SH3RL0CK

To hopefully clarify, what I think npts2020 means is to look at this intuitively and consider that the battery has a limited amount of power it can produce. With and without the starter, how is this power distributed? If you think about it you should be able to come up with the answer easily. If you still have trouble, or need to explain this in a report, you can solve for this mathematically using ohms law per my suggestion; P = VI and V = IR and come to the same conclusion. Let V = 12V for the car battery. There is a resistance in the light; in the battery; and two resistances for the starter (on and off). I'll let you decide appropriate values for these (a google search might be helpful). So calculate the current and voltage (and therefore power) in the light when the starter is on, and when it is off.

Sounds like a homework question, so I can't just tell you the answer. Are you familiar with basic electrical circuits? With Ohm's law? If so, try drawing out the equivalent circuit, both with the starter motor on; and with it off. Don't forget the internal resistance of the battery. What, with respect to the headlights, is the difference between these two?

Since gravity waves can exit black holes (otherwise they wouldn't exhibit gravity); would it be possible to make observations based upon the gravity waves? The internal structure of the earth has been similarly mapped using sound waves for example. A pebble tossed into the black hole might make all kinds of interesting gravity wave sounds... Or does it not work this way?

Suppose there is a small oil spill on the road. A wider tire would have a greater chance of at least some of it being NOT on the oil. Therefore the friction between the tire and the road would be approximately that of the Non-oil covered part of the road. In this case, the tires will not slip and the car remains under control. With a small tire, maybe the entire tire surface is then on the oil. Then the friction is that of only the oil surface; which could cause the car to crash.

Clearly something needs to be done but I question how well this would work for highly reflective surfaces. Maybe a satellite specifically designed to enter the debris field orbit and pick up the pieces, sending these into a "safe" re-entry?

Because the equation assumes the surfaces areas are homogenous. In the real world, there can be a vast difference for the coefficient of friction of the road for points even a few centimeters apart. Think about a road with a few ice patches; a wide tire will have a better probability of contacting a surface with the desired high coefficient of friction (i.e. a part of the road without ice).

Well, the Republicans no longer have the ball to begin with. Then to be told by Pelosi that "you don't get to play ball with us" really left the Republicans almost no alternative. Very shortsighted, IMO, on Pelosi's part because if the stimulus bill doesn't work (it won't) and the economy doesn't improve in two years (which it might or might not), she's just given the Republican a campaigning tool. She's probably betting that the economy will be better in two years so only the Democrats can take credit; but even in this case I think the severe budget deficits and/or inflation this bill will cause will still give the Republicans a campaign tool because they were excluded. Not that I really care, other than a maybe few minor social differences they are really the same party. Democrats and Republicans are like tossing a coin, no matter which side comes up, you still only have pocket change left.

Since Neutronium can't exist on earth, the densest matter would then be the densest normal matter. This would be Osmium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmium If an atom smasher were able to generate some kind of strange matter, perhaps that would be denser. Of course, this strange matter would have to be stable enough for scientists to determine its density.

First, I am very happy with my education and with how my career has unfolded. However, with the costs of education increasing so very quickly (it far outpaces inflation), with the offshoring of jobs, and with the relative low importance society places on science; if I had to do it today I'd probably just opt to become an electrician instead.

LOL. I suppose everything helps the economy in some way. Just maybe not in the most efficient, or just, manner.

I heard on the radio the other day that the total dollar amount of the bailouts would be sufficient to pay off 90% of ALL mortgages (both statistics for the US only). Not sure if this is true as I can't source the radio (I may try to look it up if I get some time). So why are the banks still in trouble? And why not simply give the taxpayers this money (I am sure it would be better spent)? I would love it if my mortgage were 90% paid off! Truely we are living in historic times, spending this awesome amount of money so quickly cannot be a good thing.

Just had a thought. Maybe that "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska will get built after all. (At one time this $150M project seemed like a lot of money, but the entire Iraq war costs are now peanuts compared to the spending in the last few months ) Wouldn't that be ironic should the harshest critics of this bridge (democrats) eagerly pass legislation that causes it to be built?

Its difficult to draw any scientific conclusions from anecdotal evidence. Yes, the above hurricane/cyclone events are "firsts", however are they truely "first-time" events? Or is it possible that previous events were not recognized as such? After all, had a small tropical cyclone (such as Vince) hit the Iberian peninsula in 1935, it probably would have been considered just a regular storm. Had a tropical cyclone entered the Gulf of Oman in 1909 (instead of 2009), would this have even been recorded? Modern technology provides so much more information on the weather than we possible even a generation ago. Also, its not clear that a warmer sea will automatically generate more tropical storms. Tropical systems are incredibly complex and chaotic, and very difficult to predict correctly.

No single direction overall as space itself is expanding in all directions. However there are some local galaxys which are heading our direction (or we are heading its direction). For example, we will probably collide with the Andromeda galaxy in about 2-3 billion years. The Andromeda galaxy has a very slight blue shift for this reason.

Sounds like a good idea, but I have some questions as to why this might not be practical (I don't actually know the answer, I'm just speculating here). How long will it take to "recharge" this by spliting the water into H2 and O2 components? How efficient is this "recharge"? How much electricity is required to "recharge"? Are there any dangers associated with this? High pressure? Hydrogen embrittlement of the parts? Fire and Explosion hazards from the H2 and O2? High temperatures? Others? How large are the tanks of H2, 02, and H20 are we talking about? Are they heavy? Would the fuel cell itself be heavy? Maybe the fact you can freely get 02 (the heavy part) from the air and throw away the water (also a heavy part) makes a fuel cell possible where the weight would otherwise be prohibitive?

Couldn't the rotation of the earth provide momentum to the satellite? The way I see it, both ends should be going around the earth in exactly one day. The energy lost by pulling something up would cause the satellite end to drop to a lower (faster) orbit. But then the cable will hold the satelite in place at that orbit (1 day rotation) because the cable is tied to earth. The rotation of the earth would pull the satellite end back into geostationary alignment since this is the speed the satellite end would trail the earth end. Please someone correct me if I am wrong about this. Would there be a limit to the rate of sending stuff up such that the rotation of the earth wouldn't do this? Maybe when the cable would break?

Can he pull it off? I certainly hope so, and no doubt it will be at least partially successful. Western Europe for example already has a better view of America but I suspect Iran, Syria, the PLO, Venezuela and possibly other nations have reasons to not permit a reduction of the rhetoric. I wouldn't hold my breath hoping for an end to diplomatic friction, they will continue to find ways to make the USA look evil (at least to their citizens). For a dictatorship, its just too easy to blame someone else (the USA for example) for your problems rather than yourself.

Neither do I see how this could settle the debate because how would you ever determine how much benefit came from the First spending and how much from the second if money from both went to the same place (hopefully there will be more transparency with the second bailout)? Especially since the banks won't say what they did with the first bailout. And how could it be possible to parse these benefits from all the other things the Fed, the Treasury, other countries, etc. are doing to try to help the situation? We are talking multiple Trillions of dollars in the aggregate after all. I'm actually pessimistic that all this money will do any good anyway (I'm expecting massive inflation at some point, followed by very high interest rates to combat this), but then I'm not an economist.

Why not get a computer laptop and install some kind math program on it?

No. Where in his statements did he say he was trying to kill someone?

Gitmo had to be closed because of the public image of it, but a new one will be opened. Ultimately, there will be a new Gitmo (although it may be in Afghanistan), although it may be run differently and may provide more transparency and some additional protections for those interned there. I think this is inevitable given that we have confirmed AQ fighters that we must keep somewhere. But where? For example, the AQ combatant might claim to be a Saudi citizen, but Saudi Arabia might deny that he is a citizen of Saudi Arabia and not accept him. Who is lying? And in this case, I think everyone would agree we shouldn't send him there. Should we turn him loose? Of course not! Can we just kill them? Of course we can't do that either. We caught them so now we have to keep them. Should we bring him into this country? I'd rather not do that. It gives the AQ member our full constitutional guarantees (I'm ok with that treatment in principle, but in practice it becomes much more problematic. I'd rather give them this good treatment as a priviledge rather than a right). But this also grants the possibility of bail (an AQ member free on our streets, just imagine!). Even without bail (once decided by a judge), there would be visits with "friends" where mischief can be arranged. Also it provides the possibility of him talking with the media, including media not particularly friendly to the west which could easily turn into a PR nightmare (they could rip a page out of the Koran and blame the prison guard for example). Especially if the AQ member finds a way to kill himself (of course it would be protrayed that the US murdered him). And don't think AQ won't take full advantage of all these. Now maybe there are ways to address all of these concerns, but it changes the game much, much more to their advantage. Then there is the option of a Gitmo like facility where we can have the best of all the above without any of the downsides.

I agree with most of your post, however "missing" can have different meanings particularly since this passage has been translated into english. Missing does not necessarily mean that no star will ever "die". I once had an old truck which eventually "died" and I got rid of it. But that does not make it "missing." But enough nit-picking from me on this...

This wasn't initiated by the gun lobby, it was initiated by Obama. If the American left is trying to abandon any gun control issues, why is Obama taking this action when he could have simply done nothing? Unless he really has a belief that this is the right thing to do. Its not like this was a high profile issue (though it could now become one), and with the current economy and other problems he must address, I think his political capital would be better spent elsewhere. I really don't see the gun lobby moving the goalposts...the anti-gun crowd seems to be the ones initiating most of the new laws regarding guns. And with the exeception of the passing of the Tiahrt amendment, these are almost invariably more restricitive regarding gun ownership (keep in mind that I consider conceal-carry laws via a license/registration as more restrictive as I read the 2nd Amendment permitting that without any registration). But of course, that is just my opinion.

If it isn't important for the left, then why is it the right can use it as a wedge issue? Wouldn't the left simply abandon whatever specific issue becomes the "wedge" between themselves and the public at large rather than alienate said public? To keep bringing up more and more gun control laws (or in this case making such possible at the local level) indicates that indeed this is an important issue for the left. Or, I believe, it is a very important issue for specific groups (but not all) of the left.

Absolutely. Another point to be sure of is to keep the rocket thrust properly aligned with the track. Otherwise, energy is wasted with the rocket trying to push the car "off track" instead of in the direction of the track.