Thanks for the responses, everyone. I will probably be going to UCR and then apply to a higher-ranked school (like UCSB) for the graduate program, saving me the debt but also giving me a top degree.
I have recently been accepted as a major in Physics to UCR, UCI, and UCSB. I know that UCSB is the highest ranked of all the UC's in Physics particularly (except Berkeley, which I did not get in to), but my main dilemma here is that there are other factors in play.
With where I live, I could...
Sorry, I wasn't sure if this counted as beginner since it's not about an actual astrophysical concept.
So if only a little bit flies off, there isn't a risk of it short circuiting anything? Could the highly pure nature of the water also help this?
For example, the numerous (but all tiny)...
Obviously, just about anywhere you go in the ISS, the walls are lined with electronics. Potentially a silly question, but why don't the astronauts need to be more careful when they handle water, considering that it could short circuit the electrical systems?
Example:
Ah, I see what you mean there. In a purely theoretical sense, though, is it not true that the point exactly along the axis of rotation would not be rotating, even though every single other point would be rotating with the same angular speed? For example, with a merry go round, although no matter...
Is that caused by being not exactly at the south pole, but near it, thus still rotating (which is why the sun appears to move in a circle)? I don't theoretically see how a point along the axis of rotation could be moving at all. The speed of rotation on Earth varies by the cosine of latitude, so...
From the perspective of someone at or near the exact north pole (where, for all practical purposes, they are not rotating), ignoring the gradual change of the stars as the Earth orbits the sun, would the stars appear to move at all in the night sky? Or would they be stationary because the...
Well yes, there are always forces from other sources in play, but when you add a force exactly opposite to the force of Earth's gravity, then the only forces acting on it will be the forces making it orbit the sun, the galactic center, etc., without the force of gravity from the Earth that keeps...
Ah, so the coriolis effect is caused, in some ways/situations, by having the centripetal force of gravity overcome?
With my example of applying the upward force, I mean that the apparent acceleration of the object is slightly less than its true acceleration (some if its acceleration is what...
I suppose my question is more about this: would a rocket launched vertically upward find itself to no longer be above the same point that it launched from as it kept moving upward?
Also, making something "float" requires that you cancel out its weight, but not its centripetal force of gravity...
I'm wrong, centrifugal force does not exist, however the centripetal force needed to keep us rotating with Earth does exist and can be overcome.
That's my question, wouldn't anything that overcomes the force of gravity (both weight and the centripetal force component) appear to slowly...
Ah! I think I see now. The only force that gives us weight is the component of the force of gravity (almost the entirety of this force) that is left over after the force of gravity overcomes the centrifugal "force," and no upward force on anybody on the Earth can make the force of gravity stop...
Does the force have to be exactly equal? Or would any force that is greater than gravity also have the same effect? I would think that any force overcoming gravity would make an object stop rotating with the planet.
Conservation of momentum is only true without an outside force on the system...