Spyman

The reason and mechanism you are looking for is Inertia:

Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion, including changes to its speed and direction. It is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at constant velocity. The principle of inertia is one of the fundamental principles of classical physics that are used to describe the motion of objects and how they are affected by applied forces. Inertia comes from the Latin word, iners, meaning idle, sluggish. Inertia is one of the primary manifestations of mass, which is a quantitative property of physical systems. Isaac Newton defined inertia as his first law in his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which states:

 

The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line.

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

 

When the merry-go-round speeds up you are accelerated with it and gain momentum, there is no force pushing you outward, it's your own inertia that wants to continue in a straight line.

 

It's the same with any object rotating with Earth on the surface of the equator, it has momentum which wants to continue straight forward and a part of gravity is used up countering it.

swansont has explained this already in post #5 and #7 on the first page.

Had my last cigarette on Sunday, April 6th 2014.

Congrats to your first nicotine free year celebration!

CERN announced today the first unequivocal evidence for the Force, from the laboratory's latest experiment, the Thermodynamic Injection Energy (TIE) detector, recently installed at the LHC. But the research community is divided over the discovery, dark-matter researchers remain unimpressed and dismiss the cosmological implications of the Force.

 

"The Force is what gives a particle physicist his powers," said CERN theorist Ben Kenobi of the University of Mos Eisley, Tatooine. "Its an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us; and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together."

http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2015/04/cern-researchers-confirm-existence-force

If you go down that route then you might as well claim that the Universe suddenly appeared yesterday, with Earth, life and everything.

 

Point is that scientist are trying to figure out the "mechanism" and to explain how a more complex universe instantly occurred we need much more complicated models and our current understanding and less complicated models that we can test, are already able to explain how the Universe has evolved over time and they work further back in time than the emission of the CMBR.

I think you got it already, they are not lined up perfectly and the gravity field is not uniform.

 

Hundreds of gravitational lenses are currently known. About half a dozen of them are partial Einstein rings with diameters up to an arcsecond, although as either the mass distribution of the lenses is not perfectly axially symmetrical, or the source, lens, and observer are not perfectly aligned, we have yet to see a perfect Einstein ring.

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

This really pisses me off. I can't even say thank you.

You have only made 18 posts so far but when you have made 12 more you can give 25 upvotes and 3 downvotes every 24 hours.

 

Senior members (those with 30 posts or more) can give 25 upvotes and 3 downvotes in 24 hours. All others can give up to 10 upvotes and no downvotes in 24 hours.

From this thread: Is there a limit to reputation points?

All I am claiming is to be smarter than a cat...

(Sorry, could not resist.)

I am not an expert but from my knowledge you have to make entangled particles simultaneously together and they are then made with opposite properties, like if one was black then the other would be white.

 

If you pick one of them randomly and send it into a black hole and then later examine the one you have left, you would thus know the color of the one inside the black hole too, since if you have the black one in your hand it must be the white one that went into the black hole and vice versa.

 

AFAIK they would not be able to extract any information out from the inside of a black hole this way.

If these are your own thoughts on the Big Bang Theory, I'm not willing to consider them. If you willing to refer me to an expert who proposed a similar concept, fine. But, I can't take the opinion of a self taught physicist seriously.

 

Talk about alternative theories in a unique manner (and provide references) but avoid suggesting your own Theory of the origin of the universe.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88411-big-bang-theory-is-incorrect-more-like-little-bangs/

Try to post positive, polite and encouraging, funny posts may also be appreciated.

I apologize for the inconvenience my post have caused!

 

It was not my intention to be backseat moderating and I don't consider Ant Sinclair's post to be problematic nor severe enough to warrant a reprimand from the moderators.

 

In the future I will take extra care not to overstep my formal boundaries as a member and possibly even refrain from making a reply.

(After all, it's much easier to simply click the red button instead of sticking your head out and spend time to politely explain why something is wrong, with the additional necessity to tiptoe around the limits of what I may or may not be permitted to say, I will likely consider it to be too much trouble.)

 

I am also sorry for making an off topic post and replying to a moderator note, but since it is not clear whether my post was reported or if I stepped on someone's toes in the staff, I felt compelled to make a official apology and explain myself.

 

This is a very important point. We really have the electromagnetic field which describes both the electric and magnetic fields at the same time. You cannot really disentangle the two in a fundamental way. Via Lorentz transformations, the electric field in one inertial frame can contribute to the magnetic field in another inertial frame. And of course vice-versa. Seeing the two as separate is really not possible.

Hi, Thank you.

 

I'll try and reconcile those ideas.

 

Thanks again.

 

+1 for you

 

You should try voting again, I don't think ajb did receive your +1.

Because one of them is the ex-Canadian Minister of Defence and the other two are former Astronauts maybe? " <sigh>"

IMHO that is a Fallacious Appeal to Authority, which apart from being wrong, is not allowed according to our Forum Rules.

 

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

 

Section 2: Posting

4. The use of logical fallacies to prove a point is prohibited. The use of fallacies undermines an argument, and the constant use of them is simply irritating.

ScienceForums.Net Forum Rules

On March 20, 2015, the moon blocked the sun as seen from Earth in a total solar eclipse.

See photos from the only total solar eclipse of 2015 in this Space.com gallery.

Total Solar Eclipse of 2015 in Amazing Photos

More information needed.

I included a spoiler in my signature but nothing as signature seem to be showing.

Oh great, but I am unable to see it myself in the posts.

Can you see others Signatures?

 

In Your Profile/My Settings/'Ignore' Preferences there is an checkbox to Ignore all signatures when reading topics and personal messages.

(It seems to also be possible to Ignore your own Signature with the settings on that page.)

I've earned Myself -9 Rep points yesterday/today conversing with You Strange and I only had 8 to start with. I have three young daughters and Iam worried about their future! !!!

Don't worry, if they choose to become members here when they get older, they will not inherit your reputation.

Dr Martin said, "cosmic strangelets" would have destroyed earth, wiki says cosmic strangelets would not destroy earth.

No, you didn't understand what I was trying to say. They are talking about two different origins for the strangelets. Cosmic rays could carry with them strangelets that was created far away but cosmic rays may also create strangelets when they hit Earth's atmosphere.

 

In addition to head-on collisions of cosmic rays, ultra high energy cosmic rays impacting on Earth's atmosphere may create strangelets.

 

If there are strangelets flying around the universe, then occasionally a strangelet should hit Earth, where it would appear as an exotic type of cosmic ray.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strangelet#Natural_or_artificial_occurrence

Dr Martin Sevoir's statement is about high energy collisions creating strangelets when cosmic rays hit Earth today and your Wikipedia quote is about the hazard of strangelets that was created far away and then much later reach Earth.

 

In fact if we read a little further on after your Wikipedia quote we will find:

 

The danger of catalyzed conversion by strangelets produced in heavy-ion colliders has received some media attention, and concerns of this type were raised at the commencement of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) experiment at Brookhaven, which could potentially have created strangelets. A detailed analysis concluded that the RHIC collisions were comparable to ones which naturally occur as cosmic rays traverse the solar system, so we would already have seen such a disaster if it were possible. RHIC has been operating since 2000 without incident. Similar concerns have been raised about the operation of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN but such fears are dismissed as far-fetched by scientists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strangelet#Dangers

 

So Wikipedia and Dr Martin Sevoir are in fact in agreement with each others.

The minimum current a human can feel depends on the current type (AC or DC) and frequency. A person can feel at least 1 mA (rms) of AC at 60 Hz, while at least 5 mA for DC. At around 10 milliamperes, AC current passing through the arm of a 68 kg (150 lb) human can cause powerful muscle contractions; the victim is unable to voluntarily control muscles and cannot release an electrified object. This is known as the "let go threshold" and is a criterion for shock hazard in electrical regulations.

 

The current may, if it is high enough, cause tissue damage or fibrillation which leads to cardiac arrest; more than 30 mA of AC (rms, 60 Hz) or 300 - 500 mA of DC can cause fibrillation.

 

Log-log graph of the effect of alternating current I of duration T passing from left hand to feet as defined in IEC publication 60479-1.

AC-1: imperceptible

AC-2: perceptible but no muscle reaction

AC-3: muscle contraction with reversible effects

AC-4: possible irreversible effects

AC-4.1: up to 5% probability of ventricular fibrillation

AC-4.2: 5-50% probability of fibrillation

AC-4.3: over 50% probability of fibrillation

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

 

If Winston Smith would be subjected to 120 Volt AC 60 Hz and 20 milliAmpere for 12 hours then the cost would be:

 

10 cents × 120 Volt × 0.020 Ampere / 1000 × 12 hours = 0.288 cents

1 Megaparsec (Mpc) is roughly 3.26 million light years.

 

A parsec is the distance from the Sun to an astronomical object that has a parallax angle of one arcsecond (the diagram is not to scale).

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

Gravity is not the only thing causing time dilation, speed is also affecting time.

 

If it was a mechanic reaction then different constructions would be affected differently, which they don't.

 

Relativity regard time as a dimension similar to space.

/Snip/

The pushing up surely is the reactive force ( centrifugal force ) caused by gravity attempting to push the inertial mass in toward the earths' centre. Some times ( at say 19,000 mph ) the pushing by gravity is insufficient , other times it over sufficient say 12,000 mph . Other times just right at 17,700mph.

/Snip/

 

Well Mike, you are wrong, there is no upward pushing force caused by gravity or generated by horizontal velocity.

 

It's obvious from your sketch that the object is PULLED DOWN by Earth's gravity and if Earth was flat it would hit the surface.

 

Basic physics says that a horizontally fired bullet will hit the ground at the same time as a dropped one.

(Neglecting air resistance and surface curvature.)

Here then , when we plug in a figure for radius of 4000 odd miles to get to say bench height in a lab , we can set up ( with a humungous amount of mechanical engineering ) a transducer with a horizontal displacement of 4 inches ( both ends 4 inches , each in anti phase with the other end ). Power it up with a drive of 40 kHz . Stand back and watch the said transducer vibrate in a horizontal orientation " In Orbit " but here , near the Earth surface. ( if I have done my sums correctly . )

A device pushing and pulling two weights apart and together will not have a moving center of mass and thus no momentum.

 

It will neither orbit nor levitate, regardless of orientation, frequency, stroke length or height above Earth surface.