Job done, sir.
The following users thanked this post: Bored chemist
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Maybe it's just meNot just you.
Why do artificial satellites of the Earth rotate by inertia longer than artificial satellites of the Moon?I think a citation is needed. Conservation of angular momentum says that any rotating object will continue rotating unless an external torque is applied to it. I have never heard of any artificial satellites ever being anywhere long enough for enough external torque to be applied to halt its rotation. Slow a tiny bit perhaps, but tidal forces are the only force I can think of that would do this, and they're just not strong enough when acting on something as small as any artificial satellite we've put up anywhere, regardless of which object it happens to orbit.
Except that's not how any of this works. Masses spread out surrounding the Solar system would cancel each other's tidal influences on the Sun out, they would not add up. We see this same thing when the Sun and Moon are at right angles to each other in the sky. We get less intense tides as they work against each other.
That is perfectly OK
The oort cloud extends up to 3.2LY away from the Sun and sets the border of the solar system.
Therefore, it is very clear that even if we just focus on the 400 stars that are located up to 20 LY away from the sun (and ignore all the other millions that are located further away) we should discover that they set severe tidal heat forces on the Sun while each one works from different location.
"Changing rotation inside a mass makes it possible to change its inertial properties. It is the equation for a jet motion without rejection of any mass.? Albert Einstein.I never said that.
My theory predicts PE2 particles (anti-protons) should be unstable in a positively charged universe.
What exactly do you think I was saying in that quote?What is being violated without dark matter is basic Newtonian law. We have objects (our solar system say) that accelerate far more than can be accounted for by the sum of the forces applied by all the various baryonic masses in the galaxy. Thus there must either be more (a lot more) mass that isn't baryonic, or Newton's laws (the inverse square one concerning gravitational attraction) are wrong.Your explanation is valid as long as we ignore the arms.
There is no "arm" in [Halc's same] explanation.The rotation curve comment you quote also does not mention 'arms'. What do you think the wiki comment says? Why was a reference to my comment (especially my lack of mention of 'arms') relevant to this comment?
In order to get better understanding, please also see the following:
"The rotation curve of a disc galaxy (also called a velocity curve) is a plot of the orbital speeds of visible stars or gas in that galaxy versus their radial distance from that galaxy's center."
Quote from: Dave Lev on 08/07/2022 06:22:55Here you actually make a point. Stars closer to the center go around much more often than the ones further out. The ratio of 5 is poor mathematics, but the ratio is not far from that. You're giving evidence that your assertions are wrong. Not sure why you're doing this.
Please set each star at a fixed velocity and fixed orbital radius.
Based on my basic logic, while a star at 15KPC complete only one galactic cycle, a star at the same arm at 3KPC would have to set 5 orbital cycles.
So please, based on your superior logic, how many orbital cycles (for the one at 15KPC) are needed in order to break the spiral arm structure?
As you think that you do understand, then please advice what is the meaning of the following message:OK, since you quoted that, what do you think it says? This is a reading comprehension test remember.
"The bar in the center and the spiral arms are thought to rotate at different speeds. If they are disconnected the bar shows its true and smaller structure (left). Every time they meet, the bar appears longer and its rotation slower (right). Credit: T. Hilmi / University of Surrey"
In all seriousness though, since birds are born into a world that has glass, then it would seem that glass is part of a birds natural environment.
The idea is crazy try to think of this: my body is 60 kg and when I lift it I must exert the same force I exert to lift a heavy rock of 60 kg but I move or lift lighter body of say 20 kg even though it should be heavy like the rock.How many times can you do pull ups?
I think like this can be thought of : people are familiar with lifting or moving heavy loads do you think you really jump, dance , walk, run, walk upside down,etc doing these with a load of your body 70 kg?