swansont

WTF does this have to do with anything? And yet you gave an example of similarities, which is pointless as a rebuttal of my statement, and also does not buttress my statement. It only makes sense to make that observation if you are trying to say that philosophy and science are pretty much the same thing. Unless the point was to just go off-topic. The overlap isn’t the salient part for the point of discussion. So this ends up as a distraction.

Well, yeah. Something that’s inert doesn’t interact with other things. If you take away other things, a lot of things will seem inert. Acid is inert if it’s left to itself.

You are not a physicist. Perhaps you should consider that you are not in a position to declare what/who is right about matters of physics. There is no such thing as fictitious KE. I wasn’t correcting you grammar, I was correcting your physics.

Because it has no basis in physics. The screw threads exert a force on it along the axis of the threaded rod Fictional KE? No such concept would be taught if you were to take a physics class.

And? Having some similarities or overlap doesn’t make them the same thing. They’re still different disciplines.

Force is not a conserved quantity. If he had said energy, then ideally, that would be true. You’re going to have to do a better job of describing what you’re doing. Earlier you described magnetizing something, and now you’re putting magnets next to each other. When you put a magnet near a ferromagnetic material, work is done. You don’t appear to be acknowledging this. Energy doesn’t have to come from the magnet if you’re doing work.

It’s true that it would rotate if not for the guide bars, but then, it has the guide bars for just that reason Because “frame” in this context is short for “frame of reference” It’s the only possible context for discussing inertial vs non-inertial frames. It’s the only context where you could invoke the Euler force, which can only show up in a rotating frame of reference. Simply having a rotating object in a problem does not make it a rotating frame. I said coordinate system That you don’t realize you are using one is part of the problem. This isn’t relevant to the point I made. If you are using a rotating frame, things (that are stationary in an inertial frame) will appear to rotate. IOW, if your frame is one in which the threaded rod appears stationary, everything else will appear to be rotating. You stated at the outset that you aren’t a physicist. It’s obvious. You have overestimated how much you understand (this isn’t uncommon) No. You’ve been told this multiple times. This doesn’t matter. The system is whatever you define it to be. It might impact the details of analysis, but it ultimately won’t change the answer.

They can interpret the constitution in various ways. What they aren’t supposed to do is a substitution.

This is nonsense. You need to go learn some basic physics. A rotating object is not a rotating frame. The frame is the (set of) coordinate system(s). If your coordinate system is fixed, it is inertial. If your coordinate system is rotating, it’s not. Nothing you have shown (that I’ve seen) has been from a rotating frame. If it was, e.g. from the frame of the screw, then the chassis and mT would be rotating. You have not shown this. “an enclosed rotating frame” is nonsense. You need to learn some more physics. By all indications, you don’t understand what a frame of reference is.

How are you magnetizing the other magnets? Somewhere, work will be involved, or some other energy transfer. The magnetic field does contain energy, and would diminish if no energy is added to the system.

The issue is constitutionality, though. A judge is not supposed to replace that judgement with personal views. In fact, they take an oath to that effect. Rights are inherent, and some are enumerated in the Constitution. Laws ≠ rights The electorate does not decide constitutionality. They do have input on what is in the Constitution. What you might want is not necessarily what the situation actually is. Which highlights the change in the GOP

Since it must be possible to analyze this from an inertial frame, there is no Euler force. Switching the analysis doesn’t magically change the answer. (plus the fact that Newton’s laws don’t apply in the non-inertial frame, so you can’t do a valid analysis to see if it’s reactionless)

Ridiculous. If I have a block that’s angled pushing on another angled block (so there’s contacts along the whole block, and there’s friction), which is the analog to this, the force is not vertical. With the screw, including friction there may also be a vertical component, too

The threaded rod would impede progress, sure. So what? That exerts a force as well. There would be contact between the threads of the rod and the housing. It doesn’t “inhibit the presence of real forces”

The court that decided in favor of Roe was right-leaning. The GOP plan is to pack the court with judges willing to ignore precedent and apply personal, religious views. IOW, not decide on the merits.

Make it simple: a screw and a single pin, so we can analyze one point. The screw has a pitch, so as the screw rotates, the point of contact moves parallel to the axis of rotation, exerting a force. Mentioning it doesn’t mean you are right. In an inertial frame, there is no Euler force.

Bollocks.

Human, and that’s only a crude summary, since there’s detail that “interpretation” doesn’t necessarily cover. Philosophy and religion are also interpretations of the universe, but these are not science.

The screw exerts a force on the mass. The mass exerts a force on the screw. Real forces. That makes analyzing your list moot, as it starts with this force being fictitious

I haven’t bothered with the details because the basis of the argument is invalid. Once you posit that the moon is made of cheese, I don’t need to delve into the subsequent analysis. It would be a waste of time. Not at all. You can analyze linear actuators with newtonian physics in an inertial frame. It’s ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

It wasn’t congress passing laws that was the problem for abortion. It was individual states passing laws that were ruled to infringe on rights. One of issues is that states can’t take away federally-guaranteed rights. You might argue that congress not passing a law is the problem, but you don’t generally pass laws to say something is legal. You pass them to disallow certain actions.

This is ridiculous In a non-inertial reference frame - the situation where you have a fictitious force - the frame has some sort of acceleration. You do not account for the source of this acceleration. That’s the source of the “reactionless” motion. An object does not e.g. spontaneously veer away from a straight line. It only appears to do so in a rotating frame. We attribute it to a Coriolis force, which isn’t real, so we can get on with our analysis and pretend we have an inertial frame. There is no point in entertaining a discussion based in a non-inertial frame of reference. It has to be analyzed using an inertial frame. Did I speak of an observer? Did I say anything about being “away from the construction”? I don’t think you understand what a frame of reference is. It doesn’t matter if a rotating object is included. “has the rotating frame enclosed” makes no sense. A frame of reference is your coordinate system. (technically it’s a set of coordinate systems, because the origin is arbitrary) You can analyze rotating objects in an inertial frame. You won’t have any fictitious forces.

A frame of reference doesn’t “do” anything. It’s not supposed to do anything. It’s a frame of reference.

Original story https://www.popsci.com/story/animals/blue-whale-song-migration/

So analyze it from the inertial frame. Which goes away when you analyze it from the inertial frame.