Bufofrog

I am sure you can, however if this whole 'shooting match' is based on a lack of understanding of physics - it is just a fantasy. I am afraid the only question that will be asked is, "if you are interested in physics, why don't you learn some physics?" We aren't remotely close to even the most basic physics in this thread. Your BS is in Anthropology so let me use that as a basis to help you understand the problem here. Suppose I went to an anthropology forum and said I have 'the' answer! If everyone wore an orange shirt mankind would live in peace for all of eternity. That is about how much sense your ideas are making. If you find physics interesting for goodness sake learn some physics!

This is incorrect. Acceleration is not squared, the speed of light is squared. This is incorrect. The addition of energy + friction is meaningless. It is like adding Apples + oranges to get bananas. Your definition of form is lacking. What are the units of form? What is the difference between the form of the Moon VS the form of the Earth. This is incorrect. It is still geometry? No mater how you slice any shape at all you still have geometry. The rest of the post is more inaccuracies and confused misunderstandings. I would highly recommend that you ask questions instead of making things up that don't really even make any sense.

So there is nothing specific? You just want to know about fluids? The 2 routes I see are: 1. Google fluid mechanics. Start with Wiki and then concentrate on .edu sites, or 2. Get a degree in Chemical Engineering. I guess you could just look at density and viscosity as a starting point.

That is a really broad question. There are hundreds if not thousands of books written about fluid mechanics and fluid dynamics. I have 2 on my office book shelf. Can you focus your question a bit (like a lot)? If not, I would suggest googling fluid mechanics as the start of your journey.

Sorry Bez, but could not find anything in this post that was correct or made sense.

I have no idea what that is suppose to mean. So ultraviolet light is somehow involved in some sort of process that is self propagating? How is that related to the discussion? What is the gravitational relationship? It almost seems like you are trying to be obtuse. I think you are simply saying when the moon is at perigee the moon's gravity triggers earth quakes. If it is something else couldn't you just simply state it like that?

I for one cannot figure out what your hypothesis is. Can't you just write what your hypotheses is in one of 2 sentences?

You are not the first person to think that tidal effects could trigger earth quakes, unfortunately the evidence is not there. It seems quite plausible but it just doesn't pan out. I guess when you realize that the tides occur 2 times each day and the highest tides occur every 14 days of so these are just not big unusual events that can trigger quakes.

Won't the clone object to that?

Another way to look at this is how much do you think the feather or hammer is causing the moon to accelerate towards them? I think negligible is maybe even an over statement, don't you agree?

I am not sure what you are saying. Are you surprised that a hammer and a feather fall at the same rate on the moon? Do you think because the hammer has more mass it should fall faster? If that is your question the reason is that the feather and the hammer are both << than the mass of the moon, so there contribution to the acceleration (or spacetime curvature) is nil, compared to the moon. That is not about gravity and the curvature of spacetime, that is just the force needed to change the direction of the mass. Since F=ma the larger mass needs a higher force to achieve the same deflection as the feather. I hope I have not misunderstood what you were asking.

It is the smallest possible amount of an element. The nucleus or center of an atom is made of protons and neutrons surrounded by electrons. The number of protons in the nucleus defines what element the atom is. Look up atom on Wiki for more info.

Well that would be a useful!

So your equation for the average earth to sun distance is off by about a 1,000,000 km, which is not too bad. I tried your equation on Mars (using the geocentric gravitational constant for Mars = 4.283 x 10^13). The results of your equation put the orbit of Mars inside the orbit of the earth. That does not seem quite right. Either I did something wrong or your equation needs a bit of tweaking.

The 10 costs you showed add up to about about 33% of the total of $12,000. But the 10 costs represent only .5% of the total number of costs. That means to me that your 10 cost sample is not representative of the total. I do not see how you could get anything that is useful out of these numbers since your sample is not representative of the total. I am not a statistician so maybe there is some "magic" they could do to give you something useful. Good luck.

I think you have your cause and effect wrong. You are effectively saying a burst of x-rays cause the lightning as opposed to lightning producing x-rays. There is not that much energy in a lightning strike anyway. From Wiki "Harvesting lightning" According to Martin A. Uman, co-director of the Lightning Research Laboratory at the University of Florida and a leading authority on lightning,[9] a single lightning strike, while fast and bright, contains very little energy, and dozens of lightning towers like those used in the system tested by AEHI would be needed to operate five 100-watt light bulbs for the course of a year. When interviewed by The New York Times, he stated that the energy in a thunderstorm is comparable to that of an atomic bomb, but trying to harvest the energy of lightning from the ground is "hopeless"

I do not disagree with anything you have written. My issue is that it seems that Fermer05 does not think that the moon and sun have anything to do with the Astronomical Tide, he thinks that these twice daily tides are due to whirlpools (or gyres) only.

Fair enough. I was trying to point out the major drivers of the water level change and it sure isn't whirlpools.

There are 2 major tides per day, which is caused by the moon, the sun and the rotation of the earth. There can be a large 'tide' from a storm surge. A tsunami can cause a 'low' tide followed by a flooding tide. A major river flood into a bay can cause the level in the bay to rise. That is about it. The currents (or whirlpools if you like) in a bay, ocean or lake will have almost no effect on the water level.

Water.

The simplest model is just to look a the cooling loop. This is where you have a heat exchanger and a heat source. The heat exchanger is the radiator and the heat source is the engine. You can write a simple equation for the amount of heat removed by the heat exchanger as follows: \[\dot{Q}=\dot{m}c_p(T_H - T_C)\] Where \(\dot{Q}\) is the rate of heat transfer \(\dot{m}\) is the mass flow rate \(c_p\) is the heat capacity of the coolant. so you can see that increasing the delta T or increasing the coolant mass flow will increase the heat removed by the radiator. The actual equation for the heat transfer is very complicated. Consider this: as you increase your speed your engine produces more heat but the heat production is not linear and as the speed increases the ability of the radiator to remove heat increases from the air flow and again it is not linear. The car maintains the engine temperature quite easily with a thermostat. As the engine heats up the thermostat heats up and a bellows connected to a valve expands which allows the coolant to circulate through the engine when the engine cools the bellows contract and shuts the valve decreasing coolant flow. The thermostat is designed to allow the engine to run at the desired temperature. The radiator is designed to be able to cool the engine when running at the highest rated steady state speed during a predetermined highest ambient temperature. What that means is the radiator has excess cooling capacity, so if the thermostat valve was always fully opened then the engine would run cold all the time, it could not heat up to the optimum operating temperature. Hope that answers your question.

I always found this line interesting. According to the bible God created people to be stupid. You know, like horse or aardvark stupid. When we became intelligent he got pissed off! The goal apparently was to make morons that wandered around in a garden. Well that didn't work out as planned...

You joking, right? The picture made me go, huh?

Kicked out of a forum for asking a question? Are you sure there was not a bit more that resulted in you getting banned? Since mainstream science is in agreement that there is no such thing as "outside the universe", I would have to go with the pushing possibility. You would need some evidence to support your pulling idea. The 'pushing' is not from the 'inside out', by the way, it is a 'pushing' in ALL directions. 1. That is not a question, it is a belief. That is fine, you can believe what you want, just don't expect people to agree with you. 2. Science doesn't prove things. If you cannot observe something that does not mean it does not exist - it just means there is no evidence for the 'thing'. 3. I do not believe there is anyone here that is going to jump on you for asking a question, no matter how awkwardly, they will just ask for clarification.

I do not think Special Relativity would enter into this, since we have no velocity relative to the universe. As far as General Relativity goes, if there was a civilization that was on a planet orbiting close to a black hole (I do not know how that would actually be possible), I think you would in fact deduce that the universe was much younger than 13.8 billion years. In any 'normal' gravitational scenario the effect of gravitational time dilation is negligible. I await a response from one of our resident physic aces to give a better explanation (or possible point out where I am nutz)