mooeypoo

Double K, swansont and myself offered two ways to solve this question, using net-force or using energies. I'm not sure I understand what you're disagreeing with, why these aren't "simple vector calculations" or what your caviat point was meant to say. Physics is clear, but not necessarily simple, at least not for everyone. The two solutions we posted are simple to people who know physics. They might not be as simple to people who aren't as well versed in it. ~moo

That's true, but the question is asking for the weight that appears on the scale. The scale measures the 'normal force' (which is the proportional opposite force exerted back at the object by the scale's spring), which is what swansont said. In physics, mass is the amount of matter (density x volume) in an object. In SI units, the questions are usually easier, because you have total separation of mass and weigh units -- gram/kg for mass, and Newton for weight. Strictly speaking, pound is a force while slug is the unit of mass, but convention changed by use. Pound is what you see on the scale, usually already converted, and people tend to call it mass. I think we might do well if we translate this to SI units so we stop looking at the minor details and focus on the actual question If we look at the question physically, it's asking about the difference between measuring the weight (what the scale shows, which is the normal-force, translated usually to weight already, using wrong units) of a stationary ball vs. measuring the same for a falling ball. There's no need to overcomplicate matters. A stationary ball on the scale will show the normal force to be F=mg. A Falling ball will add an extra effect of an impact force, for a limited time, F=mv/t. After the impact is 'delivered', the scale will rest back on only showing F=mg, assuming the impact didn't break it. If the goal is to see the maximum 'reading' of the scale, you need to take the maximum mv/t and add that to the 'mg' force. It's all about framing the question, but seeing as the OP admitted he's not extremely well versed in physics, I think it might be better to try and not confuse him further by getting into the confusion of weight/mass/force/normal-force and just look at the question from a principle point of view. ~moo ~moo

As I said in the pvtmsg, Moontanman, this is a problem in a science forum because the question makes an assumption. IT's a leading question, and I am not sure what there is to debate here. It's equivalent to posting a question "If unicorns are real, what color would their horn be?" What would result of this debate? It's moot. We can't really debate the color of unicorn's horn when there aren't proofs to show unicorns to exist. The addition didn't mess up your question, the addition made sure that the thread remains civil under the topic you intended (more or less) rather than transforming into an argument about whether or not the question is even relevant (which would have happened). As with anything,you have to frame form of questions to your audience. This isn't a conspiracy UFO forum, it's a science forum. We frame questions in a certain way, even in the speculations subforum. That's just how we are. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBTW, here's a few examples for your 'missing' options: UFOs can be real while being man-made objects (like advanced secretive aircrafts) UFOs can be real while being a mix of many things (one time it was man-made, one time it was natural, one time it was mistaken to be something... etc) none of which are alien in nature. You didn't even think of including those in, even though they're VERY logical choices and they follow the "UFOs exist" premise. The question itself is flawed because you assume a single direction that, clearly, many people don't agree with.

See, this is my problem with most UFO sightings -- how do you know? You say it's clearly not man-made nor natural... why? How do you know it wasn't something that was man-made in a quirky invironment that made it seem really weird? A few cases of hovering lights were discovered to be perfectly natural phenomena; in certain humidity conditions, the light from passing cars' double lights actually 'bent' over a hill in weird angles, making it seem like hovering lights. I saw the video, it's VERY VERY convincing. Looks completely like some advanced craft. But (a) it was found to be natural, once someone actually looked into it, (b) it was replicated a week later with similar conditions and © even if it was 'advanced aircraft', there's nothing to suggest it wasn't human. With due respect, the fact you couldn't explain it doesn't mean it's unexplainable. It just means it's yet unexplained. There's a difference. My point is that usually, UFOs require a leap so large that it becomes completely irrelevant. Saying it doesnt look like anything we know is one thing. Assuming it's therefore alien is quite a leap. ~moo

I voted #8 - "Some other option" for a very clear reason: UFOs are "Unidentified Flying Objects". They're unidentified. We don't know what they are. Assuming what they are turns to be false more than it does to be right (there are many examples of stuff like that). The brain plays tricks on us, it's a known fact. Paraedolia happens more than we would like to admit, and it happens to everyone. Our brain has a tendency to see patterns even when none exist. UFOs are unidentified until they are identified. That doesn't mean alien don't exist, and it doesn't mean aliens don't visit the Earth. It means that UFOs are unidentified, and to group all of those together to state that we know what they are is an unbased statement. There are other reasons imho why aliens are not visiting us using crude saucer-like vehicles and kidnap random farmers to poke through their rear (and front) orifices, but that isn't about UFOs. ~moo

Pioneer, if you're already going the length of quoting someone (like Carl Jung) can you please try to follow the spirit of a scienceforum by giving out the reference? I'd like to see the context, too. But regardless, we try to do that here. What do the dogs have to do with the following paragraph? I don't understand what you mean here at all. Do you mean that there are characters in mythology who's job is to affect the hero? aren't all characters in mythology - at some angle or another - doing this? That's why the hero is the hero, and the others are supporting characters. Okay, so by what you're saying, gods are representatives of the uncontrolled part of the human experience? Love being one of them, war being another (though the 'uncontrolled' part here can be debated), etc? That's interesting, and I tend to agree that this is what the mythological gods were, but that doesn't quite answer the question of what is a god. It answers the question, perhaps, of what humans thought would be a god. How can we distinguish between a "fake" god that only exists to answer a question of human spirit we don't understand, and a "real" god? What *IS* a "real" god? ~moo

You're killing me.

I think there's a language barrier here. Seeing as Quasars are stars, I assume the poster is asking how they're made... ?

You're right. There's no absolute proof Jesus even existed other than circumstantial evidence. We should start a new thread about that, actually. Interesting historical discussion.

True. But the question asked what the force on the scale was, which means you need to take into account all forces that apply on the scale. ~moo

No, but when a ball drops onto the scale, this force is implied. Otherwise, F=mg will answer the question if the ball was put down ("gently") on the scale. The extra factor here is the fact the ball is DROPPING from a height onto the scale. This is physics. It's an extra force that you must take into account. If you want it less complicated, make the question less complicated ~moo PS: I didn't want to really complicate thing s(although in my view it would be simpler) but my initial thought was just to consider energies, solve, and transform to force. You begin with potential energy (U=mgh), and you finish with Kinetic (K=1/2 mv^2) and with Elastic (Ue=1/2 kx^2). Equate the 'starting' and 'ending' energies, and you can solve the question. I think it's easier to think about, but I guess that's a mattr of opinion. YOu can solve the question either way. You can't ignore the impact, though. If you throw a ball at the scale, the impact is absolutely part of the forces you must factor in, whether it's comfortable or not, it exists. It was also mentioned, I believe, in the second or third reply on this thread. ~moo

There are many types of forces. F=ma is the total force on an object under acceleration. In this case, the force on the scale comes from the weight of the ball (F=mg) and the impact of the ball with the scale (Ft=mv). You can figure out the velocity of the ball once it hits the scale, and you know its mass. The only question that remains is how much time (t) took for the scale to absorb the entire force. Or, in other words, how much time it took for the ball to come to complete rest after it hit the scale. That depends on the spring inside the scale, mostly. Unless you have the spring constant (k), you need to have this piece of information in advance. If you have the spring constant you can calculate it by using the spring equation (F=-kx). ~moo

Charlatan was banned for excessive trolling.

Then it's not literal.

... WHAT..? Dude.. The bible is in hebrew/aramaic. The word "Saturday" came *after* the word "Sabbath" was invented, and given to the same day. I don't get what you were trying to say there, but there *are* other languages than English, which came to them. First there was the day. Then it recieved the name "Shabat" after what God allegedly did at that day. Then came other languages who called this day other names, one of which is "Saturday". The literal translation of Shabbat is rest, becfause the bible dosn't speak swahili. It speaks hebrew/aramaic. If your law is that it can be whatever, then I assert the definition of "God" is, actually, "mooeypoo" and demand you bow to my omnibeauty. You're making no sense. Literal is literal. Either you believe the bible is given by god (and then the original is obviously superior to any *human* nterpretation) and that it's literally true (in which case, words are judged by their proper contextual meaning, such as "Sabbath" the day and the meaning) or you don't. You are making no sense, jryan. No, I'm not wrong, I'm just making a different assertion than you thought I did. Here's a claim: I follow the cultural spirit of Star trek the original series (TOS). If I start wearing mini skirts and bang anything that movies, I am consistent. If I put up the "TNG" uniform and claim TNG is updating TOS, then I just found a reason why I don't follow TOS but rather TNG. Sure, they're connected, they have the same writers more or less, the same producer and inventor, and sometimes cross-over characters. But if I go the TNG-way of the uniform, then I don't do the TOS wya. I don't need to know what was said in star trek voyager as to *why* or *how* or *who* not to do the TOS or why is it okay not to follow TOS to know that if I don't go by the TOS uniforms, then I don't follow the TOS. I don't care if you follow the new testament or the book of the dead. IF you claim you follow the ten commandments, you need to follow the ten commandments. Since you don't follow them, you feel the need to explain why. I don't care why, because I'm not religious. I don't follow them either. I'm just consistent enough to admit that. The bible is explicit. Shabbat. Also, in days of slavery, did Christians let their slaves rest on Shabbat? Their livestock and pets not work? That's the continuance of the commandment. And yet, it's not Sabbath, is it? Historically, the day changed FROM Sabbath *TO* Sunday. On purpose. To distinguish the Christians from the Jews, and to welcome the pagans. Knowingly, the day changed from what is claimed in the commandments. I don't care that you do it or not do it but you're not being consistent when you claim to follow a literal text that you keep excuse why it's perfectly fine you're not following literally. Literal, or not literal, jryan? Pick one.....

Oh, jews today disagreed on what consists work too, so you have arguments of should you turn the lights on or not, or pick your nose or not, or drive a car, etc. But Christianity's day of rest is Sunday. Not Sabbath. There's not even an ATTEMPT to 'not work'.. or not do work. There's a change of day. I don't make claims on what Jesus said, though. I make claims on actual actions. If you follow the corrections in the sequel, that's fine. Don't claim to follow the original, then. ~moo

Cap'n, the ten commandments say you should not work on the Sabbath. If you work on the Sabbath you disobey the ten commandments. If Jesus said "oh, wait, it's not Sabbath, it's just a seventh day.. count from whenever!" then he changed the LITERAL meaning to a symbolic meaning. So. A person claiming the bible is literally true, and claims to follow the 10 commandments (obviously literally), and works on a Sabbath, is being inconsistent. ~moo

I don't care about Jesus, or abouthim being right or wrong. My statement is *strictly* about the inconsistency in logic of anyone who claims to follow the 10 commandments while not following the ten commandments. Looking at it, btw, I think that the argument I'm making is a tangent. Maybe we should split it.

My statement is very clear: The 10 commandments appear in the "old" testament. The ten commandments are very clear. You either follow them, or you make excuses as to why you're not supposed to follow them. That might look to you as a 'strictly jewish perspective', but that's because Christianity, by definition, *changed* the original jewish laws. That's fine and good, but it only proves my point. Christianity changed - or refined, or reinterpreted, or switched, or any other word you want to put here that means 'no longer follows the same exact thing' -- the laws that judaism follow, either by adding them in the new testament or by reinterpreting the old testament. Reinterpreting means you're not going by the literal meaning. The rules say you should keep the Sabbath - "Shabat". They don't say 'the seventh day, please count it', they don't say 'boobapalooba' now translate it, they say SHABAT. That day exists. It's not a sunday. You either follow this rule and then you can say you follow the ten commandments or you don't follow this rule, in which case you DON'T follow the ten commandments. Whether or not you think you should or shouldn't follow the 10 commandments is irrelevant to my point. My claim is that if you *STATE* you are following it, you better make sure you are, otherwise you're bieng inconsistent. Which you seem to be right now with the Sabbath. The commandment is very clear. You need to really reinterpret things in light of a whole new doctrine (like you do, it seems) to excuse not doing it. And *still* that would just mean that you're not doing it. So don't claim you do.. Just be consistent. Yeah, that happens often with sequels. ~moo

There was no doubt about Sabbath, jryan. It's called "Shabat" - the word ITSELF means "rest". There was a shift in the calendar in terms of months calculation. That has nothing to do with Sabbath.

I agree. (someone mark the day ) Not only is it a known fact, and not only was Jesus jewish (his *desciples* started Christianity. Jesus meant to lead the Jews, not a new religion), and not only did he celebrate other jewish religions (like Passover dinner, which was the "last meal"), but also the week days and their customs stayed *till today* from modern times, quite consistently. That is, while there are many words and names in the bible that have changed in modern Hebrew, the word "Sabbath" and "Erev Sabbath" (the eve-of) stayed the same for the past 3000 years. The only thing that changed is how modern actions are viewed under this law. For example, electricity did not exist when this law was written (or, if your belief states that, 'given'). Is it work, or isn't it? Should you do it on a Sabbath or shouldn't you? The common modern religious/cultural perception is that you shouldn't, and it's a mixture between interpreting the intent of the law and the literal meaning of the law (Intent: separate this day from any other for reflection, brain-rest, family interaction, etc - so no TV, no video games, etc.. literal meaning: No work; to *start* electricity you do work [there's even a physical formula for that] and hence you shouldn't start electricity). Those who go very far in the literal interpretation and their 'modern' thinking go as far as to say you shouldn't pick your nose on a Sabbath for the fear of ripping out a nose-hair. Lovely. In any case, the laws and regulations might've adapted, but the rule itself stayed true. It's the Sabbath. It always has been the Sabbath. Actually, I was under the impression that the day changed from Saturday to Sunday by Constantine, who made the official day Sunday (partially because of Sol Invictus, partially to encourage the pagans to join). But the point remains: The bible is clear. You either do it or you don't. If you don't, don't claim that you follow the 10 commandments. This is a whole discussion by itself, we should start a new thread for that. The inconsistencies come in different flavors -- inconsistencies of form (showing clearly thjat different people wrote the bible) and inconsistencies of content -- showing that different stories were combined in the bible, telling allegedly the same affair. Theology, of course, is amazing. It can explain everything. *EVERYTHING*. Even if I said there are claims of a flat earth in the bible that came directly from God, theologians can explain it away. Even if we found claims of unicorns and dragons, theologians can explain it away. So, I guess "inconsistencies" only count if you want to read the bible *literally*. If your flavor is symbolic, you can explain everything. As a rough example, there are two stories of creation that don't fit one another (the order of creation, the stuff said, etc) one after the other, right on Genesis 1 and 3. There's another story of creation that's even less consistent with these later in genesis. I will need to dig up my notes for a fuller list, but if you want to discuss it, I recommend we start a thread about it. It's a huge subject. ~moo

jryan, the ten commandments are in the old testament. My criticism is about people who claim to follow them and don't. If oyu admit that the new testament CHANGES THE RULES, then I have no issues with consistencies with you -- you basically admit that you *don't* follow the strict rules of the ten commandments because the *NEW* testament refined them. Fine. The ten commandments are *EXTREMELY* clear about the Sabbath, even more than the "idol/picture/image" bit. There is no middle ground or gray area. You either do it, or you don't. It seems to me that you are aware of the fact that your religion changed the original rules and therefore you're not obligated to follow them. If that's the case, then there's no problem in consistency. You don't follow the ten commandments - you follow the "general ideas" of them, maybe. But really. It is *VERY* clear. I don't need to know what the new testament *changed* when I look at the literal (or symbolic) writing of the ten commandments to see if I follow them or not. BTW, you will not get any argument from me that the bible is internally inconsistent. None. There's no doubt that it is. ~moo

Those are still two different sentences. While I see your point, I think it's more a point of *interpretation*, than it is literal reading. I think it's totally fair of you to interpret (and hence, interpret differently than others) these passages. My point goes to those who claim to read the bible literally. If you read the bible literally, then the two sentences are separate. It isn't the first, last or only place where a point is said more than once or is reiterated. The second sentence expands on the first. Of course. The way we did it when we studied the bible (I did that for 10 years in school, scholarly reading) we examined the usage of words and looked to see where these words are used elsewhere. For instance - the word "love" can be expressed 10 dfferent words in hebrew and aramaic, and most of those variations appear in different places in the bible. The way to know what the intended meaning is, usually, is to see which of those words is used in which context. So when you read a passage, you "hunt" for the same word and see its usage (vs the other variations' usage) and you can get a better understanding of what it means. Honestly, jryan, I don't think there *is* a way to read the bible literally without -- quite quickly -- falling into inconsistencies and vagueness. (I'll continue the rest later, I was called into a meeting). ~moo

No, my understanding of the passage comes from the original context in the original language. Look at both repetitions of the ten commandments, and then at the several "expansions" and you will see it clearly. No one argues that religions use theologic arguments to solve problems like these, I'm sure Christianity (on its various sects) is doing that as much as Judaism and any other religion. But if you claim to follow the *literal* meaning, then there's little to argue about the *literal* meaning. If it's not about literal meaning that we talk about, rather the interpreted-symbolism, then we can discuss different interpretations all we want, but that would make no interpretation inherently better than the other. Do you do any form of work? Do you buy anything on Sabbath?

Regardless of your belief, this concept was never mentioned, written, or expressed *EVER* in the old testament. You're entitled to believe that the father/son/holy-spirit always existed, but if you want to claim the old testament shares this assumption, you need to bring proof for it. That's not from the old testament though. Historically, it came *MUCH MUCH MUCH* after than the texts (let alone the stories) of the old testament. It's not a graven image. It is a symbol. It's a problem, and it's a problem Jews know about and argue/discuss in the other jewish texts, explaining it theologically. It's a box that held the essence of God. It wasn't just 'a symbol of god', one can claim it *WAS* god. An object that was to be treated as god. That's a symbol; it might not be an idol in the sense of another god, but it definitely is the symbol of God. I will approach a few religious friends of mine (among them some rabbis) to ask them about this, see how they explain it theologically. ~moo