MigL

Hey, stop blaming the Brits Neither A Einstein or E Mach were British

Is there a difference. They both wanna take over the world .

Sorry. Make that "Neither I, nor any other scientifically minded person, that I know of, has ever gone..."

I'm simply going to assume that any system rotating fast enough to have a stress-energy-momentum increase non-trivial enough to cause gravitational collapse, would have lost gravitational cohesion, and flown apart, long before it got to that rotation speed. ( I'll leave the math to you Markus )

Read the rules and repost. Thank you.

I have used a cordless drill to hammer in a nail... Too lazy to climb down off the roof to go get the hammer. I suppose Religion is the 'lazy' way to explain things; you don't have to put in the effort that science requires. ( not that I have a problem with Religious beliefs; I, personally, have no need ) One thing I do find frustrating... Neither I, nor any other scientifically minded person ( I wouldn't presume to call myself a scientist ), has ever gone to a Religious discussion forum, and posted mathematical proofs, or scientific observations. We seem to know the difference. Yet Religious people regularly come to this scientific discussion site, and 'preach' Religion. Why do they assume science and Religion can be discussed in the same context ?

While a multitude of bosons are allowed in the same state, according to B-E statistics, and F-E statistics puts limits on the number of fermions in any one state. Keep in mind that 'state' is not necessarily equivalent to 'place'. IOW, take a look at electron orbitals. Another factor to keep in mind... To establish a 'size' for a quantum particle, you are, in effect, placing it in a 'box' and seeing how small you can make that box. Unfortunately the HUP has a large effect when that constraining 'box' becomes too small, and the particle's momentum becomes so indeterminate that it may possibly exceed the speed of light. At this point the situation becomes non-sensical, and the best you can do is establish a lower bound for the size of the particle.

Yeah, I think they're calling themselves Skynet...

"Dispersionless', is that what it's called ? I always thought it was the difference between 'independent' and 'dependent' probabilities. Independent get multiplied, while dependent probabilities get added and the probability that multiple events happen is subtracted from that. And since in this case there is only one particle, there are no multiple ' event' probabilities to subtract.

Oh sure, Zap. And when V Y GER comes back, in about 200 years, after having sustained damage and merging with an alien probe, looking for its creator and threatening to destroy the world... No, wait... That's a movie.

Psssstt. We don't call them pole dancers; It's the 'ballet'.

It's concentrated, i.e. stronger. I've used it once or twice, to clean oil stains on the concrete driveway. ( I change my own automotive oil ) Sweep it in with a whisk broom, and neutralize with lots of baking soda. When pH paper shows neutral, you've made salt, water and CO2. ( and wear PPE, the stuff fumes badly )

Yeah, I was thinking along the lines of this ancient centrifugal separator we use at work. A slurry is pumped into a large, filtering drum which is rotating rapidly. The cloth filter traps solid particles ( mostly sulfur with some triisobutyldithiophosphinate ), and although pumped in asymmetrically, the slurry/solids disperse around the perimeter and effectively become filtering media. If this didn't happen, the imbalance would ruin the bearings in a matter of minutes.

Right; the external force does not need to act through any axis. A 'torque' can be offset from the center of mass, and impart rotation. A top can spin about the axis through its center of mass, but it might be at an angle to the vertical, so it isn't spinning through its center of gravity. ( rotations that don't pass through the CoM, lead to imbalances, and that 'torque' will tend realign the rotation, or in extreme cases, break apart the rotating object ). So make sure your wheels/tires are properly balanced. This is one of those questions where framing the question correctly gives you one right answer, but not being specific enough gives you many possible right answers

Studiot is correct in the case where an external force is actively causing rotation. Maybe you mean the case where an initial force causes rotation of a system of 'loose' objects, and then through collapse, and angular momentum conservation, picks up rotational speed. it would tend to rotation about the axis passing through its center of mass ( which might not necessarily be its center of gravity ). X-posted with Strange and SilentSky23

I recommend closing this thread. No one can possibly learn anything from it, most certainly not the OP. ( who seems to have an aversion to learning, as he THINKS he knows it all ) Besides... I thought he was leaving.

You must be from Papua, New Guinea. ( don't worry about it, you wouldn't understand that either ) Anyway... So long, and good luck finding someone who cares about your crap. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

The doughnut shape was an example. It is not viable exactly because it has an 'outside'. A flat torus would be more appropriate, but you wouldn't have known what it means. ( look it up ) And no, that is not a pearl, because you refuse to acknowledge your limitations. ( and the help actually needed is NOT refinement )

Two very important concepts you don't seem to grasp. The universe, in the Big Bang model, evolves from a smaller version of itself, where separation between non-gravitationally bound objects decreases, as you go further backwards in time. The logical end result of this backward trip in time, is a singularity, but there are many reasons to discount the singular universal beginning, so we conjecture a hot dense initial state. Once expansion ( and/or inflation ) starts, we have an era that is dominated by radiation, as electrons cannot sick to protons to form atoms. The ambient 'energy' ( temperature ) is like in the Sun, a plasma, and only when the temperature drops below 3000 deg C , will electrons bond to protons without ionizing. If we consider this temperature, and factor in the approximate expansion of the universe since the end of the radiation era ( slightly more than 1000 times, we get the temperature of the CMB ( I believe G Gamow first did this calculation in the 40s ) of 2.7 deg C. And sure enough, Penzias and Wilson found the CMB in the 50s, at just that temperature. You cannot be 'outside' the universe. Saying that 'if you cannot visualize it it doesn't exist', is a cop-out for that reason. Where is the center of a doughnut shape, if you are INSIDE ? And since anytime you are looking into a distance, you are in effect, looking back in time ( finite speed of light ), it makes no sense to consider only 3dimensional volumes. You need to consider 4dimensional space-time. Can you visualize that ??? Both of these concepts also explain why the CMB has not passed by you. The CMB is the relic radiation of EVERY POINT in the universe, not a specific location, so it can never pass you by on its way to somewhere else. One final point... You ask us to discuss your conjecture based solely on 'logic' ( not mathematically defined logic, but personal subjective 'logic' ), yet you demonstrate that you lack the basic knowledge of even some of the things you are trying to explain, such as Dark Matter. ( I would hate to hear what your take on Dark Energy is ) You are basically asking people to waste their time discussing your conjecture, as all indications are that any mathematical model will be similarly flawed. You wan't to build a skyscraper, yet you lack the foundations to build it on; why not ask questions where you lack knowledge, and build a foundation. Then you'll have some idea as to what kind of building you can build on those foundations

I don't know where you're from, Joygus ( the 'origin' doesn't tell me much ), but the days when schoolteachers became teachers for the love of teaching are gone. I guess teachers are only human. ( remember when sports were for the love of the game ? ) Here in the Canadian province of Ontario, a schoolteacher, with all his/her training up to date earns over $ 100 000 per year while working for the school board. That is with two summer months, one PD day every month, Christmas vacation, reading week and March break , off. And the best benefits package, and pension this side of politicians. That's even if they're teaching 1st grade, and almost twice as much as private school teachers. It wasn't always like that. In the 70s, I did have a couple of teachers that deeply influenced my life, both deceased now. One was an engineer who taught Physics, the other was a hard-a*s Algebra teacher who almost failed me in Gr 13. My University teachers were all quite decent, maybe because it was a very small university, and there was only two Physics students in my 4th year, and lots of interaction. On any given day, the Prof, I, and the other student would be at our own sections of board scribbling equations. The only one who I didn't have experience with ( everyone thought he was young and clueless ) is now the head of the department ( Ha-ha ). These teachers/Profs that influenced me, didn't 'dumb' things down, or sensationalize science and math. First question asked of us in Gr 10 Physics ( 14 yrs old ) was " Are you moving ?" I was the only one to reply "Relative to what ?"

It will be interesting to see how they plan to test for that, as we can barely establish the existence of the Higgs field. I don't think, after the 'cost' of this pandemic, a collider larger ( more energetic ) than the LHC will be built anytime soon. It will have to be a more 'nuanced' approach.

Did not know you wear panties, JC . ( not that there's anything wrong with that ) Don't you know you shouldn't 'out' someone against their wishes, INow ?

Its a shame that little girls ( little boys also ) don't get to vote, INow. E Warren is fairly young, I'm sure she will contest the nomination again. Without J Biden or B Sanders, she would own the nomination. The MeToo movement has been moving for a couple of years now, JC. Yet as late as last year, T Reade claimed in interviews that there was 'flirting' with J Biden, but never an assault. It was only early this year that she lobbed the assault allegation.

Can you use a more 'washed out' font ? Someone might actually be able to read your post. Wouldn't want that to happen, would you ?

We can discuss E Warren again in 4 years time, or, if J Biden decides to select her as his running mate. ( would not be a bad idea, she would be VP for 4 years, and probably POTUS during the next 4 ) Does anyone else think T Reade's story has a few holes ? She claims that, post incident, she told people about it, including her brother. Now, other people might have forgotten an incident from 27 years ago, but I find it hard to believe a brother could easily forget his sister's assault, no matter the amount of time passed. Yet he did, only to subsequently remember in great detail. She claims she doesn't want to influence the election, yet she puts out her story 7 months before the election, and, she wants J Biden to drop out. Any reason she gives for coming forward with the accusations now, was just as valid when B Obama chose J Biden for VP. So why now ?