J.C.MacSwell

Is the moon speeding up (decaying orbit) or slowing down?

The good news is, I have some more! The bad news is they only get worse!

Udderly rediculous! Dairy good! I hadn't herd that one.

Different fields.

No spin at all and the "terminator zone" should move about 1 degree every 24 hours.

On a cold winters day when we arrive home from work we could drag the hot engine core into our house to save on our furnace oil consumption. There are probably a lot of ways like this to save energy,

I guess that's the problem with the problem as stated. If you assume it is an introductory physics problem, strip away all the extraneous information, and take "surprisingly the elephant has no mass, please explain" to be code for ignore the elephant's mass then there is really nothing left to explain or solve. It is just a story about a flea walking away unharmed.

A reversed inelastic collision? Isn't there a law against that? I guess if you used pressurized air at ambient temperature it would ideally lose heat during an explosion/expansion so theoretically it could be done in a way that no net heat is gained or lost and entropy is increased.

There would be a net "anti-gravity" effect for all objects if the charge was greater (more negative charge) than the proton's (positive charge). There would be a net "extra gravity" effect for all objects if the charge was less (less negative charge) than the proton's (positive charge).

If you scaled everything exactly you would need 41% more takeoff speed. (square root of two times the takeoff speed)

I'm still not sure where the collision (or equivalent) is but isn't heat generated in inelastic collisions, but not elastic ones?

Isn't the electron-positron system the simpler case, and the "regular" ordinary atom the mystery?

We do!

The air resistance effects force components in both the x and y directions and would considerably affect the trajectory of the COM and point/s of impact. I mentioned earlier it would fall short, but if the x component of velocity was small enough it could "fly" farther (than otherwise) due to the extended time in the air due to the y component drag being more signicant than the decceleration in the x direction. But if it "exploded" while still accelerating after a typical drop from an airplane the COM of the fragments should fall considerably short assuming still air.

If you have the same mass of air, in the same space, the higher temperature will have higher pressure. So it will get "blown out" or escape faster (or will get "sucked out" more quickly if AgenO prefers looking at it that way)

In a vacuum yes, but total drag goes way up. So the COM will not follow the trajectory it would have unexploded. (it will fall short) But my point was more to do with what kind of explosion you envisioned. Some kind of flywheel equivalent that flies apart? There seems to be more extraneous information than your run of the mill physics problem and yet not enough information to find a solution. That's why it looks more like a brain teaser.

In Canada, unless one of the first two numbers is greater than 12 we have no idea what date is meant.

The answer is yes, although it is more correct to think of the colder/ lower pressure air escaping slower than it would if it was hotter/ higher pressure than being "sucked out" slower. I would agree with Xyph by the way I originally interpreted the question.

That's what I was thinking. Some trick, like an endothermic explosion with noone around to hear it, so it isn't "sound", merely compression waves in air like the tree in the forest thing. The pilot flys off at greater than mach 1 so he doesn't get to hear it. But that's probably not it.