« on: Today at 18:02:47 »
Let us know when you see the tyre cords.
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.
Are you suggesting that we should care if the calculation is actually right?As an aviator and an engineer, I always care if the calcs are correct. As do my customers and investors.
It is sufficient for the inertial mass to be proportional to the gravitational mass. Any multiplicative constant will be absorbed in the definition of the unit of forcewhich is exactly what this stupid engineer said earlier.
I am confused, why is gravity involved at all ? It was Einstein who stated that gravity was indistinguishable from acceleration, nothing there about a Universal gravitational field.Which is why nobody else has mentioned one. All I have insisted upon is that your test objects be subjected to the same gravitational field, whereupon, as Galileo demonstrated, they behave identically, and as Cavendish demonstrated, F = GmM/r2 holds for all m and M.
I think "science journalism" is an oxymoron, like "military intelligence".Quote from: Guardian Graph, linked by bored chemistFossil fuels decreased by 42%; Gas increased by 38%I'm not quite sure how to interpret these two lines in the graph...
- Last time I checked, Gas was a fossil fuel (unless UK is using a very different gas than Australia...)
The accelerationWhat acceleration? Once the primordial body has exploded, there is no further force acting on the shrapnel. That's the problem with CGI in space fiction movies: exploding spacecraft don't boil and billow like cumulus clouds, they just expand radially and very quickly.
One of the objects weighs 20 kg and the other object weighs 10 gm. If a force of 10 N is applied to each of these objects what happens? The object weighing 10 gm acquires an acceleration of 100 m/s2 and travels 100 m in 1 second, while the object weighing 20 Kg acquires an acceleration of 0.5m/s2 and travels a distance of 0.5m in one second. How can one equate acceleration due to a force with gravity?That rather misses the point. A gravitational field that applied 10N to the 10 g object would, as Galileo, Newton and Einstein agree, apply 20 kN to the 20kg object, and the resultant accelerations would be identical. And the distance travelled would be 50 m in the first second. s = ut +˝at2 - or at least it did in 1957.
The accelerating expansion of the universe also shows that the universe is being prevented from collapsing back to the same state as before the big bang.Not according to Newton's first principle!
IIRC Newton actually considered density to be the primal factor, mass being the product of density and volume. This is rigorous as density is the general property of a material (iron) and mass is merely the property of a particular lump of said material (cannonball).According to Newton, gravity acts according to the density of the object. What this means is that the force of gravity exerted on an object is determined solely by the density of the object and not by any other property.I think you will find that Newton said “gravity acts according to the mass of the object”
This is also the case for inertial acceleration.
You can't survive long after being caught stealing or killing someone.There's difference between breaking a rule and being caught. Crime pays at least as well as legitimate stock investment.
The rise of autonomous vehicles reminds us on the need to develop appropriate moral rules applicable for non-human conscious agents.The Laws of Robotics superficially cover all the requirements, but Asimov made a living by pointing out the practical limitations and complications of mechanistic application of moral rules.
you can't survive by breaking every moral rule imaginable, especially the "you should not commit suicide" oneThat may be your moral rule but it isn't mine. You might consider it immoral to eat animals (vegan) or onions (Jain) but lot of people survive on beefburgers.
You can also get carbon credits for regrowing a forest that got cut down a century ago. And trees continue growing even in light winds.Good point. I haven't cut my lawn, and I have about 100 sq m of untamed thicket with all sorts of wild trees and shrubs growing on it, so I can burn as much AVGAS as I like and claim to be a zero-carbon aviator. Better still, if we don't cut the grass between the runways or the boundary hedge, we can claim the entire airfield as good for the environment.