J.C.MacSwell

True, but in each case if you look at the whole system, including the ball and the Earth, the forces are internal and in each case momentum is conserved at all times. Any momentum gained or lost by the ball is respectively lost or gained by the Earth.

What does that imply then, about the importance of life in general, if you only live one millionth of that time?

I hardly watch the show, but I'm pretty sure they are all siblings in real life.

You can certainly produce lift ( force perpendicular to the flow), at the expense of drag, with an underwater appendage. If positioned and oriented properly it will counteract heel. The problem is with positioning and orienting it so that it does not produce additional leeway or excessive drag, and at the same time act at sufficient distance from the center of buoyancy or center of gravity to produce the leverage required to counteract a reasonable amount of heel for the drag the additional structure will create. Other concerns would be the stability and control of the system and the minimization of it's affect at low speed. At say, half speed while accelerating it would produce only one quarter of the counteracting of the heel.

Don't you lose some immunities over time? I think this is a short term effect in the case of the mother/child.

For me, background temperature. Similarly, I think where it (the background temperature) is the same in all directions is a preferred reference frame, although maybe it is more of a continuum of frames. Edit: I picked this one in a long term sense. I would be pretty messed up if I was traveling at relativistic speed relative to my above preferred reference frame and used that description of simultaneity for my daily routine even if I could use it precisely. Similarly I generally use the Earth or perhaps the vehicle I'm in as my reference frame.

Any momentum gained by one is lost by the other. Both might be "slowed down", each may have lost speed in the direction they were headed, but when you add their momentums together, it will add up to the same total momentum (same total mass movement in the same direction)

Consider a completely inelastic collision between two objects. They collide and stick together. Total momentum (a vector quantity) is conserved, yet total kinetic energy (a scalar quantity) is lost no matter what inertial frame you use for measurement.

13 billion years later it still seems appropriate.

I think you have to be careful in assuming the error is related to the contact area of the tread. The gaps between treads are for the most part compensated for by "bridging", where there is an increased pressure locally where the tread contacts the road compared to the consistent pressure on the inside. I think the error is more likely related to the area near the perimeter of the contact area where the contact pressure would be reduced compared to the inside pressure due to the stiffness of the tire. This reduced pressure area would be insignificant on something such as a balloon, where the stresses on the skin are almost purely tensile.

If you use that definition (which is not correct), any straight line drawn anywhere (or it's extensions) would be tangent to the surface of the Sun, since it would have one point (the closest point to the Sun) that could have a line drawn perpendicular to it that aimed directly at the Sun and of course you could then add a circle somewhere as needed to meet that definition. Of course that is not the definition of tangent (see GDG's post above). Every straight line everywhere is parallel to some tangent line that contacts a point on the Sun's surface since that there could be one drawn in any direction.(actually there could be two drawn in any direction)

The rotational axis of Earth would be at right angles to a line between the Earth and Sun at those points, but not tangent to the surface of the Sun.

It will continue (wobble about) on the same axis of rotation as it had instantaneously on the moment of release. That axis is different from the one it was constrained to rotate about originally, and will depend on the original axis, and the moment of inertia about the bar axis relative to the moment of inertia about an axis perpendicular to the bar. Of course, kinetic energy and angular momentum will be conserved.

3) wobble

Homework, Ouch! That is what I'm here trying to avoid! (actually it's been quite a while since I was a student) I agree that your scenario is much simpler. In fact if Supermassive Black holes exist, and Black Holes are at all common, it would probably unlikely for the Supermassive BH's not to have smaller BH's meander into their event horizon now and then. I will try to remember your link and look it up when I get a chance.

Persistent little bugger!

Yes. She sounds like a very nice old lady. Maybe you could introduce her to the OP. She will know what to do.

http://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Code-Quantum-Physics-Language/dp/0553246259

If you had a small blackhole and a much greater amount of mass "fell" from all directions toward it, at some point you would have a second event horizon form. The first would not immediately disappear and by definition you would have two Black Holes. You could "safely" orbit the inner one while waiting for your demise.

According to Newfoundland and Labrador Tourism, the Flat Earth Society believes that is correct: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3yGN3VzUkc

All three of these forces can effect motion of an object, a displacement over time in a reference frame.

I'm picturing a packet of energy (or whatever) that "is" the thought at any one time during the process of thinking as opposed to the content of the thought itself. I'm not sure if that is included in any proper list of definitions of "thought", but what else might it be called?

Which begs the question: Is there an intelligent case for a Scientific Designer?

Agree, and if you specify the energy in flow and however brief, and that is the useful portion resulting from the expended energy as being the "thought", then I would say yes.