Recent content by Herman Trivilino

Nope. Just nope. Pushing the water through faster, even if it produced water, the water would not be filtered.

I can't speak for the OP and I don't know if you're referring to this equation in particular or in general. But this is what I would mean for the equation ##v=v_o +at##. I would start with students performing guided activities in front of an ultrasonic motion detector or the like, connected to...

##\vec{L} = \vec{r} \times \vec{p}## does imply the relationship between the directions of ##\vec{L}## and ##\vec{\omega}##. So the latter is a consequence the former.

But even in those cases the direction of ##\vec{\omega}## relative to the direction of ##\vec{L}## is a consequence of the definition ##\vec{L}=\vec{r}\times\vec{p}##. Is it not?

Note these are consequences of the definition of angular momentum: ##\vec{L}=\vec{r} \times \vec{p}##.

That's a common misuse of the terminology. We refer to a rest frame as a frame of reference in which something is at rest. So the correct phrasing would be to simply state that you are at rest in your "impossible" frame of reference. Or the "impossible" frame is your rest frame. It's good that...

By spindle "changing" you mean ##\vec{\omega}## of the rotating object changing direction? Then, yes.

That follows from the definition of angular momentum. He states "torque due to gravity". So you don't see that a torque by definition requires a force? Or you don't see where the force of gravity comes from?

What do you mean by enter a reference frame? What are you trying to learn?

The thing is, without data to support that conclusion we have, well, no data to support it!

That's because you already have or others have done so for you. My point is that conclusions like that cannot be arrived at by reasoning alone. Experimental or observational evidence is a requirement.

There is no single reason that would be valid for everyone. You would need to design a question that would probe that issue. You would likely get a distribution of different reasons. This is the kind of thing physics education researchers (PER) might do to try to improve instructional...

My point is, they are a distraction. Doesn't matter how deep they are. The distance ##x## will increase. Put two marks on the disk and measure the distance ##x## between them. The value of ##x## will increase regardless if there are holes or cavities next to the points, between the points, or...

Every one-dimensional measurement increases by the same ratio. Put two marks anywhere on the disk and the distance between them will increase as described by ##\Delta L=L_o\alpha \Delta T##. The holes in the disk are a distraction.

When I'm doing spacetime calculations I'm using the same math used by block universe proponents, but I'm not thinking of the future as fixed. Am I using a different interpretation? Does it have a name?