Reputation
7,298
Top tag
Next privilege 10,000 Rep.
Access moderator tools
Badges
25 38
Newest
 Good Answer
Impact
~275k people reached

1h
awarded  Good Answer
1h
comment Rotational Torque Versus Thrust on a Screw
To be clear, I don't have a general problem with deleting your own question. But I think you should have the integrity to defend your claims if you believe them to be correct until you change your mind and admit that you're wrong, the downvoters change their minds, or upvoters come along to agree with you. That's basically how science works. Also... accusation? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
1h
comment Rotational Torque Versus Thrust on a Screw
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. If you push on a cam in the appropriate position, then you can get it turn — again assuming friction is not a problem. That is, you can convert linear motion into rotation, as opposed to the usual function of a cam which involves converting rotation into linear motion.
2d
comment How does Zumberge's 1981 gravitational measurements relate to gravitational waves?
Did you even watch that video?! Ed Copeland says, "The tides don't exist because of the nature of gravitational waves." He explains that "they're different" phenomena, and says that the gravitational waves are "minuscule" compared to the tides. That's just what everyone here has been trying to tell you, including Bob Bee.
2d
comment How does Zumberge's 1981 gravitational measurements relate to gravitational waves?
No professional researcher working in gravitational waves (including me) disputes that they are emitted by the moon, earth, sun, and the rest of the solar system. General Relativity is scale-free, meaning that it does not contain any limit—high or low—on the mass of objects that could emit. Nor do I dispute that quantum effects and near-field effects would come into play in a complete analysis. What I dispute is the ability of ZRF to even come close to measuring any of these things. If you would like to use the equations of GR to come up with some numbers proving otherwise, feel free.
2d
comment Why are they building eLISA and what implications would it have?
Not really, but frequency is precisely equivalent to time via the Fourier transform; it's just a different way of talking about signals that change in time. So we could equivalently talk about things in the "time domain". The "frequency domain" is easier, though, because the noise sources are typically pretty well defined in terms of frequencies, rather than what they're doing in time. But ultimately, you have to talk about either time or frequency because gravitational waves change in time.
2d
comment LIGO may have inadvertently detected the helioseismic burst from the Sun on 14 September 2015
Besides all the other more relevant points about frequencies and direction, LIGO also has many, many instruments measuring other things directly — including cosmic rays and radio waves, not to mention winds, seismic activity, sound, etc. They directly measure these with instruments that are far more sensitive to those specific noise sources than LIGO itself, so that if any such noise occurred at the time of a claimed "detection", that "detection" will be flagged as potential contamination, rather than a real gravitational wave signal.
2d
answered Why are they building eLISA and what implications would it have?
2d
revised How does Zumberge's 1981 gravitational measurements relate to gravitational waves?
Correct a wrong number, and take the opportunity to polish up a little
Apr
26
reviewed Leave Open Rotational Torque Versus Thrust on a Screw
Apr
26
reviewed Leave Open Particle in a Spherically Symmetric Box
Apr
26
reviewed Leave Open Mirror shake emulation for the light
Apr
26
reviewed Leave Open Weinberg's QFT I Chapter 1 Problem 1
Apr
25
comment Rotational Torque Versus Thrust on a Screw
+1 For a more thorough analysis than I gave.
Apr
25
comment Rotational Torque Versus Thrust on a Screw
@Gert (1) I don't believe you understand how a push drill works; it's the exact same principle. (2) Feel free to satisfy your curiosity with the butter challenge; I am confident enough that if I were able to eliminate torque from whatever I use to push the screw would turn, and do not wish to waster butter. (3) Asking is different from accusing. I accept that you were not the downvoter, now that you've said it. But I do feel that deleting an answer you believe to be correct is bad form, even if you picked up a couple downvotes for it.
Apr
25
revised Rotational Torque Versus Thrust on a Screw
added 466 characters in body
Apr
25
answered Rotational Torque Versus Thrust on a Screw
Apr
25
comment Rotational Torque Versus Thrust on a Screw
Geez Gert, you do get prickly when people disagree with you. Did you downvote this question, too?
Apr
25
comment How does Zumberge's 1981 gravitational measurements relate to gravitational waves?
^"The Z technique IS capable of measuring the extremely long very low energy propagating lunar gravitational wave." Why are you saying this? What evidence do you have to support this statement? We need science, not just claims.
Apr
25
comment How does Zumberge's 1981 gravitational measurements relate to gravitational waves?
@Sandgroper I didn't say the detection methods are Newtonian; I said that the model used to fit the data was Newtonian. It doesn't matter how they detected what they detected; the ZRF data are consistent with a model based on just Newtonian gravity, and that model does not allow for gravitational waves.