J.C.MacSwell

Welcome to the Club. We are over 6 billion strong and growing everyday. However if you stick to one local (very local in a relative sense) inertial frame we have a pretty good idea, and some pretty good insights beyond that. For the photons, that sounds about right, depending on what you might mean by "pure" in each case.

This is not just a difficult shape structurally,given the dynamic load of the placement of the greater surface area, but terrible aerodynamically. The induced drag at the tips would be very high as the high pressure air on the windward side is drawn around the tip toward the low pressure leeward side. Better is a smaller, thinner, slightly feathered tip that not so much harvests power as reduces the pressure gradient around the tip and thus reduces the induced drag which robs efficiency and reduces power generation.

I think the second law is an extension of the first...so yes.

Whatever. They can be idealized as appropriate to their significance. If it's based on a real experiment it might be best not to ignore them.

...and friction losses from the slippage and/or rolling resistance you mentioned.

I have. The gravitational constant there seems to be rising slowly. There is a lot of fluctuation, oddly enough especially after changes in my diet. (Have not resolved any direct connection at this point and it may be just coincidence)

It is still 62 amp hours, but based on steadily outputting it in 10 hours (so based on 6.2 amps constant) You would get more ah over a longer period (at a slower rate) but less if you discharged it quicker, due to the internal resistance of the battery using up more of the energy. Since for this application you would be discharging it faster with a single battery you would get less than 62 ah.

No more questions for you then...so what door you gonna pick?

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/rolling-friction-resistance-d_1303.html Rolling Resistance Coefficient c cl (mm) 0.0002 - 0.001 steel wheels on steel rails 0.0015 - 0.0025 low resistance tubeless tires 0.005 tram rails 0.006 - 0.01 truck tire on asphalt 0.01 - 0.015 ordinary car tires on concrete 0.03 car tires on tar or asphalt 0.04 - 0.08 car tire on solid sand 0.2 - 0.4 car tire on loose sand A wing that would have a lift to drag of over 50 to 1 would be equivalent to 0.02. You may do better but I doubt you get much better than "truck tire on asphalt" range

In this case it is indeterminate, as it is resting on more than 3 points.

Not enough information. Glass "screen"; is that a fabric? If so it will act like a membrane. Or is it rigid? At what points is it supported, and what is the orientation? How much does it weigh?

They are obviously in a quantum superimposed alive/dead state. Your best bet if you ever come across them in "real life" is to yell "I see you!" as loud as you can. Hopefully they will all collapse.

He didn't analyze it that far.

Have you gone through your growth spurt to get to your present height? Have you plateaued? How tall are your parents? These are all questions that are relevant to your eventual height though in the end everyone is different. You do know already that you have obtained a healthy stature. You are almost average height already. There are certainly advantages to being taller, but there are equally advantages to being shorter. If not we would all be taller. Stay healthy, work on your fitness and avoid the gimmicks.

Edit: I made no post

While in principle this is correct,you are unlikely to have a scale available that will show the difference. If you heat an object up without losing any matter it will have gained mass, but it is not normally significant or considered heavier. For your object to gain 1 gram you need to input about 25 million kilo-watt hours of energy without losing any. That's quite the light you would be shining on it!

So the colours in the picture... You seem to be saying they reach their limit, cannot go higher due to weight, but then where do they go? A ball thrown in the same direction would be affected by gravity and curve back to the ground. Your colours just seem to disappear. What hypothetical rules are your colours demonstrating?

So...you think the light is attracted by gravity in such a way that even though it is not heading straight up, it turns around and goes back in the direction it came?

I don't believe all people are equal in all respects. I think most of this would have to do with genetics, early environment and nutrition. As for Races, however you group them, that may be true as well, but how could you reasonably test it on that scale? You would have to factor out the early environment, nutrition and other significant factors. If you managed to do this in an unbiased manner I think any variances would be small enough that secondary factors would overwhelm them.

So it's smaller, less buoyant and attached to a weight that made it neutral buoyant when it was larger. With that weight included it now as a system is heavier than water. When I let it go, why would it rise?

If you take a ballon to the bottom of a pool will it: 1. stay the same size? 2. get bigger-increase in volume? 3. get smaller-decrease in volume?

I have to admit the light looks pretty heavy in that picture...especially the red stuff. I guess we better start physics all over again at square one.

Originally I thought it was going to be a trick question, where our up (for those of us on the opposite side of the Earth) is their down.

I assume this is a helium filled balloon in this case? Probably one that has lost some helium and absorbed some air? Or tuned to be just the right weight? Assuming that: Air is cooler and denser near the floor and the temperature gradient and resulting density gradiant is sufficient to give the balloon (which as a system is denser than the ceiling air yet lighter than air at the floor) a net buoyant force near the floor, and net sinking force near the ceiling. Unlike the situation with the balloon in the water the pressure gradient is not sufficient to change the balloon enough to overcome the difference and the balloon finds equilibrium at it's original height or position. When I say "unlike" I am comparing it to a typical case...a water balloon/stone set up could also do this in the right conditions as per your quote that I bolded and as I mentioned in an earlier post. But typically this water balloon/stone would not be a stable setup and any displacement up or down would send it in that direction. As the air resists the increased compression at greater depth, what happens to the volume? With less volume, what happens to the buoyant force?

B could be correct if the balloon was originally stably at the surface, by enough to keep the average density of the balloon/stone system above that of the water even after the "gentle" compression.