Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 49 to 64 of 65

Thread: At what point is research just plane stupid?

  1. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    895
    Thanks
    53
    Thanked
    83 times in 71 posts

    Re: At what point is research just plane stupid?

    Quote Originally Posted by scaryjim View Post
    When did I say anything that could be construed that way? I'll happily take refutals of my science, but please don't make up ridiculous nonsense then try to put it in my mouth...
    No made up at all. Just following your logic with Newton's third law et al.

  2. #50
    Not a good person scaryjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Gateshead
    Posts
    15,196
    Thanks
    1,231
    Thanked
    2,291 times in 1,874 posts
    • scaryjim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Dell Inspiron
      • CPU:
      • Core i5 8250U
      • Memory:
      • 2x 4GB DDR4 2666
      • Storage:
      • 128GB M.2 SSD + 1TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon R5 230
      • PSU:
      • Battery/Dell brick
      • Case:
      • Dell Inspiron 5570
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 15" 1080p laptop panel

    Re: At what point is research just plane stupid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Top_gun View Post
    ... Just following your logic with Newton's third law et al.
    No, you're really not. Newton's third law means we don't have gravity? What?

    I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say any more... *sigh*

  3. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    895
    Thanks
    53
    Thanked
    83 times in 71 posts

    Re: At what point is research just plane stupid?

    Quote Originally Posted by scaryjim View Post
    No, you're really not. Newton's third law means we don't have gravity? What?

    I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say any more... *sigh*
    I was thinking of the fictional centrifugal force allowing me to walk on air.

  4. #52
    Not a good person scaryjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Gateshead
    Posts
    15,196
    Thanks
    1,231
    Thanked
    2,291 times in 1,874 posts
    • scaryjim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Dell Inspiron
      • CPU:
      • Core i5 8250U
      • Memory:
      • 2x 4GB DDR4 2666
      • Storage:
      • 128GB M.2 SSD + 1TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon R5 230
      • PSU:
      • Battery/Dell brick
      • Case:
      • Dell Inspiron 5570
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 15" 1080p laptop panel

    Re: At what point is research just plane stupid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Top_gun View Post
    I was thinking of the fictional centrifugal force allowing me to walk on air.
    a) it's not fictional, it's a requirement of Newton's third law

    and

    b) when have I said it allows you to walk on air?

  5. #53
    MCRN Tachi Ttaskmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Reading, UK
    Posts
    6,917
    Thanks
    673
    Thanked
    806 times in 668 posts
    • Ttaskmaster's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Aorus Master X670E
      • CPU:
      • Ryzen 7800X3D
      • Memory:
      • 32GB Corsair Dominator DDR5 6000MHz
      • Storage:
      • Samsung Evo 120GB and Seagate Baracuda 2TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Aorus Master 4090
      • PSU:
      • EVGA Supernova G2 1000W
      • Case:
      • Lian Li V3000 Plus
      • Operating System:
      • Win11
      • Monitor(s):
      • Gigabyte M32U
      • Internet:
      • 900Mbps Gigaclear WHOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

    Re: At what point is research just plane stupid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Top_gun View Post
    I was thinking of the fictional centrifugal force allowing me to walk on air.
    OK, so....Ttasky Pseudo-Science here...

    If you weigh yourself at the North Pole, then go down and weigh yourself at the Equator, you will be lighter at the latter.
    The understanding is that centrifugal force from the Earth's rotation causes this.

    Still a fictional force?

  6. #54
    Anthropomorphic Personification shaithis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Last Aerie
    Posts
    10,857
    Thanks
    645
    Thanked
    872 times in 736 posts
    • shaithis's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8Z77 WS
      • CPU:
      • i7 3770k @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 32GB HyperX 1866
      • Storage:
      • Lots!
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire Fury X
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX850
      • Case:
      • Corsair 600T (White)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2 x Dell 3007
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb Fibre

    Re: At what point is research just plane stupid?

    Isn't that just because your closer to the gravitational force at the poles? Just a matter of distance....
    Main PC: Asus Rampage IV Extreme / 3960X@4.5GHz / Antec H1200 Pro / 32GB DDR3-1866 Quad Channel / Sapphire Fury X / Areca 1680 / 850W EVGA SuperNOVA Gold 2 / Corsair 600T / 2x Dell 3007 / 4 x 250GB SSD + 2 x 80GB SSD / 4 x 1TB HDD (RAID 10) / Windows 10 Pro, Yosemite & Ubuntu
    HTPC: AsRock Z77 Pro 4 / 3770K@4.2GHz / 24GB / GTX 1080 / SST-LC20 / Antec TP-550 / Hisense 65k5510 4K TV / HTC Vive / 2 x 240GB SSD + 12TB HDD Space / Race Seat / Logitech G29 / Win 10 Pro
    HTPC2: Asus AM1I-A / 5150 / 4GB / Corsair Force 3 240GB / Silverstone SST-ML05B + ST30SF / Samsung UE60H6200 TV / Windows 10 Pro
    Spare/Loaner: Gigabyte EX58-UD5 / i950 / 12GB / HD7870 / Corsair 300R / Silverpower 700W modular
    NAS 1: HP N40L / 12GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Arrays || NAS 2: Dell PowerEdge T110 II / 24GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Hybrid arrays || Network:Buffalo WZR-1166DHP w/DD-WRT + HP ProCurve 1800-24G
    Laptop: Dell Precision 5510 Printer: HP CP1515n || Phone: Huawei P30 || Other: Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 Pro 10.1 CM14 / Playstation 4 + G29 + 2TB Hybrid drive

  7. #55
    RIP Peterb ik9000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,701
    Thanks
    1,839
    Thanked
    1,434 times in 1,057 posts
    • ik9000's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P7H55-M/USB3
      • CPU:
      • i7-870, Prolimatech Megahalems, 2x Akasa Apache 120mm
      • Memory:
      • 4x4GB Corsair Vengeance 2133 11-11-11-27
      • Storage:
      • 2x256GB Samsung 840-Pro, 1TB Seagate 7200.12, 1TB Seagate ES.2
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte GTX 460 1GB SuperOverClocked
      • PSU:
      • NZXT Hale 90 750w
      • Case:
      • BitFenix Survivor + Bitfenix spectre LED fans, LG BluRay R/W optical drive
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Professional
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2414h, U2311h 1920x1080
      • Internet:
      • 200Mb/s Fibre and 4G wifi

    Re: At what point is research just plane stupid?

    Right, everyone, please stop. I have certain people's posts on ignore by default, but even without seeing those this is becoming a joke. If people bothered to read the wiki entries for centripetal and centrifugal force I reckon we could quickly put this pointless pedantism to bed.

    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    A centripetal force (from Latin centrum, "center" and petere, "to seek"[1]) is a force that makes a body follow a curved path. Its direction is always orthogonal to the motion of the body and towards the fixed point of the instantaneous center of curvature of the path. Isaac Newton described it as "a force by which bodies are drawn or impelled, or in any way tend, towards a point as to a centre".[2] In Newtonian mechanics, gravity provides the centripetal force responsible for astronomical orbits.

    One common example involving centripetal force is the case in which a body moves with uniform speed along a circular path. The centripetal force is directed at right angles to the motion and also along the radius towards the centre of the circular path.[3][4] The mathematical description was derived in 1659 by the Dutch physicist Christiaan Huygens.[5]

    In the case of an object that is swinging around on the end of a rope in a horizontal plane, the centripetal force on the object is supplied by the tension of the rope. The rope example is an example involving a 'pull' force. The centripetal force can also be supplied as a 'push' force, such as in the case where the normal reaction of a wall supplies the centripetal force for a wall of death rider.

    Newton's idea of a centripetal force corresponds to what is nowadays referred to as a central force. When a satellite is in orbit around a planet, gravity is considered to be a centripetal force even though in the case of eccentric orbits, the gravitational force is directed towards the focus, and not towards the instantaneous center of curvature.[9]
    This BS about centrifugal forces not existing is only true in the case where you look at things in an inertial frame of reference that excludes any motion, including rotation. This is a problem for several other mechanical situations, and also relativity etc. It is always important to analyse things using the correct frames of reference for the problem at hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    In Newtonian mechanics, the centrifugal force is an inertial force (also called a 'fictitious' or 'pseudo' force) directed away from the axis of rotation that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating reference frame.

    The concept of the centrifugal force can be applied in rotating devices, such as centrifuges, centrifugal pumps, centrifugal governors, and centrifugal clutches, and in centrifugal railways, planetary orbits, banked curves, etc. when they are analyzed in a rotating coordinate system. The term has sometimes also been used for the force that is a reaction to a centripetal force.

    The centrifugal force is an outward force apparent in a rotating reference frame; it does not exist when measurements are made in an inertial frame of reference.[1]

    All measurements of position and velocity must be made relative to some frame of reference. For example, if we are studying the motion of an object in an airliner traveling at great speed, we could calculate the motion of the object with respect to the interior of the airliner, or to the surface of the Earth.[2] An inertial frame of reference is one that is not accelerating (including rotation). The use of an inertial frame of reference, which will be the case for all elementary calculations, is often not explicitly stated but may generally be assumed unless stated otherwise.

    In terms of an inertial frame of reference, the centrifugal force does not exist. All calculations can be performed using only Newton's laws of motion and the real forces. In its current usage the term 'centrifugal force' has no meaning in an inertial frame.

    In an inertial frame, an object that has no forces acting on it travels in a straight line, according to Newton's first law. When measurements are made with respect to a rotating reference frame, however, the same object would have a curved path, because the frame of reference is rotating. If it is desired to apply Newton's laws in the rotating frame, it is necessary to introduce new, fictitious, forces to account for this curved motion.

    In the rotating reference frame, all objects, regardless of their state of motion, appear to be under the influence of a radially (from the axis of rotation) outward force that is proportional to their mass, the distance from the axis of rotation of the frame, and to the square of the angular velocity of the frame.[3][4] This is the centrifugal force.

    Motion relative to a rotating frame results in another fictitious force, the Coriolis force; and if the rate of rotation of the frame is changing, a third fictitious force, the Euler force is required. Together, these three fictitious forces are necessary for the formulation of correct equations of motion in a rotating reference frame[5][6] and allow Newton's Laws to be used in their normal form in such a frame.[5]
    which is basically everything that has collectively been said by everyone in the previous posts. So please stop winding each other up and realise you are all saying the same thing, but failing to be consistent in understanding and acknowleding the differences in your respective frames of reference.

    In the case of the airplane above. In terms of a person walking up and down the airplane, they move in a straightline. Inside the inertial frame of reference everything is linear. But to the observer on the ground, outside of that frame of reference, the plane, and the person inside it, are following an arc trajectory to maintain constant height above the earth. That trajectory cannot be explained without the additional pseudo forces - in this case gravitational pull acting as the required force.

    As the article states centrifugal force is a correct usage of the equal and opposite force to centripetal. And it gets better because that reactive centrifugal force IS always present, and does not depend on frames of reference:

    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    In classical mechanics, a reactive centrifugal force forms part of an action–reaction pair with a centripetal force.

    In accordance with Newton's first law of motion, an object moves in a straight line in the absence of any external forces acting on the object. A curved path may however ensue when a physical acts on it; this force is often called a centripetal force, as it is directed toward the center of curvature of the path. Then in accordance with Newton's third law of motion, there will also be an equal and opposite force exerted by the object on some other object,[1][2] such as a constraint that forces the path to be curved, and this reaction force, the subject of this article, is sometimes called a reactive centrifugal force, as it is directed in the opposite direction of the centripetal force.

    Unlike the inertial force or fictitious force known as centrifugal force, which always exists in addition to the reactive force in the rotating frame of reference, the reactive [centrifugal] force is a real Newtonian force that is observed in any reference frame. The two forces will only have the same magnitude in the special cases where circular motion arises and where the axis of rotation is the origin of the rotating frame of reference. It is the reactive force that is the subject of this article.[3][4][5][6]
    It is all there in the articles. So a centrifugal force can be rightly be regarded as pseudo/ficticious, and also rightly as real and observable. Let's leave it there shall we?

    And to link it back to the OP and thread title. A little research before posting might have been beneficial here - in this case lack of research is where we risk the plain stupid coming into it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reacti...he_turning_car

  8. #56
    Seething Cauldron of Hatred TheAnimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    17,168
    Thanks
    803
    Thanked
    2,152 times in 1,408 posts

    Re: At what point is research just plane stupid?

    From now on let's only acknowledge the strong / weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational forces.

    And to link it back to the OP and thread title. A little research before posting might have been beneficial here - in this case lack of research is where we risk the plain stupid coming into it.
    Yeah the issue here is this idea is flawed, based on flawed assumption that cross wind landings are hard due to the cross wind, rather than the gusting nature of the wind in question. That it would be easier to land in a curve than handle a cross wind in the circumstances an airliner must be able to land say with an engine out.
    throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)

  9. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    895
    Thanks
    53
    Thanked
    83 times in 71 posts

    Re: At what point is research just plane stupid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster View Post
    OK, so....Ttasky Pseudo-Science here...

    If you weigh yourself at the North Pole, then go down and weigh yourself at the Equator, you will be lighter at the latter.
    The understanding is that centrifugal force from the Earth's rotation causes this.

    Still a fictional force?
    My understanding is the Earth is not a proper sphere so yes there will be differentials in weight.

    I still have my old A'Level Physics text books by Tom Duncan and there is no mention of centrifugal force whatsoever in the index. Plus the fact that my old Physics teachers instilled in me there was no such thing as centrifugal force. However, I'm more than happy to accept Ik9000's explanation on this issue in terms of isolated mechanical forces in a particular timeframe. I suppose I could contact an ex-school colleague, who is now Head of Physics in a University, for a second opinion...

  10. #58
    MCRN Tachi Ttaskmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Reading, UK
    Posts
    6,917
    Thanks
    673
    Thanked
    806 times in 668 posts
    • Ttaskmaster's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Aorus Master X670E
      • CPU:
      • Ryzen 7800X3D
      • Memory:
      • 32GB Corsair Dominator DDR5 6000MHz
      • Storage:
      • Samsung Evo 120GB and Seagate Baracuda 2TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Aorus Master 4090
      • PSU:
      • EVGA Supernova G2 1000W
      • Case:
      • Lian Li V3000 Plus
      • Operating System:
      • Win11
      • Monitor(s):
      • Gigabyte M32U
      • Internet:
      • 900Mbps Gigaclear WHOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

    Re: At what point is research just plane stupid?

    Quote Originally Posted by ik9000 View Post
    Right, everyone, please stop. I have certain people's posts on ignore by default, but even without seeing those this is becoming a joke.
    Yeah, but I'm thick, so all I can do is joke and hope that it helps people enjoy the thread a bit rather than it descending into a blazing argument.
    I also assume I'm one fo thsoe on ignore anyway, but hey...

    Quote Originally Posted by TheAnimus View Post
    From now on let's only acknowledge the strong / weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational forces.
    I think the Special Forces might take issue with your lack of acknowledgment...!!

    Quote Originally Posted by shaithis View Post
    Isn't that just because your closer to the gravitational force at the poles? Just a matter of distance....
    From sciencey people at NASA:
    "The effective acceleration of gravity at the poles is 980.665 cm/sec/sec while at the equator it is 3.39 cm/sec/sec less due to the centrifugal force. If you weighed 100 pounds at the north pole on a spring scale, at the equator you would weigh 99.65 pounds, or 5.5 ounces less".
    So centrifugal force is real and it's the cause in this instance... apparently.

  11. #59
    Hexus.Jet TeePee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Gallup, NM
    Posts
    5,367
    Thanks
    131
    Thanked
    746 times in 442 posts

    Re: At what point is research just plane stupid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster View Post
    From sciencey people at NASA:
    "The effective acceleration of gravity at the poles is 980.665 cm/sec/sec while at the equator it is 3.39 cm/sec/sec less due to the centrifugal force. If you weighed 100 pounds at the north pole on a spring scale, at the equator you would weigh 99.65 pounds, or 5.5 ounces less".
    So centrifugal force is real and it's the cause in this instance... apparently.
    Imagine the Earth disappeared, what would happen to you? You've fly off into space at a constant speed in a straight line (Ignoring the effects of other bodies). It requires force, caused by gravity, to keep you moving in a circle. This force causes an acceleration, meaning a change in speed or direction.

    The 'effective acceleration' is the key. Assume the Earth were a sphere, and consider two masses at different points on the surface. One at the equator, and one at a higher latitude. Both bodies travel in a circle, relative to the Earth. The one at the equator travels faster, since it's circle is larger. As a result, it requires a larger force to change it's direction. Gravity, however, on our model sphere, is constant. Effective acceleration, being caused by the remainder of the force pulling you toward the planet, is reduced.

    You can visualize the same thing by considering orbital dynamics. Accelerate a body to a high enough speed, and eventually the force from gravity equals the amount needed to keep the orbiting body moving in a circle. The effect is what's called 'weightlessness'. Reduce the speed, and the body will fall back toward earth.

  12. #60
    HEXUS.social member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,562
    Thanks
    102
    Thanked
    320 times in 213 posts

    Re: At what point is research just plane stupid?

    The BBC has published a follow-up article; still not convinced!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39643292

  13. #61
    Senior Member Smudger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    St Albans
    Posts
    3,866
    Thanks
    674
    Thanked
    619 times in 451 posts
    • Smudger's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gbyte GA-970A-UD3P
      • CPU:
      • AMD FX8320 Black Edition
      • Memory:
      • 16GB 2x8G CML16GX3M2A1600C10
      • Storage:
      • 1x240Gb Corsair M500, 2TB TOSHIBA DT01ACA200
      • Graphics card(s):
      • XFX Radeon HD4890 1GB
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX520
      • Case:
      • Akasa Zen
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Home
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 24"
      • Internet:
      • Virgin 200Mbit

    Re: At what point is research just plane stupid?

    So, the one thing we can take out of this is: if you want to lose weight, move to the equator.

    I'll tell the wife.

  14. #62
    Supermarket Generic Brand AETAaAS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Merseyside
    Posts
    654
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked
    147 times in 129 posts
    • AETAaAS's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI B450M Gaming Plus
      • CPU:
      • AMD Ryzen 2600
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Vengeance 3000
      • Storage:
      • Intel 660p 1TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 1080TI SC2
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic Focus 850W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Focus G
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • HP Envy 32
      • Internet:
      • 17mbps

    Re: At what point is research just plane stupid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Smudger View Post
    So, the one thing we can take out of this is: if you want to lose weight, move to the equator.

    I'll tell the wife.
    Smudger: Honey, that dress just isn't working on you. We're moving to Ecuador.

  15. Received thanks from:

    Smudger (21-04-2017)

  16. #63
    Seething Cauldron of Hatred TheAnimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    17,168
    Thanks
    803
    Thanked
    2,152 times in 1,408 posts

    Re: At what point is research just plane stupid?

    Henk replies: A higher speed will be necessary, indeed.
    Take-off and landing run will increase because of this and the time that an aircraft spends on the runway will be about five to ten seconds longer.
    So still absolutely zero mention of the fact most wind gusts are the problem rather than pure cross wind. No mention about the extra wear on the airplane. Even the remark about the ILS sounds shoddy as hell. (No you don't want your ILS moving...)
    throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)

  17. #64
    Almost Ex-HEXUS Staff Jonatron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    705
    Thanks
    48
    Thanked
    272 times in 167 posts

    Re: At what point is research just plane stupid?

    From the follow up:
    It is like a concept car in a car exhibition - it will not be implemented exactly like this, but we learn a lot from the ideas, from simulations and, later on, practical tests.
    This should have been highlighted more. They might find out something useful [accidentally] even if circular runways have too many problems.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •