energy, but I read an article in an astronomy magazine today that said String Theory involves a cyclical model where the universe contracts after the dark energy spreads the universe out because of a spring force that wasn't explained very well in the article. The magazine said that our universe was part of a cycle that repeats every trillion years or so. Is this an actual aspect of string theory?

I've always been interested in the idea of eternal return. I wonder, if all of the particles in the universe were condensed back to the big bang moment, and the process were repeated in the same way, wouldn't we all come back again? I understand we wouldn't have any memory of it, but the world as it is is a product of how the universe was created before. If the same process happens with the same material, especially if MWI interpretation is correct, wouldn't we all come back? Is it possible we're all involved in a never-ending cycle of the universe?

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Don't just ignore this thread if it sounds ridiculous.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Roger Penrose is the name of the guy whose theory it is. Can anyone explain in a step by step fashion how it works?

When I was a kid and first heard of the big bang, I thought of this. In mine during the collapse everything was reversed, and you lived your life backwards. You couldn't tell which phase you were currently in.

Yes.

 

Maybe his training wasn't up to snuff, maybe he was just feeling extra jittery that day, maybe any of 100 other explanations could have come into play.

 

But that doesn't change his fundamental responsibility to:

 

1) Sit down before getting a pilot's license and really, deeply, thoroughly think about whether he will freak out in an emergency, making strong conscious effort to avoid just fooling himself to get what he wants.

 

2) Stop and think before even getting on the plan that day about whether or not he could handle an emergency on that particular flights.

 

If the answer to #1 was 'no' or he didn't do it, he was criminally negligent in even continuing his flight training and getting a license. If #2 was 'no', he could have gotten someone else to fly, or cancelled the flight. If he didn't think of #2, he was criminally negligent.

 

I'm familiar with this sort of stuff by analogy, mostly through venomous reptile keeping, but the principle applies - one day, something WILL go wrong, and if you don't stop and think about whether you can handle that, you shouldn't even try.

So if he did to 1 & 2 thoroughly and with due diligence and unexpectedly succumbed to panic anyway, then he should be out free, correct?

Oh, trans-Neptunian objects. Luxury.

Well when I said object I meant a Black Hole orbited by a piece of tarpaulin.

It was an "object" to us.