studiot

Make up your mind. Are you talking about rotating electrons or rotating atoms ?

This may well be true. But this makes no sense whatsoever.

Very nice but what does it have to do with gravity ?

Not much, the book is from different point of view and much more general picture. Your information is additive and I'm sure further work elsewhere across the globe will gradually build up a more complete picture.

Thanks +1 For those interested in a simpler yet more general discussion of the mantle for backgound material I recommend this book. Peridotite is first discussed on page 119

Some more ancient implementation of these principles are The ballista The slingshot ballista The Atlatl Anthropologists now believe tha last of these was partly responsible for the eventual ascendency of homo sapiens over other human species.

Well I haven't watched your video, but congratulations on a novel version of a well used mechanical principle, +1 I look forward to the rest of your presentation here to complete your post#2 I am not sure the ancients used anything like this to lift heavy blocks, there is a simpler way without the dificulties of making a strong enough lever. Have you heard of folding wedges or using rotation to slowly lift a block by easing up one corner at a time ? Meanwhile here are a couple of modern applications of combining levers and rotation (Tower bridge has been in operation for well over a century now) Bascule bridge. Wikipedia has some great animations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bascule_bridge Falkirk Wheel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkirk_Wheel

Gosh engineers want gravity to keep their cars from leaving the ground. The force of friction is what allows the car to move forwards. With no friction there would be no forward motion. As you say the force of friction is generated by the normal force of gravity via the coeffficient of friction. Both the force which holds an atom together and the force which bonds one atom to another is electrostatic in nature, not magnetic as you claim.

Did you say you were an engineer ? What sort of engineer posts this sort of mechanical nonsense in classical physics ? This is not even good physics.

I think swantsont's comment is particularly relevent here. You need to read the actual paper and quote the reference in order to be able to make claims such as the one above about Einstein. I look forward to a proper reference/citation.

Thanks but what about trust in doctors? Surely we would give all the money we have (however rich) to save our own lives ?

I glad you found the quote interesting. However I'm not sure you cottoned on to its significance, perhaps due that the forum your quote came from (I has a quick look around there and found it very shallow and unimpressive) The important message was not about who said it (It was definitely Faraday) it was that no one could (or did) predict the course of (human) history subsequent to the nascent science of electricity that was represented as a baby, any more than anyone could tell whether that baby could turn out to be a Ghandi or a Hitler or a Bill Gates or just Joe Soap. Similarly all those discoveries or inventions listed had a major impact on subsequent human society, and sorry swansont, I disagree with your interpretation of the word Science. Perhaps we should all agree both what is meant by Science and what the OP means by 'reach', as several have asked. I understand Science to mean "An organised body of knowledge" without any restriction on what that knowledge is about. I understand the OP to be interested in a body of knowledge would allow us (human society) to move on from our present state and situation to an improved and improving one. By reach I understand a request, similar to the woman (who was not a dullhead) who asked Faraday about the baby, as to how far this might progress. So perhaps King Kobra would like to clarify my understanding.

We live in a country about to do away with juries. Perhaps the next step is to replace judges with AI ? This whole issue is much wider than just artists

No Yes What's the problem ? Artist's haven't made their own paint for more than a century, no one in their right mind has suggested the Rownney or Reeves or Dulux et al are credited along with the artist. Perhaps the picture framer should also be credited, along with the person who hammered the nail into the wall to hang it on as well as the person who made their sandwiches. At least they were all human. The whole post appears to be an 'influencer's' attempt to influence in an artistic subject. What does this have to do with SF Science news section, or even Science in general ? @exchemist +1 for the point, though I thought the imagery a tad garish.

Have you come across the phrase Look back over history could the inventors of Fire The wheel The catapault The place number system Have any idea how 'far reaching' their invention might be ?

I think America is alomost certainly going to get worse before (hopefully not if) it gets better. I also think there is an unjustified snobbery in the 'hard' sciences against the 'soft' sciences, which are nowhere so well developed or cut and dried. Perhaps one day Asimov's Second Foundation will be more of a reality than now.

What do think is an appropriate response for a person, knowing they don't fully understand what, is said to them to make ? To repeat a previous response, thinking they are the only correct person on the planet, or to ask can you explain what you mean in more setail so that I can fully understand. ?

Thank you for restating this but you need to be careful about relative motion since the phrase 'Jupiter is moving away from Earth' implies Earth is stationary and we should be working on the diameter of Jupiter's orbit of the Sun, not that of Earth. Which is why I phrased it as the Earth moving towards or away from Jupiter, since we are working on the diameter of the Earth' orbit around the Sun.

Lots of useful stuff there. A much better Wiki article than the one about zero point energy. +1

Indeed I do not want to give the idea that I am doing Roemer et al down. It is amazing what they managed to achieve in their time. It is also worth noting that it was a cooperative effort, not due to one individual. And the cooperators were in separate countries, sometimes at war in those days. Even more so.

let us look at these claims first. Roemer 1644 - 1710. Date of first metre 1799 Date of first second 1832 Both standards have changed since. So how exactly did Roemer make any of those calculations or measurements ? Or was it his ghost that did it ? Roemer was dead and buried 89 years before the first definition of the metre. He did not work in m/s or miles per something else, though he was apparantly as precise as he could be in his own system of measurement. Note that he did not have an accurate pendulum for timing. Not that it is a physical impossibility to deduce the speed of light or any acceleration from any two snapshots as you are suggesting. It is necessary to use at least one whole years worth of measurement. Of course Roemer never actually suggested measuring across a diameter of the earth's orbit. How could he since that would involve looking directly at the Sun in the middle ? His observations were taken at 'grazing incidence' which was known to be less than the diameter, but more than the radius. Further the actual values of these diameters were not known in his day. All they had were Kepler's astronomical units, define in terms of 1 AU is the distance from the Earth to the Sun. Everything else was measured as a ratio to this. But they did not know how many Danish (or other) miles or feet were in 1AU. Now let us look at acceleration. I asked about acceleration to give you the opportunity to say that light changes direction, either by refraction or by gravitational effects and this is an acceleration. Or to suggest some sort of refraction where light actually changes speed following refraction. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Please provide a proper derivation of these figures in conventional style. What would have 'entered at a speed greater than the speed of light' ?

You are the one that made 4 very specific claims. So either put up or retract them and shut up. The rules here are very very clear that if you make claims the onus is entirely on you to support them. Are you refusing to do this ?

Your question doesn't seem to point out my mistake, I'll avoid repeating the answer I've already given. Nothing else. Really ??? I mentioned no mistake. I neither agreed with you nor disagreed. Your made no answer whatsoever. Do you normally go about ignoring people who don't disagree with you ?

I note once again you are avoiding questions that have been asked. I asked these (and others) several times before and you appear to have blanked me. Do I smell bad or something ?

Well, that's just total nonsense. A transformer changes the AC voltage to a higher or lower one, while a resistor and a diode only cause a current limitation, rectify the sine wave to pulses, and still leave the voltage unchanged. The pulse frequency before and after remained the same. No I didn't say that. You must have been getting out of bed the wrong side recently, your responses have been so grumpy which may have been what has led to several inaccuracies, quite unlike your more usual input. This is a pity because Patch, although also needlessly grumpy, at least want to discuss hard technical matters ; he is not one of the flood of fantasists we get too many of. So please don't frighten him off.