doG

I say again, religion is about belief regardless of the facts and science is about the facts regardless of belief.

FWIW, now that I am at work and can reference my reference, Mark's Handbook - 9th Edition calls it rolling friction instead of rolling resistance, which was the term we used in school. Mark's Handbook says: Mark's Handbook treats all of them the same. The OP's assertion is incorrect and it doesn't matter if the OP was simply asking about a ball on a surface or the wheel of a vehicle. The point of contact is subject to the resistance of rolling friction and the resistance is not that of air resistance alone, where it exists. The resistance would be the same in a perfect vacuum. The article section heading may mean different things in other situations but in the context of an assertion that a rolling object is only affected by air resistance it matters not. It shows that rolling resistance is a factor and that the OP's assertion is wrong. That was the only point to be made.

The only thing I cited about that article was an example table of coefficients of rolling resistance to show that it is indeed friction, contrary to the OP's assertion and that the friction depends on the materials. When I personally calculate tractive effort for hydrostatic propulsion systems on off road machinery I add any other forces of friction that impede the propulsion system. The table in the article may include those other forces but it was only cited to show that it was friction and not simply air resistance alone. The table I use most often in my own work is in Mark's Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers and those values are simply the coefficients of rr for various wheels on various surfaces without any additional resistance added in.

And those additional sources have variables assigned to them. The have no bearing on the rolling resistance. The friction, i.e. rolling resistance, of a wheel rolling on a surface depends only on the force pushing the wheel against the surface it is rolling on, the materials of the wheel and surface. If the wheel has weight on an axle then that is additive to the weight of the wheel on the surface. Yes, there is also friction where the axle passes through the wheel but that has nothing to do with the resistance where the wheel contacts the surface it is rolling on. The rolling resistance of a 1000 pound steel wheel rolling on a steel rail is the same as a 1 pound steel wheel on a steel rail with 999 pounds resting on the wheel. Yes, there is additional friction where the axle goes through the wheel but that friction is not part of the friction at the surface that we call rolling resistance.

Thank you, missed that. It makes no difference though, Rolling resistance is rolling resistance. It is friction that results from elastic deformation. Be it a sphere or cylinder or a vehicle resting on such it is still the same. It is nothing to do with the drag caused by rolling through a fluid as it exists equally in a perfect vacuum. It is not dependent on speed. It depends only on the force between the surfaces and the materials they are made of. I simply made reference earlier to a table of coefficients of rolling resistance for vehicles as an example because I know of no reference for bowling balls, beach balls, ball bearings or other spheres. I routinely use the table for wheels in my calculations for hydraulic drive systems and knew that it would show the OP that their original hypothesis asserting no friction was involved was flawed.

Could you please highlight the phrase 'bowling balls' in the OP. I seem to be too dense to see it. All I could find there was the general term 'object' which would seem to include both vehicles and bowling balls since both are objects that roll.

So. Rolling resistance is still there and still has the same affect.

Correct. Rolling resistance and drag are two different variables of friction therefore rolling resistance would not be included in the evaluation of drag caused by air resistance. Both are necessary in calculating the required propulsion of motor vehicles here on Earth but not so for a lunar rover. Rocket propulsion equations require a consideration of drag for rockets inside the atmosphere but not for those in space. The OP asserted that it is not friction that slows down a rolling body but air resistance and that is incorrect. Air resistance plays a part when it is present but a rolling body in a perfect vacuum would still slow down and that is because of the rolling friction that affects it.

That's not been my experience. I frequently relocate animals like these I see in public. I can pick up a small spider I see walking across the floor in a public place like a restaurant and a noticeable percentage of adults will clear a path for me while yound children will want a closer look. My own lack of fear in picking up these animals with my hands may play some role in the children's reaction but it does nothing for the adults nearby that are afraid of them.

No, rolling resistance depends on the friction between the materials. Speed would effect the coefficient of drag which additionally applies to the total resistance of a body's motion in a fluid environment but not the rolling resistance itself.

No, it is not correct. Here's an experiment that will help you to see this. Go to a sandy beach with a bicycle that has nice fat tires and ride it across the sand. Now fit the bicycle with thin steel plates as tires and try riding it across the sand. You will learn that one has much more rolling resistance than the other when both move at the same speed. Rolling resistance is a variable used when calculating propulsion systems for vehicles and varies with the wheel type and surface. The wiki article on rolling resistance has a list of coefficients that are frequently used.

One thing to remember about snakes is that they, like sharks, have no limbs to explore things with so they will use their mouth for that. In these cases their bite is not intended as aggression or an attempt to feed but an attempt to explore out of curiosity. I had a 12' python bite my shoulder one day and then she turned loose immediately on realizing what I was. This can be painful with large snakes but it is mostly just a nuisance with small ones.

Maybe, but I think not. I routinely take out snakes, tarantulas and scorpions for children visiting a local pet store that I patronize. Most, if not all, small children are enthusiastic to get up close and many ask if they can pet the animal. They exhibit a natural curiosity free of fear. It seems the older people are, the larger the percentage are that I see fear and anxiety when I do this. For me I see this is evidence that it is a learned fear, not one they are born with. I suspect those that are afraid either have hand-me-down fears from their parents telling them to fear these animals or that they have been taunted with these animals in a terroristic manner. I'm sure it doesn't help when people see movies that depict a tarantula or snake devouring some mexican village. Were either or both of your parents afraid of snakes? Many parents that are afraid of them condition their children to be afraid of them as well. Do you remember a time when you were not as fearful of them as you are now?

No it's not. Faith is a mental disorder!

You haven't created any continuous motion machine either. We're waiting to see some.substance to your claim.

prove it

I see no particular societal problems with someone of any age getting into a drunken stupor at home. Beyond the home a certain amount of responsible maturity is necessary in those that drink to minimize the consequences they cause to others. This comes with age and it should limit what activities any particular age group may participate in. That said, I can see no benefit to lowering the drinking age unless it can be shown that the vast majority of people at that age have the responsible maturity necessary to minimize the consequences that adjustment would cause to others in society.

Two thoughts come to mind: 1. The stomach is full of acid and hot acid could be more reactive with certain food stuffs than others. Gases produced by these foods could cause more digestive discomfort than with other foods. 2. I personally like certain soups and stews scalding hot, so hot that I have to be careful how I eat them so as not to scald my mouth. They have a much stronger flavor when eaten like this because it seems my taste buds open more and become more sensitive. With each bite I find there is a limit as to how long I can keep them in my mouth and I have to swallow them before my mouth burns. The tissues beyond don't seem to be as sensitive to the heat because this causes me no noticeable discomfort even though they are hot enough to scald the tissues in my mouth. None of these foods ever seem to cause me any stomach discomfort so for me I cannot say that hot foods ever cause an upset stomach. I should probably mention as well that my stomach's conditioning is not average. I routinely eat extremely spicy foods as a chilihead. I routinely eat peppers that others handle with gloves so it is evident that the tissues in my digestive tract have an accumulated tolerance to conditions that could cause great discomfort in others. I do not know to what extent this affects my tolerance to high temperature foods but I suspect that it probably has some effect as opposed to none at all. It is rare for me to ever have an upset stomach from anything I eat and yet I know people that have to take regularly prescribed digestive medications to prevent regular stomach upset. These makes me think that some people probably have a personal physiology that could make them more susceptible to high temperature foods than I am.

It's not just the republicans. They're all a bunch of liars. The fact that they write legislation that affects us and not them should be the first sign that they're up to no good. Wake up America, your representation is excessively diluted and what's there is only interested in representing themselves!

The motor that drives the compressor will have more power than the fan motor.

You could but the motor probably won't last long if you do. The wire size used in the windings is based on the current through the windings when the motor is used at the design voltage. Upping the voltage will increase the current since the resistance will remain the same. It is common for the manufacturers of such unit to go back and do cost engineering after the initial design engineering is complete to get the cost down to the bare minimum which means using a wire gauge that is minimally sufficient for the design voltage and horsepower. BTW, you said you got this fan motor from an old air conditioner. Is the compressor motor good in that air conditioner? It will be rated for more horsepower than the fan motor. You might could use it instead.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+do+motherboards+work

What makes you think a black hole is dead?

Perhaps a super massive black hole supernova, i.e. big bang? We haven't begun to understand the physics that would explain the life of such a black hole. If such a black hole did occur as the result of some universal sized big crunch then perhaps something similar to a supernova event could explain how the big bang occurred.

That is the reference speed of light in a vacuum, not the speed of light under other circumstances.