swansont

The sentiment is valid, IMO. That was the scroll when the shuttle disintegrated upon re-entry, and falls under the same category of carelessness of checking to see if the numbers were reasonable. The headline didn't remind me of that particular fiasco, but it easily could have.

Yes. GPS satellites run fast, 38 microseconds a day, as a result: 45 microseconds from gravitational dilation, and 7 microseconds slow from kinematic, which ends up being a little less than 14 milliseconds a year. And it will be different depending on the orbit.

Once you add air resistance mass matters, but the speed range is in the 100's of km/hr for any reasonable numbers.

Sorry, I haven't been able to get a classic post together. The weather was too nice.

I take it you are not familiar with my posts on the subject, either here or on my blog. Yes, I have.

I thought we were looking at a static case. What is accelerating?

As I recall, it was the modes of a cavity with perfect reflectors that shows this: equipartition of energy doesn't hold — mode density varies with frequency and there are an infinite number of them, but the energy radiated is finite.

In physics circles, I'm not aware of there being any debate. Do you have information to the contrary?

They won't accelerate; we can then assume we are in the chain's frame of reference and all will be happy. I've modified your diagram a little: force <-> force <-> spring <-> force <-> force <-> force Any link exerts a force on whatever is on either side of it, i.e it exerts two forces, and as a result has two forces exerted on it, and they add to zero. Regardless of the number of links.

If the chain is vertical, you have to worry about the weight. But it sounds like we're looking at a horizontal chain. What's the net force on any link in the chain? Zero. There's a force to the left, and one to the right, and they add to zero. It doesn't matter how many links there are.

The 30,000 mph claim was probably some reporter doing a shoddy job of research for the story.

That can be investigated (it's somewhere around 1 to several [math]k\Omega[/math]), but there must also be a path to ground. If I'm standing on a plastic crate, is there any way to complete the circuit? The question doesn't clearly indicate if it means "might cause" or "must cause." A person touching the wire might cause the fuse to blow, but it might not.

Or that "our" understanding of physics is flawed.

It would tend to heat up. The specifics will depend on the particulars of the heater and the compound. (Moved to Gen Phys from GD)

Woody Inya Jack Mehoff Po Kerr Juvenile? Yeah, I keep having middle-school flashbacks that remind me of these names, and "Porky's"

Pharmaceutical/biotech?

And that's my point — it was from an academic point of view, and falsely implies that there aren't jobs outside of that, and that if you apply your abilities to some other job that you've wasted your time in school.

Seymour Wang Ivana Humpalot (from Austin Powers II) Funny that we never saw any of these on "The Simpsons" during the crank calls to Moe's "Phil McCracken? C'mon, guys! Phil McCracken!" "I'm not that kinda guy, Moe!" "Why you little #%!#$"

American universities train roughly twice as many Ph.D.s as there are jobs for them. And yet, Unemployment Rate of U.S. Scientists and Engineersrs Drops to Record Low 2.5% in 2006 (pdf) And there are plenty more studies that show low unemployment rates among PhD scientists Somebody is wrong, and it's Katz. He's assuming that the only job is that of an academic teaching at a university, and while that career path is oversubscribed, it's not what the majority of scientists do. The big point he makes that's IMO on target has to do with unreasonable expectations of what your job is going to be. If your dream is to become a professor at a university and run a big, successful research program and spend all day in the lab, know that you have a tough battle ahead of you and you most likely won't end up where you want to be.

If a person touches the live wire, what causes the fuse to blow?

scoop

Ben Dover Phil McCracken

What do you think, and why?

Costanza had "Buck Naked" There are just too many. "When correctly viewed, everything is lewd. I could tell you things about Peter Pan, and the Wizard of OZ? There's a dirty old man" Tom Lehrer

As long as he discussion proceeds with some scientific rigor, there isn't any proposition that shouldn't be discussed. Dismantling the ideas with actual data and other aspects which comprise the scientific methods is preferable than simply locking and/or deleting, since one of the common crackpot claims is that science is dogma and simply censors competing ideas. As appealing as the idea of being a high priest might be, the reality is that nature does the censoring, and we just shepherd the discussion along scientific lines, hence the continual request for data supporting any contention, and the insistence on falsifiability.