Spyman

1) The impact probability for April 13, 2036, is estimated at 1 in 45 000. 2) It is to small to cause any "Armageddon". 3) ESA’s Don Quijote mission is currently planned to try to nudge it away. (If they choose Apophis as target.) The other thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28193

If lightbeams are bent by heavy objects then the photons should be "pulling" on the heavy objects too. Mass and Energy both bends spacetime, equivalent by E=mc2. The question is will the two photons attract each other or outrun the gravity ? Gravity is travelling with c too and since the photons have a head start, I think they succed. (Unless they are moving against each other.)

Is this the one ? -> http://swiftindustrialpower.com/integrated/products/dcpowerplants/marconi/pdfs/4_1.pdf The Lorain® model A6F50 and A12F50 rectifiers provide -48 VDC, 6 or 12 amp power for a broad range of applications. LED indicators on the front panel clearly signal power-on status, rectifier failure, high voltage shutdown, rectifier failure, and fuse alarm conditions. Inputs Voltage: 120 (88-132) VAC, single phase 208/240 (176-264) VAC, single phase Frequency: 47-63 Hz Output Float/Equalize Voltage: 48 (48.3-58.0) VDC, adjustable Current: Model A6F50 — 6 amps Model A12F50 — 12 amps Regulation: Steady-state ±1/2% within range of 48.3 to 58.0 volts from no load to full load over the specified input voltage and frequency ranges. High voltage shutdown circuit causes shutdown if output voltage exceeds the predetermined (adjustable) value. It looks like a battery charger, some chargers can exceed the output voltage when no battery is connected. But as I read it, the charger should be protected against "to high" output, so it might be broken... What does the LED indicators on the front tell you ? Also "predetermined (adjustable) value" indicates that output voltage is adjustable and could be set to "to high". (In which case it wouldn't give any alarms or shut down.) Usually the voltage is adjusted by a "hidden" trimmer, (potentiometer), somewhere inside the supplybox but reachable from outside through one of the cooling holes by a very small screwdriver. Please note that poking around in it with a screwdriver when the power is connected is dangerous !!! (Electric shock and all that.)

I will make a reply here, seems more appropriately. ... esspecailly as Martin is not infact a mod ... Yes, according to the Staff list Martin is one of the Resident Experts and not a Moderator. But "Modern and Theoretical Physics" clearly states: "Moderators:2 swansont, Martin", (to the right at the bottom). Newcomers like vincent might easily get confused... I suggests that links to the Staff list, the Members list and the Forum Rules is added in the "Site Navigation". Staff list: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showgroups.php Members list: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/memberlist.php Forum Rules: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=14&a=14

Dealing with threatening space rocks Threatening asteroids that zoom past the Earth, fireballs in the sky seen by hundreds of people and mysterious craters which may have been caused by impacting meteorites; all make ESA’s studies on the Don Quijote mission look increasingly timely. ... Those studies showed that it is probably the smaller pieces of rock, at most a few hundred metres across, rather than the larger ones that we should be more worried about for the time being. ... In the second phase, another spacecraft would slam into the asteroid at a speed of around 10 km/s, while the first spacecraft watches, looking for any changes in the asteroid's trajectory. In this way, a mission involving two spacecraft would attempt to be the first to actually move an asteroid - and be able to measure it. ... In its current design, the first spacecraft, Sancho, could reach any one of 5 or 6 small, nearby asteroids. Each one is no larger than a few hundred metres in diameter. At present, the mission planners have chosen to concentrate on Apophis, a small asteroid that can swing dangerously close to Earth on the outwards stretch of its orbit around the Sun. http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM8SUB1S6F_index_0.html

Well, don't you think that an NON-euclidean object sitting in euclidian space would be rather strange ? I think you misinterpreted this point, the gamma factor works both ways, it's relative... If the static observer outside the disc, views a ruler riding on the rim as shorter then an moving observer riding on the rim of the disc views a static ruler outside the disc as shorter by the same gamma factor. Now, since the observer riding on the disc knows he is the one accelerating and thus accnowledges that his frame is warped relative the rest frame, he would conclude that his ruler has grown relative the ruler at rest. -------------------- EDIT: Removed the part of Earth as a flywheel, since the calculations I made where terribly wrong. (Hehe, really funny how one can turn the numbers upside-down when hurrying.) EDIT II: Hopefully correct calculations shows only a ~48 micrometers difference of the equatorial circumference. (From the perspective of a spacecraft comoving with Earth, but not orbiting.) -------------------- BIG flywheels in nature, like fast spinning Neutron stars... XTE J1739-285 makes 1122 laps every second, thats a whopping 67 320 rpm. (If it gets confirmed.) http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMPADBE8YE_index_0.html Due to it's extremly rapid rotation it's probably very distorted into an oblate spheroid shape. (And it could be close to the limit of it's break-up speed, despite the crushing gravity.) It's thought to be some 10 km across, which would make it a pretty large flywheel. If assuming that the equatorial radius is 5000 meters, it's equatorial circumferens is ~31 416 meters. (It's likely a much greater radius at the equator, but just to get a figure of the Lorentz contraction.) That would make a surface speed of 35 248 752 m/s relative a hovering stationery spacecraft. Gamma is ~1.006985 -> Spacecraft would measure circumference to ~31 198 meters, thats 218 meters shorter.

Lorentz length contraction is a real physical effect. I think the solution is in the curving of spacetime: In the frame of a observer outside the disk, spacetime is warped by speed and no longer flat. The disc is bendt into the shape of a cone, but without changing size in the three spatial dimensions. (It still has the same height and radius, (width & length), but the circumference changes.) Since we only can view 3D it still looks like a disc, but we can measure if C=2πR or not. I am sorry, but I don't have enough knowledge of GR to explain it better/properly for you...

Here is a very short story for you: Dwan Ev ceremoniously soldered the final connection with gold. The eyes of a dozen television cameras watched him and the subether bore throughout the universe a dozen pictures of what he was doing. He straightened and nodded to Dwar Reyn, then moved to a position beside the switch that would complete the contact when he threw it. The switch that would connect, all at once, all of the monster computing machines of all the populated planets in the universe -- ninety-six billion planets -- into the supercircuit that would connect them all into one supercalculator, one cybernetics machine that would combine all the knowledge of all the galaxies. Dwar Reyn spoke briefly to the watching and listening trillions. Then after a moment's silence he said, "Now, Dwar Ev." Dwar Ev threw the switch. There was a mighty hum, the surge of power from ninety-six billion planets. Lights flashed and quieted along the miles-long panel. Dwar Ev stepped back and drew a deep breath. "The honor of asking the first question is yours, Dwar Reyn." "Thank you," said Dwar Reyn. "It shall be a question which no single cybernetics machine has been able to answer." He turned to face the machine. "Is there a God?" The mighty voice answered without hesitation, without the clicking of a single relay. "Yes, now there is a God." Sudden fear flashed on the face of Dwar Ev. He leaped to grab the switch. A bolt of lightning from the cloudless sky struck him down and fused the switch shut. Fredric Brown, "Answer" 1954 -> http://www.roma1.infn.it/~anzel/answer.html

Don't worry Jacques, it's a common mistake, fueled by the definition of the distance "lightyear" and the vast popular science articles written by journalists who doesn't seem to understand the difference. A lightyear is the distance light can reach in a year if the spacemetric is rigid. But according to General Relativity spacetime is dynamic, it can expand or contract. When space is expanding the distance is increasing over time while light is making the journey to us. So you end up with three different values, distance between the objects when the light was emitted, distance between the objects when light is received and the distance light has traversed, (which is flighttime).

Without air friction they will all hit the ground at the same time. Movie of a drop on the Moon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Apollo_15_feather_and_hammer_drop.ogg Apollo 15 Commander Dave Scott demonstrates that the mass of an object does not affect the time it takes to fall, using a hammer and a feather on the Moon.

It is a paradox, the circumference gets both larger and smaller, but the radius is unchanged. (2πR does no longer hold true.)

A circular orbit requires a constant orbital speed, maybe that's the key point here ? The planets travels faster while close to the Sun and slows down when they are farther from the Sun.

The focal points are just coordinates in space they don't exert gravitational force. An Ellipse is characterized by its two focal points: In mathematics, an ellipse is the locus of points on a plane where the sum of the distances from any point on the curve to two fixed points is constant. The two fixed points are called foci (plural of focus). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse

Image of Expansion over Time -> http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=070501_matter_universe_02.jpg∩=Measurements+of+the+recessional+velocity%2C+distance+and+age+of+stellar+explosions+called+supernovae+provided+the+first+direct+evidence+that+the+rate+at+which+the+universe+is+expanding+is+increasing.+Credit%3A+NASA

The Solar System is believed to have formed according to the nebular hypothesis ... This theory holds that 4.6 billion years ago the Solar System formed from the gravitational collapse of a giant molecular cloud. ... The region that would become the Solar System, known as the pre-solar nebula, had a diameter of between 7000 and 20,000 AU and a mass just over that of the Sun (by between 0.1 and 0.001 solar masses). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_system As it collapses, three physical processes shape the nebula: it heats up, its spin increases, and it flattens. The nebula heats up because atoms move more quickly as they fall deeper into the gravitational well and become denser, colliding more frequently: gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy of the atoms, or thermal energy. Second, while initially imperceptible, the solar nebula had some small amount of net rotation (angular momentum), and because angular momentum is conserved, the nebula must rotate more quickly as it shrinks in size. Finally, the nebula must also flatten into a disk, called a protoplanetary disk, as collisions and mergers of blobs of gas average out their motions in favor of the direction of the net angular momentum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_formation Kepler wrote his laws of planetary motion long before Newton, GR is not necessarily. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion (The picture shows the focal points.) Both experience a gravitational force towards Earth. From Earths view they can be considered as one total mass. After all, Earth is made of many small pieces and it's easier to sum them up to one total mass with a common center, than to calculate the forces for each one, but the end result is the same.

He,he ...David de Hilster is president of the Society for the Advancement of Autodynamics... When the sun is screened out by the moon, it blocks lots of pico-gravitons, de Hilster said, so it makes sense that a pendulum's swing would change slightly. ... Mainstream physicists have considered autodynamics a crackpot theory for decades, and most agree that an experiment at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in 1984 proved the theory wrong. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1999/07/20663 Autodynamics was proposed by Ricardo Carezani in the early 1940s as a replacement for Einstein's theories of special relativity and general relativity. ... The primary claim of Autodynamics is that the equations of the Lorentz transformation are incorrectly formulated to describe relativistic effects, which would invalidate special relativity, general relativity, and Maxwell's equations. ... Autodynamics is wholly rejected by the mainstream scientific community. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodynamics

And now, when the dust storms have settled, Opportunity is descending down towards it's fate... Opportunity Begins Sustained Exploration Inside Crater NASA's Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity finished the last step of a test in-and-out maneuver checking wheel slippage at the rim of Victoria Crater today. Then the rover immediately drove back into the crater as the start of a multi-week investigation on the big bowl's inner slope. "Opportunity is now exploring the interior of Victoria Crater." http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/20070913a.html

The Ehrenfest paradox concerns the rotation of a "rigid" disc in the theory of relativity. In its original formulation as presented by Paul Ehrenfest 1909 in the Physikalische Zeitschrift, it discusses an ideally rigid cylinder that is made to rotate about its axis of symmetry. The radius R as seen in the laboratory frame is always perpendicular to its motion and should therefore be equal to its value R0 when stationary. But the circumference (2πR) should appear Lorentz-contracted to a smaller value than at rest, by the usual factor γ. This leads to the contradiction that R=R0 and R<R0. [Note that a cylinder was considered in order to circumvent the possibility of a disc "dishing" out of its plane of rotation and trivially satisfying C<2πR. Subsequently when a rotating disc is substituted it is assumed that this distortion possibility is also excluded.] The paradox has been deepened further by later reasoning that since measuring rods aligned along the periphery and moving with it should appear contracted, more would fit around the circumference, which would thus measure greater than 2πR. The Ehrenfest paradox may be the most basic phenomenon in relativity that has a long history marked by controversy and which still gets different interpretations published in peer-reviewed journals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_nomenclature http://www.seds.org/nineplanets/nineplanets/

swansont: You seem to be misinterpreting my argument entirely... I do NOT think that questioning behavior/ideas/thoughts is wrong !!! Calling people out individually and the purpose/value of THIS thread is what I am questioning. (FYI: I am not complaining about the attacks of Farsight or his ideas in any other thread.) Allowing the bullying to happen, even if not participating, is lending support for the bullies. Unlike the more physical form of schoolyard bullying, workplace bullying often takes place within the established rules and policies of the organization and society. Such actions are not necessarily illegal and may not even be against the firm's regulations; however, the damage to the targeted employee and to workplace morale is obvious. While various strategies to deal with bullies have been put forth, conventional wisdom, anecdotal evidence, and common perception indicates that the only effective method that stops bullying is to respond in kind - to confront the violence of the bully with violence in return. This response, though it may not stop an attack, reduces the benefit of bullying the target individual. The basis of this concept is that the bullied is seen to be an "easy target" and that there are few, if any, consequences to harassing them. By removing the fundamental basis of the bully/target relationship, the bullying ends. This response is also very often the most effective means of stopping bullying, usually to only one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying BenTheMan: Again, I am not threatening you. I am only trying to explain why I think THIS thread is BAD. Phi for All: I was going to make a long reply but it seems like we have at least reached an partial understanding... Closing this thread and no more threads like this, on any individuals in the future, sounds good enough.

You might find this page interesting: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-03/7-03.htm

BenTheMan: I am not threatening you, 1) it was for Phi and 2) it was an example to make a point. As I have said in every post I made in this thread: I agree that persons should be prepared to be told they are wrong and if persisting contrary to evidence then they are rightfully crackpots. But, (and this is a big but and my only objection), even if a person is a crackpot it is wrong to make a thread like this one. There is a fine line somewhere in this "gray area" between calling someone a crackpot and making a named thread devoted to prove it with the intention to point finger and show everybody how out of his mind this person is. From your long reply it's obvious that you wouldn't like to be the target of a similar thread. (Farsight on the other hand seems to enjoy to stand in the spotlight you have created for him.) And it's not nice to use my example for more humiliating of him either. Yes, I would have the same objections to the same treatment of a person defending Intelligent Design. Maybe you cand find harsher treatments, but I have not yet seen a thread as personal as this one. No, I don't go around searching for minorities to protect, but if I happen to stumble on something wrong, then I might take the time to raise my voice and say so. I am defending the moral and ethical status of SFN. And like you I don't stay silent either while someone trashes something good, like SFN. swansont: Yes, I am attacking the behavior in this thread, but not on a personal level. (Except for my small example for Ben.) Yes, my support is lacking, bullying is often done by subtle methods and is not always easy to spot/prove. Bullying is if one or often a group, intentional tries to hurts another through any means, without justified reason. (Being a Crackpot or a Creationist is NOT a justified reason.) None crackpot has ever been collectively toasted before in a personal named thread. (And with sooo much attention and hype.) "A form of informal peer review" of the reviewer himself, instead of of his ideas ? With comments like: "I don't care at all...untill he votes or raises childeren. THEN it effects me, and I DO care." Farsight: Yes, you are the ***STAR*** in this thread and you actually seem to "love it"... Phi for All: If they are allowed to measure crackpottery in terms of "out of his mind" and "insanity", I am allowed to use those words also, without any Strawman objections. (Please note: I do know the difference between crackpottery and insanity.) Actually it is Farsight and not his idea that is being held to John Baez' Crackpot indicator. Nope, the handicap example is not a Strawman. "There is so plenty of them" and "I don't have the proper time" or "I am so tired of it" is also poor arguments... Well, the distinction with the term "Crackpot" is also in a "gray area" and when used as it has in this thread, its value is in or close to the domain of "idiot", "moron" and similar invectives. Defined parameters like: "5 points for each word in all capital letters" has nothing to do with ideas. Letters, spelling, grammar and any other ways to express yourself are personal. But I am not going to argue about John Baez' Crackpot Index, my point was that there might be other indexes that can be used in a similar way, if allowed. Then I hope my objections is enough to show "the test" that this is the wrong way to deal with the problem. (Like I said before, the old way was at least not distasteful.) If you go full scale with this, then I suspect that most members lost won't be the crackpots but instead seriously young people willing to learn but afraid to be mocked for their ideas/questions. And if allowed then the "gray area" can easily grow to contain more and more unpleasant ways to flame persons. As for the Witch-hunt, it was not meant as a strawman, it was an example of how bad it could get. (And that goes for the "Slippery Slope fallacy" too.) Besides, and not an argument, but in a few years when someone is searching SFN for a keyword and finds/reads, for instance "Time Explained Version X", do someone really think the reader also will find/read this thread or the other one in the OP ? Very doubtfully indeed, they will be buried deep and forgotten a long time ago. If the purpose is to show unknowledged readers that he is wrong, instead of humiliating him, it needs to be showed in his own threads, in a simple and clear manner. Otherwise you have all failed anyway...

Since I just told you that I think it is wrong, bullying, unethical and unmoral, I am NOT going too... But I can give you a small taste: Characteristics of bullies Research indicates that adults who bully have personalities that are authoritarian, combined with a strong need to control or dominate. It has also been suggested that a deficit in social skills and a prejudicial view of subordinates can be particular risk factors. Researchers have identified other risk factors such as quickness to anger and use of force, addiction to aggressive behaviors, mistaking others' actions as hostile, concern with preserving self image, and engaging in obsessive or rigid actions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying Now, would you enjoy being called a bullie, do you still "love it" ? It's not Farsights ideas thats called crazy in this thread, they are measuring his insanity. The only purpose I can see with this thread is to ridicule Farsight. Whether BenTheMan is able to prove it or not is irrelevant, it is still a personal attack. For instance, I could support proof of a persons handicap, but if I used the proof to humiliate, ridicule and point finger at that person, what would that make me ? In my opinion the "distinction" part is a very poor excuse for the bullying going on here. There are other ways to attack someone than using John Baez' Crackpot Index... And I think he has used it wrong and that it is wrong when you and the others mods allow it. I thought this was a forum where everyone could discuss science without the risk to be hanged out as insane. (And please note: There is nothing wrong with pointing out if an idea/thought is wrong/crackpot.) But as proved in this thread, it is now allowed to point out that individuals is insane. (If you can back up your arguments with an accepted index/norm.) What kind of indexes/norms is going to be used in SFN:s next Witch-hunt ? (And what kind of personality is going to be lynched then ?) A Witch-hunt is a search for witches or evidence of witchcraft, often involving moral panic, mass hysteria and mob lynching, but in historical instances also legally sanctioned and involving official witchcraft trials. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt A moral panic is a reaction by a group of people based on the false or exaggerated perception that some cultural behavior or group, frequently a minority group or a subculture, is dangerously deviant and poses a menace to society. It has also been more broadly defined as an "episode, condition, person or group of persons" that has in recent times been "defined as a threat to societal values and interests." They are byproducts of controversies that produce arguments and social tension, or aren't easily discussed as some of these moral panics are taboo to many people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic Mass hysteria, also called collective hysteria or collective obsessional behavior, is the sociopsychological phenomenon of the manifestation of the same or similar hysterical symptoms by more than one person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria Lynching is a form of violence, usually execution, conceived of by its perpetrators as extrajudicial punishment for offenders or as a terrorist method of enforcing social domination. It is characterized by a summary procedure ignoring, bypassing, or even contrary to, the strict forms of law, notably judicial execution. Victims of lynching have generally been members of groups marginalized or vilified by society. The practice is age-old; stoning, for example, is believed to have started long before lapidation was adopted as a judicial form of execution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_lynching

Agreed, and that is going on in the thread linked to in the OP. But that is not whats going on in this thread, see quote: I think threads like this one, is unmoral and unethical, definately not science... Well, I would take a thread named "Spyman Explained" very personal... How would you take "BenTheMan Explained", where someone explained your insanity ? I am defending what I think is unmoral and unethical forum behaviour, nothing else. (If the question is really important for you then the answer is no.) I am not defending Farsights "Explained"s, they are false, but that doesn't make your bullying right. If he don't behave then let the moderators give him a permanent bann, thats what have been done before. I made my mind up about Farsight, long before you even was a member here, but that is irrelevant. (Called his first "Time Explained" similar to African Voodoo or something like that.) Making a thread solely devoted to ridicule and humiliate a persons mind is bullying ! I doesn't matter whether or not the person is "out of his mind" or a "crackpot", IT IS STILL WRONG ! Who will be the next victim of your our someone elses "quantifying" ?

YES !!! To tell him that he is wrong is not but to make a personal thrashing is ! In my opinion, this thread is a collective and intentional personal attack, IOW Bullying and IT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED !!! Give Farsight a warning and then kick him out, if he persists with wrong behaviour. (Keep it sharp and clean, there is no need for this messy humiliation and flaming.) Lots of people are reading this and it reflects on their thoughts of SFN. Is this a place to ask questions, discuss science and learn or ... ... a place where we burn people for their beliefs ?