mooeypoo

=forget it. post deleted by author.=

.... huh?

He shouldn't say things if he doesn't know, then... It's not like he made claims that are vaguely mistaken, he accused Obama with a blatant lie.... I don't think he thought of claiming that on his own if he has no clue about the technology, so someone in his staff is feeding him the wrong information. In any case it will most definitely hint on his future plans for science and research, wouldn't you say?

piper, in questions like these, the first thing that will help you is draw a visual scheme of the physical situation. Draw the body and all the forces that apply on it in all directions. Looking at it will help you know what force applies to what, and which forces equal what.. (big hint here If you want, post your drawing here, and we'll help you make sense of it. ~moo

Here's a very good response by Phil Plait (BadAstronomy): http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/08/mccains-planetariophobia/

Hi, First, I think it might help you to review what integration means, in terms of the geometry of graphs. I don't quite want to just give you an answer what the area under the curve is, because I don't think that will help you solve other questions like it, so here's a good reference on Area under the curve: http://www.intmath.com/Applications-integration/2_Area-under-curve.php it also includes a description of where this formula came from, so it can help you understand the principles. As for divergence, I learned that with relation to series, but integrals and series are intertwined, in a sense, so here's another resource about divergence and convergence of improper integrals: http://www.sosmath.com/calculus/improper/convdiv/convdiv.html What helped me when I studied convergence and divergence, was visualizing the limits. If an improper integral has a limit, it is convergent. If an improper integral has no limit, or a limit of infinity, it is divergent. If you think about it, a limit that has a value means that the "graph" of that integral is slowly getting closer and closer to a value of a number -- it converges on a value. If the integral has no limit or limit of infinity, it doesn't have a specific place it gets 'close' to, therefore it is divergent - it moves away into a nonspecific point in space. It's a bit of a simplification but that helped me visualizing it. These links are good for the basics of both subjects.. I just am not sure where, exactly, to start with an explanation. So read the resources, they should - at the very least - help you put things to order in your mind. If you still have questions, feel free to ask ~moo

Don't we also have things like "Occham's Razor" to help us out with these issues? I mean, if both theories equally explain the results and there are no other mediating factors here (like, say, logical fallacies at play), then I'd say we could also use Occham's Razor to try and see which is more logical. In any case, though, if we're unsure which of the two are better theories, doesn't that mean more experiments are necessary?

Socially, I agree, but from my examination of medical issues, there seems to actually be a sort of importance to 'race'.. Again, there are diseases that are more common with Jews than anyone else, birth defects or diseases that are prone to certain races.. I agree that it's not important ethically, socially or psychologically, but I think that if we already started a debate about this, we might aswell not ignore these biological issues. I am not saying that one race is better than or worse than the others, I'm saying that it APPEARS (look at the link above) that biology does not agree with our PC.

traveler, physics is not about opinion, physics is about rules and facts. I presented an explanation of those facts (along with other posters on the thread). You repeatedly ignored the explanations and presented the answers you disagreed with as if we haven't answered them at all. Repeating, or insisting on an error does not make it true. You can state and restate your own version of physics until you are blue in the face, and it will still not make gravity, acceleration, or the various affecting forces go away. If you want to know why, I suggest you go back to the thread that was closed (for a reason), look at what I wrote again, go to the three links I posted that speak of why gravity is acceleration, think of the visual examples I gave, and try to see if, still, you have no answer. Note, please: You should check to see if you have no answer, not if you dislike physics. Disliking physics does not make physics false. There aer also rules to this forum, you should go over them. Trolling is against the rules. Nitpicking answers is against the rules. Reopening a closed thread is, too, against the rules. ~moo P.S: I didn't yell, scream, or post my answers in huge fonts. You changed them to appear as if I did. when I made any visual changes to your replies, if at all, I wrote that the changes were my doing, and there was a purpose to them (for example, bolding something you said so I can relate to it). Changing the style and tone of what I wrote just so you can act as the martyr in this issue is not only against the rules, it's also rude, insensitive, and quite much a lie. I suggest that you go and read the rules of the forum you chose to post in, again, and make sure you follow them.

Well, I did... is there a difference between his physics and my physics? Doesn't matter. Force is applied. Multiple forces are applied. Only when you calculate the total force it's gone. If you've bothered to read my visual example, then think of two situations with the cart of stones on an ice rink: 1. The full cart is standing, alone, in the middle of the rink, without moving. 2. The full cart is standing in the middle of the rink while I push on one side and big314mp is pushing from the other side at the same force. If you don't see the physical, practical and realistic difference between two cases (which it seems your statements show you don't), then you have some basic physics studying to do, my friend. There is a huge difference between the statement "there is no force" and the statement "the forces cancel each other out". Actually, that too depends what you are looking at. Physics is about perspective. If you look at the object while you're next to it that might be true (that there is no movement, not that there is no force), but if you look at it from a space shuttle, that is absolutely NOT true; the object moves along with the Earth. The moon's a great example. If you look from the surface of the Earth during the night, then the moon never rotates, it just orbits the Earth, but does not rotate - you can never see its "dark side" (meh) - it's far side is never ever facing the Earth. Practically speaking, it's not rotating. But that's not so. The moon *does* rotate, it just completes a rotation cycle the same time it completes an orbit cycle, which causes it to 'always face' the Earth. That doesn't mean it's not rotating.... TROLL. I explained this, D H explained this, I even gave out links (3 in the beginning, one more later) that EXPLAIN why gravity is acceleration, and why even when there's no speed there is still force, and why that observation is very important. You ignored it, you keep asking a question that was already answered. That's called TROLLING. Go back up and read it again, I have already answered, and I've used physics to answer you. Well, technically, you've travelled with the ball, so the distance RELATIVE TO YOU, hadn't changed, but that's physics 201, and you seem to have troubles with the basics, so let's ignore that for a moment. Your definitions are simply, quite bluntly, wrong. There's nothing more to it than that. Acceleration is part of force and it is existing whenever there is a force. If you choose to view the system as *net force only* (that is, to only state that the F=0, while ignoring the forces that make up F) then you are right, but you are also not doing very good physics, since you're ignoring the *real* situation. So while you can think of things in terms of Fnet ONLY, you can't just jump back and forth from "what is it really there" assertion to "but I ignore what's really there and treat the total as a whole" assertion. If you go into details, you go into details, you can't just ignore whatever you feel like. Well, you can, but that's trolling. I'm putting a lot of time and thought into my answers to you, trying to explain what physics really is, as opposed to what you seem to think it is. Ignoring whatever you want is not making your assertions any tru'er, and to be frank, it's quite rude. ~moo Troll.

Didn't I just explain this, with resource and references, and a nice visual example, along with D H ? So what we have here is that you say one thing while reality says another. And you're not supporting what you are saying with (shriek) evidence (shriek) or (shriek) proper math. I explained the abvove, you just didn't like the conclusion. Your starting to live up to your Troll.... and that's not a good thing.

BTW, re-reading my remark, I noticed I might've sounded a bit rude. I didn't mean to, I just felt like my explanations weren't as good as the links I provided, and seeing as traveler has a tendency to occasionally ignore things, I got a bit frustrated. In any case, yes, I meant to say that gravity doesn't vanish, even when the TOTAL force is zero, that was mainly my point. ~moo I think I have an idea of how to create an example that you may visualise - it might help you understand how it can happen. Instead of a body resting on the floor, think of yourself pushing a cart full of stones on top of an ice rink (I don't want friction, that's why ). You're using force forward to push, and the cart is moving forward at F1=ma .. we won't relate to whatever friction is this time, so theoretically, the cart will accelerate at F=ma. Now.. you keep exerting the SAME amount of force F1, only this time I come to the other side of the cart and start pushing it too, against your movement. The *total* force on the cart would be F(total) = F1 + F2 Let's, for the sake of sanity and reference, pick your forward (the initial movement) as the positive movement. That would mean that my force is negative (it's on the opposite side). So, if my push - my Force F2 - is less than yours, the cart will still move on the positive "sign" (hence, away from you - your 'forward') but with lesser *total* force than before. If my F2 is higher than yours, then the total force would have a negative sign, and you'd be pushed back.. And if both our forces are equal, the cart will STAY in its place. But you're still pushing. And so am I, with all my might. Regardless of the movement or lack thereof of the cart, the *forces* still exist. Did that help?

Okay, listen, I supplied links for a REASON. There is a lot in those links. A lot about why the Earth's gravity (g) which is NOT "stopping" out of the whim of the object that it's affecting is much like acceleration. Links that also explain the concept of equilibrium. Mainly, I believe we are talking about two different Fs. When you say there's no acceleration, you speak of the TOTAL F -- the *sum* of the forces applied, and in that aspect you are correct. But that doesn't mean that the other forces 'disappeared', they still exist, individually, they just cancel each other out in the BIGGER picture. So *g* still exists in the difference forces that apply, and therefore acceleration DOES exist in the different forms that apply. Maybe this will be easier to see. We have a body in equilibrium, so we write down all the forces that apply on that body: F1 = mg DOWNWARDS and F2 = -mg UPWARDS (Normal Force, exerted by a rigid surface) Because the system is in equilibrium, it means that the TOTAL force must be zero. So the total force: F(total) = F1 + F2 = 0 And so: F(total) = mg + (-mg) = mg - mg = 0 So the TOTAL foce is, indeed, 0, but that individual foces EXIST. Please, the references I supplied explain this much better, with diagrams and more resources. I didn't just throw them in for the kick of it, they are actually helpful. The point of this entire thing is to make sure that we understand that gravity (g) *never stops* --- when you stand on a scale, you are affected by gravity. The number you see on the scale is the Normal Force that is exerted BY the scales (rigid, hard, stable, nonmoving, surface) *upwards*, and since you are not falling down or moving up, both forces are equal. But they both still exist. When you now calculate OTHER forces - like movement forward, backwards or any other mass that might be affecting or interjecting the system, you *must* be aware of *all* the forces on the bodies and the system, regardless of what the total force is. At a certain point it's 0 (equilibrium, nonmovement), and at another it can be a certain value. You see my point? ~moo

Do you agree that the general form F = ma is specialized on Earth-Body relationships as F = mg ? Because if you do, then you will see that the acceleration DOES EXIST, it is just "cancelled out" in the equation of rigid body in equilibrium. The fact the body is in equilibrium does NOT mean that the g stopped. g still exists. You are *ALWAYS* pulled towards the earth at a force that equals approximately 9.8 m/s^2 times your mass. Have you read my explanation about the trap door? How do ou explain it? When the doors suddenly open - what is the source of the sudden movement -- sudden acceleration? Do you have a little rocket engine on your head pushing you downwards? I would guess not. Do you have the tentacles of the Giant Spagetti Monster pulling you downwards? I would assume not. What, then, is it, that starts your movement downwards at mass*9.8 kg*m/s^2 ? Answer that, and perhaps it will clarify a few very important basic concepts in physics. The fact there is no movement (Velocity, and I *did* relate to that, I just called it movement instead of relating to it as velocity, thinking it might be easier not to think of it as CONSTANT, which is ISN'T), plainly means that your body is at equilibrium. Equilibrium is a physical concept that does NOT mean lack of forces, it just means that the sum of the net force is zero. You could have a dozen different forces acting on you from all different directions, pulling, pushing, lifting, dragging -- as long as the NET VALUE (the accumulative value, the total force) of *all* forces in all space is zero (hence, they cancel each other out), then you have an equilibrium state. The fact acceleration is cancelled by counter-acceleration does NOT mean acceleration is nonexistent. In any case, you still have a few other questions to answer, including some very important unit errors that render your equations unscientific and unphysical, which makes your theory is bunk before it even started. Fix those, and then we can continue examining how the math supports your theory properly. == EDIT == btw, here's a good reference too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_weight -- apparent weight explains about that "N" I was talking about (the normal force, the 'counter' force) - exerted by the earth ON YOU. Canceling out the *effect* of gravity, but NOT canceling out gravity itself. ~moo

(I bolded the sentence, for a reason, it's not in the original) No. Reality of it all: F=mg *ON EARTH* [math]F=G\frac{m1m2}{r^2} (N)[/math] (notice, the G is bigger here, different constant altogether!) Read!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_gravitation So your last sentence (The Bold) is not supposed to have the word "aditionally". It's supposed to have the word "THEREFORE" source: http://www.studentxpress.ie/educ/physics/physics4/physics4.html (Bold not in source, again) The term "inversly proportional" means that the relation is OPPOSITE: that when one gets larger, theother gets smaller, and vice versa. The relation between the distance and the masses is INVERSELY proportional. THEREFORE, when the distance decreases, the acceleration (part of force!) increases. The sentence above is just a phrasing of the equation for Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. Fine, I'll be blue then. When you stand on the scale, it shows you the force that is applied on the scale. If there is force, there is acceleration. F=ma if a=0, then F=0. The force that is applied on the scales is your mass times the acceleration, which is your mass * the constant g = ~9.8 m/s^2 Notice, now, why units are important: Force = Body (kg) * 9.8 m/s^2 = 9.8*Body ( Kg * m/s^2) The unit that represents (Kg * m/s^2) is called Newton, which is a unit of force. The only reason you do not "feel it" is because the surface - the ground - is exerting THE SAME FORCE UPWARDS, and therefore your body is in equilibrium. Take away the surface, and you will start moving with g acceleration. Think of a trap door. You're standing on a scale that is on top of a trap door and look at the value on the scales. Then, you open the trap door. By your notion, you have no acceleration until the doors open. In that case, you have to answer the question of what STARTED this acceleration? what is the source that "poofed" into existence the second the trapdoors opened, and wasn't there before? But what does happen is that you will fall towards the ground at F=mg, and v=v0 + gt the reason you will start falling is because the quilibrium is "broken", by the fact that there is no longer a stable surface that exerts the same amount of force UPWARDS, and therefore your body starts moving in direction to the force, which is towards the center of the earth. Until your body meets the ground. If the ground's firm, it will exert N (normal force) that is equal to F=mg . If the ground's something like quicksand, it will exert N that is probably LESS than F=mg, and you will, again, keep moving downwards (just at a lesser pace). Do you see the difference? Gravity is Acceleration Gravity is Acceleration, indeed Yes, yes indeed, Gravity is acceleration. You do have gravity when you stand on the scales, you just evolved not to "notice" it as much as you notice a plane take off. It's biology. I suggest you review your basic physics. ~moo

But then you were shown how that's NOT the correct units. Notice: It was *shown* not to be the correct units. It was 'suggested' that it 'might' be not 'quite right'. It was shown. Proven. Demonstrated, even, if you look carefully. So you did get an answer, you just didn't like it.

Apparently this is a 'pick and choose' type of debate, where you just nitpick which posts to answer and which not to. Twice already Bignose pointed out you are ignoring his responses. His very *relevant* responses. posts #99 and #87 are awaiting your response, traveler. debater or troll, traveler? Pick one and stick to it.

I find these discussions very interesting, but I think that this time the presentation of it, at least, is a bit confused. First off, I think the 'questions' you've raised - the differences between races - are not differences between races, but rather between societies. The xenophobia of the Jews, for instance, is social and cultural, not racial. In fact, you need to prove that the Jews are a race by themselves to have stated this 'difference', which leads me to the next point -- a race is a scientific term, and I am not sure we're using it right in this debate. I am not sure I know the full answer myself, but it's definitely not a matter of opinion. We need to first establish what races are and then examine what the differences are between them, if any. If we talk political-correctness, then I agree with Phi. My race does not have any bearing on who I am. I was born 'into' it with no choice and no bearing as to my personality. There are, however, known differences between races. For example, Caucasians and Blacks (lacking a better name, as un-PC as it may be) differ on some biological diseases that each has more chances of getting. I don't remember the names but the biology-majors here could probably help, as well as a google search, I imagine. There appears to also be some sort of classification in Medicine as well in terms of race (look here for example), so there ARE differences. They might be irrelevant ethically and we would like them to be irrelevant socially, but there are still differences. On a side note, I see this the same as I see women rights issues -- Whoever argues that women and men are totally equal is blind. Obviously the two sexes are different, and we should acknowledge that. Each has strengths and weaknesses in different aspects. We should acknowledge it, but not let it interfere with things that do NOT have a bearing on such issues (like status in the workforce, or whatever else). Same, in my opinion, with races. The fact we should, ethically and socially, treat everyone the same and equally, does not mean that there are no differences. So, if we are talking about differences in races, we need to first establish how we classify a race. Then, we need to establish what we are talking about -- the cultural differences (in which case I am not sure it's about race but rather a culture, geography, or historical issue) or biological differences. We can still discuss this without being offended, I just think we need to be more focused on what it is we are debating about. ~moo

Actually, there have been a few studies about the differences between female and male brains. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/tech/nextnews/archive/next050121.htm http://today.uci.edu/news/release_detail.asp?key=1261 There are reasons to believe that there might be a difference in the structure of the brain rather than intelligence, in terms of females having more active white matter and males having more active gray matter. Interesting read and very far from the premises of this thread.. but then again, why am I surprised. ------- Now, back to the subject at hand, I must ask MonsieurChauvin something important: In the last two threads on this site you proposed two hypotheses (pff) that you claim are truths with no need of proof: Women are frigid creatures who hate sex. Women are stupid and unintelligent. Men evolved to enjoy sex and spread their seed around with their long extra appendage (rofl, seriously.. seriously?) We have the technology today to grow children in pietri dishes, and you could buy a dishwasher and laundry machine. You obviously don't need women. But you do need sex. ... I don't want to continue this trail of thought, I have a feeling PETA will be very... very sad.

A Man wrote the OP. I noticed, much like sayo did, that the numbers (as well as lack of reference, but whatever) are .. lacking, to say the least. In that aspect, I was smrter than the writer. I am a woman. The writer is a man. I showed higher level of intelligence in two previous incidents, at least. By itself, the above situation should disprove your theory. Kowabanga! ~moo p.s: as fun as it may be, why are we entertaining this idiot at all when he refuses to participate in our debate, refer anything, and is obviously writing derogatory posts against women? Just to compare, replace 'women' with 'blacks' or 'jews' and see what I mean, here.

As the balloon expands inside the cup, it takes the shape of the cup and holds it tightly (make sure, of course). Then, just lift the balloon itself while it's still expanded inside the cup. They will both be lifted together, and you don't touch the cup.

Please stop putting irrelevant data here. With due respect, the amount of time it took you to reach a conclusion has no bearing on the validity of that conclusion, and that sigh has no bearing on whether or not we will agree with you. Whether you like it or not, we are using scientific concepts to check your theory. If it works out, we can continue talking about other aspects that need to be addressed (such as predictions, repeatability, etc). It is called peer review, and you should welcome it, if you truly want to do science. It will either verify your theory or help you refine it. No. No no no no no. No, and again No. Energy is absolutely, inequivocally, unquestionably, not equal to force. They are related in certain cases, but they are NOT the same. At all. Potential Energy is a good example. The force applied to an object is *not* the same as the potential energy. A ball falling from the 10th floor would have a force acting on it equal to F=mg (g being acceleration due to gravity, and its sign, as I will discuss later in this post, will depend on where YOU DEFINE your axes). The potential energy of that ball, however, will be U=mgh at the full height of those 10 floors and U=0 at the moment it hits the floor (h=0), at which point the potential energy was completely transferred into another energy (probably heat from the friction) as stated by conservation of energy. As you can see, mg is not the same as mgh. here's a nice reference: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/pegrav.html with the same concept with a string. As you can see, U (energy) IS NOT EQUAL to F, but rather: [math] -\frac{dU}{dx} = F(x) [/math] And that is only in the case of conservative forces. Your basic premise is false. Which is quite a problem, because it means that whatever comes next and relies on it is based on a flawed premise, and is therefore false as well. No. In physics, signs are determined by the directions. That means that they are almost arbitrarily chosen, as long as they are consistent. For example, in my above falling ball, I can decide between: Looking at the ball from the ground. My Y axis is positive as it goes up to the sky, and so the force will be NEGATIVE (because the acceleration is pointing towards the floor, not the sky, and hence in the direction of the negative Y axis. Standing on the rooftop, looking straight down at the ball. My Y axis will be pointing towards the ground floor now, which is the direction of movement *and* acceleration, which would make the force POSITIVE. As long as I am consistent in my directions, this will work out great for either situation. All I need to do is remember which is my plus and which is my minus in terms of directions, make sure my signs are marked well with each affecting force (friction due to air, for example, woud be directed against the acceleration, and would therefore have a sign opposite to the g I chose), my solution will also include the direction of the final movement. That means that if my force "up" (positive? negative? my decision) is equal to the force "down" (negative? positive? depends on my above decision) then Forces would cancel each other out. That, btw, is exactly what is called "Terminal Velocity". Again, read up. There could be cases where there is only a force in the positive direction, or a force in both directions. Other than that, you need to define "source". What is the source? the source of the force? what's the source of gravity, the earth? how do you include that into a mathematical/physical equation, exactly? and what if you are inside the falling vehicle? And, well, the earth is also "falling" towards the sun. Is it still the source? In physics you often have many different sources applied to an object. The Earth, for example, is affected by gravity from the Sun, gravity from the moon, and gravity from the rest of the planets. And since the other planets are in orbit, and therefore not always near earth, the calculation of what, exactly, affects the Earth and when is not that simple. I don't even know what you mean here, but it sounds like you need to reference yourself and explain why you state such conclusion. And now you introduce yet another term you haven't defined - "symmetric object". Do you mean a sphere? how 'close to it' are you getting? The Earth is a sphere if you're far away, and it's an oblated spheroid if you're close, and it's a rough-shaped spheroid if you're really really close. Not really symmetric from up close, and relatively symmetric when you go away. Same with the sun. So either define which scales you are talking about, or define what type of symmetry you are talking about. How do you disable symmetry? This is close to a word salad, and makes absolutely no sense. You talk of multiple terms you don't seem to understand or define and mix them together to sound scientific. Disable symmetry? what does that mean? Absolutely not. Energy is the ability to do WORK (and work is the transfer of energy), not to make movement. Though the two are related, it's still not the same. I suggest you do some more reading about what Energy is, what a Force is and what "Work" is.. you can start here, it's a good enough introductory resource: http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/mechanics/energy/energy.html At the very LEAST get your terms and definitions straight. Good luck, ~moo

... and I was sure that the first time he wrote the idea it was a joke... I mean.. erm.. just for the sake of clarity here, xnebulalordx676 - are you raising a serious hypothesis or is this just a fun-and-laughs thing? .. personally I thought it was funny, but I didn't think to consider this as a serious suggestion after the few jokes that were posted just before it.. do correct me if I'm wrong here.

And quite a sharlatan, it seems. Nothing he says has any support in the ACTUAL quantum theory. Here's an interesting debate between Michael Shermer and Deepak Chopra, btw: http://www.screaming-penguin.com/node/4067

Okay let's knock off the personal issues here. I think I've already said that I might NOT HAVE SEEN whatever it is that I should've seen. And explained what I meant to say. This is a science forum and my question was science based, in an effort to get SCIENTIFICALLY BASED ANSWER, not personal arguments over treatment. Could we please just drop the personal issues here and go back to the debate at hand?