mooeypoo

I have to say, that picture reminded me of War of the Worlds. Just sayin'.

Bascule, speculation doesn't mount, the sites just reiterate the same rumor. If any ONE of those sites would give a shred of evidence this is happening, then perhaps we could all say it's mounting.. but really, they're all just repeating each other about "maybe" Isarel's using it. That doesn't add any credence to the rumor.

As far as I know, checked and rechecked and asked, Israel is *NOT* using chemical warfare. Do you have anything to corroborate this claim, bascule? It seems you URL is not making this claim, it's repeating a rumor. I'd say it's worth verification if you're using it as a claim, wouldn't you?

Welcome to the fold, gents. HURRAAAAAAAAAAAAH.

But these specific words are more philosophical than technical, and they are subjected (therefore) to the author's PERSONAL view as well. They're very much subjective a lot of the time. I've seen a few publications, for that reason, that have a "definition" written out for words like these, to tell the reader what the specific publication means when it relates to "existence" for example. Those aren't usual words.. and science has a bit of a problem with vague terms as it is.

But aren't they specializing in Scientific-Jargon only? Things like "exist", that are a general-english word (quite philosophical) -- does the scientific community go with specific definition for that, too I thought the specialized dictionary are for the specialized jargon only. Well, good to know Okay sorry I misread -- as I suspected, these "specialized" dictionaries are meant for specific scientific *jargon* and not general philosophical words like "Exist" or such. Those are governed, as D H confirmed, by general dictionaries. General dictionaries are for language conventions. People need to know what other people mean when they say something. Specialized dictionaries are for specialized language conventions. Doctors need to know what other doctors mean when they say something. thanks D H ~moo

Egypt doesn't *want* the responsibility over Gaza. Last time Gazans tried to run from Hamas/Fatah shootouts, Egypt authorities shot them. Yea, well, it's not very easy to have a solution (ANY solution) when Israel supports a 2 state solution and Hamas supports an eradication of Israel. ... how do you even *begin* talking? It's not like Israel hasn't tried to talk; Oslo accords were a big step (With Arafat). But Fatah didn't *DECLARE* their intention for the eradication of Israel. Hamas does.

There are "easier" and cheaper ways to protect a house against attacks, as the people of western Israel know too well (their houses are being rebuilt/renovated to include such 'safe rooms' for the past 8 years due to the rocket attacks). Also, the problem in gaza is not so much defending against the missiles, it's that the people run TOWARDS the place where the missiles will be launched at despite warnings (and the IDF does warn). Here, see this: http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/ArticlePrintPage.aspx?xyz=QrrxVt3TvzXUUXrd2E%2bKdQBAlgyb55%2fynOLl7gNPIB7kdQan1PIPbi4Yz4qDnQsmI5mw%2fZLBPwEI9e0cRV7YbMLBOBX9eObjj3nPt6F9Ns4%2fYdQr7pN2Vg%3d%3d Excerpt (from the Hamas itself): (bold added, not in original) The Hamas is TRYING to put civilians in harms way so the world will condemn the attacks and they suffer more casualties. It's their tactics; building bunkers won't help if no one goes to them when there's danger.

I think "science" is a too broad of a term. Scientists need to communicate with one another, and they use conventions of language to do that. Regular dictionary defines language conventions. Regular dictionary is quite enough for communication.

Indeed, you're right, point taken. When I said "represent", I meant what the formula represents, not the force. You're absolutely right.

Also, tension, too, is only static when the net force is zero. Otherwise, there's acceleration (like in any other force), and therefore movement. So even the definition of tension as static is not very accurate and might add to your confusion.

I don't think any of us should "think" what the definitions are in science, as they are quite successfully defined in a dictionary. Since they're philosophical in nature, any *individual* probably puts his/her own interpretation on top of the official one, but "SCIENCE" (as a general term) doesn't use opinions for definitions. That's why we have the convention of a dictionary.

Because it represents a snapshot of the situation. What is the MOMENTARY distance (as the distance changes). The term is *defined* as a momentary "snapshot", by the double-derivative (see D H's post about it). It's as if you are taking a pictures in rapid-succession of something moving, then you look at each one - you can *predict* the distance between those two bodies using this equation. For that matter, if you integrate this equation in terms of t (hence, you are now moving from a "double derivative" to a "single derivative") it will represent *VELOCITY* (as opposed to momentary distance), and will have both distance *and* time.

Another point worth noting is that the two terms (mgh and 1/2 mv^2) are only equal under a specific set of circumstances.

Sovereign, the equation signifies the VALUE OF THE FORCE APPLIED. Here's the application of it. Assume you have two objects, one of mass 2kg and another of mass 10kg (for the sake of simplicity, we are ignoring ANY other forces, and assume we're in "the middle of space" -- so there's no gravity from the surface of the earth). The equation above states that the force that attracts both masses is proportional to the distance between them. When they are 10,000 meters apart, the attractive force between them is: [math]F=\frac{GMm}{r^2}=F=\frac{G*2*10}{(10,000)^2}[/math] But that means that there's a POSITIVE *attractive* force between the two objects. So, they will *move* (because of the existence of the force), and the distance will become smaller. As the distance becomes smaller, the force changes too. If we look at the force when the two objects are 500m away, then the force between them will be: [math]F=\frac{GMm}{r^2}=F=\frac{G*2*10}{(500)^2}[/math] Smaller force, but the force is still existing, so thre will be acceleration. Even though the force equation itself has no "intuitive" indication of movement, it REPRESENTS movement. It is *not* static. ** G=6.67*10^-11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant And it might help you to read some basics about what a force *is* and *isn't*: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force#Newtonian_mechanics

... and make us WORK ?!

AGAIN [math]a=\frac{d^{\,2}r}{dt^2}= \frac{GM}{r^2}[/math] a is acceleration. Acceleration is the change of velocity per unit time -- obviously related to movement, since velocity is movement and acceleration is movement. Maybe it will be easier if you think of it this way: The acceleration close to the Earth's surface is g. Approximately 9.8 m/s^2 . F=ma will be F=mg In *LARGER* scales, it isn't g anymore, it is [math]\frac{GM}{r^2}[/math]-- still involves movement. It's a value of the rate of change. The *DEFINITION* of this equation is movement. Rate of change of speed == acceleration == a == [math]\frac{GM}{r^2}[/math]

That's some baaaaad rythm for an ice machine. But then how would people know it exists?

[math]\frac{GMm}{r^2}[/math] is not static at all... why do you define it as static? In fact, this is the gravitational force between two bodies. If two bodies are otherwise-unaffected in space (rare situation, if any), they will attract one another with a force that is explained through the above equation. If they are, indeed, unaffected by any other force that might negate this (above) force, they *will* move. For example, this is the basis for the plan on diverting asteroids that may result in potentially disastrous impacts. The plan states that all we need to do is send a relatively heavy object *NEAR* the asteroid, and if it is there long enough, then the mere effect of gravity alone (that equation above) will divert it enough to miss the earth. http://calitreview.com/1714 Check out the part about "Gravity Tug", it's really cool. BTW, that book is *awesome*. ~moo

That would make the New User Intro thread ending up with lots of "bump. bump bump. bump bump bump" and so on, depending on the momentary imagination leap of the current banning moderator.

Yeah, I am one of those who support the notion of having the Palestinians having their OWN state, independent of Israel. Also, Israel has tried to send resources to rebuild the Gaza harbor.. there was a.. glitch with that, though. Specifically, the workers were shot at. In any case, I thought you'd like to know - tomorrow (Tuesday, December 30th) at 1-3pm EST, the Israeli Consulate in New York will hold an online "Citizen Press Conference", where it will take questions from the public online through twitter. Check it out here: http://www.israelpolitik.org/2008/12/29/citizens-press-conference-on-twitter/ And the Israeli Consulate in NY twitter page: http://twitter.com/IsraelConsulate FYI.

Actually, Israel is relatively going into secularism in the past 30 years. We have Gay Marriage, for instance. The Arab citizens (mind you - the *citizens of Israel*, not the citizens of the palestinian authority, there's a difference) are *full* citizens with the right to vote (and they do vote, there's a fairly large extreme-left/arab party in the parliament). I'm not saying Israel has no problems with these things, of course it does, and there's a LOT to improve, but it's also not quite what you tend to see in the Media, either.

As you all probably know, I usually try to avoid this forum (have enough politics in real life but this time, I am making an exception. Hamas is a problem to both sides - it's been firing missiles nonstop on southern Israel for the past 7 years while Israel did its best to restrain itself, do "precision" attacks against specific terrorists, and try to talk. Abu Mazen does not seem to control the situation, and Hamas seems to just keep on firing without much care to life on both sides. In the past week Hamas extended its missile range further inside Israel to more than "just" the area that was affected up until now, and started getting into bigger cities, stretching the line further and further. Israel has no choice at this point. Civilians die on both sides, and Hamas doesn't seem to care. Israel *has tolerated* this situation, relatively peacefully for seven years (!!) while rockets hit cities in Israel. We all just hope that this will end soon, for both sides. I can't speak for my government, but I can tell you that the vast majority in Israel are *not* happy with the situation, but agree that it's about damn time someone does *something* to stop the bloodshed and missile attacks. Don't forget that our military is composed of us - the "normal person" in Israel - and we really would prefer not going to war. We all want this to end soon, but we also don't want to get out of Gaza just to go back in there again a month later when the missiles continue (as it was up until now). Just before the attack, Israel opened the border to send medical supply inside Gaza (as, btw, is done *daily* from Israel even under Hamas fire, and they do fire on those trucks). I am not sure how much this was reported on the news. Since I have family in the area, I am very much updated with what goes on there. If you want, I can try and post updates on the situation. p.s, as is a custom in this forum - here are a few resources: Dec 26, Israel opens the border for humanitarian aid despite rocket attacks from Gaza: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7799915.stm and http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2008/12/26/world/AP-ML-Israel-Palestinians.html And a list of Qassam Rocket attacks on south-western Israel (and updates on current events): http://http://twitter.com/QassamCount Another note, just to put things in proportion -- Israel is tiny. When a rocket is fired inside it, it's INSIDE it. Tel Aviv is CLOSE to the border. Jerusalem is halfway the border. It's not quite like having a border remote from heavily populated areas.

Let me save you a lot of trouble: http://tutor4physics.com/workenergy.htm There's no "maybes" and "perhapses" in the formula for Kinetic Energy, Potential Energy, Work or any of those formulas. Read 'em, Use 'em, stop trying to invent the wheel on your own whim, and if you must, then at the very least prove why you're using what. ~moo

This entire post is irrelevant. Theories are judged upon the merit of the evidence supplied, not in regards to how much time you put into them or who else agrees with you. Be serious and put up your theory so we can start going over the process and the proof; this post has nothing to contribute other than setting up one big appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy, and is unacceptable anyways. ~moo