Recent content by spikenigma

Yes, but philosophically the non-accelerating traveler can say. " Everybody agrees that this accelerated point on the frame is moving, I am moving along the x-axis with it, thus I am moving. "

There is , of course, no such thing as absolute velocity. An interesting thought, however, is a spinning cylinder in space and an observer flying past, parallel to it's spin with no acceleration. Everyone in the universe (even in an empty universe) will agree that the cylinder is spinning at...

Picking through the sarchastic replies, I can't seem to parse the answer to this question? Does the ground observer see an interference pattern through the one open slit on the train?, if so, isn't that disturbingly close to a forbidden preferred frame of reference?

hi, let's take something simple, for example: (a>b) && ((b>c) && c>d) || (d > c) Intuitively, it's easy to work out given the values of a, b, c and d and just evaluating the brackets in order of precedence. i.e. Is b > c?? then is c > d Then in addition to the above answer being...

Is there a difference between an electron changing spin in a high gravitational field and one changing spin in flatter spacetime?

I don't understand why the slowdown is even an issue, because between each ramp the car accellerates back up to terminal velocity - which is what prompted the entire scenario. If we assume mathematically that each ramp slows the car down by x % of it's velocity, does that % - even an...

Ha ha!, you what?, No scenario, super-engineering or no can break the laws of thermodynamics. Just trying to find out where and how it breaks down mathematically.

THANKYOU, Chris. This was the type of answer I was looking for. Thinking in terms of energy then. How about if you had 4 times as many pads, (likely incorrect calcs) following: Starting energy = mgh = 500 *10 * 55000 275MJ. Terminal velocity =165m/s. Per Pad 1.65MJ 200 of...

I understand it in a purely mathematical sense i.e. [Force to move an object up a gravity well >= Energy it loses moving down it], always. We all understand basic thermodynamics which you seem to keep repeating, but yet, you can't seem to answer my question with any figures relevant to the...

That's just it, you're not helping me. I already know the scenario is incorrect and will come to a halt as I stated in the OP. You're simply restating obvious facts. If somebody said that gravity is perpetual energy as the moon can tug on the Earth and not lose any velocity, I would state...

Thanks for quoting me basic thermodynamics rather than answering the specific scenario I outlined as requested.

Congratulations, you've just proven it takes more Energy to go up a hill than down it! Then you're quite literally fudging the question. If (as you say) it is impossible to predict "how much energy the leaf would generate" it could be argued that it could potentially generate a billion...

Ah, I see then. So the equivilent of: ...an intellectually honest person would have said "assuming wind %/friction %/drag %, then...at the first ramp...at the second ramp..." I'll wait for somebody else to reply with a more concise answer.

Apologies, my mistake. I seem to have wondered into the childrens forum where "nu-uh :-p " with more words, or "didn't think of wind resistance didya buster - case closed! (sucks lollypop) :approve: " constitute the descriptive answers I've asked for. A better answer would have been "at the...

Then (if you don't mind) talk me through what happens in the scenario generator by generator, and show some power calculations.