ewmon

The GCSE Science site uses fixed braking values and does not consider the increase in the normal force. What is your take away from the varying opinions on the Physics Forum, and why?

Well, it's just that the first link says and the second link is a forum whose members give widely differing opinions.

I've noticed an inverse relationship between the relative size of an object and the length of its name (if not by outright letters, then by syllables or words). The reason for this being, at least, diminutive endings (see "spago" below) and designations needed to distinguish one of many small things (see leg bones below). Exceptions certainly exist. Examples — The "world" versus "Proxima Centauri" aka "V645 Centauri" (the nearest star to our solar system) "spago" (Italian for small cord) versus "spaghetti" (diminutive of "spago") versus "spaghettini" diminutive of "spaghetti" Some leg bones – "femur" versus "tibia", "patella" and "fibula" versus the "intermediate cuneiform bone" (one of those little bones in the ankle) "Person" versus "rocket scientist" versus "Robert Hutchings Goddard" (a particular rocket scientist)

Did you guys take into consideration the doubling of the normal force between the car and the road (and possibly the braking force) when the car's mass is doubled? So, the standard equation, a = F/m, would produce the same deceleration — (2FB)/(2m) = FB/m = a

I recall certain proteins also have "helper" proteins whose interactions help those proteins acquire their proper secondary and/or tertiary structures, so whether those helper proteins are present may also determine if a protein can return to its proper structure.

You're talking about a panic stop where the tires apply the greatest traction to the road without breaking free. Increasing the mass of the car increases the car's normal force on the road and, thus, the traction and the greatest traction. So, the heavier car could decelerate at the same rate and stop in the same distance. HOWEVER, I'm not remembering my mechanics enough to recognize the limitations of a car's braking system. Obviously if the car weighs 1,000,000 kg, the braking system will not stop it in the same distance. The braking system transforms the car's kinetic energy into thermal energy absorbed and dissipated by the disks/calipers and drums/shoes. I think the failure occurs when these components fail due to this heat.

Without public knowledge, how would the public know to report suspicious people or activities? So, you're standing in a checkout line at the local Wal-Mart, and the person in front of you is buying a dozen pressure cookers and thousands of nuts, bolts, washers, etc. That's nice, you think, he's going to have a barn raising ... the pressure cookers are to feed the neighbors who volunteer to help, and the hardware is for the barn. Just another cute episode of Americana.

As for your first part, any infinite, non-repeating number will do, and it's only a trivial kind of numerology, which might not "make the grade" {literally} for an undergrad poster. As for your second part on river sinuosity, I have never seen a river with such a ratio as pi, and I bet you can't show me one either. Cut a rubber band or piece of string, measure its length, divide by pi, and set the ends that far apart. That's A LOT of sinuosity!

Ockham's razor. Why not shoot a satellite's maser at corn fields grown on government-owned property (eg, the British equivalent of Area 51 ... Diego Garcia comes to mind, or somewhere in a former British colony in Africa) instead of privately-owned farms in Wiltshire where they (supposedly) wouldn't be discovered (even though they obviously would be and were discovered)? Otherwise, rather irresponsible, unjustified and dangerous sessions of using private property for target practice that would open up the government to serious lawsuits. I've never heard of a farmer filing a complaint of vandalism regarding crop circles, just a lot of wonderment and head scratching ... and grinning. Do you know how boring it is watching corn grow?It's just redneck humor aimed first at their community, and eventually at them know-all college boys (ha ha — who thought they would fall for it too?). It must create quite a chuckle down at the local Agway.

I think it's easy to see that π is the ratio of two measurements, and that it's a constant that's independent of the size of a circle (shown using geometry). I'm guessing the question behind the OP is, Why 3.14159...? And why isn't it a rational number, seeing as how it's the ratio of two measurements? In other words, we can take a measurement of 1 as the radius and draw a circle, so why is the circumference 2π, an irrational number? How does the making of a circumference "transform" a rational number into an irrational number? I don't think this is too off-topic, but judge for yourself.

— William James, American pragmatist philosopher and psychologist, also known as the Father of American Psychology

Hmm.... What makes π so special to you?

Thirty people have viewed this thread but have not responded, so I'll begin by asking — What grade?

Elfmotat explains the cross product of vectors that I couldn't remember.

Honest, all I did was google — zoo curator career path How to Become a Zoo Curator: Career Guide There's probably more info at this website for other career paths. Then there's always the human approach of asking a zoo curator about how such curators end up in that position. Also, by talking with people in the profession about what excites/interests you, they can help to point you in the right direction. But don't take their word for it. If a zoo curator suggests being a field researcher sounds more to your liking, then talk with a field researcher to see if it's a near-optimal fit. Try to get summer jobs in your career path. Check on job statistics, predictions, outlook, etc. Maybe zoo curators or field researchers are becoming obsolete. I can't recommend this hilariousness movie enough — My Family and Other Animals. It's an autobiographical work by naturalist Gerald Durrell, telling of the part of his childhood he spent on the Greek island of Corfu between 1935 and 1939. Get through part 1, which gives you Durrell's background, and the rest of the movie is a riot.

It's because of right hand rule — Sorry, I couldn't resist ! When you wrote that the angular velocity was "downward", I easily realized — using the right-hand "convention" — that the disc spinning clockwise had its axis vertical and that it spun clockwise while looking down from above. Otherwise, the axis could have been horizontal (as with the hands of a wall clock, where the angular velocity is into the wall) or vertical (as with the blades of a ceiling fan). If a ceiling fan is spinning clockwise as seen from below, then its angular velocity would be "upward". You could have just as well used a left-hand convention in your example and said that the angular velocity was upward as long as everyone knew you were using that convention so they could correctly interpret the description you gave it (ie, upward). There's another point I want to make, but I'm not remembering it well enough to explain it. convention n. a general agreement about basic principles or procedures; also : a principle or procedure accepted as true or correct by convention We live our lives by lots of conventions. We put on our right blinker to make a right turn. It means, "Look out! I'm turning this way." The opposite convention would be to put on our left blinker to make a right turn. With such a convention, the left blinker means, "Pass me on this side because I'm turning right." If a young lady purposely ignores a guy, it would indicate under the most common convention that she's not interested in him. But, if he interprets it under an alternate and much less common convention to mean he's not trying hard enough, then his misinterpretation could get him into trouble. With computers, HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol) is a data transfer convention. Jpg, bmp, gif and so on are conventions that indicate how graphical data is written into, and read out of, a file. If you don't know the data storage format (aka, "convention"), you don't know how to write or read the file.

Collision mechanics can be very complex. You're looking to decelerate a falling object to zero velocity. It requires knowing the nature of the object and the "ground", and to what extent the collision is elastic or inelastic, The distance through which the object decelerates is a function of these factors. various factors → distance → time → deceleration → force So far, you've recognized the last calculation, deceleration → force, which is F=ma, assuming that the deceleration is constant.

Naw, try calling it Oudtshoorn's Scale of Complexity, which sounds very mathematical, or something like that. Better yet, if you think complexity is so interesting (and it is), try digging into some real systems (such as animal brains) and develop a useful measurement of complexity. You could become rich and famous by developing it. (Well, you can't have everything!)

No, I hijacked "plex" and invented the definition I gave here. The term "plex" is found in complex, duplex, etc and also as ply, multiply, four-ply, plywood, etc as well as plait, pleat, etc. E plex < L plicare, to fold, to weave < PIE *plek, to plait, to interweave

This is imagined. Try the log of (the number of nodes times the number of synapses/neuron) or just log(total synapses), resulting in units of "plex". For example, from Wikipedia — Log(1011 neurons × 7,000 synapses) = 14.8. The average human brain is a 14.8 plex. Einstein may have had twice the number of synapses, or a 15.1 plex. The nematode C elegans has a 3.7 plex. Poor little C elegans. Fruit flies have a 7 plex. Honeybees have a 9 plex. Mice have an 11 plex. Rats have an 11.7 plex. source

The matter of the source of morality for theists and atheists was settled many posts ago. We all know the source for Christians is the Christian Bible, and as best as I can see, the source for atheists is secular laws and inherent human rights. The last couple of pages here has become polarized and non-productive. I could claim the reason for this is because atheists don't understand the Bible or Christians, but then they could claim that they understand both all to well. As I already said, to each his own. Anyone can post what they want here after this. I'm done here. This discussion has helped me understand the atheist perspective more. Thank you one and all.

John Cuthber Ewmon Stop trying to change the subject, and answer the points raised. What Christ explicitly taught was that the OT laws still stand, and that they will do so forever. (He could hardly say anything else because it would mean that God got the laws wrong in the first place.) Those laws include many things that are, by today's standards immoral. So Christ clearly taught immorality. The "laws" do not change in the sense that those acts are still wrong/sinful. You need to understand that Christ's sacrifice was the propitiation for all sins. Anyone who lives their life and does not accept this (ie, Christ) will be punished on judgment day. You guys can't have it both ways — punishment on earth and punishment on judgment day. Make up your minds, should Christians punish non-believers now, or should Christ punish non-believers in the afterlife? Or is it "kill them all, and let God sort them out"? Stoning people to death is doing people harm but that's what Christ advocated. Ignoring this won't make it go away, not least because others who follow the same book use it as a justification for murder. Empirical evidence: Again, Christ did not advocate stoning people (and why am I having to repeat myself again and again and again), and he did not stone the prostitute (or anyone). Please cite chapter and verse where Christ said something like, "I've come to take away the sins of the world, so forgive one another ad infinitum, but keep stoning people, especially prostitutes." And once again (and again and again), I'm not responsible for those few who somehow justify their acts of murder etc. What if some wacko murdered people based on the writings of John Cuthber on scienceforums.net? Would that make you responsible? Or, more accurately, would those people who agree with your writings on scienceforums.net (especially those who click on your green reputation arrows, ) be responsible/answerable for what the wacko does? I think not. Promethius Ewmon By absolving us of our sins he is also taking from us our responsibility for our actions and ability to learn from our mistakes. Well intentioned, and maybe once useful, but we're simply moving on. As stated above, people who don't repent from sinning will be punished on judgment day, and their punishment is eternal. If eternal punishment isn't painful, I don't know what is. The problem with Christianity, and all religions, is that they are static. What was once a boon to humanity has outlived its usefulness and now keeps us chained to the past. Jesus might have been a step up from his stone age war god of a father but now we can do better. Chained to the past? No, not in the least. Wrong direction. Christians look forward, anticipating the future/eternity. Talk to some Christians sometime, they should be able to set you straight. Not to mention it's all obviously allegory, yet people take it as literal truth. To each his own — again, I'm not evangelizing here. Moontanman Ewmon Ewmon. what would you do if you knew someone was a witch? What do you do to teenagers who refuse to behave? What do you do to someone who wears a garment made of different types of fibers? Jesus said the old laws still apply so what do you do? I know lots of witches or pagans and Wiccans as they like to call themselves... should I be rounding them up for a good old fashioned witch fry? Not too far back in the history of the US witches were burned at the stake, in Europe I think drowning them was the preferred solution. Go back a three hundred years and various protestant denominations were killing each other over who was worshiping their version of god the right way... In recent history Catholics and Protestants were killing each other but go back a couple centuries and you would probably be the guest of honor at a burning at the stake due to your modern beliefs. The Christianity you follow has been gelded by secular laws, the morals you follow are secular morals ewmon... I suggest you watch this video, 10 minutes out of your life to see the truth. While It's mostly aimed at creationists it is relevant to this conversation. To answer your own questions, I suggest you look around and scientifically accept the empirical data you see from Christians — they love their neighbors and their enemies, and they turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile. We already had this conversation, remember? I shouldn't be having to tell you again and again that Christians don't burn witches or stone children. Or is it stone witches and burn children? I do have a hard time keeping track of other people's fantasies? But I did meet a young man whose entire back was one extensive piece of scar tissue that someone had burned, apparently with cigarettes, little by little. The religious affiliation, if any, of the perp is unknown to me. Seeing as how s/he were a cigarette smoker, s/he was most probably not a Christian. As for garments, I personally would criminalize polyester and spandex (spandex should be elevated from a misdemeanor to a felony for people with a BMI over 30 or who have "curdled milk" butts ), and when I even think of wearing linsey-woolsey underwear, I get the hives. Wool shorts? Yikes! Honestly, Moontanman, you should read about these old Jewish prohibitions, then you would understand them better. "Not too far back in the history of the US ... Go back a three hundred years ... In recent history ... go back a couple centuries". Some people in this forum might be able to time travel (although I very seriously doubt it), but not me, so all these points are useless. And, once again and again, I'm only responsible for myself. Please read what Promethius says above about being chained to the past. According to him, only Christians are chained to the past. Could you two atheists please get into lockstep (read below) on this issue. Thanks for cooperating. C'mon Moontanman, you must get your fantasies straight — I either believe in burning people at the stake or my beliefs have been gelded by secular laws — your fantasies can't have it both ways unless, maybe, if Christians can somehow time travel, which I very seriously doubt. You focus on witches, but they have a supernatural belief system too. But that's okay with you? I knew a witch who threw evil hexes on people (right in front of them), who wrote supposedly anonymous hate letters to her "enemies" (who collectively realized that they came from her — the handwriting and subject matters were the giveaways), and who sexually molested little children (and attempted to murder the witness who caught her). Is she okay with you just because she's a witch, or what would you do with her? Hmm? As for the video, do you claim that, because all the world's religions don't march in a moralistic lockstep, all atheists do? Because if there's anything written by men that is really, really, really hard to believe, it would be that all atheists always have and always will march in a moralistic lockstep. The atheists on this forum can't even do that. Including the funny Monty Python clips in the video was a nice touch.

It seems some here miss the point that Christ died (that is, was the punishment) for all sins, by both Christians and non-Christians. There's no more punishments by those who accept Christ. Christ preached forgiveness, and Christians live it. If people would set aside this Christian-bashing mantra for the moment and read the rest of the Bible, they would understand this. Anyone who harms does not follow what the Christian Bible teaches, and again, you would know this if you read it.

I added paragraph numbers. 1. This is probably the first reasonable response here regarding the source of atheistic morality. So, how does one discern our inherent human rights? 2. In other words, God does not give "partial credit". You've heard that before, right? You either "get it" or you don't "get it". Babies are born 100% selfish, and they must learn to "play with others", to "be good", etc ... right? So then, is 100% selfish okay? An apparent atheist on this forum said that babies must be this way, or in Christian words, that they must be born with "original sin". No mystery there. Keeping with the idea of "sin" for a moment, complaining about going to hell for a tiny unrepentant sin is like complaining about being charged with a parking ticket when there's all sorts of serious crime going on in our society that the cops should pay more attention to instead of checking for expired parking meters. By paying attention to expired parking meters, is the government claiming that there's not enough child abuse, pedophilia, rapes, murders, robberies, burglaries, elder abuse, suicides by bullying, etc for them to focus on, but they have plenty of time and manpower to spend checking if I was a dime short on a lousy parking meter and then forcing me to go to court if I want to fight it? This is all for the good of society, right? A dime short? Hunt them down! Charge them! Punish them! Is it not good enough to say, for example, that I'm having an extramarital affair, but at least I'm not a pedophile, rapist, murderer, thief, etc, therefore, having an affair is okay? For want of a nail, right? We can applaud the realization of the Butterfly Effect in Chaos Theory, but we can't applaud us living life down to the minutest detail of moral living. And let me point out here that it's not a matter of sin that separates the Christian from the non-believer because we all sin. Did you know that Christians sin? It's a matter of repentance and being committed to working toward a more perfect life. 3. The Book of James 1:14-17 4. This is basically a closed issue. One atheist here even said that, not only do Christians not act according to how the atheists interpret the Bible, but even Christ didn't act as he should (ie, he should have stoned the prostitute). Hmmm. Maybe, just maybe, the atheists got it wrong. Keep reading. 5. The claim that the gospels were written long after Christ's death is not true. On the idea of the many gospels that "by popular vote it was winnowed down to the 4 we know today", are you saying that all those writings were right or that it was wrong to try to determine which ones were right? The determination wasn't really by "popular vote", although it may seem that way to an atheist who doesn't understand the powers of the Holy Spirit. However, you said that western morality is derived from law approved by the people — essentially, popular vote. So, you seem to say that it's okay that morality can be approved by popular vote, but that facts relating of a religious figure must not be. Consider some "realities" floating around this forum and other scientific forums almost real time — the govt blew up the Twin Towers (and Bldg 7), the Pentagon was hit by a missile, the govt is keeping Nicolo Tesla's highly-advanced technology a secret, Area 51, etc. These things must be real because people have read books on these things, right? Tesla is a particularly good example here because he was a real person and of some well-earned fame but on whom people have piggybacked all sorts of wild claims. 6. Please read below. And I keep saying that Jesus fulfilled all the laws and the prophets, which refers to the OT. The second coming is not in the OT. The term "Law" refers to the Torah, which are the first five books of the OT, and the term "Prophets" refers to the rest of the OT. There are much bigger religious fish to fry than Christians. Try bashing those religious people who believe in female genital mutilation, throwing acid in women's faces, and honor killings. They are people who actually perform evil acts.

Please cite your reference.