J.C.MacSwell

It all comes from increased drag, just as you suspected. In one case you are paying for lift but not using it to get work done, as you are restraining the airfoil, not allowing any motion. Efficiency is 0. 100% waste. In the other you are paying for lift and getting something from it. Efficiency > 0. < 100% waste.

There is more energy lost (eventually degrading to thermal energy) from the creation of vortices in the vertically fixed (restrained) case. The potential energy gain still comes from the wind. I think this may help you: Lets add a third case to the two I outlined in my post 49. 3. Same airfoil, same set up, except we will change the angle of attack, not by allowing it to rise as in case 2 (which changes the apparent angle) but by actually angling the nose down just to the point it will not rise. This will give us less drag than both 1. (highest drag) and 2. (now intermediate) So if you want to compare just case 2 and 3, it should work the way you feel it should.

Unless there is some source of energy to maintain it, yes it decreases. The energy does have to come from somewhere. The point is that it does not have to decrease more than when the airfoil is fixed. It is a more efficient case, since work is actually being done as the gravitational potential energy is gained. An analogy would be sitting in a car pointed up the hill with some pressure on the gas but also on the brake, restrained from going anywhere. If you take your foot off the brake, you head up the hill. There is no need to wonder why you don't need any more fuel than what you were using. You still need fuel but possibly less than before, even though you are now gaining potential energy as you get higher on the hill.

First bolded...that's correct. Second bolded...I am not showing energy is conserved, I am assuming the law of conservation of energy holds, and know there are generally frictional type losses, inefficiencies, in any real system. No thought experiment will prove it wrong.

That's right. In the frame of still air my case 1 would be equivalent to a heavier aircraft flying level at constant speed and case 2 would be equivalent to a lighter aircraft gaining altitude but otherwise at the same horizontal velocity. The heavier aircraft would require more power, and of course be adding more kinetic energy to the still air with respect to that frame than in case 2.

1. Generally speaking, if you restrain an airfoil both horizontally and vertically you will have higher drag than the same set up where the airfoil rises. 2. When the airfoil rises there will be slightly less angle of attack from the reference frame of the wing, so induced drag should be reduced. Less energy will be removed from the free stream, so the overall velocity will remain higher than in the first case Energy is of course conserved in each case. The gravitational/potential energy gain in the second case is accounted for as a loss of the free stream energy, along with other losses associated with drag, which together will be less than the drag associated losses in the first case.

"Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall Humpty Dumpty had a great fall, All the kings horses and all the kins men, couldn't put Spaghettified Humpty together again." But the BH did...

I think Fred Hoyle had that, Olber's Paradox, covered in his model of an expanding steady state Universe. So we have no infinite radiation...but instead a more limited but steady amount, depending on mass/energy density maintained by creation, and on the expansion rate... so, why could that not fit the profile of the CMB?

Are you saying a Steady State would have no CMB of any kind? Or not the one we observe?

From my experience in cold weather, dry cold air seems to keep my insulation (clothing) dryer, and damp cold air otherwise. I think this has a significant effete on the insulation value. If, say, I put on a cold but dry light down vest, it quickly seems to add warmth, where as the same vest put on damp, even if taken from inside a warm house, seems to have less effect. Evaporation cooling may be part of it, but I think the insulation value is compromised as well.

I don't believe the reference frame of a photon has ever been defined, at least in any accepted form.

This will simply create more drag most of the time. Except at relatively low speed and relatively fast downward pitch/stroke of the transom there will be more drag than thrust, and even then the upward pitch/return stroke will negate the overall effect. I have propelled a standard canoe while standing on the gunwales, one leg on each side, in calm water, but the effective area was much closer to 5 degrees than 45, and being at the surface pulled on air rather than water on the return stroke. The example in the video works very differently.

Not my forte, but it doesn't seem unreasonable that spreading out the right amount of fuel, with more surface area, with the right amount of air (stoichiometric ratio) might lead to a more complete burn and better efficiency with perhaps less pollution, and the quicker it can be done should be advantageous also, as it could be better timed with the cycle of the pistons. So, if in fact that is the case, perhaps the right sound waves would help accomplish this better than existing means alone. It may be worth investigating if it hasn't been already.

Are they discussing the formation of a toroidal planet? Or toroidal condition of a galaxy? I think the formation and stability of a planet sized toroid can be ruled out mathematically, for reasons already stated, without exotic material...with it (exotic material), it is no more difficult to fathom than a donut.

Probably best to wait until you land/crash on the ground in any event, though good point, some level of electronic entertainment must be maintained at all times these days... Seriously, what is the smallest parachute that could be deployed to allow a good chance of survival? A balloon would have to be considerably larger to create the same drag at the same speed, and have to be underneath you on landing to provide additional protection...perhaps some combination would work? The seats already (unless this has changed) serve as emergency flotation devices.

Any material not on the equatorial plane would have a gravitational component toward it, that could not possibly be balanced by angular momentum. That statement may not be exact for variations in density, but would hold for material furthest from the equatorial plane in any case. Even on the equatorial plane balance cannot be achieved, since the angular velocity must be less the farther from the centre. So it is not balanced, never mind stable, and is not possible for any mass the size of a planet, composed of known materials. The shape would be dominated by gravitational pressure...tending toward a sphere..and angular momentum...which would flatten it toward the poles

Great...now I have link envy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power

Philosophically speaking, related ideas have been around for a while; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_mind Scientifically speaking, I don't think there is much to base it on.

I think Homo Sapiens might have a few weapons at their disposal that could take care of them.

I need one of those for when I go jogging. The stop watch I use is simply not accurate enough to measure my...cough...progress

492 light years? Should we start the plan and race to Nuke it now, before it gets us? Or is it too late and their's is already on the way?

Do I believe it at the same level as Newtonian Mechanics. No. But it certainly is a compelling model, though built on more uncertainty the further one goes back, I think. I have had ideas I liked better, but they never fit the evidence as well, at least to the limits of what I could comprehend. Still the best we have, and it seems to have evolved. Would it still be coined "the Big Bang", if named today?

As well as mass? The path would be effected by the mass of the bullet, given that other things being equal at any given point, the forces on the bullet would be identical (at that point). So a heavier bullet would respond differently than a lighter one, which would effect the forces going forward etc. Generally speaking there would be increased drag as it met the surface, which would rotate it but not initially pull it under (and some lift which might counter that rotation), depending on the shape and centre of gravity. With enough downward momentum it will break the surface, and the rotation would give it an angle of attack that would cause the refraction downward (or not if rotated upward). Without enough downward momentum to break the surface it would generally bounce/skip due to the lift. So I don't believe a generalized equation will work, unless it is a very complicated one.