 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Somebody remind me... which one is law #1?
>
> An object will remain at rest or will continue moving in a straight line at
> constant speed unless an external force is applied.
OK, that *is* pretty self explanatory...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 15:53:43 +0200, "Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech
sa dot com> wrote:
>
>Well, in all honesty, the 1st law of motion is fairly self-explanatory.
Not to dear Melvyn. It sounded as if he was struggling. And when they
went on to talk about Descartes third law. He complained that they had
only started on Newton's second <hehe>
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> An object will remain at rest or will continue moving in a straight line
>> at
>> constant speed unless an external force is applied.
>
> OK, that *is* pretty self explanatory...
But if the audience is the general public, you should probably explain how
air drag, friction, gravity and things can all be external forces.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Warp
Subject: Re: As if we didn't have enough to worry about...
Date: 3 Apr 2008 11:07:50
Message: <47f500d2@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> The trouble is, most people don't realise that when a scientist says
> something is unlikely, they could easily be talking about a 1 in 1e30
> chance or less. Basic honesty and innate pedantry forbids them from
> saying outright that something is impossible because they don't honestly
> know for absolute certainty. Of course, the slightest chance that a
> pico-blackhole with less mass than a proton could appear and start to
> eat the earth, however slowly or briefly, can very easily be used by the
> press to sell at least 1e30 papers...
I think that it's a lot more likely that a black hole travelling at
almost c towards us will collide with the Earth in the next 10 years
than a micro-blackhole created by humans eating the Earth.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Warp
Subject: Re: As if we didn't have enough to worry about...
Date: 3 Apr 2008 11:12:29
Message: <47f501e9@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> >> An object will remain at rest or will continue moving in a straight line
> >> at
> >> constant speed unless an external force is applied.
> But if the audience is the general public, you should probably explain how
> air drag, friction, gravity and things can all be external forces.
Well, according to GR there's no such a thing as "gravity force", and
the correct form of the law of inertia is "...will continue moving along
its geodesic...". A geodesic is the shortest path between two points for
a given object.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: As if we didn't have enough to worry about...
Date: 3 Apr 2008 14:12:28
Message: <47f52c1c$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers escribió:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/science/29collider.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp
>
Bleh. Registration required.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: As if we didn't have enough to worry about...
Date: 3 Apr 2008 14:14:28
Message: <47f52c94@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>
>> But, but, but, isn't Switzerland a small town up near the Canadian
>> border? I
>> mean, it has skiing, so it must be somewhere up north.
>> Europe? Is that a state?
>
> That would be funny if it wasn't true... :'(
It's *not* true. Europe is *not* a state.
*ducks*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: As if we didn't have enough to worry about...
Date: 3 Apr 2008 18:08:37
Message: <47f56375@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Indeed. Because, let's face it, if the world gets destroyed by the LHC,
> the scientists won't be upset. It's not like they'll be the first ones
> to die or anyt... oh, wait...
Oh, those Anomylous Materials people are at it again!
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Chambers
Subject: Re: As if we didn't have enough to worry about...
Date: 3 Apr 2008 21:41:37
Message: <47f59561@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Chambers escribió:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/science/29collider.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp
>>
>
> Bleh. Registration required.
That's weird, I'm not registered, and it never bothered me.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: As if we didn't have enough to worry about...
Date: 3 Apr 2008 21:44:40
Message: <47f59618$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> That's weird, I'm not registered, and it never bothered me.
I just read carefully the URL that it redirected me to.
Now I want to kill a webdev.
"&REFUSE_COOKIE_ERROR=SHOW_ERROR"
And indeed, below the "Log In Now" heading, it says "In order to access
our Web site, your Web browser must accept cookies from NYTimes.com.
More information." But isn't it totally retarded that it takes you to a
login page if you don't have cookies enabled, even if you don't need to
log in? In fact, isn't it totally retarded that it requires cookies in
the first place?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
