Random Postings

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
ozgeorge said:
A mass weighed at the equator weighs less than the same mass weighed at the Arctic Circle. Why?
Weight force is less on equator because it is reduced by centrifugal force.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
ozgeorge said:
A mass weighed at the equator weighs less than the same mass weighed at the Arctic Circle. Why?
Interesting question. Well, the mass at the equator is farther from the gravitational centre of the Earth than is the mass at the Arctic Circle. Could that have something to do with it?
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
ytterbiumanalyst said:
ozgeorge said:
A mass weighed at the equator weighs less than the same mass weighed at the Arctic Circle. Why?
Interesting question. Well, the mass at the equator is farther from the gravitational centre of the Earth than is the mass at the Arctic Circle. Could that have something to do with it?
These are two results of the same purpose.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Both correct. Centrifugal force is greater at the equator since it is rotating at a faster speed than higher latitudes, that is, a point on the Equator has to travel a longer distance in 24 hours than a point on the Arctic Circle. As well as this, the Earth is flattened at the poles, which means the Arctic Circle is closer to the Earth's centre of gravity and gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the centre of mass.
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
As radius' difference is approximately 20 km the ratio between gravitational forces on the poles an equator, according only to the radiuses, is 1,0067, but in real it's 1,004. How it can be smaller? IMO it should be higher because of that centrifugal force, but not smaller.
 

Rastaman

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
3,535
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Alberta, Canada
From The Strand, April 1901. R.C. Hardman of Meadhurst, Uppingham, ordered a ton of coal and found a coin dated 1397 embedded in one lump.

http://www.futilitycloset.com/2009/12/23/how-did-it-get-there/
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,215
Reaction score
89
Points
48
Age
41
I just saw a commercial for some tax program. Taxes. It's frickin' December! Are they really going to bombard me for 4 months with this stuff again? Oy.
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,864
Reaction score
42
Points
48
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
mike said:
As radius' difference is approximately 20 km the ratio between gravitational forces on the poles an equator, according only to the radiuses, is 1,0067, but in real it's 1,004. How it can be smaller? IMO it should be higher because of that centrifugal force, but not smaller.
The radius at the equator is larger than at the poles because of the gravitational pull of the moon.  Technically, IIRC, even at the equator there is a variance, with the largest radius being at a point just "behind" (downstream) from the moon's location superimposed on the surface (because it was just there, and is still pulling), and on the opposite side.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
mike said:
As radius' difference is approximately 20 km the ratio between gravitational forces on the poles an equator, according only to the radiuses, is 1,0067, but in real it's 1,004. How it can be smaller? IMO it should be higher because of that centrifugal force, but not smaller.
The Arctic Circle has a smaller radius and therefore a smaller circumference than the Equator. The Earth rotates once in 24 hours. Therefore a point on the Equator travels a longer distance in rotation in 24 hours than a point on the Arctic Circle. Since velocity is distance divided by time, a point on the equator is rotating faster than a point on the Arctic Circle, therefore centrifugal force is stronger at the Equator.
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
Thank you for the answers, but IMO Fr. Chris' is most accurate. They've taught you goodly in the seminary ;)
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
mike said:
Thank you for the answers, but IMO Fr. Chris' is most accurate. They've taught you goodly in the seminary ;)
Yeah, it's certainly possible to be most accurate when you don't say anything.  It appears to be Fr. George you credit as most accurate. ;)
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,864
Reaction score
42
Points
48
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
PeterTheAleut said:
mike said:
Thank you for the answers, but IMO Fr. Chris' is most accurate. They've taught you goodly in the seminary ;)
Yeah, it's certainly possible to be most accurate when you don't say anything.  It appears to be Fr. George you credit as most accurate. ;)
I'll certainly allow Fr. Chris, my friend and schoolmate, to take credit for my musings in this thread...
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,864
Reaction score
42
Points
48
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
ozgeorge said:
Fr. George said:
The radius at the equator is larger than at the poles because of the gravitational pull of the moon.
Moreso the the fact that the Earth is roughly a sphere.
Right, but even so, my point was about the poles radius vs. equatorial, not the Arctic Circle, so my radius is that of the sphere, not the circles (Arctic vs. Equatorial).  Another way to put my point is that the Meridians vary in size and shape depending on the location of the Moon, but they are just as likely to be non-circular because of the gravitational pull of the Moon which creates a bulge at the point where the meridians nearest and furthest from the moon at that time intersect the Equator.

Thus, not only is the Earth "flattened" at the poles, creating a shorter distance between a surface object at the poles to the center of gravity than the same object placed along the Equator (or any other point on Earth, for that matter), but that object at the Equator is frequently further away (due to the bulge) than most other points on the Earth, not just the poles.  Between the Centrifugal force and the Moon's rotation (which are highly inter-related), together with the bulge & flattening created by those two forces, there is enough variance to conclude that the force of gravity experienced at any two points along the Equator will likely not be the same, and a comparison between said force at any point along the equator and a point at either pole will again likely yield different results.
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
3,397
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
IN TWO MORE DAYS I'LL BE IN ATLANTA!!!!

(I'm just a wee bit excited, can't you tell?  :laugh: )
 

serb1389

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
9,123
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Vallejo, CA (current); Gurnee, IL (greater Chicag
Website
www.greekorthodoxvallejo.org
Fr. George said:
ozgeorge said:
Fr. George said:
The radius at the equator is larger than at the poles because of the gravitational pull of the moon.
Moreso the the fact that the Earth is roughly a sphere.
Right, but even so, my point was about the poles radius vs. equatorial, not the Arctic Circle, so my radius is that of the sphere, not the circles (Arctic vs. Equatorial).  Another way to put my point is that the Meridians vary in size and shape depending on the location of the Moon, but they are just as likely to be non-circular because of the gravitational pull of the Moon which creates a bulge at the point where the meridians nearest and furthest from the moon at that time intersect the Equator.

Thus, not only is the Earth "flattened" at the poles, creating a shorter distance between a surface object at the poles to the center of gravity than the same object placed along the Equator (or any other point on Earth, for that matter), but that object at the Equator is frequently further away (due to the bulge) than most other points on the Earth, not just the poles.  Between the Centrifugal force and the Moon's rotation (which are highly inter-related), together with the bulge & flattening created by those two forces, there is enough variance to conclude that the force of gravity experienced at any two points along the Equator will likely not be the same, and a comparison between said force at any point along the equator and a point at either pole will again likely yield different results.
you lost me at "right"...
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,215
Reaction score
89
Points
48
Age
41
HandmaidenofGod said:
IN TWO MORE DAYS I'LL BE IN ATLANTA!!!!

(I'm just a wee bit excited, can't you tell?  :laugh: )
Hope you have a nice trip! (though I suppose by the time you read this, you might be back from Atlanta... but anyway... ) :)
 

SolEX01

Toumarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
13,762
Reaction score
5
Points
38
Location
Central Maryland
Website
www.goarch.org
01-02-2010 is a palindrome, the first time it has happened since 08-31-1380, or 629 years and change ago.  The next palindrome date will occur on 11-02-2011.

For those who use the European dating system, a lot of palindromes will occur.  Refer to the article for more info:

New Year's Day is celebrated because it's the start of a new calendar year and another opportunity to look forward, and resolve to do things differently - better, we hope - in the year to come.

But what about Jan. 2, 2010? As it happens, this year it's a rare opportunity to look at the date itself - both forward and backward.

The date is a palindrome. When written as a series of digits - month, date and year - it reads the same, from left to right, as it does from right to left: 01-02-2010.

Better still, it's only the second such date in the lives of anyone living today. And that idea holds a particular fascination for anyone as tuned in to numbers as Aziz S. Inan, a professor of engineering at the University of Portland, in Oregon state....
source
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
SolEX01 said:
01-02-2010 is a palindrome, the first time it has happened since 08-31-1380, or 629 years and change ago.  The next palindrome date will occur on 11-02-2011.

For those who use the European dating system, a lot of palindromes will occur.  Refer to the article for more info:

New Year's Day is celebrated because it's the start of a new calendar year and another opportunity to look forward, and resolve to do things differently - better, we hope - in the year to come.

But what about Jan. 2, 2010? As it happens, this year it's a rare opportunity to look at the date itself - both forward and backward.

The date is a palindrome. When written as a series of digits - month, date and year - it reads the same, from left to right, as it does from right to left: 01-02-2010.

Better still, it's only the second such date in the lives of anyone living today. And that idea holds a particular fascination for anyone as tuned in to numbers as Aziz S. Inan, a professor of engineering at the University of Portland, in Oregon state....
source
Even if you write dates in the format yyyy-mm-dd, today's date still comes out a palindrome.  2010-01-02  Spooky! :-\
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,864
Reaction score
42
Points
48
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Nebelpfade said:
mike said:
mm-dd-yyyy - I'll never get used to it.
It is terrible over here.  Some use the European formatting, while others use the American formatting.  There really is no standard.

dd/mm/yyyy just seems the most natural to me.
You'll get your chance for Palindrome on February 1st...
 

Alveus Lacuna

Taxiarches
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,416
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Missouri, USA
Fr. George said:
Alveus Lacuna said:
On my way to Archon.
Hope the journey is meaningful! ;)
Nope.  I hope all the posts to get there are trite and meaningless, as it is an accurate reflection of my personality.  Oh, self-debasing!  How Orthodox I have become.  The worstest, most miserable and indolent of sinners ever upon the face of this wretched earth, that be the man that I am!  Woe of woes!
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
At Warsaw Technological University (where I study) each course has one humanistic classes and we have philosophy. Tomorrow I have a test and one of the issues are thought of Thomas Aquinas. Should I sue the University of discriminating the Orthodox?
 
Top