wasmic
wasmic t1_j0g22v9 wrote
Reply to comment by Quartersharp in Does rotation break relativity? by starfyredragon
No. There's no work being done from the rotation itself, if the object is perfectly rigid. Of course, in the ideal case there is work being done due to tiny stretches all over the place, but that should all cancel out because it both stretches and contracts to keep the same shape. With no overall radial motion coaxial with the force, there is no work being done.
Also, a spinning sphere, or a cylinder spinning around its own axis, will not emit gravitational waves. But something like a rotating cog would emit gravitational waves.
wasmic t1_j0g1tt6 wrote
Reply to comment by PefferPack in Does rotation break relativity? by starfyredragon
Yeah, I don't think there's a connection between gravitational waves here, and there's no work being done to keep a rotating object together.
Gravitational waves are not emitted from spherically or cylindrically symmetric objects, either (provided the cylindrical axis is the rotational axis).
wasmic t1_iri4x6m wrote
Reply to comment by Harucifer in Space adverts are now economically viable but potentially dangerous by Soupjoe5
Advertising doesn't boost sales, but it does influence which products you buy.
Thus, all companies need to advertise, or they would lose out to those who do advertise. It is, however, a negative-sum game that leaves everybody - companies and consumers alike - worse off.
wasmic t1_iri4njv wrote
Reply to comment by EscapeVelocity83 in Space adverts are now economically viable but potentially dangerous by Soupjoe5
Serfdom ended in Western Europe due to the black death tipping the power balance towards farmers.
Positive change can happen if people stand up in unison. It doesn't need to be economical incentives.
This is also why the early modern company towns (which were pretty close to being slavery anyway) disappeared - people stood up for each other and demanded change.
wasmic t1_j29tljm wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Before Newton, how did people explain falling apples? by maugustus
This isn't correct beyond a surface reading.
We know that quantum mechanics and general relativity cannot both be correct, because they conflict with each other.
But more probably, it seems like both are incomplete. There's a lot of unexplained stuff in space too - like dark matter, where some people propose a modified set of gravitational laws to explain motions instead introducing dark matter (which has never been measured). Very theoretical of course.
But we also have been completely unable to add any sort of gravity to quantum mechanics at all. The accepted models of QM more or less ignore gravity entirely because its power is negligible at quantum scales anyway.
What we know is that the extremes - extremely tiny scales, extreme velocity, extreme gravity - has complicated laws of nature, which happen to trend towards simpler forms as conditions approach everyday life. But you can't really conclude anything else based on that.
> Some physicists are questioning if General Relativity is totally accurate. It's a great approximation, but Quantum Theory may be an even better description of the Universe.
This is just nonsense. The two theories are describing entirely different things. Describing "the entire universe" is outside the scope of general relativity, which only describes gravity. Meanwhile, describing gravity is outside the scope of most Quantum Theory, and those that do include gravity lead to inconsistencies - or even worse, contradictions.