Jump to content


Resident Experts
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Janus

  1. It can, But the amendment to do so would first have either get a 2/3 majority support in both Houses (House of Rep and Senate) or be applied for by the state legislatures in 2/3(34) of the states. In which case Congress must call a convention. An amendment proposed by either of these means would then have to get ratification from the legislatures of 3/4(38) of the states.
  2. Yes, it is in the constitution. And remember when the Constitution was written. Vote results had to travel by land to a centralized point in each state, then counted. Then electors selected, gathered together, and cast their votes. These votes had to be delivered from each state to congress without any quick means to do so. Once Congress got and counted the elector votes, they could announce the winner, who, if he wasn't already in the capital, would have to travel there to be inaugurated. The whole process just took time, and the constitution was written to account for this. To change it would require amending the constitution.
  3. While Trump and some of his legal team have alleged this in public, they've stop short of this in the courtroom. In one case, a Judge asked " Are you claiming voter fraud?", and the answer was "No.". To which the judge responded "Then why are we here?" The court cases revolved around things like "County A allowed some voters to fix technical errors in their ballots, while County B did not. Thus we request that all the votes from County A be tossed out." Or they would raise some other technical issue on how a particular state or county ran their election. In the first type of case, the court generally ruled that the sought after remedy was too excessive compared to the alleged harm done. In the second, the ruling was " Even if you were correct, it's too late. If you had problems with how they were going to run the election, this should have been brought to the court before the election. The classic example is the first case that made it to the Supreme Court. In it they claimed that the 2019 law in PA that expanded mail-in voting ( and which passed with bi-partisan support) was unconstitutional, and thus all the mail-in vote should be invalidated. The lower rulings were "If you had problems with this law, you should have brought them to the court before the election and not waited until after." ( This is the American football equivalent of challenging the call of a turnover after the team that benefited from the turnover marched down the field and scored a touchdown. The time to make the challenge is before play is resumed, not several plays later.)
  4. The NERVA program was more or less based on this idea, though it used hydrogen rather than water. One of the advantages of hydrogen is the fact that efficiency of a rocket increases with exhaust velocity, and hydrogen molecules, with a lower mass than water molecules could be accelerated up to higher exhaust velocities for the same energy. The NERVA program can date it origins all the way back to the 1950's. NERVA rockets were tested throughout the '60s, And it was projected that if development had been continued, we could have had a system capable of getting astronauts to the Mars by 1981. However, do to political reasons funds for the NERVA program were cut in 1973. In 1983, new interest in thermonuclear rockets arose since if was felt that they would be need for the Space Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") program. Development for a new system was started in 1987, but funding was cut in 1994. 2013 brought new interest in NTRs( Nuclear thermo rockets). Again as a possible means to get astronauts to Mars. In 2019, funding was approved for development. So, basically, the reason we don't already have such rocket systems in place isn't due to any problems with the idea itself, but that the development of the systems take time and money, and the money part is subject to shifting political priorities.
  5. In this example "pennies" is a dimensional unit. 2 pennies + 6 pennies = 8 pennies keeps the unit consistent. 6 pennies /2 = 3 pennies is also unit consistent 1/2 * 6 pennies = 3 pennies You can't have "smaller" pennies, because "penny" is a unit of a defined size, and it is the smallest unit of currency (in the US).
  6. No, it can't. At the zenith, it is zero, and near the horizon it is ~ 1/2 a degree. But all that means it that if you measure the visual angle between a star at the zenith and one near the horizon, you'll be off by 1/2 of a degree of the actual angle between them or about by 1/180 of the measured angle. At 45 degrees from the zenith, the refraction is about 1/60 of a degree or 1/2700 of that 45 degree angle. So if you were looking at a body that took up 45 degrees of the sky starting from the zenith, your "measured" size would only be off by 1/2700 of its "true" size. In this last example, it is the difference in refraction between zenith and 45 degrees from it that would cause the distortion. But we aren't measuring the size of celestial bodies that take up large angles of the sky, but ones that take up small ones, with angles over which the difference in atmospheric refraction is next to nil and has a negligible effect on our measurement. ( it would the greatest near the horizon, but we take care to make such measurements when the objects are high in the sky.) On top of that, we now have orbital telescopes that are beyond the effect of atmospheric refraction, and they have not shown any major discrepancies from Earth based ones.
  7. Janus


    1/0 ≠ infinity, It is undefined.
  8. Here is accurate representation of the Relative sizes and distance between the Earth and Moon. Given the apparent size of the Earth in the photo, the light from the Sun and the date (which would make it a new moon). I estimate that the Moon should be just about where the object labeled Mercury is in this image. In other words, "Mercury" is mislabeled, The picture shows the Earth, Venus and the Moon, while Mercury is out of frame. It is just the angle from which this photo was taken and telescopic foreshortening that makes Venus "look" closer to the Earth than the Moon is.
  9. Or, the more reason explanation for Mercury and Venus not having satellites and slow rotations is that they are both closer to the Sun and subject to greater tidal forces which has the effect of making it harder to capture and hold on to satellites and results in greater tidal braking which slows rotation. The Earth-Venus alignment is most likely a result of orbital resonance (Earth orbits 8 time for every 13 orbits of Venus). Such orbital resonances are not rare, and result from the fact that the orbits are not independent of each other, because each planet has a small gravitational effect on the other.
  10. I'll give you the values to work it out for yourself. e = 0.0167 a = 1.496e11 meters u = 1.3275e20 m^3/s^2 q ( at the Vernal equinox) = 102.93 degrees
  11. For those interested in the equations used to work out the radial component for an elliptical orbit: Orbital velocity: = V_o = sqrt(u(2/r-1/a) Where: u is the gravitational parameter (GM) for the Sun r is the present radial distance of the orbiting body a is the semi-major axis of the orbit "r" for a chosen point of an orbit is found by r = (a(1-e^2))/(1+e cos(q)) where e is the eccentricity of the orbit q is the angle from perihelion at the chosen point of the orbit. The orbital velocity component perpendicular to the radial line is found by V_p = 2 sqrt(ua(1+e)/(1-e))/r V_r, the radial component can derived from V_o and V_p by applying a bit of trig.
  12. I'll cut to the chase. Just because you personally cannot envision how light waves could travel without the aid of a medium does not equate to it being impossible.
  13. Washing your hands is more about physically removing the virus from their surface than it is about killing the virus.
  14. All three of the motions mentioned here are themselves subject to gravity. The Earth is in orbit around the Sun, the Sun orbits our galaxy, the galaxies in our local group orbit a common center of gravity, etc. This means that these motions are also examples of free-fall. The Earth is in a free-fall trajectory around the Sun due to the Gravitational attraction of the Sun. It undergoes a centripetal acceleration towards the Sun, which, due to its tangential velocity, has it following an orbital path. The object you drop is also attracted to the Sun, has the same centripetal acceleration, and same velocity relative to the Sun that the Earth does. So, since the Sun effects both equally, you only need to consider the force acting between them.* The Earth's force of attraction doesn't have to be any stronger than it would if the Earth were floating free in space far from any other gravitational source. Motion, in of itself is of no consequence, as the Earth and object are already sharing the same motion, and it would take a force acting on one and not the other to change this, The same holds for the Sun orbiting the galaxy, and the galaxies moving due to mutual gravitational attraction. * the caveat here is that if the Sun isn't on the horizon, the object will be slightly closer or further from the Sun than the center of the Earth is, so it will have a slightly different centripetal acceleration. However, even if the Sun is directly overhead, your object is only 1/23456 closer to the Sun. This is pretty insignificant. This difference results in what is known as a "tidal force", and is how the Sun effects tides on the Earth. The tidal effects due to the galaxy and other galaxies are magnitudes smaller than this.
  15. Why is it that "common sense" is so often a conclusion reached by starting with incomplete or incorrect information and applying faulty logic to it?
  16. No. It simply wouldn't be worth the time and effort to sort through the vast quantities of "chaff" to find one grain of wheat that likely doesn't even exist.
  17. That's not what I said. 12 and 11 are dimensionless numbers. 1s and 1s2 involve units of dimension and are not equivalent, in the same way that 1ft and 1ft2 are not equivalent. 1s = 11s1 1s2 =12s2 While the 11 and12 parts of these equations are equal to each other, the s1 and s2 are not.
  18. f=ma does not resolve to f=mv in one sec. Neither are force and momentum equivalent. Reducing to base units of KGS: f(Newtons) = kg-m/s^2, and momentum = kg-m/s. Even over one sec these these are not equivalent. 1kg-1m/1s^2 ≠ 1kg-1m/1s, because 1s^2 = (1s)^2 = 1s x 1s For the two to be equivalent, everything in one equation as to cancel out everything in the other, but this doesn't 1kg-1m/(1s x 1s) ≠ 1kg-1m/1s, or 1= 1/s one of the s's on the left side doesn't cancel out. What you are trying to do is like trying to argue that 1 linear foot is equivalent to one square foot, when one is a linear measure and the other a measure of area.
  19. "Get your hands off me, you damn dirty ape!"
  20. Electromagnetic radiation does not produce an Electromagnetic field, it carries information about changes in the field. Likewise gravitational waves do not produce a gravitational field, but carry information about changes in the field. While you can't have gravitational waves without a field, you can have a field without gravitational waves. The spiral arms of a galaxy have nothing to do with the SMBH at the center. The central BH has almost no effect beyond locally as it only represents a very small fraction of the total mass of a galaxy. It is the combined mass of the rest of the galaxy that dominates.
  21. Again, I don't think you actually understand what gravitational waves are and what produces them. It might be that you are under the common misconception that it is gravitational waves that mediate gravitational attraction; that masses naturally radiate gravitational waves and these waves are the mechanism by which masses attract each other. This is not the case. Gravitational attraction is the result of a field that exists whether or not there are any gravitational waves produced. Gravitational waves represent ripples in that field that are produced under certain circumstances. They are very, very, very weak; much too weak to produce those kinds of visible effects in a ring system. And again, in order to produce wavelengths of that size, you would require a mass oscillating at a few thousand hz, at the very least. The spiral arms of galaxies are produced by waves, but not gravitational waves. They are compression waves passing through the galaxy and are more like sound waves passing through a medium. Also, these waves are not as intense as the visible appearance would lead you to believe. The bright spiral arms are not bright because they contain that much more material, it is because this is where most of the new stars are being born. The "gaps" between the arms aren't that devoid of matter, they just contain more older, dimmer stars than bright young ones.
  22. There is nothing about Jupiter that would produce gravitational waves of a high enough frequency to have wavelengths that short. To generate gravitational waves you need an accelerating mass. In this case, the only acceleration would be due to Jupiter's rotation. Any gravitational waves produced by this would have a frequency equal to Jupiter's rotational rate on 1 cycle per 10 hrs. Traveling at c, this gives a wavelength of roughly 10^10 km.
  23. "Speed" doesn't have negative or positive values, as it is just a measure of magnitude. "velocity" is magnitude and direction, and thus can take on negative and positive values. So, if you assume that Bob measures a velocity for Alice of +0.983c , then using the same velocity convention, Alice would measure a velocity of -0.983c for Bob. However, the +/- in these velocities have no bearing on gamma factor each measures effecting the other. This is because gamma contains v^2/c^2. and v^2 is v x v. so if v= +0.983c, you have (+0.983c) x (+0.983c)/c^2 = 0.966...* , and if v = -0.983, you have ( -0.983c) x (-0.983c)/c^2 = 0.996... , since a negative times a negative yields a positive. You get the same answer if v is positive or negative. * (+0.983c) x (+0.983c)/c^2 = (+0.983)x(+0.983) c^2/c^2. The c^2 cancels out.
  24. You are assuming that there is such a thing as absolute motion, and that there is a way to tell who is really "moving" and who isn't. This is not the case. Motion is only relative. Thus, you can only say that something is moving relative to some chosen reference frame frame. In this case, there are two reference frames to choose from:* 1. The one Bob and the Planet are at rest with respect to 2. The One Alice is at rest with respect to. If you are working from the Bob/planet frame, then Alice is moving and this frame measures Alice as length contracted. If you are working from Alice's frame, then it is Bob and the Planet that are moving, and it is they and the distance between them that is measured as being length contracted.** * There are an infinite number of reference frames we could use, it is just that these two are the most convenient to work from in this scenario. ** in addition, Bob would measure Alice's clock as ticking slower than his own, while Alice would measure clocks on Earth and the Planet as ticking slow compared to hers.
  25. While this "Wall of Fire: has a high temp, you have to understand the difference between temperature and heat content. Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles. Heat content is the total of the KE of the particles in a given volume. Thus a volume that contains a lot of low temp particles can have a larger heat content than an equal volume with higher temp, but fewer particles. Now while articles have described this wall as being of a "high density", this is meant relative to the normal solar wind density of a few particles per cubic centimeter. This a much better vacuum that can be achieved by man on Earth by several magnitudes. This "thick wall" off plasma is a not that much less of a vacuum. To melt a comet you need to add a fair amount of heat energy to it, and even at such a high temperature, this plasma has nowhere near the total heat content per cubic meter to do this.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.