Show Posts
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.
My point is: Luke calls the Falcon a piece of junk, but it actually outperforms almost all other ships of its class—that's what the "12 parsecs" figure was intended to mean.QuoteDoes a car's "trashiness" affect its ability to function as a car? The Millennium Falcon gets insulted as "a piece of junk" yet can do the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.
I can't say that I am a great authority on the Millenium Falcon or its performance. But the way this is worded makes it sound like the parsec is a unit of time. In astronomy it is a unit of distance equal to 3.26 lightyears. Whether they have re-invented the parsec in Star Wars as a unit of time I don't know.
This is pointed out in the Wikipedia page about the MF.
You have provided zero compelling evidence that this space ship is actually made of state-of-the-art space-age tin foil, tape, and cardboard paper, or whatever you guys are mumbling about.I provided a lengthy post from another site that explains, in a lot of detail and with many external links, what the lander is made out of and why it looks the way it does. At least 57 people thought it was helpful, which considering the traffic the site gets makes it far more reliable than the people the wiki cites, who have no credentials on the matter at all.
You guys are literally arguing "it only looks that way...", which is a failing argument that admits that it does look trashy.Does a car's "trashiness" affect its ability to function as a car? The Millennium Falcon gets insulted as "a piece of junk" yet can do the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.
You can absolutely discuss them separately. Their definitions don't even mention each other.What does that have to do with the topic of the nodes?
Nodal lines are directly involved in solar (and lunar) eclipses. Impossible to discuss one without the other. Nothing better than eclipses to help calculate and justify the nodal lines.
Interesting thread, but you guys have provided zero evidence for us to consider and discuss on this matter. Are we supposed to discuss what you "think"? Try to come up with actual content to consider.What made you think that my OP was guesswork?
Upon close inspection one might notice that the Lunar Lander, a supposed six billion dollar hallmark of American engineering, is in truth made out of cardboard paper, a few old curtain rods, a roll of roofing paper, some floodlight holders, gold foil, and lots and lots of scotch tape to hold it all together on the hostile environment of the moon's surface.Let's run through the list.
Perhaps the nodes should be defined as being from the observer's view of the crossing of paths?Go ahead, I'm sure the IAU would love to fundamentally redefine one of their most important terms so that a flat-Earther's diagram is correct.
It models the positions of the Sun, the Moon, and every known planet, using Newtonian gravity, general relativity, and some tidal-force effects studied. This information is one link away from the page I linked.If you guys want to know how prediction of the eclipses work, open any astronomy textbook or consult any astronomy source on the topic. That's how it's predicted. It's all there. If you are curious about the details, look into it. It has nothing to do with the Wiki.Here: http://eclipsewise.com/help/de405-predictions.htmlQuoteThe coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the JPL DE405 solar system ephemeris. This ephemeris consists of computer representations of the positions, velocities and accelerations of major Solar System bodies, tabulated at equally spaced intervals of time, covering the span 1599 Dec 09 to 2201 Feb 20. Beginning in 2003, the JPL DE405 has been the basis of the Astronomical Almanac. See Jet Propulsion Laboratory Developmental Ephemeris for more information of the JPL ephemerides.So not using the Saros cycle like you say it is.
It says that the model was only used to get the position of the sun, not to predict the eclipse.
Do some searching and you will find that JPL DE405 is based on perturbation prediction.
If you guys want to know how prediction of the eclipses work, open any astronomy textbook or consult any astronomy source on the topic. That's how it's predicted. It's all there. If you are curious about the details, look into it. It has nothing to do with the Wiki.Here: http://eclipsewise.com/help/de405-predictions.html
The coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the JPL DE405 solar system ephemeris. This ephemeris consists of computer representations of the positions, velocities and accelerations of major Solar System bodies, tabulated at equally spaced intervals of time, covering the span 1599 Dec 09 to 2201 Feb 20. Beginning in 2003, the JPL DE405 has been the basis of the Astronomical Almanac. See Jet Propulsion Laboratory Developmental Ephemeris for more information of the JPL ephemerides.So not using the Saros cycle like you say it is.
You know Einstein’s did a bunch of work on Quantum Mechanics that was poorly regarded and seen as him trying to validate his biases?Didn't he get a Nobel prize for his QM work though? Or are you referring to more obscure work?
Sagnac himself also thought that his experiment contradicted SR. The complaint that it doesn't apply has been experimentally disproven. It also occurs in transverse uniform motion. See the paper linked above for references.My first thought was that it was too generic of a title to be credible at all. Then I found out that they're 170 years old and publish one of the most respected journals out there.
Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science is publishing content which states that SR has been disproved through its EurekaAlert website:
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-03/ngpi-tst030116.phpQuotesnip
Give it another read. The F=ma example is the simplified state to which perturbations are applied; like the example of the simplified (traditional) model of the atom to which perturbations are applied because the simplified model does not represent reality.No, you use the simplified models because they're simpler and easier to work with. You don't need to solve
You can think of "Repulsive Radiance" (RR™) as the same of atomic nuclear force, it attracts electrons that has opposite polarity, but does not expunge the protons tied together, even having the same polarity.Electrons are held around the nucleus by electromagnetism. Nucleons are held against electromagnetism in the nucleus by a completely different force, the strong nuclear force.
The repulsion itself is proved by the fact that no electron plunges and it is consumed by the nucleus - even being strongly attracted, it is also strongly repulsed. The scientists also have plenty of calculations and formulas to explain the Sun's flares and winds that can blow matter far away, the case of particles and gases from comets, forming the long trails.Electrons can be captured by the nucleus. They usually don't because of centrifugal force.
Today I found this absolute masterpiece of misuse on the wiki, trying to "prove" that an infinite plane could have finite gravity:
https://wiki.tfes.org/images/e/ec/Infinite_Plane.gif
Let's start with statement (1). It appears to be invoking Gauss's law, but there are a lot of problems with it:
- S is a surface, you can't do a single integral over it
- Surface integrals are over dS, not dA
- You don't want flux, you want a triple vector integral
Just these problems are enough to reject this proof.
I’m afraid you are mistaken, it is possible to have finite gravity from infinite plane. The FES has depicted an accurate calculation.
Yes, I am surprised as well.
Your issues:
1. Surface integrals are often done this way in physics.
/integral{2*pi*r*dr}=pi*r^2.
I just computed the area of a circle with a single integral.
2. dS or dA are used interchangeably to denote a surface integral, depending on the textbook.
3. No. A triple vector integral makes no sense here. You want to compute a the flux of gravitational field lines through the closed surface, exactly how you would for an electric field.
The computation is correct and this is not a surprise. You can also have a finite electric field from an infinite plane of charge.
Many, many things on the wiki are incorrect physics or baseless unphysical claims, but this is not one of them.
