MetaFrizzics

Well, I have some links here: Public Health info on Pertussis pdf article on Pertussis education FAQ on Pertussis Med Online Encyclopedia on Pertussis Govt Tech sheet on Pertussis Health Info on Pertussis Research on Pertussis & symptoms Nursing Info on Pertussis Immunization Info Preventive Advice

velocity of zero relative to what? If it is in an inertial frame, great. How do you guarantee you and the boulder are in an inertial frame?

Has everyone finished stroking everyone else yet? Life is one giant sausage-fest,waiting for Godot to show up with the girls!

Do you have a good text on information theory? What text or course are you working from?

The picture seems too literal for me. I would postulate that the issue isn't # of photons per se, but some percentage of efficiency in the laser indicating how many of the photons were actually ordered and polarized as desired. Probability functions would come into play, and indicate the 'purity' of the laser beam. Secondly, the milliwatt rating of the laser beam unit would not be an accurate estimator of the number of photons in the beam either. These numbers (usually on the housing of the laser unit) are indications of power consumption and suppy alone, and give no indication of the efficiency of the laser design.

Doesn't spoking them increase wind resistance during rotation?

Interestingly, the problem is only mildly more complicated if only either the surface of the inclined plane is friction-free, or the surfaces between the cylinders are. In that case, friction would cause rotational motion of the outside cylinders. This stores energy in the form of angular momentum due to inertia, and so robs the central cylinder of some potential energy available for lifting the outside cylinders at the start of the problem, while re-injecting that energy later in the process of motion. From this we can deduce that balanced friction reduces the problem to the previous situation (without rotation) only adding an additional load requirement for the mass of the central cylinder.

(1) We assume first that the top cyclinder can be any arbitrary weight relative to the bottom cylinders: The angle of the force requires that the plane be inclined less than 30o regardless of relative weights. Now the (original) question is, when does the downward direct force (potential energy from gravity used) overpower the force required to raise the other two cylinders up the inclined plane the amount needed to get them out of the way? (2x for two upward cylinders) To understand this, and why the angle must be >90o for any motion to occur, it can be modelled by an analogy: imagine the centre cylinder is actually a ball coming down and bouncing off a stationary ball on the horizontal plane: (Friction-free case) As long as the ball strikes spot on, the ball resting on the plane does not move at all, regardless of the angle the top ball strikes it at. It is as though the ball struck the plane itself directly. What is interesting here is that as the center cylinder moves downward (accelerating) less and less energy is actually required to overcome the other two cylinders: by the time the center cylinder is nearly horizontal with them, very little displacement is needed to allow passage, and hence little potential gravitational energy is transferred to the other cylinders. This is due to the shape of the objects in the plane of interest (the vertical slice shown in diagram). Note that although adjustable, the plane is assumed to be fixed throughout the motion of the cylinders, once the critical angle is established. (original problem). Thus while the center cylinder positively accelerates, the other two cylinders accelerate then decelerate. Due to inertia, they will also travel slightly farther apart than is necessary for the centre cylinder to clear them. What is exciting is that we know that once we have enough energy to begin motion of the centre cylinder, we can be confident that the action will carry through! That is why it should be relatively easy to define the critical angle. In fact, we should be able to calculate the actual acceleration of the central cylinder, the acceleration and range of motion of the outside cylinders, and the force of impact when they roll back together.

By inspection, the answer is <=30o for friction-free smooth cylinders. (original question) An equilateral triangle has 60o corners. (1) If there is no friction, then the cylinders will slip in the manner of slippery soap: Consider arbitrary weights of cylinders first (general case) The moment the angle between point of contact with the inclined plane and the point of contact with the upper cylinder is >90o in the direction of true horizontal, the lower cylinder(s) pops outward. The 'normal' to a 60o line is...30o. All done. (2) In the case of non-slip friction between the cylinders and surfaces, counter-rotation causes a severe complication in the calculation, but essentially, the answer is 0o ! (The cylinders can rest virtually horizontal!) (3) Furthermore, if the coefficient of friction is unknown but in the range where slippage is possible, you have to solve the problem using Catastrophe Theory, and probabilistic models.

There is definitely more required than just the Conservation of Momentum/Energy. For instance, similar processes occur when various gases and liquids change phases. You need a more detailed balance sheet to explain where the energy and application of it came from which burst the pipe. However, there actually are in fact mechanisms to account for the energy. For instance, an almost infinite amount of energy can be stored in rotational motion (angular momentum) without significantly affecting the average translational speed of a molecule (until there are are collisions). A flywheel operates on a similar principle, storing energy which is available later for useful work. When molecules are 'frozen' into solids and stuck like magnets onto crystals, certain kinds of energy storage are no longer available, like rotational energy, and other forms of energy storage are restricted, like vibrational energies in covalent bonds. On average, diatomic molecules and molecules like water (H20) can store both rotational and vibrational energy when in liquid or gas form. These modes of motion are no longer available when the molecules become trapped as solids, and so the energy has to go somewhere. It is transferred through collision and Electromagnetic field exchanges to the container and the remaining gas/liquid.

One interpretation is that light itself doesn't experience time: time rate = 0.

This bizzare bit of video occurred just after a question period: Scientific analysis shows it is not a trick of lighting or simple camera error.

There is a huge difference between saying that processes like atomic clocks slow down, or observed rates of change are compressed, and saying there is no such thing as Absolute Time or Proper Time, or saying that Time itself is flexible or distortable in the sense of say a Riemannian manifold. These are philosophical issues of the validity, interpretation and the meaning and implications of physical theories. And they must be kept separate from the question of the accuracy, usefulness, and practical formulation of the same theories. The question of the truth of Special Relativity or the interpretation of its formalism is the branch called appropriately, metaphysics.

Yeah that works if you're superman, infiltrating the ring of corrupt cops. That way when they try to shoot you in the back at a stakeout, the bullets bounce off. Just ask John Kennedy how effective that is. Dealey Plaza

"Oh Ace' date=' you make me laugh!" (When Nature Calls) [ bubble me this: '] "I can tell by the urine stain on your pants, that you're a single-shake man. Far too busy for the follow-up jiggle." [ / bubble me tender ]

I think what he is saying is that time dilation isn't necessary to preserve the Lorentz transform. And he is right in this. For instance, you can derive the Lorentz transform straight from the Coulomb and Biot-Savart Laws without Special Relativity. Lorentz Transform Derivation (Select Physics button) But this way of deriving Lorentz won't give the correct formula for Cherenkov radiation and the Special Theory of Relativity is able to give the correct result.

While preventative medicine has a strong argument in its favour, in the case of criminal justice we have to balance this against individual human rights, because abuses of these rights is a criminal offence in itself. Some of the fundamental theoretical foundations of justice at least in the West rest in the following key principles: (1) Individuals are innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is upon the prosecution to establish guilt or innocence in cases of dispute. (2) Every citizen has the right to a fair and scientific trial, and is entitled to adequate and reasonable defence regardless of economic or racial, religious or gender status. (3) Every individual has the right to respect of privacy of person in absence of any critical overriding emergency involving the majority or the greatest good to the greatest number of people.

Actually, he has a strong point. Police not only manufacture statistics to increase their budgets, create 'scare tactics' to keep people afraid to criticise them, and even create crime itself, they cooperate with criminal organizations to perpetuate profit from crime. For instance, while crime actually has decreased significantly in almost every area that has been statistically analyzed, police propaganda teams manufacture alarmist stories around budget times, and even abuse anomalous incidents to justify selfish expansion of powers and weaponry, as well as ridiculous increases in pay. We have arrived at the point where ethically and morally, it is no longer possible to tell the cops from the criminals, given the widespread corruption and ideological perversion of policing as a profession.

Electromagnetic pulses could scramble or damage FET circuits.

All crackpot theories are not created equal. It is also a crackpot theory to put all non-conformist theories in the category of 'crackpot'.

This is all agreed. My point was only that by putting aside these versions of 'time reversal' and embracing a much simpler approach, namely the kind of 'time reversal' observed by running a film backward, one can account for attractive forces in an apparently straightforward manner. And an approach could be formulated that allowed for selective superimposition of both backward and forward motion as respective explanations of attractive and repulsive forces.

I think there is a subtle but real conceptual and physical difference between viewing a particle moving backward in time, and viewing the same particle as an anti-particle moving forward in time. Secondly, it should be obvious from the plain example of running a film backwards in time that one can account for attractive forces this way in a simple and straightforward manner. However this is not the same as the current model for anti-particle behaviour. This means that if we want to model attractive force, we have to have a selective and simple framework that can distinguish a time arrow for particle attraction from an arrow for particle repulsion.

Silly rabbits: The classical 'aether' concept suffered not from a lack of existance per se, but from a self-contradictory philosophical foundation and a lack of mathematical structures to adequately describe its observed behaviour. General Relativity solved both those problems, by adequately describing the behaviour of the aether via embedding Special Relativity in a geometric meta-manifold.

Exactly.Is this thread just a foil to baste straw 'creationists', or a trolling thread?

...except Creationists aren't any more evil than evolutionists. What crap.