MattC

The other day my girlfriend was laughing at a spikedhumor video in which Bush said something to the effect of: We need to end our addiction to fossil fuels ... the answer is coal! This morning I woke up and saw an article on fox (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193624,00.html), of all places, talking about how peak oil may have just recently hit or, or that it may, if we're lucky, hit in around 20 years - though fox also cites estimates that we would need to prepare 20 years in advance to avoid consequences! I was being a little tongue-in-cheek when I implied that the end is nigh. Still, things are coming to a head, in my humble opinion, when fox decides to start cashing in on the peak oil scare, rather than just post junk science articles pointing to tenuous evidence that peak oil is a myth. So, while we're on the topic (and yes, I know it's been visited before, but not often enough), is anyone else out there contemplating preparations (aside from peakoilman ... who we all know is already ready!)? Myself, I am planning on moving in a few months, once I have my degree (BS in ENSC), to somewhere that I can commute around on a bike. I want to sell my car, since it doesn't really enrich my life (and I can take a rental if needed, for trips) anyway, and as it won't be worth much once oil prices begin the big (permanent, presumably) price climb that I see coming soon (between now and, say, 15 years... ). My brother plans on moving as well, once he gets his phd, to somewhere where he can have a little land. Just in case things get bad. Which they probably will - granted, it's all speculation at this point, but history has taken humans for rougher rides in the past than peak-oil alarmists foretell. Anyway, I just wanted to post this little (half-serious) peak oil post, in the hopes of getting some more interesting perspectives. So post away!

The number of stars in the known universe is currently estimated to be somewhere on the order of: 1000000000000000000000 give or take a few zillion That's why I think it's overwhelmingly likely (though nothing is certain) that there is "intelligent" life of some sort, somewhere, if not somewhere in almost every direction we can look (at some distance ...). As for why humans have apparently done so much in so little evolutionary time, I see it as being akin to a match - a critical temperature is reached, and then an exothermic, self-sustaining reaction occurs (let's hope the analogy ends there, and we don't burn out all of our fuel and rapidly fade away. With humans, language and eventually literature allowed for the exchange and ultimately exponential growth of knowledge, which is why we have managed, in a few centuries, to go from candles and coaches to computers and space stations. So while the benefits intelligence may be high, if you have enough intelligence and tool making ability and so on, evolution occurs in steps, over long periods. Another way of looking at it is to consider the use of a great big brain ... if you're a duck. Without the body (for instance, an opposable thumb), the brain is only going to do so much, and the two aren't going to evolve together, in the same steps. Who is to say that dolphins, if they had more to work with, wouldn't be able to use tools?

Sorry if I come off harsh, but this is a very poor argument to make. In the most recent pre-glacial (not preglaceral) there were still numerous sinks for carbon (in the form of oil, among other things) that was once in the atmosphere (and will again, eventually make it back). To say that if "nature had its way," the trapped hydrocarbons would never have been trapped is ridiculous - if you think about it, it was nature's way that trapped the hydrocarbons, and if you were to release enough of the vast quantity of geologically stored carbon, life on earth would change quite dramatically (humans would die off very fast, if the C02 levels increased enough). Likewise, if "nature had its way," one might argue, entropy would have won out and you and I would never have been born. These kinds of assumptions are not science ... nor are they interesting. What is interesting is the climate change that is occurring in the world, and the effects of mankind on our climate. Personally, my studies have led me to believe that, much as Bascule's post pointed out, things are not exactly black and white. Different anthropogenic changes are having different (and often opposite) effects on the Earth's energy balance. I have yet to see any convincing research to suggest that the Earth is not *really* warming up at the moment, but I also recognize that short term and even long term warming trends occur throughout the history of the planet. If humans are warming the Earth, the changes, if left unchecked, could be disastrous - ocean currents could change, sea levels could rise, crop productivity could be significantly reduced in some areas, and there is even the possibility, remote though it may seem, of starting a positive-feedback effect that leads to a run-away greenhouse effect. If humans aren't warming it, then we may be cooling it - if the cooling effects of soot outweigh the warming effects of moisture and CO2 and other gases - and this could be just as bad. I'm glad that there is interest in and research toward changing the way we generate our energy, as I don't want to bet on the small chance that our actions won't have further negative consequences (note the use of the word "further," as there are certainly health consequences to pollution that can be seen immediately).

Intel is in the news with their new conroe chip. In one article http://news.designtechnica.com/talkback106.html, the author mentioned Intel's upcoming use of flash memory in computers as a way of reducing load times for frequently used data. Can someone explain to me why it has taken the industry so long to get flash memory into computers? The advantages of using flash memory, in conjunction with regular hard drives (for capacity) and RAM, have been talked about for a number of years. The benefits in terms of power consumptions (for laptops) isn't new, either. I don't understand why it's taken so long for a chipset maker to utilize flash memory.

My in-expert help: It depends upon various factors. The liquid you use matters, as some liquids have low boiling points and respond to low pressure in ways that interfere. The diameter of the tube also matters, as well as (I imagine) the material of the tube, though I doubt that would be terribly important (only important if there is some attraction of the liquid to the sides of the tubing). A quick diagram of a siphon: _________ [source]______] \ \_____Destination The lines are the tube you siphon with Once the tube has water in it, the water on the right flows, creating a suction. How strong that suction is depends upon the tube diameter and the distance downhill the liquid travels while moving from the source to the destination. If you want some math, calculate the amount of vacuum that would be created if the bottom 90% or so of the downhill part of the tube (right before the destination, the two \'s stacked on each other). Find the difference between the pressure on the fluid at the source (atmospheric plus pressure from depth. The difference will yield a pressure that can lead you to the force exerted on the fluid to flow down the tube. That can then give you a general idea of the amount of flow. I would bet there is some equation that simplifies this and takes into account anything I'm missing. Hopefully a physics expert will post and clarify the matter.

In my organic chemistry textbook, there is a question regarding MS and chemical formula determination. The chemical in the question is nicotine, a diamino compound with two rings and a M+=162.1157 the formula has 2 nitrogens (MW 14.0067) for a total of 28.0134 g/m the rest of the formula is pretty easy to determine, given that there are two rings and no atoms other than N's H's and C's. My method (working out possibilities and rulling them out by the degrees of unsat and such) yielded the right formula (C10 H14 N2) The solutions guide uses a different method. They subtract the weight of N from the total weight, and then divide the portion of the number (the xxx in abcd.xxxxx, ie the 442 in 18232.442) past the decimal by .00783 (from hydrogen). This yields 14, the number of hydrogens. What I don't understand is why this works - if carbon had a weight of exacly 12, it would be fine, but unless you are using an isotopically pure source of carbon the weight of carbon, on average, will be the number listed on the periodic table. The number to the right of the decimal is actually larger than the .00783, and I would expect that to confound this calculation beyond repair. What am I missing?

Transition zones definately exist. They are just generally so hard to define (because the subject itself is very complex and there are many interconnections) that it is generally useful to just focus on whatever you need to focus on. For instance, a beach is an ecotone - yet birds may fly over areas of the ocean that are very far from shore, and if they crap or eat that has an effect. The whole ocean then can become an ecotone, or you could define the surface water of the ocean as an ecotone. Maybe I should be asking questions instead of offering "answers." I'm not really certain what it is you are looking for. Are ecotones real? I'd argue yes, but only in a sense. They are arbitrary, since you have to define the boundaries to your ecosystem, but they may nevertheless be a useful classification for scientists. As for the comment you made about diversity, I have no idea what you are saying.

It seems like too much thought is being devoted to this matter. Clearly, it is highly unlikely (though what scientist would say that it is "impossible"?) that a butterfly will affect weather at all, but I have never, even as a child, taken the "butterfly effect" phrase literally. It seems clear to me that small things can have large impacts. For instance, if someone with a flu coughs on me, and the number of virus bodies that enter my system is one short of the number that will lead to morbidity, some small change in air currents, as with a butterfly passing right between myself and the person with the flue, might affect the number of pathogens that I inhale. If I get sick because of the flapping of a butterfly's wings, that illness, and in a sense that butterfly, might cause much greater changes. What if my illness makes me not get a job I am applying for ... and what if my experience at that job would lead me to develop some technological advance that would affect the cleanliness of energy generation all over the world (at the least speeding things up; it's reasonable to assume that any given invention would tend to get invented even if the real inventors never came along, it just may take longer). That could have a significant impact on the climate. The point is not that butterflys or birds or any individual small organisms might have power over large things, but that little things often have unexpected results.

seems fairly clear to me. The oxygen is electronegative, that's why it has such a high -e density. It is fine with things as they are, without the hydrogen bonding. That same electronegativity in adjacent water molecules deprives hydrogens of density, and that's why the hydrogen is bearing the burden, so to speak. The oxygen has what it wants, and the hydrogens want the oxygen to share. So to speak. Honestly, though, I don't see how this would help explain anything. Ultimately it doesn't matter, right? Whether you assume they each share the attraction equally or not may not matter.

Perhaps I am wrong about this ... but I don't think it takes 10 calories of oil to produce 1 calorie of food. In fact, I'd say it's way off, by 3 orders of magnitude. I have seen this before, but I think the problem is that proper grammer is not observed, and so they say 10 calories of oil to produce 1 calorie of food instead of: 10 calories of oil to produce 1 Calorie of food (notice the capital C in calorie) There are two terms spelled this way (calorie). The lower case one refers to a calorie. Capitalized Calorie, as is used in reference to food, is a kilocalorie, or 1000 calories. A Calorie is 1000 calories, and a calorie is the amount of energy required to heat 1 gram of water by 1 degree Celcius or Kelvin. Not to say that large amounts of oil aren't the only thing between us and a much lower food production ability (not to mention distrobution). So really, it takes 10 calories of oil to produce 1000 calories of food - where the calories from the food come most from solar energy.

Of course they are integrated in reality!

Rainforest-advocates are often seen by parts of the mainstream as a little kookie. To these people, these forests are just a bunch of trees in the way of homes and farms. However, a rainforest has a wealth of genetic information, in the form of the greatest diversity (by far) of genetic code on the surface of the earth (the oceans aren't exactly the surface). That wealth of genetic code is also a well-spring of medicine, from which countless cures to human ailments have already sprung! Not protecting the rainforest is literally a death sentence to an unknown number of our children (or their children) - I'd argue that we basically know that studying the multitude of life forms in rain forests will yield, at the least, cures to diseases that shorten the lives of people.

Thank you!

"If a computer processor could be built using nanotech then you could get hand held "desktop" computers. This is a realistic possibility but is a very long way off." I was under the impression that we already had them! Sure, they can't play games that were made last year, but they are more poweful than the desktop I played games on 10 years ago! "And then there are some people working on...robots. But be aware, all these robots are stupid and cannot be controlled. Having controllable 'robots' will not be realised in our lifetimes." I beg to differ! I agree that robots that are intelligent and truly nano, in that they are built from the molecule up and don't involve distances or lengths greater than a few molecules, except when desired, are a good ways off, but I'm sure there will be numerous robots that can barely be seen with the naked eye within my lifetime! I have no evidence, of course ... just a hunch:p

Well, I've been studying in this field for a while now, and while there appears to be a wealth of information linking pirate activity to climate change, there is next to nothing suggesting a link between the rise of the internet and global warming (aside from the connection to power generation - more electronics means more electricity and thus more coal being fed to powerplants.

Well I'm hardly infallible, and you shouldn't take my questions and criticisms to be disagreement, because it's not (I happen to also think there was no beginning or end - I just don't think I can prove it). My problem with that approach is this: If there has always been something, then nothing came before that something, and therefor it exists spontaneously, without being made. If that can happen, why can't it happen that something exists spontaneously, and yet has a beginning? That is, we are stretching things when we assume some mechanism that we cannot observe. We have never observed something appearing without cause, true. And so it's crazy to think the universe just appeared. However, if everything was not formed by *something,* does that make sense? Every process we know of is a result of something else - a series in a chain of events. Are we to assume that existance is the exception? that it came not as a result of something else, but just ... because? It's like questioning god with a believer. They say, if not God, who made everything, and who made it the way it is? We might ask (if we're cynics), what made God? It is just as crazy to assume that there is some all powerful being or force that always exists and always existed, that created everything we are aware of, as it is to assume that something just came from nothing. Actually, the two theories are equally uncertain, in that both require something just being there - either a god, or the universe. Why not just admit that we don't know and maybe can't know? You cannot prove by logic that the universe has always existed. We have never existed outside of time, and we don't understand how time works exactly (though we have many theories which can be very useful on certain scales and in certain applications. As we have never observed how an existance come into being, or observed one *always* being in existance.

"If there is sound science out there in respect of climate change / global warming, it must be thin on the ground.. Cos I aint seen much of it yet!" I guess you've been (like most people) doing everything but /studying/ the topic at an academic level. As a student, I've been forced to, and at the same time I see the information that trickles down through the public media. Don't be fooled into thinking you're getting science, when you're getting news that is usually half opinion. That's why there's so much alarmisn on the one side and so much complacency and denial on the other side. You're right about one thing - in your sentiment you express doubt, and doubt is the key to understanding what scientists are predicting. Rather, probability is - to use Phi's example (and the alter it a little to my liking; I don't think he'll disagree though), it's li ke seeing a huge asteroid heading our way - yes, we see it coming, no, we do not know for certain if it will hit us, but it's heading right at us, and while we can go around blithly assuming something we haven't accounted for will come along and make things right, or we can start now - and here's what we gain from starting now: A smoother transition to alternative sources of energy (this is inevitable - humans use more and more every year, and even reserves of fossil fuels which can conceivably last a long, long time, aren't going to last forever, and they are already rising in prices) Cleaner air, which translates to cleaner rain. This happens in *part* independent to significant reductions in C02, as we can clean exhaust somewhat while still burning fossil fuels. Continued economic dominance, if that matters to you. Power runs our economy, and power prices *will* go up - even the oil industry and coal industry knows this, that's why they are already researching alternatives - they want to be on top when the global power economy does a flip Economic *independence* from certain other countries. I'm a student of Environmental Sciences at the University of CA, Riverside, about to graduate on to graduate school (I plan on studying environmental engineering). I have never had a professor tell me that he is certain of what will happen - I only get that from alarmists in the news who insist that doomsday is not only coming, it's right around the corner. Yet, even out of my field, I have never had a science teacher (or other type, for that matter) express anything but concern over the fact that many of the variables that we can measure suggest very strongly that we are making our own environment, on both global and local scales, less hospitable. It's 8:30 in the morning, and I've got to go to work, but I'd love to give you all of my evidence. I'm sure others will post a little and hopefully they will cite some sources, but if you really want the truth, don't take my word for it, and certainly don't take the word of the media. Don't trust your intuition, either - just because you knew about greenhouse gasses when you were growing up doesn't mean you know anything that is hard science about this world, let alone what is happening right now. Do your own research. Scienceforums.net is an ok place to start, but ultimately you need to go to google and a library. If you research only cutting edge sources, and get a variety of them, you will find that: Despite many predictions to the contrary, and despite various debates about this, the scientific community right now is pretty much settled on the fact that the Earth is warming, and that it is already warmer than it has been for a long, long time. We are also certain that humans are emitting C02, not in the tons, or hundreds or tons, or thousands of tons, or even millions of tons - in the hundreds of millions of tons. And while there are numerous "sinks" for this gas and others, no one really knows anything about the capacity of these sinks. We do know that atmospheric C02 levels are on the rise, and in terms of Earth scales, they are rising at phenomenal rates. To us it seems steady and slow - to the Earth the time scale is little different from that of a massive volcanic eruption, which might over the course of a few days spew very large (even relative to man-made sources) amounts of C02. We are not certain that the observed warming trends are human-caused, or even that the warming trends are actually significant, abnormal warming trends. We don't have enough information. Why then do we care? If you were slowly pressing a knife into your skin, and if the situation was as complex as the condition with global warming, you might not be certain that your skin is bleeding due to you pushing the knife in. You'd still stop, though, if it were that clear (and it is, really, to people who study the science - what we are doing to our world, we expect to have the consequences that we are observing - it makes sense, it follows logically. Should we assume no connection, despite logic?). The long laundry list of potential hazards associated with warming the Earth even a few small degrees (like ... 2 or 3 degrees, on average) daunts me even after spending well over four years studying them. From changing ocean currents (which along could cause massive, widespread famine, disease, and ultimately death) to melting glaciers and icesheets (all of which so far are hardly the worst hazards - these are happening, in the case of ocean currents in very small degrees, but models that chart possible courses of dramatic change suggest that such small changes in ocean currents would be expected until a certain point was reacher, a "tipping point" if you will)), to truly frightening, if less likely possibilities, like gravity pulling a weakened icesheet off of the western face of Antarctica and literally killing the words coastal cities. Man made disasters are not the worst the Earth has seen or will see, and even worst case realistic scenaries don't compare to a massive asteroid, and yet they nevertheless warrent consideration. And they are getting it - ultimately there will be three groups of people: Those who deny it and do not adapt (these people will miss out on massive economic benefits by not being a part of an emerging, powerful industry), those who deny it but are adapting to prepare (for instance, the oil industry - trust me when I say they are not ignorant, they don't believe oil will run forever; afterall, it's their money that funds the scientific expeditions that have determined for us exactly how much fossil fuel we can expect to economically extract, and those who openly advocate preparation for the inevitable - a switch to a cleaner type of energy. As for your original, tongue-in-cheek analogy, I understand where you are coming from. A non-scientist could easily think that the science community is divided into the we're-so-afraid-we-wear-breathing-masks-and-don't-go-out doom camp and the more cool-headed everything-is-fine scientists, because this is the image that sells in the "news." If you consult the scientists themselves, though, you find that they're mostly moderate - they don't believe the world is ending tomorrow, but they know that change is coming - must come - and they know that if it doesn't, if humans don't adapt (which they will; in my opinion there is no doubt, as it will be not only environmentally desirable, but also economically desirable, at some point), we would be in potentially very dire straites, with the world literally changing around our feet.

First off, a net field: Any magnetic field which you can feel or detect is really a combination of many tiny magnetic fields. In a magnetic metal, each atom in the metal is magnetic, and each atom generates a little field - they add up, together, to produce the magnetic field you observe in a magnet. Non magnetic objects can have just as many magnetic fields, only the magnetic fields are all randomly directed. It's kind of like adding a bunch of +1's vs adding a bunch of randomly + or - 1's. In the case of the first you end up with a large number, eventually - the latter never yields a number. Now, for your first question: "Oh. How does moving in the same direction bring about magnetism?" Actually, moving in the same direction is, in a sense, magnetism. When an electron orbiting an atom spins about the atom in it's orbital, it spins in a certain direction. As it moves, it generates a field, and that field moves along with it in the direction the electron spins. That field affects and is affected by other fields. If you have two electrons spinning in the same orbital and making fields, they will tend to align such that they cancel each other out - bringing the system to a lower state of energy (something nature very much desires). When you have an unpaired electron orbiting each atom, each atom has one electron orbital path that is not automatically canceled out by a pair. If you lock all of these individual orbital pathways into a certain direction, and keep that direction the same across all of the atoms in a bar of metal, that bar of metal becomes magnetic, due to the net force of all the individual and aligned electron orbital paths. Some other things you should know: Charges occur as either positive or negative, and opposites attract as much as two of the same charge will attract. Two electron currents will attract each other if they are parrallel or in the same direction (as in two circles)

You don't think it's logical that something might spontaneously exist, without cause, and yet you think it is logical that something has always existed and always will exist (and then on about your cyclic stuff)? You say something can't come from nothing - what created the everything that you claim has always existed, then? Nothing? Personally, I don't have any trouble accepting that both are possibilities. I'd need some hard science to convince me otherwise.

While the glass is still molten, Silver-Chloride and Copper(I)-Chloride are added. The glass crystalizes and the addatives are evenly distributed throughout the glass. Light catalyzes a reversible reaction. The silver is reduced and the chloride is oxidized, resulting in silver and chlorine (as a gas, trapped within the glass). The silver darkens the lens. When light is removed, chlorine oxidizes the Cu(I) to Cu(II), the Cu(II) oxidizes the silver, and you are left with what you started with.

not counting any heat lost through wires as the power travels from the source to the outlet and then through the plug and into the peltier device

Correct me if I'm wrong about any of this, please Peltier devices utilize an electrical current to produce a cold side and a hot side. The hot side gains it's heat energy from the electricity used to drive the device and from the heat absorbed by the cold side. Would it be wrong to say that close to 100% of the energy used to power the device ends up as heat on the hot side?

I'd like to add a few points this this. First: "However, I've read several other adoption case studies that indicate a different conclusion (genetics). link So it's hard to know." The link you supply in this post appears to be evidence of the LACK of importance of genetics in IQ. I followed your link expecting to find something suggesting that genetics plays a role - instead the page is all about how those initial findings were 1) unsubstantiated to begin with and 2) now outdated by more comprehensive studies. Second: I love it when people cite sources. If you don't cite a source, and you're not talking about something that NOBODY in the thread will debate, it's fine - otherwise, cite or most of us who read your post will think you're talking out of your arse, and we may not believe you, even if it's true. We may hold it against you! Also, when you cite, if possible provide links, as it encourages people to actually read the sources - personally, if there's no link, and if I'm not so interested in the topic that I'll check a source myself, I tend to assume that it is false, knowing full well that the majority of the time a source is not made up. I'd rather assume I don't know something that I could know, rather than take the risk that I make an incorrect assumption. Thanks for all the good citations, Phil! Third: I'm not going to claim to have done enough research to know the truth - actually, I think there simply isn't enough research to be certain, though what there is, that I have seen (not what has been said here: what I have actually read in my own studies) all indicates that while genetics play a role, that role is somewhat indeterminate, and that the role of environmental factors seem to drown out the effects of genetics. I don't know the truth, but I have met many black people, many white people, and many asian people - and I have indeed noticed patterns. The black people seem to be divided into two camps, with a somewhat thin line between them - one camp is definately less intelligent (I wouldn't say very much less intelligent - just less) than the average person, and these people are, in my experience, without exception (though I am sure there are exceptions to this, as everything) american blacks, who for numerous reasons are still, to this day, given less opportunities than white people, or even asian people, in this country. The other camp is average to above average in intelligence, and most of these people are from other countries. Many of them are black students from Nigeria and other afrikan countries. Most of those people seem smarter (and wiser, I'd even say) than the average American. I attribute this to the fact that they are by definition prone to be more worldly, as they are foreign students, and to the fact that they, in some cases, came from countries where their level of affluence (though high compared to the rest of that country, often) is comparable to the American middle class. I have met many, many dumb white and asian people, and just as many who were not dumb. Though I attend UCR (a predominantly asian school), I have never had the impression that they are more intelligent - rather, they have a better work ethic, and that's because their parents will disown them if they do poorly, at the least won't pay for anything. That's a bit of a generalization, but I think the point is clear and most people here have probably had similar experiences. Personally, I hate inquiries like this - people are different, yes, but I've yet to encounter a difference (especially a difference linked to race) that was significant enough to warrent a second thought. Furthermore, I suspect that you, in your own personal life, Aswokei, would benfit from abandoning these hard-to-defend semi-racist (some would debate the semi-) beliefs, as, in my opinion, they are not only wrong but harmful. If you were a black boy growing up around people debating about whether or not you even have the potential to match up to the average, it would have negative consequences. As a (presumably) white or asian person, and possibly as a man, you already are subject to other similar racist fallacies - for instance, the belief that there are huge differences in the sizes of genetalia between the races. How would you feel if you wanted to date a woman, only to find out that she doesn't want to date you because she believes that, because of your race, you are poorly endowed? In this matter, I can assure you that, though there may or may not be trends (I have never really read anything convincing enough in this regard, though I have read studies that suggest some difference - nothing significant, though, when you're considering averages, and alongside those studies are others that show nothing), there is so much variation among individuals of all races that these assumptions (which are basically racist) are useless. Any black woman who didn't date me because I'm white would definately be missing out on something big, and I'd be missing out big time if I wouldn't date a woman who was black simply because I worried that her skin color insured that she was less intelligent. What worries me most about these inquiries is what they will lead to - science is good and fine, no matter the subject, if it's performed in a vacuum. Like that ever happens. Every time a poorly-conducted study concludes some racial difference (real but exagerated, or fake, or hell even if it's right on - though I'd say if it's true, we shouldn't be afraid to tell people), a bigot somewhere will use it to fuel his fire. One day, someone may read these studies saying that black people are less intelligent, take the results out of context (environmental differences), and conclude that black people should be wiped out before they further pollute the gene pool. Not only that, but all this emphasis on the performance on a test detracts from the most important thing - what people actually do with their minds. Martin Luther King day is coming up, and this provides a perfect example - whether you think blackpeople are genetically coded to have 10 less IQ points or not, you have to admit (unless you're just racist and seeking evidence to support your position; I don't think you are) that this man accomplished great things in his life. So did Jesus, if you're a christian, and wasn't christ really black? I suppose that's debatable. The point is, who cares what someone's IQ is? Mine is consistently over 135 (three tests, over a decade), and yet I've accomplished less, by many standards, than many people with lower IQs. Because of my laziness I'm 25 and I'm only now going to get my B.S. degree. I plan on going to grad school, and I think I will succeed - not because of my IQ (which I think isn't so good, when you consider I come from an upper-middle class white family, with one parent with a four year degree and another with a two year degree ... parents who own and operate their own business, read to me as a child, and so on - statistically, I was predisposed to score high.), but rather because I have learned that what matters in the end is not intelligence, it is dedication. A more intelligent person than I could *easily* score lower, perhaps even significantly lower - and if you don't believe me, take a test! You will quickly see what I mean.

Just to clarify, there IS work being done, when you push something, even if you push perpendicular to the pull of gravity. When trying to determine if "work" in the technical sense is being done, seeing if it is "work" in the practical sense is useful, as they pretty much coincide. For instance, it is work to push something. ... and in the technical sense, it is also "work." Work, in physics, is, among other definitions (amounting to the same thing, I believe), the sum of kinetic and potential energy changes. When you move something, you add to it's kinetic energy. If it stops moving due to resistance after you push it, work is still done - that work simply was translated into heat in the form of friction with air. In the case of a car, the simplest explanation is that the car engine works most efficiently when you are driving around 50 mph (varies from engine to engine, probably can vary a good bit; I'm no expert on cars). So if you're going under 50 (using 50 mph peak efficiency in this example; this is an assumption) and you speed up, until you hit 50, you get more distance out of each gallon of gas, until you are moving over 50. Then you get diminishing returns. In your example of pushing something while in a moving car, work is done on the car and everything inside when you first start the car up (when you get moving). Once you are at your desired speed, the car needs to do *less* work to sustain that speed than to accelerate - the work that it needs to do is done to make up for the loss of energy through friction. Assuming your car spends this energy to keep the car speed constant, the inside of the car, because the windows are closed and the air is "still," is an inertial frame of it's very own. In other words, as long as those windows aren't open and air isn't rushing in, you can push or pull and the effect is no different than if you were pushing and pulling (to the same degree) while NOT in a moving car. Here's another thing to think about - the earth is spinning around the sun at a very fast speed (around 67000 mph, I believe). So the earth is constantly moving. Does it take more effort to run with the earth, or to run in the other direction (this thought experiment is a little convoluted. Just assume you can run either along with the earth, or in the opposite direction that the earth is moving, without actually stepping off the earth). Further, the sun and the entier solar system is moving, presumably outward from the center of the universe, at a speed that I would guess (I have no data for the actual speed; google it if interested, I'm sure it's high) is much faster than even the 67000 mph the earth is moving around the sun. But really, why use the sun as the reference point? Or why use the center of the solar system? The answer is that you shouldn't - set a convienent inertial frame of reference for physics problems like yours, and it'll make things much cleaner. I hope that helps a little!

For most calculations of this sort, it really doesn't matter what you assume to be at rest. Nothing is really at rest; so long as you are consistent and you take all vectors into account,t he answers will be the same, even if you assume that the earth falls toward people (it's just much simpler to consider it such that small objects fall toward large objects). And once again, since some people don't get it still (though some clearly do, they just aren't being listened to: There is a difference. Acceleration depends upon BOTH masses. However, as it has been stated, you can't prove this by dropping a ball and a feather toward the earth. It only becomes apparant when you a) do the math or b) use larger objects, such as the sun. The rate at which two objects move toward each other depends upon the mass of *both*, though when you use the Earth analogy, the mass of the earth is many magnitudes of order greater than a ball or a rock, so it drowns out the effects of gravity due to mass other than that of the earth. So the equation some of you are using (that only has the mass of the Earth or the force of Earths gravity) is a simplification - it will get you an answer good enough for a certain type of question. However, fundamentally, truly, all things considered - he is right, she is wrong. Practically (in terms of how we as average people who have office jobs, not NASA jobs deal with this) she is right.