John Cuthber

I can't imagine any evidence turning up for this thread so shouldn't it be in speculations? It certainly isn't science.

Do you remember me saying this "As you say, " Energy is lost flexing any flexible wheel." and that includes any rolling object with a finite Young's modulus." and do you understand that a bowling ball's young's modulus is finite (and the hysteresis losses are, therefore, not zero. The point I'm making is that not only are those losses not zero, but they depend on the speed of rolling. Whether it's on an axle or not is entirely beside the point. there is still energy loss, and it's still velocity dependent.

Because the energy loss on flexing is not constant and that in turn is because, if you flex it a lot it gets hot and that affects the visco-elastic properties.

If the population of Earth is anything to go by*, most aliens will look small and unicellular. * I know it isn't but it's as good a guess as any other.

Oh yes it does.

How fortunate then, that I made no such implication. What I said was that assuming that God exists and then using that to prove the existence of God is a logical fallacy. It is, and so is the argument from authority- particularly when the authority isn't very good at logic. Since it's a breach of the forum's rules to use logical fallacies in an attempt to support a point, I will leave you all to ponder whether or not such action is wise.

OK, fair enough, but please cite evidence for madness as a consequence of facing reality, and, in particular, show a difference between theists and atheists. Zorro, what you don't seem to realise is that, from a scientific point of view, the OP might just as well say "God is real because the unicorns said so.". Also, you need to learn to recognise logical fallacies.

"The underlying premise of this threat is that godavg is a theist and that God exists." Nope, that's your assumption. However, even if it were true, your posts ( and Leibniz's assertion) would still be a logical fallacy. You would still be using the existence of God to prove the existence of God. That's not logic, nor is it science. It's pointless and it just wastes time. As I said, it makes you look silly.

His logic is plainly flawed He's doing this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question and so are you by saying "God does exist ". Logical fallacies of that sort achieve nothing: they just make you look foolish.

Not according to the people who measure it. And, re "Yes, but as studiot said, why should it depend on velocity? " Probably because visco-elastic forces are a bit odd- and time dependent.

And according to the other WIKI article it does, and they seem to be citing people who measure it. Probably because visco-elastic forces are a bit odd- and time dependent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscoelasticity#Elastic_behavior_versus_viscoelastic_behavior

A bowling ball has rolling resistance in the same way that a tire does. As you say, " Energy is lost flexing any flexible wheel." and that includes any rolling object with a finite Young's modulus.

As far as I can tell, Zorro is citing Leibniz as an authority figure because he invented calculus. That's not logical. Just because he was good at maths doesn't mean he was good at theology. (he may or may not have been but that's not the point) Then he illogically uses Leibniz as an authority figure to set up another logical fallacy- that of "argument by authority". So, he's brokenly (i.e. he's using an argument from authority) using broken logic (the begging the question quote I cited above) to explain why he's logically not broken. There are neither sufficient palms not an adequate supply of faces in the world to express the wrongness of that in the traditional way for the internet.

Well, you seem to have got something right- probability by accident. The "electrons" would go through the air like radiation from "radioactive" substances" That's probably more or less true. Electrons carrying a million volts worth of energy have a range in air of the order of inches. With just a few volts, they don't get far.

As far as I can see from the cited article, the drag coefficient only considers the air resistance. "The drag coefficient of any object comprises the effects of the two basic contributors to fluid dynamic drag: skin friction and form drag. " The rolling resistance is not included, but something separate. It seems that the society of automotive engineers have seen fit to model that by an equation which is quadratic in velocity (Their eqn is also proportional to the vehicle weight- drag wouldn't be.

I'd expect a first-year student in a college debate to point out that this " universal genius " was using faulty logic. He may have got calculus right (and he wasn't the only one) but he clearly got logic wrong.

They are not paradoxes because they don't fit the definition of paradox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox and it's not a paradox that they are not paradoxical.

Those are not paradoxes.

No, they can't. No, the proportion of children with a given condition should stay the same. of course, a bigger population might make other differences and those differences might affect the incidence of allergies. For example, with more people, you might have a bigger town so those in the middle would be exposed to more traffic fumes.

It seems that it does depend on speed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-rolling_resistance_tires Rolling Resistance ( N / Lbs) = Pα x Zβ x (a + bxV + cxVxV) P is the tire inflation pressure ( kPa / psi) Z is the applied load for vehicle weight ( N /Lbs) V is the vehicle speed ( km/h / mph) alpha, beta, a, b, c are the coefficients for the model. A rolling object will be slowed down by air resistance as well as by rolling resistance.

Zorro, you have posted that twice. Why? iNow, There's a lot about religion that reminds me of Orwell.

The first part of that is so difficult to follow that I stopped reading it. Gottfried Leibniz, 1647-1716 became completely broken in 1716 and still broken? I think so. the secons slice is full of assertions which beg the question and is thus a logical fallacy. For example "Leibniz asserted that the truths of theology (religion) and philosophy cannot contradict each other, since reason and faith are both "gifts of God" so that their conflict would imply God contending against himself. " is meaningless- it presupposes the existence of God in order to ascribe properties to Him- for example that He donated "reason" to us. You can't use an axiom which includes God's existence to prove that he exists. There are other similar issues with what's written.

That's not the way it works "If you have even a shred of evidence showing vaccines television shows DO NOT cause food allergies, " You are asking for proof of a negative and that's just plain illogical. The truth is that we simply do not know what causes food allergies. While there is a plausible (though not proven) hypothetical link between vaccines and food allergies, there is no such link for other allergic reactions and those too are increasing. How can you be so sure that the rise in food allergies isn't caused by whatever factor is causing the rise in hay-fever and asthma? I'm sorry to hear of your kid's allergies and I realise that the effects are devastating. But they are still alive. In the days before vaccination it's likely that you would be mourning the death of more than half of your children. Do vaccines still look so bad?

We don't ponder reality all the time. But that's equally true for atheists and theists. So it can't have much to do with the question of whether theists are broken. The point remains that those people's child died and, had they not been religious, he would almost certainly have lived. That's at least 2 people whose brokenness is their religion.

Externet, do you not understand that permanent magnets are heavy? Using a lighter, but less efficient motor to start a car engine makes sense because it's not running most of the time , but it is always carried about. Using permanent magnets would make the car less efficient, because it would be heavier. There are other, similar trade offs in other situations. Also, a lot of small motors are permanent magnet types.