And while asteroids are a real concern over long time spans, we can worry about that after the first million years as a species, not after a few tens of thousands of years.
Asteroids are very considerate that way, waiting until a species gets good 'n entrenched before coming along and wiping them all out.
You know what? We built our own running water systems. Nobody helped with that, nobody did it for us. No one came along and said, "Oh, poor Americans; look at 'em, no running water. Here's a couple of billion dollars so you can have running water." We built our own. If we wanted pipes for running water, we had to either make them ourselves, or buy them at exorbitant prices from Europe, but we still had to install them ourselves. We help the world far more than the rest of the world ever helped us.
It's disgusting to be talking about pissing trillions away on folks who are perfectly capable of doing exactly what we did. Want running water? Build a dam and run some pipes. We'll even give you the plans! Sell you the pipes for cost! That's better than we ever got!
Life is a gamble. There are no guarantees. You want to throw billions at a third world country; it's a greater gamble than a trip to Mars that that money will ever benefit any of that country's citizens. Chances are, it will be absorbed and squandered by the corrupt government that put that country into poverty in the first place.
This is the very same method Jesus used when he was being falsely accused by the religious leaders of his day. Hard to find a better example that this is a sound tactic...
Uh, none of Reagan's budget plans were even voted on, much less implemented. Congress controls the budget, which at the time was controlled by (say it with me) Democrats.
I'd say research your topics before posting, but everybody here says that...
Hey HEY! Watch it! I'm a conservative crackpot but I still run Linux.
Unlike many, I'm able to think for myself so I use what works best for me. Conservativism works best for me; Linux works best for me. See how much better it is when you don't let one choice dictate a bunch of other choices that Someone Else has determined "go together?"
I was never taught this either, but I have several friends who were under this same impression. They must have all been bad students.
You still have said nothing constructive to explain where barakn and I are mistaken in our understanding of the work function as it is applied to orbital mechanics (or to a body coming in from outside the system). Do you agree with Newton's Second Law (in his own words, translated from Latin: The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed)? Perhaps you can explain how the "alteration of motion" of an orbiting body is accomplished without using any energy. Or maybe Newton's Second Law is wrong? All you ever say is "you don't get it; you don't understand." Either correct our "misunderstanding" or shut up about it.
Yeah, you got me on the spring. Where I was going with that was, if you increase the energy of the object at the end, the spring will allow it to move further from the center of orbit, like gravity. A string would cause the object to speed up without changing the orbital distance.
But I can't say you "dealt with" any confusion over the work function in your other post; all you did there was say that I didn't understand it, and therefore I had no right to say anything. Your post did nothing to change that.
If you ever have kids, I hope you "deal with" them in a more constructive way.
If energy really were being pumped into the moon, it would change speed (or perhaps orbital distance), and something would have to lose a corresponding amount of energy -- the Earth, perhaps? -- and that doesn't seem to be happening.
But the moon does constantly change direction (velocity), which does requires energy, does it not?
I'm sure you are surprised, but I agree with you. Energy is clearly being expended. But if you try to apply the Work Force Equation to the problem, the result of the equation is that NO energy was expended. That is the very same misapplication some physicists use to explain that no energy is required to hold the moon in its orbit.
My point, which you obviously missed in your rush to label me as ignorant and unqualified, was that using the Work Force Equation as an "energy detector" fails because it was never designed to be used that way; in fact, it give demonstrably false results when it IS used that way. Therefore, it is not valid to use it as "proof" that an orbiting body, which is clearly and constantly changing velocity as it goes around the primary mass, requires no energy to hold its orbit.
OK; let's limit the discussion to kinetic energy. Let's use the same idea only now it is a boulder which we can move with our muscles. Imagine a boulder on the edge of a cliff. (Let's also imagine for the time being that the earth is not a rotating body so we don't have to explain why the boulder does not rise up and drift off towards the west since no energy is being used to hold it, and us, down on the ground). Now let's use our muscles to push the boulder laterally over the edge. We impart kinetic energy to the boulder and it begins to move in the direction we pushed it (velocity= speed + direction). But wait! The boulder doesn't continue to move in a straight line sideways as it should; some other force (not us; we only moved it laterally) now causes it to change velocity! It begins barrelling towards the ground! In fact, it is accelerating (changing velocity at a given rate)! NOW tell me no additional kinetic energy was imparted to the boulder, beyond that of our muscles. The boulder moved a distance in time; therefore we have work (w=dt). We started the lateral movement but some other force acted on the boulder causing a change in both direction and speed. What accounts for the boulder's change of direction and speed? It can only be an outside force. Where is the energy source of that force?
More questions: Why does potential energy only work in one direction? "Because of gravity" is not an answer; what I'm trying to get to is gravity's energy source, not some circular argument that "potential engergy exists because of gravity." Why, when I push a boulder up a cliff and rest it at the top, it "stores kinetic energy as potential energy" but when I push it sideways along the ground or down, it does not? Stores kinetic energy from where? From my muscles? Or from gravity? Muscles have a known energy source but gravity does not. If potential energy is stored from gravity, where does gravity get the energy to impart to the boulder's storage? What are my muscles working against besides friction? Suppose the boulder has been there since the formation of earth and a canyon was carved out later, forming the cliff. Then where did the boulder's potential energy come from since it was never elevated up the cliff?
I eagerly await your intelligent and informed response, since you have it all figured out.
I've read the book The Final Theory, and I want my 6 hours back. Expansion Theory is crap. It only explains a small part of the orbital arc; it does not explain how an object makes a complete orbit. It is not even internally consistent.
But his arguments against current explanations ring true to me. The rock-and-string analogy is bogus; it does not correlate. Even if you replace the string with a spring, something that at least behaves more like gravity, the analogy is still bogus. The string is an observable bit of matter that connects the two masses in an observable way. Gravity has no observable mechanism.
And the Work Function Equation dodge is a misapplication.
Slashdot Mirror
George O. Smith...I believe he was the man who said, "Please don't squeeze the Charmin."
Asteroids are very considerate that way, waiting until a species gets good 'n entrenched before coming along and wiping them all out.
It's disgusting to be talking about pissing trillions away on folks who are perfectly capable of doing exactly what we did. Want running water? Build a dam and run some pipes. We'll even give you the plans! Sell you the pipes for cost! That's better than we ever got!
Life is a gamble. There are no guarantees. You want to throw billions at a third world country; it's a greater gamble than a trip to Mars that that money will ever benefit any of that country's citizens. Chances are, it will be absorbed and squandered by the corrupt government that put that country into poverty in the first place.
Hank Hill: "What the hell kind of country is this where I can only hate a man if he's white?"
Classic media misdirection tactics.
I'd say research your topics before posting, but everybody here says that...
Heck, why only mod it up to 4? A joke this funny? If it's worth repeating over and over, let's bump that sucker up to 5! Oh, you did...
Unlike many, I'm able to think for myself so I use what works best for me. Conservativism works best for me; Linux works best for me. See how much better it is when you don't let one choice dictate a bunch of other choices that Someone Else has determined "go together?"
Oops! YOU are barakn; I should have said "claytongulick and I."
You still have said nothing constructive to explain where barakn and I are mistaken in our understanding of the work function as it is applied to orbital mechanics (or to a body coming in from outside the system). Do you agree with Newton's Second Law (in his own words, translated from Latin: The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed)? Perhaps you can explain how the "alteration of motion" of an orbiting body is accomplished without using any energy. Or maybe Newton's Second Law is wrong? All you ever say is "you don't get it; you don't understand." Either correct our "misunderstanding" or shut up about it.
But I can't say you "dealt with" any confusion over the work function in your other post; all you did there was say that I didn't understand it, and therefore I had no right to say anything. Your post did nothing to change that.
If you ever have kids, I hope you "deal with" them in a more constructive way.
But the moon does constantly change direction (velocity), which does requires energy, does it not?
My point, which you obviously missed in your rush to label me as ignorant and unqualified, was that using the Work Force Equation as an "energy detector" fails because it was never designed to be used that way; in fact, it give demonstrably false results when it IS used that way. Therefore, it is not valid to use it as "proof" that an orbiting body, which is clearly and constantly changing velocity as it goes around the primary mass, requires no energy to hold its orbit.
OK; let's limit the discussion to kinetic energy. Let's use the same idea only now it is a boulder which we can move with our muscles. Imagine a boulder on the edge of a cliff. (Let's also imagine for the time being that the earth is not a rotating body so we don't have to explain why the boulder does not rise up and drift off towards the west since no energy is being used to hold it, and us, down on the ground). Now let's use our muscles to push the boulder laterally over the edge. We impart kinetic energy to the boulder and it begins to move in the direction we pushed it (velocity= speed + direction). But wait! The boulder doesn't continue to move in a straight line sideways as it should; some other force (not us; we only moved it laterally) now causes it to change velocity! It begins barrelling towards the ground! In fact, it is accelerating (changing velocity at a given rate)! NOW tell me no additional kinetic energy was imparted to the boulder, beyond that of our muscles. The boulder moved a distance in time; therefore we have work (w=dt). We started the lateral movement but some other force acted on the boulder causing a change in both direction and speed. What accounts for the boulder's change of direction and speed? It can only be an outside force. Where is the energy source of that force?
More questions: Why does potential energy only work in one direction? "Because of gravity" is not an answer; what I'm trying to get to is gravity's energy source, not some circular argument that "potential engergy exists because of gravity." Why, when I push a boulder up a cliff and rest it at the top, it "stores kinetic energy as potential energy" but when I push it sideways along the ground or down, it does not? Stores kinetic energy from where? From my muscles? Or from gravity? Muscles have a known energy source but gravity does not. If potential energy is stored from gravity, where does gravity get the energy to impart to the boulder's storage? What are my muscles working against besides friction? Suppose the boulder has been there since the formation of earth and a canyon was carved out later, forming the cliff. Then where did the boulder's potential energy come from since it was never elevated up the cliff?
I eagerly await your intelligent and informed response, since you have it all figured out.
But his arguments against current explanations ring true to me. The rock-and-string analogy is bogus; it does not correlate. Even if you replace the string with a spring, something that at least behaves more like gravity, the analogy is still bogus. The string is an observable bit of matter that connects the two masses in an observable way. Gravity has no observable mechanism.
And the Work Function Equation dodge is a misapplication.
Not me! Opera, baby! Bring it on!