Right. Both answers are true. On the one hand, the average acceleration is 0m/s/s over 24 hours, however, at all times the instantaneous acceleration at all times is 0.03 m/s/s. Both answers are true.
Possibility of star formation around black holes
- Thread starter Beaconator
- Start date
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I've thought about that too. Egypt.. all the sand. I didn't want to post it though, it's too weird.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Is that more weird than the earth coming from the sun, or the sun coming from the black hole, or the universe coming from................................................
Mass evolves to space!
I love you too.
It's only true when discussing average acceleration over a full rotation though, so don't go misrepresenting what I've said.
Whilst it is true that the average displacement, velocity, and acceleration are all zero, and the distance between the ball and the centre of the earth is constant.
it's also true that at all times the ball is being accelerated toward the centre of the earth, is being displaced toward the centre of the earth, and has a velocity towards the centre of the earth, which is the same point that James was making.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
My point is this. You can even look at the second hand of a clock and watch it in motion. At a small distance from the center that point has a small rotational velocity and a greater distance from the center the more velocity that point has. Remember, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. But that rate of change can be measured as the change from the center, or the change in path length in space. Both are being accelerated if the distance from the axis is increasing.
To whit:
You made no mention of whether you were referring to instantaneous or average, hence James R's response of no, and my reply of not neccessarily.
More rubbish claims....more pseudoscience....more fairy tales...more trolling.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Stick to your religion.
You mean my habit of supporting mainstream science against ratbag claims and pseudoscience crap that you and others post?
Sure I will!
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
How in the world would you know if the claim is true or false when you can't understand it? If you don't understand it then say so, I'll help. But you lie and BS and I will eat your lunch!
Talk is cheap....making claims is easy...showing evidence to support your nonsense is non existent.
But still, you rave on.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I showed you how it works but you couldn't understand it. But instead of trying to understand it, you decided that it was just easier (read you're lazy) to blow it off and talk crap, because that's what you do best!
I have a simple solution!
GET IT PEER REVIEWED!
Let's see what the world thinks of your nonsensical claims.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I have a simple solution!
GET IT PEER REVIEWED!
Let's see what the world thinks of your nonsensical claims.
I'm not smart enough to do that. So the bottom line is that the truth will die with me and who in the heck knows how much time it will be before the truth is known again?
Another example of delusions of grandeur and obviously other less then desirable traits .
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
I thought you might never ask!
Stars form with an abundance of angular momentum and matter. Matter forms from an abundance of angular momentum. It is impossible for galaxies to form without angular momentum. Speed, acceleration, and velocity change with angular momentum.
Therefore understanding angular momentum at a quantum level is very important to understanding the transformation of matter.
No they don't. Matter of course is needed to form a star but angular momentum is not needed. Do you have ANY evidence that angular momentum is needed?
Nope, that is simply not true and violates all known physics.
Nope, this is wrong too. Look up elliptical galaxies they have no particular axis of rotation.
What do you mean by 'the transformation of matter'? Why in the world would angular momentum have anything to do with it?
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
In*quantum mechanics, the procedure of constructing*eigenstates*of total angular momentum out of eigenstates of separate angular momenta is called*angular momentum coupling. For instance, the orbit and spin of a single particle can interact through*spin-orbit interaction, in which case the complete physical picture must include spin-orbit coupling. Or two charged particles, each with a well-defined angular momentum, may interact by*Coulomb forces, in which case coupling of the two one-particle angular momenta to a total angular momentum is a useful step in the solution of the two-particle*Schrödinger equation. In both cases the separate angular momenta are no longer*constants of motion, but the sum of the two angular momenta usually still is. Angular momentum coupling in atoms is of importance in atomic*spectroscopy. Angular momentum coupling of*electron spins*is of importance inquantum chemistry. Also in the*nuclear shell model*angular momentum coupling is ubiquitous.[1][2]
In*astronomy,*spin-orbit coupling*reflects the general law ofconservation of angular momentum, which holds for celestial systems as well. In simple cases, the direction of the*angular momentum*vector*is neglected, and the spin-orbit coupling is the ratio between the frequency with which a*planet*or other*celestial body*spins about its own axis to that with which it orbits another body. This is more commonly known as orbital resonance. Often, the underlying physical effects are*tidal forces."http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum_coupling
Hey! What does ubiquitous mean? Is it different than omnipresent?
Frequency gets a mention too... nuclear shell model... spectroscopy, I believe we covered that...
In*astronomy,*spin-orbit coupling*reflects the general law ofconservation of angular momentum, which holds for celestial systems as well. In simple cases, the direction of the*angular momentum*vector*is neglected, and the spin-orbit coupling is the ratio between the frequency with which a*planet*or other*celestial body*spins about its own axis to that with which it orbits another body. This is more commonly known as orbital resonance. Often, the underlying physical effects are*tidal forces."http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum_coupling
Hey! What does ubiquitous mean? Is it different than omnipresent?
Frequency gets a mention too... nuclear shell model... spectroscopy, I believe we covered that...