J.C.MacSwell

Agree. I would be pretty surly if I had to play in a band with that name.

I can only assume you have had a couple beers...so you are all ready to go...

It makes sense to store fat near your centre of gravity, where it requires the least effort for mobility (compare with fat ankles). Other than (perhaps? I really don't know) an instinct to prefer intelligence, symmetry or ease of motion, I doubt we know what ugly or beauty is without learning it. I would bet if everyone you knew that was successful had crooked teeth, and everyone with straight teeth was a dullard with no athletic ability, you would find straight teeth ugly (not withstanding the fact that straight teeth might work better)

I don't think you can simply take the difference in these two numbers and say the difference is from radiating the waste heat of the tidal process. Here is my reasoning: 1. The dissipation/radiating takes place near the Earths surface. Even at the equator the spin speed is a very small fraction of the speed of light, so the redshift/blueshift effect has to be very small. (If all this radiation was directed East, the effect would be some 650,000 times greater) 2. Any difference would be much more due to absorption/dissipation/re-radiation of solar energy hitting the Earth...still related to v/c for momentum, but the energy exchange of solar is (50,000 times if my sources are contextually correct) many times greater than tidal. So I am thinking the Earth would lose some angular momentum anyway, the angular momentum robbed by the moon is a much greater effect, but the angular momentum loss from dissipating tidal energy is almost insignificant in comparison.

Right. I think I eventually figured it out as I posted the next day. But that is (on the scale of things and compared to the energy loss), a pretty small amount angular momentum wise. Is it not a very small effect? (not the energy loss, but the associated angular momentum loss, since it would only take away what it had...no "net recoil" on the remaining Earth from radiating) I guess what I am saying is the vast majority of the angular momentum exchange would be between the Earth Moon orbit and the Earth's spin, with the very small difference radiated away.

"Given long enough, hydrogen starts to wonder where it came from, and where it is going" Attributed to Edward R Harrison

I think I see this after thinking about it...there would be no net force on the remaining mass of the particle or spinning Earth, just an angular momentum loss associated with the loss in mass from radiating. Since this happens at the Earth's surface that would be a slightly higher loss than average associated with the Earth...but a very small effect overall. I hope these last two posts made sense. Even though the photons have different frequencies they provide no net force on leaving...yet their associated net momentum continues East as it did before. Since that alignment is offset from the Earth's axis, they carry away angular momentum as well.

Thanks LA. I didn't see it on there. Did you make any comments in games 2 or 3? After game 2 was the first I noticed the chat area and it was empty until I clicked good game and thankyou.

Sorry. Was not familiar with the site...did not see any chat...other than me clicking good game after you beat me...trying to remember the first game...you were up on both time and position most of the time in all 3 Now you have something in common with Igor...and Yasser

Thanks for the games LA

That's neat. A funny thing about chess is you can be very competitive and serious at whatever level but it can be fun to get beaten...badly. My friend, the one who was organizing the tournament in Saint John, used to pound me in blitz all the time. We were never close in strength so it was always blitz or some short game with a clock handicap (he preferred not to give up pieces...even though he could have). His hands were so fast that he would sometimes put very little time on his clock and still win. Every so often (OK, rarely but we played a lot) I might get into a winning position but my flag would fall first.

Yes...so Korchnoi and I have that in commom... Korchnoi of course did not have the distraction of Yasser also playing 20 some other boards all around him in an open public setting...so no excuses for him... But you guessed correctly +1.

True story. (Igor Ivanov) "In 1980, he became even more famous for defecting in a dramatic way. He was sent as a member of a Soviet delegation to play chess at the José Raúl Capablanca Memorial tournament in Havana, Cuba. On what was supposed to have been a direct flight home to Moscow, the airplane, a Czechoslovak airliner, had to make an emergency refueling stop in Gander, Newfoundland, Canada. Ivanov, seizing his chance, ran from the plane with only what he was wearing and his pocket chess set, while chased by KGB agents." "Although he was clearly a player of grandmaster strength, he did not actually receive the title until the last year of his life, 2005. This delay was caused mainly by bookkeeping issues, and by the Soviet federation refusing to recognize his earlier achievements after he defected." Quoted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Ivanov_(chess_player) He actually never mentioned Karpov or the KGB. I had already heard a few stories prior to this so I knew who he was, and everyone there, other than our group trying to beat him, knew him very well. We had a friend there that was running a top level tournament in Saint John, N.B. and we met up with them, went up to a hotel room had a few drinks and played blitz. (3 or 4 boards set up). Igor was actually not the top guy in the room...There was at least 1 (American) GM there, who I think was top 10 in the World at the time (late eighties). He was very focused and a real gentleman. He had beaten Korchnoi...and me earlier that day...this was prior to the tournament and he was doing a demonstration playing 20 to 30 boards at once against the general public... I will see if you know or can guess who he is...

LOL. If there ever was a player that deserved that title...it was him..he was quite a character. He was actually ranked higher than most grandmasters (he had beaten Karpov some years previous while Karpov was reigning World Champion) but I think for political reasons (he had defected...chased by the KGB down the airport runway during an unplanned fuel stop) had not received it. But you are right he could recognize and understand the patterns on the board pretty much instantly and better than I could taking much more time to analyze it. He would scoff at my moves and berate me for any attempt at a cheap trick...then back to scoffing at my brother and friends who were challenging him in some philosophical conversation...very entertaining

I once played a very highly ranked (later grandmaster) chess player. We played blitz (speed chess with 5 minute on each clock) for almost two hours at a small party while my brother and a couple friends engaged him in conversation (we were a team, they were trying to distract him). He paid no attention, none whatsoever, to the board when it was my turn to move. He beat me every game. I am not sure he ever used more than 2 minutes on his clock, and much of that was to stop for some good natured ribbing me on my latest move...or pouring himself another glass of vodka...I was fully concentrating and only sipping a couple beers... We were absolutely convinced that I (we) could win just 1 game in the state he was in...but notta

I don't have any problem with the geometry of it (second paragraph above makes sense), but although the bolded seems straight forward and what I would expect on the one hand...on the other how is this any different from translational momentum? For example a radiating particle in space viewed from any reference frame but it's own...using the same thinking should it not be being slowed by it's radiation? (obviously not...but what am I missing?)

Is the loss of angular momentum a significant amount? I assume the energy lost to tidal heating is comparatively more (say as a percent of the exchanges...) What is the mechanism of the angular momentum loss due to radiation?

IIRC (I know you will know this), you also waste (brake) half your trade of Gravitational energy to get to a lower circular orbit. I'm less sure (don't clearly see it, but am aware that is what is expected) how the moon gains the extra energy required for a higher/slower orbit...I assume it is robbing some of the Earth's angular momentum with total angular momentum conserved but some loss in kinetic energy (heat etc) beyond the gain in gravitational potential?

Well done LA and excellent puzzle Commander!

Sorry. I was editing my answer and something came up. I don't believe there is a solution. Good puzzle if there is one...

?

Probably a genetic adaptation to avoid moonburn...nothing to worry about

N X R

I think we are assuming two different sets of headphones, otherwise identical but one with thicker pads? Assuming the thicker pads are of similar shape otherwise and same material the forces or net pressure X area would be slightly greater. But one set of headphones and a thicker pad on one side only might be what the OP is asking about and what Strange and mistermack are describing.

Agree that the force from the thicker pads would be greater as you describe, but the pressure might be less if the area of contact is increased sufficiently by the greater deformation of the thicker pad.