swansont

Probably not. How much sway does the church hold over the science community as opposed to even 100 years ago? The biggest vector is probably the church via government. We can see this in e.g. stem-cell research limitations in the US, but by and large, I don't think there's a lot of influence, and I get the impression it's even less in Europe. And countries where Christianity isn't a dominant religion wouldn't be affected very much. China, Japan, etc. wouldn't be slowed by this.

The shock wave in water would be an interesting phenomenon. A problem with streamlining a submarine hull is that it's not the best shape for a pressure hull. Keeping out pressures above atmosphere are a priority for submarines, whereas planes never have to deal with a static difference greater than 1 atm, usually it's even less, and when it's an issue it's about keeping air in rather than being crushed. An autonomous or remotely-piloted vehicle would be required.

! Moderator Note Are there testable predictions here? A way to falsify the idea? I don’t see an actual model

Invert gamma (which is alpha) and square it. Rearrange v^2/c^2 = 1 - alpha^2 Take a square root

A rotating magnet. What’s the difference if you rotate the coil or you rotate the magnet? The change in flux is the same.

No, it’s not. It shows you don’t understand electromagnetism Experiment is the only way you can falsify a theory Here’s the experiment I did http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/9120 Spinning magnet dropped through a coil.

Could you be more specific? I don't see a use of the reciprocal for speed. I see a reciprocal for gamma mentioned, which they call alpha. Is that what you're referring to? The only mention of "reciprocal" is in this context.

Good question. Why don't you do this experiment, instead of mucking about with qualitative descriptions? (I've done a similar one - spun a magnet inside of a coil, and got oscillatory behavior. So your objection has to be more specific in detailing what's wrong with Faraday's law) Why is the current a maximum when the wire loop is in the vertical position in your first example, but there is no current induced in that configuration here?

It already has, so it probably will in the future. A significant number of people live past 100 already.

! Moderator Note So there’s no basis for a conjecture here. Just a WAG, which is not what we do.

Is there any reason to think these are connected?

Please don’t lump me in with politicians

! Moderator Note As Mike has been escorted across the river Styx, this is closed

I don’t see how this is in disagreement with my response.

The tension and the frictional force are equal. They are the centripetal force. You are using friction, but you could also just bolt the mass to the rod - it doesn’t matter. The rod isn’t stretching, so there can only be that one force present, regardless of the source. When you have uniform circular motion, the net force is the centripetal force, however that net force physically manifests itself. It’s from a torque exerted on the rod. Tension is always directed toward the origin. If this were somehow greater than the centripetal force, r would decrease. When you increase w, you no longer have uniform circular motion. Friction does not supply enough of a force to have that be true. The net force is no longer toward the center of the circle

This should be done in a circular coordinate system. You’re already using variables from it. The frictional force is not u.T The tension will never be greater than the centripetal force, because it is the centripetal force

Scientists are human, and humans have both rational and irrational thought processes

Yes, you are quite correct. Written permission, because you have something to point to if there is a subsequent disagreement.

Not ones that will work. We already looked at the end of the story. Newton wins. The ONLY way to refute an existing (i.e. experimentally tested and mathematically self-consistent) theory is with experimental evidence. Until such time as you build a device that moves on its own, you will not have shown Newtonian physics to be wrong. All you can offer is analysis that is flawed in some way, and all of your efforts have either been to try and hide the flaws, or by baldly asserting that they aren't flaws (which requires an experiment; see above) This is the playbook that we see over and over again. 1. Convince yourself that your idea is right. 2. Analyze your idea with physics 3. Contort the analysis to reach the conclusion you desire 4. If the flaw is obvious, obfuscate by making the example more complex Whereas in reality, if your analysis reaches a conclusion that violates laws of physics, you know you made a mistake someplace. The math is internally consistent, so this just points to a math error.

Permission requires a response. You don't have it until they actually respond in the affirmative. (This applies to more than copyright.)

Possibly. If it passed in front of light sources we could notice that they had been blocked. We might be able to gain distance and velocity information from that blockage and from gravitational lensing. There would also be radiation given off from the accretion disk, as it gobbled up matter. But if it was "about to enter our galaxy" we would have many years to notice it. We're more than 10,000 LY from the edge radially, and several hundred LY from the top or bottom of our part of the disk.

An accelerometer is a real device and will not register fictitious forces. It doesn't matter what frame you are in. If your connection to the mass was a spring, it would extend until it was supplying the required centripetal force (because springs follow F = -kx). It will have this extension regardless of which frame you analyze the motion in. It's a real event, and everybody agrees on it. There is no centrifugal force. This is an inertial frame analysis. One approach might have been not to do any analysis in a rotating frame, which people have been pointing out for basically this entire thread. You misunderstand basic physics, and are trying to do analysis that's more difficult (IMO) Basically you're adding non-Newtonian physics and your misconceptions, and it's unclear whether your misconceptions are with Newtonian or the non-Newtonian parts

No this is not correct. The radial force isFnet(ω1) and it remains that value, because that's the frictional force the system can supply. But there is also a tangential force, because you are increasing the angular speed, and the mass is moving, so the linear speed in increasing As long as r is increasing, there will be a tangential force. r keeps increasing until it hits the stop (lets call that radius R)

Even at w2 the motion is not circular, because thr frictional force is equal to mw12r1 Since both r and w have increased, you need a larger force in order to have circular motion. The mass will slide until it hits the stop, which will then provide an additional force

I'm not sure what summing the net forces is supposed to tell you, and you change the sum to a difference in the middle of that last set of equations. The net force at t2 is mw22r2 if the object is moving in a circle at that point and you've declared that the frictional force (the actual force that is acting as the centripetal force) is smaller than this, so this equation will not actually give you the net force. It's only valid for circular motion. What this tells you is the motion is not circular at t2 (or any time ofter you increased the angular speed)