koti

I am most keen on seeing this motif to be expanded on:

Thats not funny. Thats funny.

The funniest jokes or standup routines consist of all the controversy and offensiveness you can think of. The line is not as thin as many people suggest, if something is to be funny, it needs some wittiness and subtlety and then you can get away with loads of controversy - like the best comedians do.

The lack of relation I mentioned was between level of knowledge and skills to explain, I thought its clear by now.

I don’t think I missed anything. I haven’t commented on your Feynman quote (which I agree with btw) so I don’t see why you would bring this up. What we’re having here is a missunderstanding due to your initial (I hope) missconception about what I think. I don’t see a point in continuing this as we both seem to agree. Why keep this going?

This is very obvious and I would never claim otherwise. I’d have to be mentally incapable of any rational thought to claim otherwise. I don’t know exactly which part of what I said in this thread you misunderstood to come to a conclusion that I would suggest that someone without any knowledge on a subject is capable of explaining anything on that subject to the other person but if its this: it means that a person1 with a high level of knowledge on a certain subject may not necessarily possess the skills to convey that knowledge effectively to person2. In simple words: You can be very knowledgeable and suck at explaining things to other people. I hope I cleared this up.

With what? Which elements?

The other persons ability (or lack of it) to let go of his/her misconceptions. If you want to undermine my abilities to teach I suggest you open a thread on it.

I'm sure that did play a role too. Not that it adds too much merit to this discussion but yes, I think that the requirement of having a certain level of knowledge to understand difficult problems and the ability to explain difficult problems are not necessarily related.

They’re both the same thing.

What swansont said about having to have knowledge to understand complex problems is ofcourse right. What geordief said about the ability to explain difficult problems in easly digestable ways is also right. These two things seem unrelated. I’ve never heard any phycisist talk 100% comfortably about time because we simply do not have the means to explain what it is other than math. We can try all kinds of flexing of spoken of written language but it just never sticks. The wonderful quote by Minkowski above, Im sure can be difficult to understand to someone who has no idea about spacetime and GR. The other friday I was asked by a pharmacist at a social meeting over a drink about what I think about time...I imediately started to explain to him what spacetime is, what implications GR has to everyday life, what gravity is, GPS examples of time dilation, etc. I have many years of experience as a teacher teaching adults (not physics) and it was very difficult for me to get through this guys head that gravity is in fact spacetime curvature. He couldn’t grasp it, went over his head multiple directions not to understand it despite really wanting to. Hes a college graduate and he is a rationally thinking man, he couldnt get it.

Hi gunfun777 and welcome to the forum I skimed through your paper, there are a few gramatical errors you will need to correct as this is a paper for the English class? As for the science within your paper its hard to decide where to start commenting as there is too much wrong in it physics wise. Im sure a lot of people will gladly answer any questions you have so feel free to shoot.

This joke makes God look really dumb. How's that funny? I mean making God look so silly, coming from anybody else on this site I would understand, but you Raider?!

I don’t think this is right Bender. As far as I know, potential energy or any other energy/mass/momentum or tensors associated with energy, cannot reach an infinite value. The ball rotation velocity is always limited by c so in my thought experiment, if a ball would be to rotate itself into a black hole it would have to have mass/energy right on the edge of colapse, the energy due to the rotation would be very small. I don’t know how small exactly, I found the Kerr metric but I’m not sure it can be applied here (before the colapse)

If "resonant" means something to do with sound than its a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Acoustic_Device

Naw, this ones better. And a lot more controversial which makes it more fun:

Oh thats just hilarious isn’t it. Complete lack of any empathy towards a living person by putting an equall sign between a child and take away food - as a punchline in a joke. Its almost as funny as skinning a cat for fun. We could come up with a bunch of these hilarious jokes... consisting of say; Belgian chips with mayonese and paedophilia, or Belgian choccolate and rape. Wouldn’t that be fun.

No worries, I presumed it was a typo, I was just trying to make sure as I’m just a „hobbyist physicist” and things can get confusing for me sometimes. Yes, angular momentum is a conserved quantity and cannot be changed unless acted uppon by an outside force - I knew that one That hidden zero net spin on the ball due to layers revolving opposite directions would be a nasty case. Good thing this is not the case.

I’m not sure I understand. If potential energy from a battery-mechanism inside the ball is released and it becomes rotation of the ball, isn’t that transformation from potential energy into angular motion from within the frame? Obviously not causing any change in mass/energy/gravitational potential within the frame. What do you mean by appearance of spinning?

I think what J.C MacSwell means is that if the ball had say a motor a battery and some kind of gyroscopic rotational propulsion system that would provide the angular momentum and resulting torque from within the frame, the net energy has to alwyas account for - in this case it would be potencial energy stored in the battery within the same frame as the ball which would not cause an increase in gravitational potential in that frame.

Yes, that is the whole point of my embarrassment. I fell for the oldest trick in physics :/

Oh thats just great... on top of it ending up in space instead of my garage you sent the wrong model.

We had this long talk about climate change and you promised to send me a new Tesla S P100D and I’m still waiting Area54.

Abacus comes to mind.

Ofcourse, its so clear now. (I edited force into energy for simplicity)