J.C.MacSwell

The only thing from it left at the event horizon is the radiation it gave off before it entered. That rapidly gets redshifted into oblivion...theoretically there forever but decreasing (quantum effects aside... in any event (pun intended), at some point it will be indistinguishable from the Hawking Radiation or if the black hole grows in size it (the "signature") is gone. But in any case the object is no more at the event horizon than you are a light year from earth (in every direction) due to any unencumbered radiation you sent off last year.

Assuming the weight and body move in the same manner the force on the legs is the same. If the speed of the movement varied the forces would vary as well.

If you "get" to assume no losses then choose an infinitely large blade diameter. The power required to hover will be zero, equivalent to sitting on the ground (pushing against a large mass) Practically, you can optimize based on assumptions of the real losses... From Wiki (actuator disc theory or momentum theory) Where: T is the thrust {\displaystyle \rho } is the density of air (or other medium) A is the area of the rotor disc in fluid dynamics, the momentum theory or disk actuator theory is a theory describing a mathematical model of an ideal actuator disk, such as a propeller or helicopter rotor, by W.J.M. Rankine (1865), Alfred George Greenhill (1888) and Robert Edmund Froude (1889).

Or what frame it is 10 micron's in...so taking it further it really is not aware of how much energy it has...just out there blissfully playing the field.

Good points. I will now put my personal space program on hold... Seriously, I guess it is all about the assumptions we make, and how we compute the odds based on them. From what we know, or think we know, intelligent life may not be reachable by ourselves or ourselves by "them", but the more we learn the better our assumptions can potentially become. Finding hints of any life as we know it within reach, coupled with our understanding of evolution would surely make intelligent life out there seem more plausible, given that "out there" is pretty vast and diversified.

I think we are genetically indebted to more than one., though quite possibly mostly to one (plus of course the ones who stayed behind).

+1...but only because I laughed...

Thanks. If we assume that is correct, almost 200,000 years old, why does it reflect back to 500,000 years?

Any thoughts on why a 177,000 to 194,000 year old find outside of Africa, of apparently Sapiens teeth, would push things back that much? At a glance that seems a stretch.

Using a frame with fixed axes in space, you remain spinning on the same axis the whole time. Using your example with the aeroplane (which has a commonly defined frame that is not generally inertial) say you had something massive inside that could contort like a cat, and you were isolated in space. You could realign the plane so that the axis of spin was along any alignment wrt the aeroplane. Most alignments would not be stable and they would tend to misalign, but at all times the axis of spin would remain fixed in space (it might not seem it at times, and the massive "cat" on board would have to be included) I hope that makes sense. Doesn't seem as clear as I hoped it would sound.

Assumptions being no external forces and you jettison nothing (no cheating by spitting etc and you are isolated in space): You can reorient yourself with respect to your axis of rotation which is fixed in your inertial frame, always about your center of mass which is also fixed in that frame. You can do this by waving arms about, contorting etc...or if you are a "little eccentric" you can do it with no effort... Note in the video how the axis of rotation remains fixed

We can do better or worse than Nature/Evolution on it's own, but we can't do much without Her on our team.

"The majority of internet statements are factually incorrect, incorrectly attributed, or both" -Mahatma Ghandi

I suspect the 3 gore would have a higher drag coefficient to horizontal airflow, so it should respond to shifts in wind direction more readily.

With regard to temperature related comfort that would effect the balance of the equation on both sides. How much less vapourization may or may not happen on your skin or clothing and how much you might lose in the air from air exchange with outdoors or from condensation on the walls (though I assume you should keep the dew point below the temperature of your perimeter) Obviously it would depend on a number of factors. I am assuming there would be an optimum at neither extreme of the humidity scale but I do not know that. Possibly dryer but warmer might be the most economical in that regard?

...material strength vs centripetal force?

How is that possible? ...it's Solarge...

In that case...Dibs on Day Old Donuts Inc.

Might not be optimum, but if you have some angle and drop straight down you can develop some momentum along the x axis before going into the roll...whether it is adequate depends on the height and technique

...and (to Studiot) what mathematical boundaries does a gyroscope break?

Thanks Strange, Mordred

Besides the speeds and energies involved, any remarks on the difficulty of getting point like masses to collide?

What is spooky about a gyroscope? Everything is local.

That's not just money burning a hole in your pocket....

I am certainly far from anything close to expert on this, but it was my understanding that quantum spins were intrinsic. You seem to be saying that anything that is capable of having classic spin cannot have intrinsic (quantum to me, interchangeably) spin. Is that what you are saying or claiming? Is it accepted as correct?