Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So? Not perfect here or anywhere else, but now I know PNW is the globe, gotcha. Average temperature is so fked up. To say warmer because average temperature went up doesn’t reflect true readings since winds can fluctuate temperatures day to day swings of 40 degrees. It’s colder not warmerClimate is about averages ... 0ºF here ... 120ºF there ... 60ºF average, why the hell are you complaining? ...
The same with bad weather and good weather ... this stuff in the quote is happening while we here in the PNW have had nothing but perfect weather ... four to six weeks ahead of the season since the beginning of the year ... today would be seasonable in late April, and it's been this way for weeks ...
And here I'm defining "good" weather as ... well ... you know ... Los Angeles ...
Right ... Rossby Waves ... you're learning ... Good + Bad = 0 ... or the universe collapses according to the colander heads ...
Bitch!we here in the PNW have had nothing but perfect weather ... four to six weeks ahead of the season since the beginning of the year ... today would be seasonable in late April, and it's been this way for weeks ...
This is what I'm talking about. In physics speak (and in everyday vernacular coincidently), "Hot air rises." It requires no sending unit.Those storms sent heat upwards in winter version of a heat dome over northern Europe.
In terms of physics, heat goes to cold. Always. Relatively speaking (Reiny), of course. So (relatively) "cold" air sinks in response to (relatively) "hot" air rising. Never the reverse. Notice: Hot air likes going "HIGH," while cold air gravitates to "LOW." This is what creates all the (in meteorological speak) "Pressure," i.e. "Highs," "Lows," and "Fronts" -- "weather" terminology crafted to hopelessly confuse and drive any remaining sane folk totally nuts.Meanwhile, over the far north Pacific an intense storms that formed offshore of Japan and swung up into the Aleutian Islands formed the winter version of a heat dome over Alaska and the Alaskan side of the Arctic ocean. These two atmospheric domes caused an intense planetary wave number 2 to form sending an intense pulse of heat upwards into the stratosphere, disrupting the polar vortex. Extremely high levels of ocean heat in the north Atlantic off of the east coast of north America have provided extraordinary amounts of energy to intensify the bomb cyclones and build the ridge of warm air over Europe that has triggered the polar vortex splitting.
I say "centripetal," you say "centrifugal." I don't blame you. Nor Modern Physics necessarily in this case. Centrifugal:My copy of Halliday/Resnick doesn't mention Coriolis force or effect ... and of the Centrifugal force they give one sentence explaining that it is a pseudo-force and has no bearing on any serious physics ...
Centripetal:early 18th century: from modern Latin centrifugus, from Latin centrum (see center) + -fugus ‘fleeing’ (from fugere ‘flee’).
Note the total focus on the center. Nothing even hinting of angular, rotation, nor circularity. Nor even inertia or momentum. A strictly linear force either directed away or toward some "center" of a sort. One can easily picture two equal opposing force arrows being drawn on a string, say connecting a hand and a stone, depicting the bilateral tension. Then some genius had to have come along to overcomplicate the obvious. Defining them as though somehow dependent upon or functions of different things. I was taught the same. Happily though, Google also seems unimpressed:early 18th century: from modern Latin centripetus, from Latin centrum (see center) + -petus ‘seeking’ (from petere ‘seek’).
Centrifugal:adjective
PHYSICS
- moving or tending to move toward a center.
Witness Wikipedia still "confusing" itself instead:adjective
PHYSICS
- moving or tending to move away from a center.
I suggest they stuff their "real inertial-frame-independent Newtonian force" bias up their reactive buttocks.. Sideways!Confusingly, the term has sometimes also been used for the reactive centrifugal force, a real inertial-frame-independent Newtonian force that exists as a reaction to a centripetal force.
Returning to this,.. (because my mind demands I do):
I say "centripetal," you say "centrifugal." I don't blame you. Nor Modern Physics necessarily in this case. Centrifugal:
Centripetal:
Note the total focus on the center. Nothing even hinting of angular, rotation, nor circularity. Nor even inertia or momentum. A strictly linear force either directed away or toward some "center" of a sort. One can easily picture two equal opposing force arrows being drawn on a string, say connecting a hand and a stone, depicting the bilateral tension. Then some genius had to have come along to overcomplicate the obvious. Defining them as though somehow dependent upon or functions of different things. I was taught the same. Happily though, Google also seems unimpressed:
Centripetal:
Centrifugal:
Witness Wikipedia still "confusing" itself instead:
I suggest they stuff their "real inertial-frame-independent Newtonian force" bias up their reactive buttocks.. Sideways!
Fair enough.`Centripetal` only describes the direction of the force ... not the force itself ...
Natural forces result from complementary Aetheric field modality interactions.of natural forces we have only two known ... Gravity, which governs the orbit of the planets centripetally ... and Electromagnetism, which governs the orbit of electrons around the atom's nucleus ...
I still use Tax Act, but Turbo Tax sucks too. If you tie a string around the neck of a test tube, fill it with muddy water, and swing it around your head,.. a spring scale tied in the middle will live update the very "real" bidirectional tension force, while the mud packs into the tube's bottom.The Centrifugal force is part of the intuit explanation of how a centrifuge works ...
Their are three forces of nature at present: gravity, the electroweak force and the strong force.`Centripetal` only describes the direction of the force ... not the force itself ... of natural forces we have only two known ... Gravity, which governs the orbit of the planets centripetally ... and Electromagnetism, which governs the orbit of electrons around the atom's nucleus ...
The Centrifugal force is part of the intuit explanation of how a centrifuge works ... heavier material is dragged down to the bottom of the test tube ... saves time if you don't feel like explaining cross products ...
Fair enough.
Natural forces result from complementary Aetheric field modality interactions.
I still use Tax Act, but Turbo Tax sucks too. If you tie a string around the neck of a test tube, fill it with muddy water, and swing it around your head,.. a spring scale tied in the middle will live update the very "real" bidirectional tension force, while the mud packs into the tube's bottom.
Dark Matter's too ... I have always done my taxes by hand ... the tax advisor I talked to said that was great idea ... I'll never be audited ... but that only works because I've always used paper returns ... once you file on-line once, you're stuck ...
... while the mud packs into the tube's bottom.
That's the intuitive explanation ... the deductive explanation is the opposite ... we start with Newton's 2nd Law of Motion ... force = mass X acceleration ... the string and test tube provide our centripetal force via EM holding this material in it's solid state-of-matter ... for the same force, it is the lighter part of the sample that has the most acceleration ... and that's also centripetal ... lighter materials are being forced to the top of the test tube closest to the center of rotation ... the heavy mud is simply left behind is all ... more mass must have less acceleration ...
The same can be said of the Coriolis force ... the deductive explanation is the opposite of the intuitive explanation ... we feel the Westerlies and say, "sure, a force pointed east is pushing the air" ... but (as I tried to explain earlier) the Westerlies are only an apparition of our own motion ... the deductive explain remains "convection cross pressure gradient" ...
Here's the punch line ... both chemists and meteorologists can do their jobs perfectly well not knowing this ... this is something only a pure physicist would care about ... you know, the "gravity is a pseudo-force" folk ... one in every crowd ...
The acceleration experienced by any material at a given point in the tube is completely independent of its density. The process that separates denser and lighter materieal in this case is buoyancy produced by the enhanced hydrostatic pressure gradient
The Coriolis force is proportional to the cross product of the angular and tangential velocity. The force is fictional and due to inertia. Pressure gradients are producted by the coriolis force, not its cause.
You're sitting in a rocket. Your feet are pressed against the deck underneath them. Are you sitting on the surface of the Earth or out in space undergoing 32 f/s^2 acceleration? There IS no way to tell.You're off into nonsense land ... Newton's 2nd Law can be stated as force = density times acceleration times volume ... and I'm not sure you're using the terms buoyancy and pressure correctly ... these are both functions of gravity ... which plays no roll in the operation of a centrifuge ... except maybe to hold it down on the lab bench ...
You can't cross product a vector with a second order tensor ... nit wit ... you don't know what angular velocity is, please don't try to explain it ... Gravity holds the atmosphere to the Earth's surface ... all pressure gradients are caused by gravity ... every ... single ... one ...
You're sitting in a rocket. Your feet are pressed against the deck underneath them. Are you sitting on the surface of the Earth or out in space undergoing 32 f/s^2 acceleration? There IS no way to tell.
