swansont

Your example was a quantum system and my example was a classical system. It's also harmonic, not anharmonic. Tossing in a link to a paper isn't a rebuttal. You need to discuss details.

Your point is?

If nobody observed this, you don't know how it happened. Was there a bounce? A glancing blow? Was there an explosion at some point? It looks like there are burn marks. Do you even know when the marks were made? Implausible isn't the same as impossible. You can flip a coin and have it come to rest on its edge. It's implausible for any one toss, but it happens.

As you show it it could be hitting a wall which would rotate it. When it falls through, it could re-orient itself vertically. It depends on how the canopy tears. It's not prone to giving way all at once - fabrics rip. There are way too many variables in play to be able to say that it must happen one way or certain things cannot happen. To exclude behavior you have to be able to point to some physical law that prevents that behavior.

You don't have enough relevant detail, but the crux of the matter seems to be if the paint on a heavy object can be scored/etched by an impact, with a pattern from the target of its collision, and I would have to say the answer to that is yes, that can happen.

! Moderator Note "May" isn't good enough. You have provided no link to any peer-reviewed research, but that seems to be par for the course for you. This might suggest a move to speculations, but there's no model or evidence, just conjecture, so it doesn't qualify.

Yes, I think it was the same actor. He was supposed to give the speech at the end of The First Duty where he "fell on his sword" for his team at the end of the show, but they ended up giving those lines to Patrick Stewart, because that's how it works. Apparently, at least for my friend (who had a planet named after him for another episode - "Narendra-3"). There are several names in TNG I recognize from some people I know. At least one is a name, said backwards. I also used to get advance word on upcoming plots. Noteworthy because it does not require assuming cows are spherical

My stat mech story: I'm not a solid-state physicist, so I didn't enjoy it much, but it was a required course (The book I had was...not good. And it was stolen from my office part way through the semester, so I had to buy another copy. But a professor wanted to buy it from me a year or so later. It may be the only physics textbook I ever sold). A friend attending a different grad school was in a similar situation. A friend of the both of ours was writing an episode of Star Trek: TNG and we helped a little with the plot line when we were together at vacation time. As an acknowledgement, he mentioned statistical mechanics in the dialogue and also injured Wesley Crusher http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/7210

OK. I think your dual-sensor system would work; it wouldn't be trivially fooled by a hand blocking one sensor since you would need two to trigger it, and the ordering tells you enter vs exit. If they were close enough then a simultaneous block confirms someone in the doorway. (Still can be foiled by a burglar team with mirrors or flashlights, but that makes for fun cinema)

! Moderator Note Two issues: 1. if this is a physics question you should leave the politics out of it, and not post it in politics. 2. Posting to advertise your blog is against the rules.

Is there a budget (money or equipment)? Do you mean two along a horizontal path? The time ordering tells you if they are entering or exiting? Is the doorway big enough for two people at a time?

The underlying issue of why we don't observe time dilation in clocks other than atomic clocks is that they simply don't have the precision for such a measurement. Gravitational time dilation frequency change near the surface is around a part in 10^16 per meter. The best pendulum clocks (Riefler) were good to around 10 ms per day, which is around a part in 10^7. No way you could determine g well enough to determine the frequency of a pendulum clock for that to matter even at that scale, and you're many orders of magnitude short of being able to see time dilation. Your best shot would be a quartz oscillator, but they tend to flicker and perhaps drift. You have an outside shot of measuring dilation with a >1 km difference in altitude if you could get oscillators better than a part in 10^13. Cryogenic sapphire oscillators could do that. But nobody would bother with this, because we already have more robust atomic clocks with which to do such measurements. And it occurs to me we have done this with the GPS satellites, whose oscillator frequency is dialed down because they run fast in orbit. Much larger distances, so there is a much larger effect. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5253894/ (see "relativistic effects on satellite clocks" The calculation end at eq. 36)

In a supernova you can get a signal from neutrinos. They move a little slower than c, though they arrive first because the light is also slowed by having to travel through a medium where n>1

I worded that awkwardly. (Changed wording without proofread). It’s the issue of not being potential energy

You make the model to simulate the forces and stresses, rather than to scale. That would be a reason to specify a scale model.

Not everything scales, so a naive scale model likely won’t work in any meaningful way. e.g. mass scales with volume, but if support strength scales with area (or any power other than 3), then a scale version of a support beam won’t behave the right way. You could potentially do it with a model, but not a scale model.

Just to clarify, your question and my answer were for the jet, not the octopus.

No, you can't say that because it depends on the position as well, and it's gravitational potential, not potential energy.

! Moderator Note One problem with your questions is they are not directed at the OP, and not on topic. Please stop hijacking threads to discuss your particular issues in understanding time. Split

! Moderator Note You need to stop doing that

Describing the equations is not the same as solving them. I strongly suspect you would not do so correctly, seeing as you insist on an incorrect answer. And electromagnetic forces on the wire disappear when charges aren’t in the wire? Hint 1: is the wire neutral, or does it have a net charge? Hint 2: what is the path of the arc?

Show your analysis. How do they not?

Yes, you’re on the right track. Gyroscopes are used to provide stability for satellites and control their orientation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_moment_gyroscope

! Moderator Note You need to recalibrate your attitude. Lashing out at the people taking the time to answer your questions and giving the feedback you ask for is unacceptable. This is not an invitation to respond in this thread and try and defend your actions.

What is the “laplas” force? Do you mean Laplace? The electrons can’t do work without contributing to the force. In any event, you’re just asserting that they don’t contribute. You haven’t done any analysis to show it.