reverse

Hi. Welcome aboard the SS Lemming. setting sail. this quote bothered me a lot. " Because Latin words are quite (though not completely) self-contained, an intelligible Latin sentence can be made from elements placed in largely arbitrary order. Latin has a complex affixation and a simple syntax, while Chinese has the opposite."* *from same link as above.

aww! as usual, I have found myself in the "lemming trap". Thinking I was swimming across a river only to find myself way out at sea! "A formal grammar is a precisely defined grammar, typically used for computer programming languages. These grammars do not generally resemble the grammars of human languages very much. In particular, they conform precisely to a grammar generated by a pushdown automaton with arbitrarily complex commands. They usually lack questions, exclamations, simile, metaphor and other features of human languages." it's from here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar

he to whom the walk belongs

Thanks for that info. English is a strange language because of how many other languages got thrown in to its basic structure. It’s really like one of those bran breakfast cereals, With all kinds of grains and raisins and bits of fruit mixed in to the same box. What I was really thinking about was the way we encode “time” into a sentence, or the way we indicate “belonging”. Eg: walk walked walking. Or Peter Peters Peter’s And walker…(he who the walk belongs to!) That sort of thing. This surely must effect the logic or apparent illogic of many arguments.

Yup. erbonus -a -um (well done)

well, Fac me cocleario vomere!

Age. Fac ut gaudeam.

Yes but where does the monk going up meet the monk going down (allowing for a varied rate of speed)? If the monk drags it a bit on last part of his walk up and then runs down … how can we calculate an intersection?

I’ve heard that early English didn’t need words like “to” and “from” and “for” to originally make a sentence. That you just said king +gave +horses +men. And you figured out the meaning by what was most likely. It for example would not be likely that the men gave a King to the horse. I guess what I’m wondering is, How much more powerful would our thinking ability be if we say thought in Latin or ancient Greek?

I can see why Hp = 0 would upset you. Isn’t the only question here. Is horsepower a measure of Work? And maybe, can you do work without moving? Security guards seem to get paid for it….??? http://www.learn.co.za/content/grade12/Science/phys_momentum/ForceWorkPower/Unit1/

This reminds me of the joke. A kid walks to school behind the bus to save five dollars. Later he got smarter and walked behind a private limo to save $200.

aww now you just erased Martins answer by making his longer! Q:What's the difference between a duck? A:One of it's legs is twice the same as the other.

hint, it's a word trick and a point of view trick in one. a crappy half way of doing it would be to adopt the line and write the name "shorter" on it's underwear. this is almost as good as your y to the power of X plus something one.

Ok, say we make them two torpedoes, both submerged, one chained - the other not. This way we can ignore the boats planing effect, and the form drag may now become significant.

If you look at it end on, it's as short as it can get. (a point). if you look at it from any other angle it also becomes shorter. I can adjust the XY knob on the computer screen ..and...so! but I bet this is not what you mean... thinking.... I can turn my screen on it side... like... this... bang.. scrape.. thud. woA, that is shorter . ok got it. wont spoil it for anyone else.

But what if you increase the speed of the water until it breaks the chain??? That seems to indicate that all those atoms of iron were doing something to keep in equilibrium.

I can see how it could be confusing. You really need to read the entire post and look at the two links and have some idea about electrostatics to get my intention. I was hoping for feedback on the two links.

well yes, for the first few seconds, while you can use the ground to push off against. Acrobats can get extra height by using the momentum of their legs in a flip. the real problem is what do you push off against after that? (when you are airborne.) most aircraft use the air itself. rockets on the other hand, bring along their own material to push off against. balloons use a slightly different trick with air.

I reckon that no work is done, as no energy is required to keep the system in equilibrium. The river could stop and the ship would stay in position. This is one of those point of view tricks I think. found this link to back up my position. http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/mechanics/energy/work/work.html and this http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/H/AE_horsepower.html

was replying to Bobeo, your post was fine. When did I say they worked in a Vacuum? When did I even say they worked at all? What makes you think they need to work in a vacuum to be of use?

I’m gonna need a few more sentences from you, to figure out if you are gifted or just rude.

so where do you see the main problem is then? http://www.skygod.com/quotes/predictions.html do you know how a cloud makes lightning?

Ha! that's a good one. I only got as far as the squared part. that is really a good one.

awwwww, did you know that your formula might fail? it's good to know that.