syntax252

Maybe yes, and maybe no...... From the merriam brothers: Main Entry: centripetal force Function: noun : the force that is necessary to keep an object moving in a circular path and that is directed inward toward the center of rotation <a string on the end of which a stone is whirled about exerts centripetal force on the stone> It turns out that it is centripEtal force and not centripItal force. So maybe they are not as full of shit as they are alleged to be?

If it was me, I would start by reloading IE and see if that fixes it.

Well OK, if you say so. I will tell the brothers Merriam how full of shit you said they are, it is too late for Webster--right? Anyway, what was that other word you used? centripital force? Any idea why they didn't have any info on it?

Well I think that when I express an opinion that I know whether it is my opinion or a fact.

If you have ever been in an auto accident or life threatening situation, you have probably experienced the phenomonon of time slowing down. I once rolled my car over about 4 times and honest to God, I could have writtin a letter home while it was rolling. This is no shit! It really happens. Ted Williams once said that he could hype himself up when playing baseball until he could see the stitching on the pitched ball as it approached the plate. I don't know how this works, but I know it happens.

How you gonna get a microwave inside a fork?

Just for the hell of it I asked Merriam Webster and here is what he said: Main Entry: centrifugal force Function: noun 1 : the force that tends to impel a thing or parts of a thing outward from a center of rotation 2 : the force that an object moving along a circular path exerts on the body constraining the object and that acts outwardly away from the center of rotation <a stone whirled on a string exerts centrifugal force on the string> Now, I know that sometimes scientific terms are not entirely in line with terms found in dictionaties, but I think that this at least, explains why we (lay people) call centrifugal force centrifugal force. While I was at it, I looked for "centripital force" and this is what I got: The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right. Suggestions for main entry: centrifugal force: Not trying to get a big fight started, but why doesn't MW have a file on centripital force?

We didn't. He gargled for the sore throat. Curing the hiccups was a side benefit. And I got it from a little store in the lobby of the hospital He was a surgeon who had corrected his pressure sore problem. He was fine as a surgeon, but I always thought doctors were supposed to know everything.

I was told that centrifugal force was the force that would try to make a weight fly off into space if it wasn't attached to something that prevented it, such as a string tied to a ball, or, as you said, the wall of the basket in the washing machine. I think that the washer is indeed an example of centrifugal force being applied to extract water from the wash. This other--centripetal force--again as I understand it, is the force that makes the planet want to fall into the sun, except that it is moving on a tangent to the orbit that prevents it from actually hitting the sun. That is probably wrong, but hopefully one of these smarter guys will fill us in in layman's terms?

My thought is that once the problems of segregation in government sponsored services was solved' date=' the rest of the problem would have come along better, actually, if it had been a voluntary thing rather than the government forcing it upon anyone. My second concern is one of government authority over private business. While I would agree that an integrated society is much to be preferred over a segregated society, I do not think that the federal government actually had the authority under the Constitution to force businesses to adopt hireing practices and service providing practices that met federal criteria--absent any government contracts or federal assistance of course. I just think that a man's business [b']is[/b] his business and I further think that the Constitution limits the authority of the federal government and both of those things trump the so-called right to be hired--or served--indiscriminately, regardless of how honorable the goal may be. Now, on the state level that might be different, because the 10th amendment does grant rights to the states that he federal government does not have.

My son was in the hospital undergoing surgery for a pressure sore (he is a parapelegic) and he developed hiccups that would not go away for 3 days. They tried everything that they knew of--which was all of the homespun remedies common to American life. Anyway, along the way, he got a sore throat just about the time that his Mom and I were visiting, so I got some antiseptic mouthwash called Listerine for him to gargle with. Bingo, the hiccups were gone. Nobody in the hospital knew why, the doctor said "hummmmmm" and walked off. Personally, I have always just taken a long dring of water, about all I can dring without breathing. That does it for me.

I thought that gravity was the attraction between 2 masses. You say that gravity is caused by our orbit? Why is the gravity on the moon less that on the Earth? We are both going around the sun--right?

You are correct. I used the radius of the orbit, rather than the diameter.

"He who writes on rest room walls Forms his turds into little balls And he who reads those words of wit Eats those little balls of shit.

Oh, that's right, I forgot that post. 200 km pr sec? Comes down to about 125 MPS. That is moving right along. I get about 9.26 MPS for the Earth's orbit around the sun. Thanks

And that would be?

I just think that a private company should have the right to make the decision on who to hire, based on whatever criteria it chooses. Further, I think that a restaurant should have the same right. This idea that we can eliminate discrimination by passing laws against it is an example of tring to right a wrong by imposing another wrong. If we allowed restaurants, for example, to discriminate against black people, it would not be very long before those restaurants would be out of business. Sure, there would be a few (beaneries) who survived, but the freedom to choose our associates--regardless of the method--is, in my opinion, more important.

I understand that chimps have been able to communicate their immediate needs to a human--at least if what I saw on TV is true, but I am referring to an animal (not necessarily a chimp) who was so altered that it could conceptualize it's position in the world and realized that it was going to be put to the knife, or injected with chemicals just to see what would happen and that it desperately didn't want that to happen. At what point would we be ethically in trouble if we........ A) continued these experiments on altered animals who knew what was happening and wanted no part of it, or.... B) We didn't alter the intelligence of the animal for the purpose of being able to conduct experiments on it without hearing these cries for mercy? Now, by "cries for mercy" I don't mean spoken in English, but through whatever means that an intellectually altered animal used to communicate with humans.

Does anyone know how fast the solar system is moving around the center of the galaxy?

A baby?

All of this brings up an interesting question. At least it seems interesting to me. What if, rather than create a new species, we changed an existing species to the point that it was educable? Suppose we changed the genes around in a chimp until it was smart enough to know the difference between itself and us, and was even able to communicate with us? And further, suppose it understood that we were conducting experiments on it and others just like it and it told us that it didn't want to be experimented on? What kind of ethical delimma would that present to us? It doesn't seem right to conduct medical experiments on anything that was pleading with us not to do so. Which brings up another question. If we could alter the genes in an animal to the point that it was able to plead for it's life, would it be ethical for us not to do so? If a cat, for example, was used in medical experiments, and we justified that by saying that, after all, the cat doesn't even know that it is a cat, but all the time we had it in our power to make the cat smart enough to be self aware and even communicate with us somehow and try to get us to stop, would it be ethical to withold that from the poor old cat?