Breaking News
What if Gravitational Constant G Isn't?
8/10/2014

< Previous   Image 2 of 2   

Figure 2
The rotor ride spins and people inside the cylinder stick to the wall, irrespective of their mass. Riders are subject to three forces: weight, normal force, and frictional force.
(Source: stuegli.com)
The rotor ride spins and people inside the cylinder stick to the wall, irrespective of their mass. Riders are subject to three forces: weight, normal force, and frictional force.
(Source: stuegli.com)

< Previous   Image 2 of 2   

Return to Article

View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 5   >   >>
ScRamjet
User Rank
Author
Earth Moon Center of Gravity
ScRamjet   8/19/2014 8:56:27 AM
NO RATINGS
Max;  While I knew the moon had to affect Gravity I feel here on earth, I had not realized it was such a large change in the common center of mass.

Perhaps this explains why some days I feel really heavy and others I feel much lighter.

I had always attributed that to lack of rest but perhaps it is a combination.

I do know this and it's probably just all in my head. I always feel more energetic at a full moon.

Which brings to mind, There must be a similar shift of gravity center of the earth and the sun as well. Tthings that make you say, Hmmmmm.....

RichQ
User Rank
Author
Re: Ancient tides
RichQ   8/15/2014 3:01:17 PM
NO RATINGS
Could be I suppose. Plate tectonics and the rise of mountains that results does a better job of explaining it though.

jimfordbroadcom
User Rank
Author
Re: Ancient tides
jimfordbroadcom   8/15/2014 2:57:12 PM
NO RATINGS
@RichQ - Maybe those giant ancient tides can help to explain why fossils of sea creatures have been found on mountaintops?

jimfordbroadcom
User Rank
Author
Re: Gravitational model
jimfordbroadcom   8/15/2014 2:54:41 PM
NO RATINGS
@Bob Snyder - NASA the most trusted govt agency?  Not according to Richard Feynman who researched the Challenger disaster.  Didn't he say that NASA was the only govt agency that out-and-out lied to him?  Must have been because they had the most to lose.

jackOfManyTrades
User Rank
Author
Re: Gravitational model
jackOfManyTrades   8/15/2014 3:48:23 AM
NO RATINGS
Are the different health messages caused by science flapping around or caused by journalists attaching far too much significance to any research with shows a marginal benefit or danger?

RichQ
User Rank
Author
Ancient tides
RichQ   8/14/2014 1:56:20 PM
NO RATINGS
Max, depending on whose model you want to consider, estimates of ancient tides range from about 3X today's tides to tides of 1000 feet or more. Also, the length of the day seems to have been considerably shorter, on the order of 6 hours when the moon was formed. These are all estimates, of course, that depend on how you model the transfer of angular momentum from the earth to the moon over billions of years. Fossil records seem to show a length to the day of only 21.9 hours about 650 million years ago, and lasers measuring the earth-moon distance using mirrors left behind by Apollo astronauts confirm the creeping increase, so we're pretty sure things were considerably different long ago. But how different is mostly a matter of conjecture and modeling.

I personally favor the idea of 1000 foot tides occurring every few hours. It would go a long way toward explaining why the ocean is as salty as it is.

Here's some reading for you:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-rotation-summer-solstice/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/09/12/160944289/time-moves-with-the-moon

Bob Snyder
User Rank
Author
Re: Gravitational model
Bob Snyder   8/13/2014 12:43:35 PM
NO RATINGS
I think it's quite rational for educated people to be somewhat skeptical of scientific consensus. Most people probably experience Science most frequently in the context of Health and Medicine. Most people like their doctors and trust them, but they also realize that medical professionals, and the medical research community, are fallible. Many of us have changed our daily habits due to medical consensus, only to learn that the consensus had been reversed or revised at a later date.

When I was growing up, people were advised to eat liver and other organ meats because they contained lots of vitamins. We were advised to use stick margarine in place of stick butter. A decade ago, adults over a certain age were advised to take a baby aspirin every day to protect their hearts. All of this advice was based upon medical consensus which was subsequently revised or reversed in light of new or better data.

Medical researchers are not dishonest. They are doing the best they can with data that is frequently incomplete and/or ambiguous. Scientists, and the scientific community, are fallible.

Until recently it was generally accepted that the universe is expanding, but at a steadily decreasing rate, and that eventually the universe would collapse in upon itself. In light of recent evidence, it is now generally accepted that the universe is expanding at a steadily INCREASING rate.

Satellite altimetry is providing new insights into the dynamics of ocean waves and currents as well as vertical movements of land masses. I would be very surprised if our understanding of sea level does not change in significant ways in the coming decades.

Rodney.Sinclair
User Rank
Author
Re: Gravitational model
Rodney.Sinclair   8/13/2014 12:29:02 PM
NO RATINGS
This is complete nonsense -- it represents a dogmatic anti-religious attitude more than it does a logical argument.

It is also irrelevant to the discussion(s) at hand.

MeasurementBlues
User Rank
Author
Re: Gravitational model
MeasurementBlues   8/13/2014 9:19:05 AM
NO RATINGS
The non-experts use religion to counter the experts. Religion is how we explain the unexplainable. Most people don't understand scientific explanations and therefore they don't trust them. But, they trust religious explanations. Fact vs. faith. Faith wins until proven otherwise and then the experts say "We told you so, you didn't believe us, and now it's too late."

In the global warming debate, we have experts saying one thing and complete non-experts saying the opposite. Yes, it is wise to be a bit skeptical about expert opinion. A bit. It is utterly insane to not be at all skeptical about inexpert opinion.

Rodney.Sinclair
User Rank
Author
Re: Exponent of 2.0
Rodney.Sinclair   8/13/2014 9:09:00 AM
NO RATINGS
Nor do we currently have good reason to think that it isn't a conservation-like process.

Page 1 / 5   >   >>
Most Recent Comments
michigan0
 
SteveHarris0
 
realjjj
 
SteveHarris0
 
SteveHarris0
 
VicVat
 
Les_Slater
 
SSDWEM
 
witeken
Most Recent Messages
9/25/2016
4:48:30 PM
michigan0 Sang Kim First, 28nm bulk is in volume manufacturing for several years by the major semiconductor companies but not 28nm FDSOI today yet. Why not? Simply because unlike 28nm bulk the LDD(Lightly Doped Drain) to minimize hot carrier generation can't be implemented in 28nm FDSOI. Furthermore, hot carrier reliability becomes worse with scaling, That is the major reason why 28nm FDSOI is not manufacturable today and will not be. Second, how can you suppress the leakage currents from such ultra short 7nm due to the short channel effects? How thin SOI thickness is required to prevent punch-through of un-dopped 7nm FDSOI? Possibly less than 4nm. Depositing such an ultra thin film less then 4nm filum uniformly and reliably over 12" wafers at the manufacturing line is extremely difficult or not even manufacturable. If not manufacturable, the 7nm FDSOI debate is over!Third, what happens when hot carriers are generated near the drain at normal operation of 7nm FDSOI? Electrons go to the positively biased drain with no harm but where the holes to go? The holes can't go to the substrate because of the thin BOX layer. Some holes may become trapped at the BOX layer causing Vt shift. However, the vast majority of holes drift through the the un-dopped SOI channel toward the N+Source,...

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed