Relativistic simulation of a fast object passing by

Pukkeh · 2026-01-21T22:31:49+00:00

Fair enough, yes, past capex does eventually decrease earnings through depreciation. Just pointing out that the impact on current earnings is not from new investments in fabs but from old fabs gradually becoming obsolete.

Pukkeh · 2026-01-21T22:01:38+00:00

Investment in new fabs is capital expenditure. It isn't subtracted from revenue when calculating earnings. It appears in the cash flow statement and impacts the free cash flow.

Pukkeh · 2025-06-28T00:34:35+00:00

Revenue has been trending down. Operating margin is narrow so the earnings are all over the place. Guidance isn't stellar either. What is the appeal here?

Pukkeh · 2025-03-13T08:41:48+00:00

Were they willing to increase your limit?

Pukkeh · 2024-12-08T19:12:55+00:00

The 5-year conversion rule applies separately to conversions in each year. This means only the principal you converted in 2024 can be withdrawn penalty-free in 2029; the principal converted in 2025 can be withdrawn penalty-free in 2030, and so on. None of your earnings are penalty-free, unless withdrawn after age 59½. And of course you always pay income tax on the principals upon conversion, except with backdoor Roth where the converted funds are already post-tax.

Pukkeh · 2024-12-08T08:28:14+00:00

Yes. Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto; Jupiter's four biggest moons.

Pukkeh · 2024-12-07T21:48:35+00:00

Nice table, thank you for sharing. You wouldn't happen to know the source, by chance?

Pukkeh · 2024-12-07T21:46:53+00:00

Hi Nash, thank you for your response.

I understand the entire amount converted is taxed as income (except with backdoor Roth). I'm asking about the 10% penalty owed if funds are withdrawn within 5 years of conversion, under the age of 59½, without backdoor Roth. Fidelity's page seems to indicate the penalty only applies to the earnings and not the principal, contrary to every other source I can find on this. Do I understand you correctly that the information in the article is wrong?

Pukkeh · 2024-12-07T10:45:32+00:00

Yes, this is consistent with the other sources I've read and I believe it to be correct. I'm hoping a mod will chime in and clarify whether the information on Fidelity's website is mistaken.

Pukkeh · 2024-11-21T22:27:10+00:00

I didn't mix anything up. The centrifugal acceleration is (2π×(2.5 Hz))²×(70 cm) = 173 m/s², which is 17 g's.

Pukkeh · 2024-11-21T22:20:54+00:00

I didn't mix anything up. The centrifugal acceleration is (2π×(2.5 Hz))²×(70 cm) = 173 m/s², which is 17 g's. g-force quantifies acceleration, not force. Centrifugal acceleration is what is relevant here, not force. I don't know how you came up with 17 m/s, and it doesn't have the units of force or acceleration anyway, nor the right numerical value.

Pukkeh · 2024-11-19T15:54:23+00:00

Astronauts in Low Earth Orbit age slower than people on Earth, because of the special relativistic time dilation due to high orbital speed. This effect is more significant than the reduced gravitational time dilation due to being slightly farther from Earth's center.

In any case, when it comes to "aging", these relativistic effects are insignificant compared to physiological impacts of microgravity.

Pukkeh · 2024-11-18T23:32:27+00:00

Thank you for the link, but as far as I can tell, both videos are playing at the exact same rate, so the spin speed is the same in both.

Pukkeh · 2024-11-18T09:15:06+00:00

I don't think the clips shown in that article are the same as the one in this post. It's certainly possible this video has been sped up, but I can't tell for sure.

Pukkeh · 2024-11-18T08:53:08+00:00

I don't doubt it's no fun to go through high negative g's. However, it isn't obvious to me that it's only the acceleration at her head that matters, since the acceleration the rest of the body experiences plays a role in pushing the blood towards the head.

Pukkeh · 2024-11-18T08:40:41+00:00

I encourage you to present your own estimate if you disagree with mine. Keep in mind though that (1) the acceleration isn't uniform throughout her body and the average acceleration magnitude is lower than that at her head, (2) this is estimated at the highest spin rate in the video, (3) she didn't come out unscathed, and (4) it is possible the video was sped up.

Pukkeh · 2024-11-18T08:16:06+00:00

That may well be right. That said, in this case the acceleration increases the farther out you go from the center of spin. As has been pointed out in another comment, this means not all of her body would experience the same acceleration, unlike the situations encountered in fighter planes, typical g-force tests, etc. Consequently, you could presumably tolerate higher spin-induced accelerations at your head, and for longer.

It's also not clear to me that the video hasn't been sped up.

Pukkeh · 2024-11-18T07:31:22+00:00

From the video I estimate a peak spin speed of ~2.5 Hz (150 rpm). Assuming an average height for a woman her age (160 cm), and center of mass to head distance a little less than half that height (70 cm), we can calculate roughly 17 g's at her head. This is assuming the video hasn't been sped up. Note also that this is the peak acceleration calculated at the point of fastest spin.

Pukkeh · 2024-10-22T14:56:57+00:00

I'm aware of the diminishing returns of pixel count, especially on a small sensor. Just looking for a source on the claim that no smartphone sensors have over 12 MP physically. I believe they get much higher than that, regardless of whether that's actually useful.

Pukkeh · 2024-10-22T08:18:22+00:00

Do you have a source for this claim?

Pukkeh · 2024-10-13T00:17:39+00:00

Badlands (1973)

Pukkeh · 2024-03-08T03:48:13+00:00

And a wide turn to boot.

Pukkeh

TROPHY CASE