ccwebb

There are several passages in The Bible that are difficult reads, and can be very hard to understand at the time you are reading it. I can understand how you are trying to use a single passage to try and debunk Jesus. Matthew 24:34 by itself sounds like he is referring to the people standing around him. However, the very next passage, Matthew 24:36, the question on who he is talking about it answered. "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angles of heaven, but my father only." I completely agree. "This generation" did not mean those around him. When the end of times begins, all the signs will happen within that life span. It will not be over several generations but of the generation when it starts. Compare what Jesus says in Matthew 24:34 to what The Lord says to Moses in Numbers 14:33 it becomes clearer. "And your children shall wonder the wilderness for 40 years..." He was speaking directly to Moses whereas in Matthew 24, The Lord was answering a question about the end of times. We tend to think of ourselves in the here and now, and not about all of time. Job 28:4 "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? ..."

A search through Wikipedia shows a lot of interesting research on this powder keg of a topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation Unless you are trying to form a group based on a certain set of beliefs or you get a very large grant to conduct a study, I don't see why it does matter. Matthew 7:5

Airbrush you beat me to it... It is very expensive simply purchasing an airline ticket (say $300 - $1000). The price jumps to nearly $62,000 if you wish to become a simple commercial pilot! It even skyrockets (pun intended) if you want to build a rocket that can reach the low orbit. Of course only governments can explore space, but not for long! (Space X) So people like me are stuck to studying news releases and programs on tv to get our fix. Living in a big city, all you can make out is the moon, Venus and only parts of Orion. So of course the interest is going to wane some... However, look at Mars-One. A company trying to colonize Mars. They had over 200,000 applications! That does not sound like a lack of interest.

GregH - The Bible is written by 40-something individuals and over roughly 1500 years. There is going to be some differences simply because of different points of view. (free will and all) On top of that, when we read The Bible we often read it with our own thoughts, preconceptions and interpretations. Of course there is going to seem to be a lot of inconsistencies. I can read the same passage twice and get an entirely different meaning to it. That doesn't mean The Word is wrong, it means I was not ready to receive it. You are referring to Leviticus 16:8-10 with scapegoat. The Bible is a collective book of how we are suppose to follow God's Word, and how we fail miserably. Again, because of free will. He could have created us just like Him (or them) but then we would be bound to follow his word precisely. Instead, we were created in His image and given the ability to choose. He knows that we have, are, and will choose incorrectly. The entire Bible is full of forgiveness, second, third and forth chances. The scapegoat was a way of forgiveness. Sacrificing animals, grain, and even coin was a way of tithing and learning to put your faith in Him, not something that is earthly. (Mark 12:17, Matthew 6:19-21) God sacrificed his only son so we may be moved and fully understand the never ending limits to His forgiveness. It has always been about forgiveness (Hosea 6:6 & Matthew 6:19-21). Even if you live a life full of distrust, disbelief and misdirection yet you ask for forgiveness on the final second of the final hour, you will be forgiven. (Luke 23:43.)

Soooo... alpha is a constant, and like all constants, scientist are always testing that. Always checking to make sure what they know as a constant is just that. Alpha is electromagnetic bond between to particles and the value is a very small percentage?

There are two articles written by Peter Weiss that deals with the topic of 'Changing Constants'; one was in 2002 and the other in 2006. I found both at the Science News website. (link is in the first post.) Thank you swansont, as always, you kept it to my understanding! The next question is, why would a constant be challenged? Sure, when it is first proposed, but why now? As you indicated, "there are measurements using atomic clocks" and I am sure countless number of scientist have already challenged this idea.

I came across two articles in Science News of alpha not being a constant. (I do not have a subscription yet, so I have been unable to read the full article.) First off, what is alpha and why does it matter if it is a constant or not? Yes I have (tired) to read/study about this, even went to Wikipedia, but as a funny comic strip indicated in another thread of mine, it was difficult to keep focused on the topic.

I originally asked this question about a year ago in the Classical Science section. (You can read it here). Since then, I have come across new (to me) information that I would like to get clarification on. Pantheory's post was the last of the original thread: By far the the simplest definition of space is that it is the volume the matter encumpases, or as you said: the distance between matter. But this is not the present theoretical consensus model of space (unfortunately ) Although space is known to have energy within it, as in zero-point-energy, and hypothetical particles within it like dark matter, or theoretical particles like the Higg's and virtual particles, etc. But if present theory is valid then space, absent matter and energy, also can bend and warp like general relativity proposes, expand like the Big Bang model proposes, and accelerate its expansion like the dark energy hypothesis proposes, then space would need to have very complicated characteristics quite different from a volume of "nothingness." I came across this article from Nasa that talked about "Einstein was right again". http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/ The results were announced about the Gravity Probe B (GP-B) mission proved that the spacetime around the earth is distorted, according to General Relativity. What is being distorted? Every example of space is given as a trampoline like example where mass puts a dimple into it. A spinning massive object drag space with it. Ok... then what is Space? How can it be bent or warped if it is simply the distance between matter?

You are absolutely correct. Their have been many instances were extremist on both sides of this fence have laid down some pretty thick lies to try and prove their point. Then the mindless just blindly follow, without any research themselves. Once anyone has a closed mind, it is nearly impossible to teach them anything else.

Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, aka crazy hair guy, sums this up perfectly. "Is such a thing even possible, no matter how remote, that it could happen?" With a statement like that, then I guess Oz and Valhalla does exist!

Studiot- I hope this picture is what you are looking for. I found a really neat App on the iphone that allows me to have a windtunnel at any time. The picture is on an airfoil and the blue indicates low pressure and the red/yellow high pressure. This is Bernoulli's. Notice the downwash off the trailing edge, that is Newton.

An airfoil will produce upwards lift regardless if it is upside down or right side up, base on its angle of attack. Even a flat board can produce upwards lift if the angle attack is such that it will allow the airflow to flow around the board, and the airflow around the upper camber has a longer distance to travel than on bottom. (upper camber being defined as the side furthest away from the ground.) See here at Nasa. You will need Java to run the interactive demonstration. The longer camber forces the airflow to speed up. As the airflow comes off the trailing edge, because of the angle of the airfoil, forces the air down, aka Downwash. This gives rise to Newton. The faster airflow on top creates a low pressure (Bernoulli) when compared to the pressure under the airfoil. This differential air pressure and the downwash helps create the lift to keep the plane flying. All wings are attached to aircraft with a positive angle of incident. This will allow the airfoil to have a positive angle of attack, and producing lift, while leaving the fuselage to be level. Now an aerobatic airplane, with symmetrical airfoils, will have a small angle of incidence. This allows the plane to fly upside down and appear level. Normal aircraft have asymmetrical airfoils, which makes the wing much more efficient in normal (non upside down) flight. An asymmetrical airfoil can fly upside down, unfortunately the airplane will need to have an extreme pitch up attitude to accomplish this.

Point taken. My statement of "... but no one actually knows how lift works." should have been worded "...but no one knows how lift works exactly. We have a lot of very strong ideas, but no cookie-cut simple phrase." This was the point I was trying to make. We don't have all the answers, and trying to call it "Newton" or "Magnus" or "Bernoulli" or even "magic" isn't the correct either. To answer a question from Studiot, post #26 above: An airplane can become aerodynamically heavier or lighter by simply shifting the Center of Gravity aft or forward. It can become physically heavier with ice, and of course it gets lighter as fuel is burned off.

Bignose - you are correct. We do know a great number of things about lift. Yet, lift still baffles even the greatest: On page 4-14 in the Airplane Flying Handbook it has been proven that an aircraft in a spin is in equilibrium! Though the nose is extremely down, and the airplane is following a "corkscrewish" type flight path, the four fundamental forces in aerodynamics are balanced. Even the great Wikipedia does not explain it very clearly: "There are several ways to explain how an airfoil generates lift. Some are more complicated or more mathematically rigorous than others; some have been shown to be incorrect. For example, there are explanations based directly on Newton's Laws of motion and explanations based on Bernoulli’s principle. Either can be used to explain lift" The point I was trying to make, since lift is not known and often argued, it I try to keep the explanations very simple: You can make lift with large wings or big engines. As you go from one to the other they ratio of engine-wing must change. Even NASA keeps it as simple as possible. "Lift is a force generated by turning a flow. Many different objects can generate a lift force and there many factors which influence the generation of lift."

Lift and weight are forever seeking each other in balance. Lift is an upwards force opposed by weight, the downward force. The airplane MAY develop more lift or more weight in a short time span, but they will balance each other out. If the airplane weighs 100 pounds, it needs to generate 100 pounds of lift. No more, no less. An airplane is 'buoyant' in the air. It displaces the air to remain 'floating'. Excess engine power allows an aircraft to climb or descended. Not lift. There is not a "Law of Lift", we have some good ideas, but no one actually knows how lift works. There is airflow being turned down off the trailing edge of all airfoils, this is known as Downwash. This downwash is often used to show Newtan's 3rd law. Airflow goes down, airfoil gets lift. Bernoulli is used to describe what happens above the wing. There is a massive low pressure above an airfoil, due to the increased airflow, 'sucking it up.' Since lift is still considered a mystery, and argued passionately, many flight instructors and pilots simply don't like to bring this topic up. They know that their answer isn't completely right, so we leave it alone. (Like politics and religion!) I am a flight instructor, to keep things as simple as I can I like to use water to describe what happens to a airfoil. After all, it is fluid dynamics. The airfoil simply 'floats' in the air, displacing the air to do so. It displaces the air in one of two ways, with a really big engine or it induces it with a really curved airfoil. As the engine gets smaller, the wings get bigger. Compare the SR-71 to a glider.

Ewmon- I do believe we are searching the same things on Google! I do remember coming across that website, which brings us to our mutual problem of trying to have hunters describe our point. The diagram you provided above would work perfectly if the bullet's Center of Gravity (CG) was located where the flight path intersects the bullet. The bullets CG is extremely aft, and that is why the Magnus effect is needed to give it stability. Once the bullet begins to become unaligned with the flight path, the pitch of the bullet begins to change or the spin is effected in anyway, the bullet will tumble. It will not hold that pitch attitude long enough to get lift. The tumbling bullet's flight path is changed, and thus the timing of it hitting the ground will change. (btw- many Vietnam Veterans seriously dislike the M-16 because it was too easy to get the light round would begin tumbling in flight. This would severely impact the penetration ability of the bullet.) In this case, the bullet fired and bullet dropped may not hit the ground simultaneously. This type of bullet leaves a 'keyhole' entry point. http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/g/definition-of-keyhole-bullet-keyholing.htm Compare to the flight path of a bullet vs. the flight path of a golf ball. The golf ball has lift due to Magnus effect, whereas the bullet uses Magnus effect for stability. The golf ball's flight path is not parabolic, it does have a small portion of flight. Here is a web site that has done a side-by-side comparison of a golf ball with and with out 'dimples'. The dimple-less golf ball does not get as much lift as a dimple golf ball. http://thesandtrap.com/b/balls/caesar_featherie_dimpleless_golf_ball_review I am waiting for a gunsmith to make a ball ammunition, with dimples, to be fired with a rifling effect which will produce a backspin on the ball. Hmmm... now that bullet would fly!

ewmon- I'm sorry, but I am going to have to respectfully disagree. The fired bullet is following a parabolic flight path. The angle of attack does not change because the relative wind does not change. The bullet does not generate lift.

Yes. http://www.hawking.org.uk/space-and-time-warps.html http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/gravity-affect-time-space http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_o4aY7xkXg

True, all fins help stabilize aircraft. The fins in the back part of the rocket/missile provide the stabilization you are referring to. Lift is produced by moving/displacing air, this can be accomplished in one of two ways: with wings or with thrust. (or of course with some combination in-between). Rockets get all of their lift from their engine. A glider plane gets a small amount of lift from its thrust, and thus needs very big wings to make up the rest of lift. Missiles have powerful engines, but not as powerful as rockets. Hence why they have additional wings to help, though tiny. Since bullets can not have wings, fins, or stabilizers, the rifling effect is need to help it stay accurate. It is still falling the moment it leaves the barrel. Ajb was correct in post #2, the same effect would happen in a vacuum. I would guess that the 39.6 millisecond difference you quoted was due to what little resistance there was with the air.

When talking about the flight path of an object, you can not compare it to the horizontal plane if you are trying to measure lift. You have to measure it to the Angle of Attack, that is the 'horizontal line' (cord line) of the object compared to the relative wind. The relative wind is the direction of airflow to the object. Rifling is a stabilizing effect reducing drag. Since drag and thrust are opposite forces of each other, reduce drag and thrust becomes greater. Or the bullet goes further, it is still dropping. Bullets do not generate lift, as an airfoil would, they fall. Hence why missiles have wings.

I watched an old episode on History Channel called "Alien Moons." There was a comment that was made that lead to some confusion. They went on explaining how it is theorized how a moon got to close to Saturn, and Saturn's gravity "tore it apart" and became the rings of Saturn. They went on to describe the theory of how earth's moon was formed, with earth hitting another planet. Why wouldn't earth's gravity "tear the rouge planet apart"? On that same line, why doesn't the sun have rings around it? Wouldn't the sun's gravity be strong enough to tear everything apart and turn it into a ring system? Oh...and Shoemaker-Levi 9, why didn't that get "torn apart"...

Ron- thank you. Your answer actually does make things a bit clearer for my simple mind. Swansot... that watch is just a bit bigger than my Citizen, Eco-drive, Blue Angels edition! lol

I have seen, and conducted, the time experiment myself while flying. (and it can not be measured with a wrist watch!) That makes sense about not being fast enough to notice the effect of increased mass, thus leaving the decreased fuel being the 'bigger' variable. Now this increased mass, who would notice it? If a person began accelerating to the point were increased mass can be measured, would this increase mass be applied to the person moving or perceived by the person standing still?

I have come across a few different posts and threads that are referring to mass and speed. Specifically, that the faster something goes, the more massive it becomes. Am I just confusing a topic here and this is completely wrong, or that statement true? If it is true, then how is it possible? As a plane flies it gets lighter (less massive) as it flies do to fuel burn. This is why airliners rarely fly level, more a parabola. The lighter they are the less lift (and thus drag) is needed. But if speed increases mass, then the mass loss with fuel burn doesn't matter. Then why do.... well, you seem my catch 22? Is mass and speed directly related somehow?

Fanghur, This dilemma has already been imaged by the creative mind of Gene Roddenberry. Thus his idea of needing a deflector dish, or something similar. Also, this discussion has already been proven in the terrible and devastating destruction of the Columbia Space Shuttle. A piece of foam at low Mach numbers was able to create a hole in the protective shielding of the left wing. The foam was decelerating and the Shuttle was accelerating into it.