Klaynos

You can't add information with processing. With adaptive optics you can add information.

Me neither. My back of the envelope gave the same numbers, 12N for the friction then 0.6 for the coefficient.

There are. I recall a TV show a few years ago. I recall a few difficulties. Fuel (length of flight). Stable control. Safety. People had been working on them for decades with limited success. The time of flight seemed the real kicker for any real use.

I think you're still missing a term reread the question.

This is where you start to go wrong. If it was written as 5N friction for every 1000N of weight, does that make or clearer? My back of the envelope doesn't agree... 120 000 Kg Goes to 1 200 000 N for the weight. Which is then 1200 *5 for the friction.

Draw the diagram. You've just said that the overall (net) force is 0. The question gives you some other forces. Draw them on. Draw the diagram. You've just said that the overall (net) force is 0. The question gives you some other forces. Draw them on.

You do not need to know the speed. F=ma If speed (velocity) is constant what does a=? Have you drawn a diagram showing the forces?

You don't need time or distance. Draw a force diagram, what must be true if the locomotive is at a constant velocity?

In science ideas must be testable and falsifiable. Also he wasn't silenced he is free to start up his own forum, blog etc... Or to walk and start shouting his ideas. This forum is not public property you have no right to post here it is a privilege from the owners. If you don't like how it is run you can leave.

Are you familiar with the concept of displacement in kinematics?

Hey Travis, our forum rules clearly state that people sound have enough information to respond to threads without clicking any outside links.

Chemtrails are rubbish.

I've not read the article but the nearest I've seen to "weather control" is cloud seeding. Which is a long way from what most people think of.

Culture? In the 19th century pink was associated with boys.

The universe? To the ball it doesn't matter what the force is acting on it only that there is a force. It could be a sting or gravity, it doesn't matter, it is an object being acted on by a force. The ball and string is a nice example as it or clear the string cannot apply an outward force.

On the ball, sorry autocorrect on my phone. We're talking about the ball do the centripetal force acting on the ball comes from the string and as we're talking about the ball it is at the ball end. Where is any possible centrifugal force acting on the ball coming from?

Where the centripetal force comes from on the string is irrelevant for the question of where a centrifugal force acting on the back comes from. If you can't answer the question admit it.

This is not trivial as the eye has a reflex to look away when damage starts. I'm not sure whether that reacts faster to large area damage.

Rolling balls are certainly not frictionless else they wouldn't roll, they'd slide. Yes the situations are different, yours is more complicated, given this thread is suggest a simpler example might be better.

The paper I gave earlier provides the maths to answer this. It uses rolling balls on a tossing table as that's a little easier than things like coins as the free ruling assumption makes a nice simplification.

Add as many magnets add you like the forces are all coming from the magnets, not from nothing. The system will oscillate if stated not at equilibrium and then stop.

Only if you misuse the word theoretically or the theory.

Vacuum won't remove friction. And true vacuums don't exist.

That very much depends on the idea, who you're sharing with and the field. It also depends on your reasons for sharing.

Magnetism exists. That is well known.