Robittybob1

I was just defining what the normal force is. I thought it might be equal and opposite to the G force but I was wrong. It had something to do with the slope as well. It is a force that I don't think about much. So if on a horizontal surface the same mass weighs differently the force of gravity must have changed or on a rotating system the centripetal force alters.

Google Normal Force So on an inclined slope the normal force isn't equal and opposite the gravitational force. So if the normal force is different at the two places where the weight is placed on a horizontal surface, what is going on?

It must have been the settings on the other computer. This one is displaying images OK thanks.

Have you any idea how that difference in weight could be measured?

NASA's Messenger mission to Mercury has ended. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/30/space-mercury-crash-idUSL1N0XR34V20150430 I just can't wait till they send another craft up there and land on those craters that contain organic material! Was there once life on Mercury?

If aliens come here I'm going to welcome them, for I have my doubts about humans finding a way out of here on their own.

My friend was down in Christchurch the morning of the first big one. She won't forget. The power went off (pitch black) and everything is being thrown around in the room.

Works fine for me too and also follow topics if you don't want to scroll through ones you don't like.

I tend to the view the more stress you take out of the ground the better. In NZ i just love small harmless earthquakes for I think of it as releasing tension, rather than all that pressure being released in a "big one".

Is there a secret to opening those other pictures?

Craters from myriads of asteroid impacts, melting into the ice???

Thanks for that.

Acme should have done that since he made the claim.

Yes I had read all that before but there was nothing linking that particular earthquake to wastewater injection is there?

This is a remarkable image of Hyperion. http://phys.org/news/2015-04-image-saturn-sponge-like-moon-hyperion.html There doesn't seem to be too much else on YT but could you get a better image than this?

So where in the report does it say waste water? Maybe the links aren't working properly. I haven't got all day to find the connection but I searched the report for the word "waste" and wastewater and got nothing.

I haven't seen how you link that earthquake with the waste-water injection method.

As I have said I have been working on a new concept of planet building process so I read what you say, and some of it still aligns with what I am proposing, but it is an ever changing topic as more and more is learned about the exoplanets (discovered around other stars). Previously Janus and I discussed how fast the nebula had to collapse on another site, and it was quite incredible the speeds that the material had to attain to cover the vast distances involved in the original nebula and for it to all contract into the protosun in a period of 100,000 years or so. The material certainly couldn't get involved in any serious orbital motion or else it just wouldn't have made it. I don't see his posts around so much lately. It has been too much to remember it all, but from time to time I look up old threads and reminisce. Thanks for the rep points.

OK that 5.6 scale earthquake was it or wasn't it associated with fracking? A shallow 5.6 near buildings can do real damage. By your own definition some earthquakes are "too faint to feel", so you are not going to worry about them are you.

Wouldn't worry about! "What you guys call an earthquake may be we wouldn't even worry about."

Very interesting. I have never worked with or considered these aspects before. OK, so something like an x ray hits one atom on a spinning dust particle, the atom heats up and the heat spreads (conduction) and radiates (radiation back into space) how much has it spun while this is happening? How instantaneous is it?

If they were spinning? What makes them spin? If the were spinning from the beginning they would tend to slow down (I've printed a study on the "spin-down of the Sun" so I suspect the same would be true for a particle, but if they were spinning (with the right axis of rotation) they would help to even out the temperature. Can an object have more than one axis of rotation?

As I understand it, heat is absorbed from the Sun but since the particle is moving the apparent angle of the incident light is slightly ahead from being absolutely radial (aberration of light), and since the radiation of that heat will be isotropic (I understand that to be evenly all round the particle) the net effect is a reduction in the momentum, and subsequent infalling of the particle. There seems to be at least 2 parts missing: 1.. The effect of the impact momentum. I have not seen any accounting for that. 2. Also it is rather a presumption to say that the particle heated from one side only will have a similar temperature throughout. Well they are the points that have raised doubt in my mind, and so I'm looking into it.

OK has any large earthquake been induced by fracking? What you guys call an earthquake may be we would even worry about. What is the largest one induced by fracking so far? http://esd.lbl.gov/research/projects/induced_seismicity/primer.html

Has anyone seen actual evidence of the Poynting - Robertson effect? I know there is a mathematical argument that light (EM radiation from the Sun) will slow small particulate matter but is there physical evidence for it? If there are 3 or 4 other reasons for clearing the Solar System of dust why is the Poynting - Robertson effect raved about so much, when it is the only one that brings the dust spiraling inward when all the others have the dust being blown outward, and all the Hubble photos and other images support the dust being blown outward rather than inward?