J.C.MacSwell

The air resistance effects force components in both the x and y directions and would considerably affect the trajectory of the COM and point/s of impact. I mentioned earlier it would fall short, but if the x component of velocity was small enough it could "fly" farther (than otherwise) due to the extended time in the air due to the y component drag being more signicant than the decceleration in the x direction. But if it "exploded" while still accelerating after a typical drop from an airplane the COM of the fragments should fall considerably short assuming still air.

If you have the same mass of air, in the same space, the higher temperature will have higher pressure. So it will get "blown out" or escape faster (or will get "sucked out" more quickly if AgenO prefers looking at it that way)

In a vacuum yes, but total drag goes way up. So the COM will not follow the trajectory it would have unexploded. (it will fall short) But my point was more to do with what kind of explosion you envisioned. Some kind of flywheel equivalent that flies apart? There seems to be more extraneous information than your run of the mill physics problem and yet not enough information to find a solution. That's why it looks more like a brain teaser.

In Canada, unless one of the first two numbers is greater than 12 we have no idea what date is meant.

The answer is yes, although it is more correct to think of the colder/ lower pressure air escaping slower than it would if it was hotter/ higher pressure than being "sucked out" slower. I would agree with Xyph by the way I originally interpreted the question.

That's what I was thinking. Some trick, like an endothermic explosion with noone around to hear it, so it isn't "sound", merely compression waves in air like the tree in the forest thing. The pilot flys off at greater than mach 1 so he doesn't get to hear it. But that's probably not it.

It simply looks like sources of light with the camera jiggled with a long exposure. Ask him if the camera was jiggled. If not, it's probably just Aliens jiggling the light sources in unison. They do that.

I have to agree. I was thinking of gravity more in terms of the newtonian low speed approximation gravity that "survived" as a subset of GR, and imperfect as it may be, still has a firmer footing than GR albeit in a much more limited scope. There is probably a "fat gray line" between proving a theory imperfect or wrong. As for GR vs Evolution: Ironic that the guy jumping off the building to prove gravity wrong ends up with the "Darwin Award".

Evolution makes more assumptions. I'm sure all these assumptions are much closer to 100% than 99.9% (for the principles, not the details) but that has to still leave Evolution with many many times the "doubt" (small as it is) than gravity or E&M. Compare Evolution to the Big Bang Theory. I'm sure your confidence level of both is pretty high (closer to 100% than 99% for the Big Bang IIRC from a previous thread). But would agree that the "doubt" for the BBT is much greater than for Evolution?

We must also add "don't try this at home". Mostly because it hurts as one would expect. But also because, given an infinite amount of time you will be sucessful an infinite (much "smaller" infinite mind you) amount of times. The problem is that, for every time you make it through, there is an almost infinite (larger number than you can think of) amount of times that you make it halfway through. That really hurts!

The bolded part!

This seems right. So if it's not that way maybe there is a reason. If they are used in a curve rather than straight possibly, but you would still expect some "tapering off" at least toward the outer end. If they break off do they regenerate?

Obviously they want to spend part of it pulling each other's legs.

Just a note of caution: Beware of phase transitions. Since you are assuming constant pressure of 1 atmosphere, there are none in this case.

No. In your massless system, there is no solution as the second torque could not equal the first. An instantaneous snapshot would give the second torque to be at maximum T/2 which would put the force at F= T/2L. If you want more force from the given torques then shorten the levers. (and get rid of the second) What are you trying to accomplish?

Game to Genesis? Don't worry, Evolution will win the next round!

Try T divided by L

I can give you an example of a more recent common ancestor that does not fit the definition of a Y chromosone Adam. Similarly Y chromosone Adam's mother would (almost certainly) fit the definition of a more recent female common ancestor (of every female alive as well as the males) even though she would not fit the definition of mitochondrial Eve. They just wouldn't all have her mitochondria. In fact it's possible none of them do. (she may not have had any girls)

Mercury around the Sun is another example.

It makes sense if you, Bill and I were amoebas. Can the Y chromosone only be passed on from father to son and not "carried" by a female? Then it would make sense but not make Adam the last common ancestor. If that is the case you would know that, but are using "ancestor" and "lineage" for lack of better terms or in a very restricted way. Does that make sense?