Leaderboard

Two Hondas wide and one Toyota deep. It fits 2 total, but just one Jeep

Centripetal acceleration needed prevent a object moving in a circle from flying off on a tangent is equal to v2/r, where v is the velocity of the object and and r the radius of the circle. Tangential velocity at the Equator: 463 m/sec. Radius of the Earth 6378000 m This gives a centripetal acceleration of 0.0336 m/s2 compared to the 9.8m/s2 centripetal acceleration supplied by Earth's gravity. In other words, gravity is 291.6 times as strong asit would need to be in order to just to barely keep you from flying off into space. The rotational speed at the equator would have to be better than 7.9 km/sec in order to enough to toss you from the surface of the Earth ( And even then, you'd only be flung into an orbit around the Earth unless the velocity exceeded 11.2 km/sec) Your golf ball does travel further if hit to the East vs. the West assuming you hit the ball exactly the same both ways. However, for the speed at which you can hit a golf ball, this difference is going to be insignificant compared to other factors such as wind speed and even the variation in your stroke ( even on the driving range, when you are consistently hitting from the same spot and in the same direction, the length of your drive varies from swing to swing. But while the rotation of the Earth has a minimal effect on your golf game, it does have a significant effect on the accuracy of long range artillery, and when they aim the big guns this has to be taken into account if they want to hit the target.

In classic physics time is 4th dimension (with three spatial dimensions *) ). It allows positioning events or objects on timeline. e.g. position of object e.g. car A and car B is in 3D (xyz) 0,0,0 on parking.. So they would have to overlap without yet another parameter. Add time, and you will have: 0,0,0, today 17:00 and 0,0,0, today 18:00 (one hour difference between them), and objects A & B won't overlap anymore.. *) in some non-classical extensions it might be different number of dimensions than three. Thee dimensional space article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-dimensional_space Four dimensional space article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-dimensional_space

So here's a clip from The legend of Zelda: Twilight princess How heavy is the goron being thrown, assuming His weight is average rock density, and the radius of his curled up form is approximately 8ft. I tried multiple time to use the sphere volume formula to figure it out, but my latest attempt yielded only 380 lbs. That can't be right. Also, it might be fun to calculate the forces being applied to links body during the throw, once we know how much he's throwing.

Deep thought. 1. In the beginning there was infinite empty space? or 2. In the beginning there was infinite nothing? or 3. In the beginning there was both infinite space and nothing?; or 4. In the beginning there was infinity for without space there is no nothing...? Is there time if there is no change only nothing? Is there time if there is no change only infinite space? Does it take some sort of time for infinite space to become nothing? Does the time of infinite space to nothing have energy? Could the universe be our perception of the time of infinite space to nothing perceived by us in our time? To the point, Time is vector dimensional beyond the concept of spacetime or perception.

I resent this attempt to blow off the whole discussion with hand-waiving, hyperbole, and whataboutism. I also don't think the subject is necessarily a partisan one. There are a great many people who don't appreciate Trump's grandstanding when it comes to serious matters best decided without a lot of emotional manipulation. It's not about his politics so much as his character, and whether or not he's trying to silence a detractor who could give him legitimate legal trouble. Interesting perspective though. The liberals I know are all hoping Comey is simply the opposite of Trump: honest, unconflicted, concerned with detail, loyal to country, dedicated to lawful pursuits, dutiful, courageous, literate, reasonable, and reasoned. Most of the conservatives I know also have those qualities, including hope that Trump will change.

It used to be science forum... I miss that...

It has not been predetermined that only one of those is true.

No, you wouldn't divide by 2. The volume depends on r^3, so if r is halved, the weight is reduced by a factor of 8, so 44,350 lbs.

Never be sad to learn something... It's only stupid when you won't.

Who cares?

Is length a real thing or just a concept? Whatever your answer to that is, is the same answer for time. I think it's real and a concept. (by real I mean not an illusion, and not fake)

I know such smart sentence: "spend your time wisely".. Majority of people are wasting their time IMHO.

density of rock: 2650 kg/m3 (https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=density+of+rock) volume of sphere radius 8 feet: 2144.66 ft3 (https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=volume+of+sphere+radius+8+feet) 2650 kg/m3 * 2144.66 feet3 = 354,800 lb (https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2650+kg%2Fm^3 * 2144.66+ft^3+in+pounds)

You do know, you don't have to reply?

Are you doing this deliberately? Do I need to report you for trolling? Do you actually know that a nuclear war is inevitable? Right. So not "predetermined". The word you are looking for is (ready for this) ... "not predetermined" or "undetermined". Here are some example sentences: "We can change the future because we have free will and so the future is not predetermined." "The future is undetermined so we can change it because we have free will." "Someone is pregnant but it is undetermined if she will give birth in the future." "Nuclear warheads are not predetermined to be used in conflict. Let's hope they aren't!" See? Easy, isn't it, when you use the right words.

! Moderator Note You have been given many lines of evidence, and explanations. That you have ignored them doesn't mean the evidence was not presented. This little charade is coming to a close. If you do not begin to address the information you have been given (and by this I mean, with your next post), this will be closed. Your mental model of what Newton's laws of motion imply is wrong. You can either accept (and discuss) the corrections you have been given, or ignore them. But the latter means no further discussion.

LIGO and Virgo seem to have been quite of late, so I thought I would peak in... I hope most find the following interesting if not entirely new.... LIGO: A Discovery that Shook the World: This is the third video in Advanced LIGO Documentary Project's eight-part series on LIGO's historic discovery of gravitational waves and the birth of the new age of gravitational wave astronomy. In August 2017, LIGO and its Italian partner, VIRGO, made a discovery as important as its historic first detection of gravitational waves in 2015. They detected gravitational waves from two colliding neutron stars, which ejected a spectacular gamma ray burst that was seen by seven space-based telescopes and dozens of astronomical observatories on earth. It was the long dreamed-of marriage of gravitational wave astronomy with conventional astronomy, and the results were spectacular. https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/video/LIGO-a-discover-that-shook-the-world The video is around 16 minutes long.

Indirectly yes. The actual force of gravity felt at any point (as measured by g) varies with distance from the equator, being a minimum at the equator and a maximum at the poles. This is due to the fact that the force experienced is really a combination (vector sum) of gravity and the centripetal force. Furthermore these two do not act in quite the same plane and direction, except at the equator, so the direction of gravity also varies. Sorry no time for diagrams this morning.

Sunrise and sunset? Coriolis force? Foucault's pendulum? The motion of the stars? The fact the Earth is an oblate spheroid? The Hafele-Keating experiment? That wasn't what you asked about. And, don't hijack this thread with your religious beliefs. Start your won.

And those possibilities have been confirmed by experiment. So it appears to describe the reality we live in.

No rethinking necessary actually. The copter is in the same FoR as the planet...but hey it's explained much better here........ http://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/askaphysicist/physics-answer.cfm?uid=20110218025229 and here...... https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-helicopters-just-hover-and-let-the-earth-rotate-beneath-it

! Moderator Note You’ve stated your point, so perhaps you could return to the topic.

Nice opening post. +1 to start you off thinking more deep thoughts. One point, however. You made great play highlighting the difference between nothing, space and so on, but assumed we know what 'the beginning' is. What do you mean by the beginning?

It is rumoured that he told his kids about Santa Claus.

thoughtfuhk has been banned as a sockpuppet of ProgrammingGodJordan

There will always be things that are true but can't be proven true. See Gödel's incompleteness theorem. (Axioms are not proven, anyway. The reality of not being able to prove some things is why you have axioms)

No 3 The following may not be 100% correct but I guess someone will correct me. Space is dynamic and is continually expanding due to dark energy and contracting due to gravity, both of which may be due to quantum fluctuations. Additional dimensions may explain locality and non locality (spooky action at a distance). For a philosophical look at space this link is interesting https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/david-bohm-implicate-order-and-holomovement/ The holographic universe projects 3D space onto a 2D membrane or sheet which could be regarded as a 4th dimension connecting all points in space. This additional dimension might explain non locality, but then it might not exist either

Why are you doing this in Philosophy, rather than Physics? This is typical of your sloppy thinking. As you don't give a source, one can't really comment. It looks pretty nonsensical, though. Sounds like you are desperately searching for anything that will support your beliefs. It's almost as if this obsession with "quantum foam" and "space dimensions" is like a religion for you.

It has value as material for a critical thinking exercise. Arguably, all things have value, even if it is not the value their creators intended.

Its even more bizzare...I initially wanted to pick the Heisenberg drivel too but decided to target the double slit faulty example presented in the article. I’m not sure why, maybe because I thought its closest to sanity. Article quantum superposition right back at ya I think it was Richard Feynman, one of the most renowned phycisists who expressed a duality in thinking about nature. He was equally comfortable with an ultimate model of reality and one that reveals endless layers uppon layers of things to discover. For me it is comfortable to think in these terms and not try to predetermine anything.

Time is a basic information about Space. Time says since when Space is existing and we can approximate their size and length from the information we get out from reality. They are fundamentally interconnected. Everything(energy and matter) exist in space -time

Maybe the source of your confusion is a lack of familiarity with this. So when I ask why North Africans are never grouped with Subsaharan Africans, North Africans does not mean Ethiopia. Also lol at the people downvoting my posts. I guess that's easier than refuting me.

I already gave an example of predictive validity in description. Ad nauseam attempt to ignore responses. I already agreed dividing people by sports habit was a valid biological construct. Fine. That's a biological construct. Ad nauseam attempt to ignore responses. Lying. No, it has no relevance because natural biological divisions exist whether or not they are "useful". I've already pointed out one use, description, and that is enough for the purposes of this thread. Ad nauseam red herring. Psychology and sociology are subdisciplines of biology, the study of living things. What you had for breakfast 10 years ago is both history and biology. Both. You're confusing your nonsense about what you had for breakfast with how we infer ancestry. Terms have meaning. Calling something a social construct is meant to imply it's not a biological construct. And this is false. Obviously some supposed parallel cases are relevant and some aren't. The fact that some concepts in oncology have several different definitions is irrelevant, they are all biological concepts. We are examining why some concepts are biological and some aren't. There is no question to answer. The question of why you deny the race concept is biological because according to you, laughably, it falls under the discipline of history, but genus does not, is highly relevant. Why the transparent double standard? The reason you cannot answer it is because it exposes your sophomoric and disingenuous sophistry. But I think everyone can see that.

In some sense yes all social constructs are biological constructs, since they are a feature of living things. But the usual meaning of "social construct" is something created arbitrarily for human convenience, with no reference to natural phenomena. In this view race is not always a social construct, since one definition of race is based on patterns of shared ancestry, which is a natural phenomenon. This disingenuous garbage is used as a stick to beat White people, e.g. the pseudoscientific AAA statement in the OP where it is claimed the race concept was developed to justify slavery. Disgusting anti-White fabrication. I am not interested in exploring irrelevant supposed parallels. The fact that concepts in oncology have different definitions is just totally irrelevant and I don't know why you keep bringing it up. There is no question to answer.

Death is an energetic change in reality. Every matter, every atom is there for the function, just not the Enegy One is. We know from thermodynamics that energy can not get lost just be the subject of change. I do not know you can call it life (most likely) but for sure that some level of conscious existence after experiencing death supposed to be... How could anything become energy, matter, information, space (time) free Noting... So you think there is a possibility(probability) that at the next moment of existance I am not me, what Nature ment me to be, but I could be anything and become a pink unicorn somehow? The freedom of choice impacting reality in the present moment seems to be true. You can not change the atomic structure without a lot of work. You can impact it's course in space Matter (the atoms you are) is impacted by energy i.e you still have to think to move. For me is seems to be a fundamentally predetermined system with some level of freedom...

That is my point. The balls go up and down. That suggests the earth is stationary.

The problem with that is that it is a rotational movement. It is not linear, therefore we would expect to see anything in earth's atmosphere being ejected into space by the wind.

Please strange link me an experiment that expressly states we not only move in the universe but one that shows the 24 hour rotation around the sun. Ill save you some time, it does not exist.

So if I have a banana I can not decide that I eat it ot not. Everything is predetermined but I still have a free choice. It is some level of freedom. This freedom obviously can not be absolutely independent from everything else.

I suspect Newton would have agreed with me.

Not trying to hijack anything? I asked a simple question that you claimed experiments have answered, yet to see a response.

This whole thing reminds me of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Just after the election people on this forum were slamming Comey for leaking things about Hilliary and her emails, blaming him for being one of the reasons Trump won, and going on and on about how he was partisanly motivated when he released the emails because he knew it would hurt Hillary. Now it appears he's an angel sent from God himself to fight the big orange monster in the white house.

So why doesn't my golf shot go into space? If it has inertia in one direction surely it should keep travelling out of the atmosphere.

If you assert with no evidence then I will dismiss with no evidence.

From your source: as soon as the helicopter left the ground, the ground would ZOOM away at up to 1,675 kmh This is what is wrong. The helicopter is clearly leaving earth's frame of reference and yet this doesn't happen.That suggests to me that the Earth is not moving.