J.C.MacSwell

No. Nothing need be symmetric. How many times have I said that the energy inputs to each cylinder must be different? The body can start rotating without symmetric action. Angular momentum in the complete system, everything involved, is maintained. Angular momentum is not just the sum of the individual angular momentums of each individual cylinder. Look at the angular momentum of the two cylinders centers of mass with respect to each other. Their linear momentum vectors are exactly opposite but displaced. Can you not see this component? Is it not exactly opposite that of the rotating cylinder?

Well, maybe you break the World Record! There may be no CMBR left with all the energy consumed for the project.

Pretty much something you can neither run nor hide from.

Exactly. The wall would have to be moving with it to shield it. Maybe you could use a huge hollow sphere cooled to approach absolute zero, but eventually you run into the same problem. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged That would only block directly ahead. The probe would still intercept plenty of photons crossing it's path and your wall would be radiating as well.

The velocity with respect to the CMBR isotropy causes the blueshifting in the "forward" direction and the "extremely high energy radiation". I can understand your "relative" point of view, but saying the it's not the velocity doing it is somewhat misleading. No matter what inertial frame you use, as light speed is approached, at some point any probe will disintegrate.

You are wrong. Angular momentum is conserved. You note that only one half of the combined system has angular momentum. This is only true if you consider each half in isolation. The centers of mass of each half have angular momentum wrt the center of mass of the combined system (which is still at rest). This is exactly equal but opposite that of the angular momentum of the rotating half. The net angular momentum of the combined system is zero. Angular momentum is conserved.

It is actually very easy. All you need is weight and height. Everything else is ignored, which is why it can be a terribly inaccurate indicator for individuals.

Nice rant, but the probe still disintegrates due to the velocity wrt to the CMBR isotropy.

At a high enough velocity wrt the CMBR any probe would disinegrate, would it not?

Yes. No matter what inertial frame of reference you use the conservation of linear momentum applies and also, separately, the conservation of angular momentum applies. You cannot present an example where it does not. All you are doing is misunderstanding the exact meaning.

This is due to the angular moment input due to the "off center" linear momentum input. It has no affect on the final linear momentum. You have to be careful because I think you believe these linear momentum inputs can be brought about in the same way. The second case requires more energy, yet I think you are picturing an equal energy input. If that was the case there would be less linear momentum transferred in the second case, but you have explicitly stated otherwise as a condition of each example.

They don't know. They are extrapolating backwards based on present observations and best assumptions.

I think it is pretty clear from your description that you are not overweight. The BMI as an indicator of being overweight has failed in your case. Simply looking in the mirror is much more accurate.

As defined in your original cases 1 and 2 in post 30 they are the same. However, having said that, I'm pretty sure you meant something different from what you wrote. Equal linear momentum inputs to equal mass systems originally at rest means that their final velocities will be the same.

What is the question? (your remarks for case 1 and 2 of post # 47 do not make sense for the way you presented them in post 30)

I think that is the key. Lot's of kindling (small meals) no heavy logs, and avoid your "trigger" foods. Keep the fat fires burning. Lifting weights, preferably high reps, or a good all around exercise program will keep the metabolism high as well. The extra calories burned during the actual workout are usually not that high, but will help you lose throughout the day.

BMI is not a bad way of deciding whether you are overweight, but calipers to measure body fat or even a mirror are much better. Interesting that it uses height squared rather than cubed.

Isn't light a repulsive force generally since it carries momentum? Sounds like they found an additional repulsive force to complement an attractive force they found previously.

This cylinder problem? (below is your post currently numbered 30)

No. If they are moving with respect to one another, but not directly toward (collision course for respective centers of mass) or directly away, then they have angular momentum about their combined center of mass. The total angular momentum about their combined center of mass will not change in the event they did collide (of course it would be an off center collision in this case) nor would there be any change in their combined linear momentum.

If you have two objects that, in isolation, have no angular momentum, they may still in combination have angular momentum. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged If you have two objects that, in isolation, have no angular momentum, they may still in combination have angular momentum.

With a really powerful telescope you can see the cratery knoll from which JFK was shot from. How do you explain that if men never landed on the moon? Aliens?

bullet? Every action has an equal but opposite reaction. You cannot create angular momentum without creating an equal but opposite angular momentum.

It would look significantly different the way you describe, if the expansion was all happening in the same region or point, regardless of where, and regardless of whether you considered that point or region the "center".

He's going extinct.