Experimente cu mişcarea elicoidală

WoodyCAD a scris:STIATI CA
- 2 alice de plumb, de mase diferite, coboara prin apa din piscina....pe 2 elicoide/2 frecvente ...diferite?
- 2 bule de aer. de diametre diferite. se ridica cu frecvente diferite...din acvariu?

WoodyCAD nu da explicatii la ...MAIMUTE

informatiile fiind insa publice dar neaccesibile nivelului ei de intelegere

sadang a scris:Eventual proiectia ueni asemenea dinamici in plan creeaza spira..

Galaxia are forma spiralata datorita miscarii de rotatie in jurul centrului galactic

insa aceasta intreaga forma se deplaseaza elicoidal prin univres

Proiecţia unei elicoide într-un plan creează un zig-zag, nicidecum o spiră!

1) firul de par creste elicoidal
2) mai multe fire(elicoidale) formeaza un ...sparnel(elicoida in elicoida)

CAdi a scris:Prin urmare,tinand cont ca totul in acest Univers se roteste:
Pamant,Planete,Soare,Galaxii ,electroni,protoni,fotoni etc
[...]
Suprafata biroului meu este plana si deplasez o bila pe aceasta suprafata.Ea se deplaseaza cu o miscare rectiliniu,uniform variata pana cand intervin fortele de frecare ,incetineste si se opreste.
Nu vad nici-o miscare elicoidala aici!Miscarea depinde de referential!
Argumentul tau ar putea fi ca biroul meu se afla pe Pamant care in spatiu are o miscare de revolutie in jurul Soarelui, care Soare se deplaseaza pe o elice in jurul Galaxiei,care Galaxie se roteste spiralat in Spatiu etc.(Daca iei alt Referential)
[...]

omuldinluna a scris:Rotațiile de care aminteai tu, care pentru spin au într-adevăr această proprietate stranie (și verificabilă, prin interferometrie neutronică), anume că sistemul trebuie rotit cu ca să-l readuci în starea inițială, nu au loc în spațiul fizic real ci în spațiul spinului.

oameni buni mai aberăm mult pe tema spinului cel misterios!? nu e nici un mister acolo și nu e nici un fel de mișcare în alte dimensiuni ascunse! mișcarea de spin e mișcare în spațiul 3D+T la fel ca orice altă mișcare macroscopică!!!!

i have also a problem with this:
"The radius of the central object must be significantly less than 17 light hours, because otherwise, S2 would either collide with it or be ripped apart by tidal forces. In fact, recent observations[16] indicate that the radius is no more than 6.25 light-hours, about the diameter of Uranus' orbit, leading to density limit 8.55×10^36 kg / 1.288×10^39 m^3 = 0.0066 kg/m^3"

now, compare that 0.0066 kg/m^3 with earth calculated density 5.515 g/cm^3 ... wow! ordinary earth matter density many times more that a black hole!? we live on a superdense black hole already?

5.515 g/cm^3=5.515*(100*100*100)g/m^3=5.515*10^6/m^3 wich is ok because earth is waaay more dense that sun, no news here ... but what means that!? a black hole is actually more puffy and less dense that an ordinary star!? and a humble rocky planet like earth!? WOW!

and all its super strenghts and marvelous properties can be only because is way much more matter, 4+ milion solar mass, clumped together!? double wow!

sun average density 1.408×10^3 kg/m^3 now this look more sane, 1000+ tons per cubic metre is ... dense! that's our sun!

Not a problem. The mass itself is in the form of a singularity of infinite density. The radius mentioned is that of the event horizon. The average density within this large volume can be surprisingly small; that of water was once given. --IanOsgood (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
formally true buttttt ... what if is NOT an infinite singularity ( real volume → 0 and density ← ∞ )!? ... we can apply here a common sense logic! because the infinite is forbidden to heavenly spheres of a surreal god, for us, mere mortals, what we have is a real thing which is quantifiable and measurable only by this puffy even horizon radius! only that thing is real, plus many time more gravitational pull! which, i see, can bring to us, using an unhealthy form of logic, the strange conclusion that even if a black hole density is lower that earth density still must be infinitely dense because this is what our equations told us! (LE: which can't be true for any real measurement! we can't measure 0 and ∞! real trajectories of real clumps of matter around that black hole is newer 0 or ∞! no matter how small or big or dense or strange is the measured trajectories!) ... so, why not other way around? an equally sane conclusion can be that between gravitational force field and mass density is an inverse relation! not mass causing the gravitational pull, but the independent gravitational field being the trigger of measurable mass effects sensed by our scientific instruments as clumps of matter! ... this way will be no more a need for strange physical objects like black hole singularities with infinite mass density and infinitesimal spatial volume! Totedati (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)