Sisyphus

I just don't understand how a high level politician would not find it prudent to get a good, honest accountant. I mean, it's not like they need the money from failing to pay, and tax returns are a pretty obvious part of any vetting process, even if they're not publicly released. I dunno, maybe the lesson is learned, and Congressmen are all frantically calling their accountants as we speak.

Are the mod staff gods? 'Cus if so, you should know that offerings to me should be sent to my paypal account, not burned at an altar.

I think the idea is that falling freely in a uniform gravitational field is indistinguishable from just sitting there in space, not moving or moving uniformly (which are themselves the same thing), called an "inertial frame." Hence astronauts in freefall orbits seeming "weightless," even though the Earth's gravity is almost as strong there as it is on the surface. So if accelerating in a gravitational field is equivalent to an inertial frame, then resisting the field (that is, "not moving," e.g. standing on the Earth's surface) is equivalent to accelerating, making it non-inertial. Er, right, D H?

Sure you do. You're not a lepton, are you? Poseur!

It is only the normal force. It doesn't have to balance mg, it just does when you're standing there because that's how much you're exerting on the ground.

It depends on the context in which it is discussed. The way I see it, religion is ok to talk about in the context of something else, e.g. as a sociological phenomenon in politics or psychology topics. Theology, as in arguing over what is "true," is against the rules, since it causes so much trouble for almost no benefit to scientifically minded discussions. I wish we could talk about it, too, since it's an interesting topic and I'm curious what the members of this forum in particular think, but we've empirically demonstrated that it's just not going to work.

What are you guys highly trained in?

The water level would go down. When they're in the boat, the bricks displace their weight in water. When they're tossed overboard, they only displace their own volume. Since they're denser than water, their weight in water takes up more space than the bricks themselves.

Well, yes and no. Presumably the person asking has something in mind, and that's almost always some version of the Abrahamic God, but even that means all sorts of things to different people. And so even though questioner and questionee might have something in mind and usually each assume it's the same thing, it very often either isn't the same thing, or one or both have something vague in mind that it's a meaningless question.

This is the key issue. It is relative velocity. There is no such thing as "velocity" in itself, only measured with respect to something else. A magnetic field is what you experience when you move relative to an electrostatic field. Or vice versa, if the electric field (that is, the charged particle) moves relative to you. (Since there is no absolute reference frame, the situations are identical.) That is what is meant by "a magnetic field forms when charge is moving." Moving relative to what the field is acting on.

That equation describes the force on a charged particle as it moves through a magnetic field. The v in the equation is the particle's velocity relative to the field. Moving the particle or moving the source of the field in the opposite direction has the same effect. There is no absolute velocity. Your bold text is, in fact, false. Two isolated electrons with no relative velocity will simply repel one another electrostatically. "The faster they are moving" is meaningless, inasmuch as there is no such thing as absolute velocity. Parallel currents in wires is a different situation, inasmuch as they are moving relative to the ions in the wires.

The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind.

Again, that is incorrect. The velocity is relative. The strength of the magnetic field you experience is dependent on your velocity relative to the electron.

Again, though, that situation assumes you know how much money the guy next to you is making. And yes, I'm sure a lot of the disparity is due to women generally complaining less about their salaries and being less aggressive in negotiation. Among the many side effects of higher testosterone, we men tend to have a greater sense of self-importance. (As usual, I'm talking about statistics, not generalizations.)

I predict a subway series, with a Mets victory in game 7. Wait, we're talking about football? Who cares?

I'm actually kind of surprised nobody has tried to blow the thing up to "save the world" yet. I mean, aren't there any angry, FOX News-equivalent watching mobs near the Franco-Swiss border?

The velocity in those equations is relative velocity. There is no such thing as absolute velocity. And aether is conclusively disproven, by confirmation of special relativity.

I think the "conspiracy theorists" only come out of their holes in election years. I don't think there are still enough people who think he has a "secret Muslim agenda" or whatever to matter at all, so let them talk, and let people see for themselves how ridiculous they are. Sending a message to the Islamic world, on the other hand, is of enormous importance.

It could still be an ecosystem, just a designed and intentionally simplified one, made up entirely of microorganisms. The humans wouldn't be personally immersed in it, but they could trade biproducts with it. Remember, every ecosystem needs an external energy source. Here on Earth most of them are solar-powered, some are geothermal.

I wonder about the bullying/weakness perception. The main difference here is not what we're willing to give (which might be seen as weakness), but the whole posture of discussion. The problem with "carrots" vs. "sticks" is that they're both insulting. (You're treating them like a mule! Your mule!) Obama seems to be trying to lead by example without without talking down to foreign nations, which I imagine will be tricky but worth it, assuming he can pull it off.

That's kind of what I was thinking. Why try to mimic a natural ecosystem? For that matter, why use anything but algae (natural or GE'd for various purposes)? The appeal of a "natural" ecosystem "taking care of itself" is strong, but as others have said, in order for that to be realistic you'd need a huge one, otherwise it would just be too fragile.

I agree that is pretty much the main reason - not "to screw people," per se, but to put the employer at an unfair negotiating advantage by having far more information than the employee. And if that weren't the case there probably wouldn't be these issues - the market can probably take care of it itself, but only if the "consumers" have access to the relevant information.

Indeed. Hence my post #2.

On January 26 Barack Obama had his first televised interview as President, which he gave to the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya. The subject was, naturally, his approach to the Muslim world. A lot of liberal commentators are celebrating it, declaring "the war on terror is over," etc. I wouldn't go that far, but I do think it's a huge improvement in tone over Bush, and I'm interested (and actually optimistic) to see how Islamic public opinion of the United States develops over the next few years. I think he came across as firm, but still respectful, openminded, and appreciative of the complexity of the situation. That alone should get him much farther than Bush, even if he doesn't change a single concrete policy. What do you think? Here is the transcript: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/01/obama-muslim-tv.html

It's just a kernel of an idea, but maybe it's this assumption that needs re-examining. (Or maybe not.)