tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post5156543005590056971..comments2019-02-17T22:24:29.353-08:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Maddow, Mueller and the dems push a dare at McConnellDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger207125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-53617441702684350372019-01-23T14:27:55.125-08:002019-01-23T14:27:55.125-08:00I was right then to assume porohobot did not mean ...I was right then to assume porohobot did not mean what some of you thought. But clearly we have language difficulties. porohobot would be well advised to take into account that busy people will SKIM a posting for meaning and not read every word... and since your messages have very... unusual grammar and coding... you should not be surprised when people leap to conclusions. I would post a little less and more carefully.<br /><br />WE, in turn, should use paraphrase questions like: "Did you really mean to say____?<br /><br />And now onward<br /><br />onward<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-36716110665388214002019-01-23T13:39:58.533-08:002019-01-23T13:39:58.533-08:00Hi Alfred and Larry
On a body of water the initia...Hi Alfred and Larry<br /><br />On a body of water the initial height can be assumed to be the same as the final height <br /><br />So the horizontal velocity is irrelevant <br /><br />All that is required is the flight time and that will give you the maximum height attained<br /><br />D= 1/2 Acc x T squared - where T = half the time in the air<br /><br />Simple as! (unless it's a flying fish)Duncan Cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-39872641606444362222019-01-23T13:39:51.868-08:002019-01-23T13:39:51.868-08:00Alfred Differ:
Larry | "Am I wrong that you ...Alfred Differ:<br /><i><br />Larry | "Am I wrong that you don't have to know anything about the horizontal part of the leap?"<br /><br />No, but he does need to know at least the vertical component of the initial velocity which wasn't represented in the initial parabolic equation. He needs more than the duration of the leap.<br /></i><br /><br />It seems to me that if you know the duration of the leap, then you can derive the height and from those you can derive the vertical component of the initial velocity. There are any number of possibilities for the horizontal distance, but that doesn't seem to enter into the question being asked.<br /><br />Unless I'm misunderstanding the question being asked. I perceive it be: "If a fish leaps from the surface and then hits the surface again at time t, how high did it leap before falling back?"* <br /><br />* Assuming no friction, no changes in gravity over the distance, and no forces acting other than gravity and the initial push.Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-45305082702023982542019-01-23T13:02:26.840-08:002019-01-23T13:02:26.840-08:00>> locumranch said...
\\won't make excr...>> locumranch said...<br /><br />\\won't make excrement taste like chocolate ice cream.<br /><br />But YOU. It was exactly YOU. Who without any doubt.<br />Proved to us here exactly that -- that excrements AND chocolate ice cream ARE exactly THE SAME... because it both brown. %P (like kindergarden and Osventsim are THE SAME just becuse it both "organization")<br /><br />So... what will you say?<br /><br />Do you admit your own "truth"... and as such readiness to eat shit, literary.<br /><br />Or... by opposing... admit that YOU yourself just a shallow hypocrite and stupid troll.<br />Who try to enlarge himself on belittling some famous guy.<br /><br />Bestporohobotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19616346492665921932019-01-23T12:58:17.087-08:002019-01-23T12:58:17.087-08:00An close examination (with much paraphrasing) of Y...<br />An close examination (with much paraphrasing) of Yana's inconsistent gender equality argument reveals a rather insidious agenda:<br /><br />(1) He initially asserts that 'Males & Females are Equal' in every respect that matters, while simultaneously insisting that Males are all potential brutes, villains & rapists but Females are not (and are somehow incapable of being) potential brutes, villains & rapists. This amounts to an overt admission of gender inequality.<br /><br />(2) Retrenching, he then asserts that Females deserve to be treated as 'Humans' because they lack the male capacity for brutishness, villainy & rape, the implication being that Males (in general) deserve LESS THAN HUMAN treatment because of their capacity for brutishness, villainy & rape. This amounts to a tacit admission of gender inequality.<br /><br />In effect, Yana channels the Western Zeitgeist of Female Moral Superiority & Toxic Masculinity by declaring that 'Female-humans are deservingly Human' but Male-humans are not (not-Human, that is).<br /><br />Well, I've got some news for you, Bucko:<br /><br />To the detriment of you, females (in general) & my own daughter (in particular), the 'Gender Equality' juggernaut is bearing down on us all like a remorseless reciprocity train that will dish out deservingness regardless of gender...<br /><br />Because if (1) Females are equal to Males and (2) 'Males are NOT human', then (3) Females are NOT human either.<br /><br />Illegal female immigrants will be first, followed shortly thereafter by transexuals & finally by (privileged) (white) female heterosexuals who will discover to their growing horror that their vaginas will no longer grant them safe harbour, free shit, special protections, exemptions from responsibility & immunity from consequence.<br /><br />For those few remaining sensible Females who wish to avoid the living hell that was once 'Male Only' Disposability, one & only one fleeting cultural 'out' remains, even though this solution is so radical as to be almost inconceivable.<br /><br />Females must (1) renounce their War on 'Toxic Masculinity', (2) treat their male counterparts as if 'Males were human, too', and (3) declare an end to 'male only' hunger, homelessness, disposability. sin, sacrifice, punishment & imprisonment. <br /><br /><br />Best<br />_____<br /><br />Following the collapse of the Old Soviet, ex-Soviet Males became incredibly disposable and engaged in suicide by alcohol, drugs & self-violence with terrifying regularity, as exemplified by our own Poor_Old_Robot.<br /><br />This Male Only self-destructive trend has since spread to the Enlightened West (in general) & the USA (in particular), as Disposable Men & ex-Males kill themselves at a similarly incredible rate, but nobody cares, except for the brand new 'crisis' that is the recent tiny uptick in suiciding females.<br />locumranchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06812045410916208141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-56394962482162127542019-01-23T12:25:08.609-08:002019-01-23T12:25:08.609-08:00>> Alfred Differ said...
\\In my years, I...>> Alfred Differ said...<br />\\In my years, I've learned that genetics has little to do with a talent for science.<br /><br />There could be some new scientific discoveries. ;)<br /><br /><br />\\I'm hoping my generation is the last to believe women (in general) are even slightly worse than men (in general) at math, science, or any of the other academic subject areas. <br /><br />That your USAish troubles... we, in post-soviet are all equal... mostly in suffer.<br />From 1917.<br />We already have had woman as premier... twice. %P<br /><br /><br />\\While I didn't see many women in grad school when I was, I did see some. <br /><br />I was student of engineering deprtment... and we had have quite a bit of girls on the faculty.<br /><br /><br />\\They went through Hell to get there and stay there, <br /><br />As I already said. It's your USA troubles.<br /><br /><br />//many of his students DID notice. She fought past a number of barriers to do it and a few more that do NOT appear on her Wikipedia page... and won't ever by my hand. Let's just say she is more impressive than the page suggests. 8)<br /><br />Let's trade your problems with Ukraine?<br />Because we almost lost all science... because of lack of finances.porohobotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-87683597719134764442019-01-23T12:14:26.968-08:002019-01-23T12:14:26.968-08:00Larry | Am I wrong that you don't have to kno...Larry | <i> Am I wrong that you don't have to know anything about the horizontal part of the leap?</i><br /><br />No, but he does need to know at least the vertical component of the initial velocity which wasn't represented in the initial parabolic equation. He needs more than the duration of the leap.<br /><br />Where the horizontal information comes in handy (assuming the fish didn't leap vertical) is in backtracking to the initial velocity. Knowing velocities is harder than knowing leap angles and leap distances. If the fish goes vertical, you're stuck and have to do it the hard way.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-92167168664478823882019-01-23T12:07:31.465-08:002019-01-23T12:07:31.465-08:00Darrel E,
You ran into an equation that shows H =...Darrel E,<br /><br />You ran into an equation that shows H = [v0y]^2 / 2g where v0y can be written as some other thing you know through trigonometry. That was the correct one to use. Whenever your gut doesn't sing about knowing the answer is correct, though, just fall back to first principles and show your work to yourself at each step. You can't go wrong that way.<br /><br />... and yes for a number of other conclusions that have been written.<br /><br />t(peak) = T/2<br />etc.<br /><br />As for the first equation, your gut was probably pointing out that 1/2 g t^2 is the acceleration piece and initial velocity has to show up somewhere. A short thought experiment shows the initial velocity matters. When your gut says 'this variable can change results' it is often correct. Listen to it and you won't be wrong very often... at least in physics. 8)Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-82740750870588778652019-01-23T11:58:43.338-08:002019-01-23T11:58:43.338-08:00...I mean "From there, it's easy to figur......I mean "From there, it's easy to figure out the <b>length</b> of the fall."<br /><br />We already know the duration.<br /><br />Duh!Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91666071263416720522019-01-23T11:55:57.425-08:002019-01-23T11:55:57.425-08:00>> David Brin said...
\\All right. Having gi...>> David Brin said...<br />\\All right. Having given benefit of the doubt... and with an understanding that the language problems may caus misunderstandings... <br /><br />More like different communication environments. Habits. With different tolerance toward flame, swearing and sarcasm. (shy)<br /><br /><br />\\it certainly does seem as if porohobot is suggesting that women -- as a class -- suffer from mental deficiencies<br /><br />If only that was my genuine message. Like one of Locum's "hear me... I came to you with new shining truth -- people are stupid!" -- you would be 100% right.<br /><br />But.<br /><br /><b>FIRST OF ALL -- CONTEXT</b><br /><br /><b>But it is not... it was a sarcastic comment in response on several preposterous claims.</b><br /><br />It's like if you... brawled with Locum for yet one time.<br />And was raged by his stupidity to that level... as to exclaim "people are such idiots?".<br />Will it mean that you count ALL people as "mentally impaired"? I doubt it. As for me it's just rightful goddam.<br /><br />Well. Ok. You are better than that. For sure.<br />But not all people are so forgiving and understanding.<br />If that came to it. I can say I'm guilty. In such a case.<br />I DO NOT LIKE militant stupidity. It's like allergic reaction. %(<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>SECOND -- ACTUAL WORDS</b><br /><br />That combination of words, with which yana started its(his,her) crusade.<br /><br />Was blatantly edited as<br /><br /><i>"women cannot understand scientifical explanations"</i><br /><br /><b>REAL WORDS WAS (with quote -- full and correct -- it was assigned to)</b><br /><br />"""<br />\\Really? Is it all women who have wronged you, your whole entire life, so that your aggreivance can be distilled to an antagonism of nature itself, simply because some people refer to it in the female idiom? How small must one's vision be, to accomplish that? How much hatred of women does it take, to translate a few boyhood spankings into revenge politics against 51% of humanity and 100% of the Earth?<br /><br /><i>Yet one stanning proof. <br />Feminists (women?) cannot (and/or doesn't care of) understand scientifical explanations.<br />And they ask me why I'm so sure...</i><br />"""<br /><br />SEE THE DIFFERENCE??!<br />SEE??? What was reason for such sarcastic/sardonic reaction?<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>THIRD -- LINGUISTIC ANALISIS</b><br /><br />1. I leave analysis of wrappers "Yet one stanning proof" and "And they ask me why I'm so sure" for interested.<br /><br />2. "Feminists (women?)" as it is clear: <br />it directed <b>NOT on women "as class"</b>, but on feminists (at least... becuse alternative was direct ad hominem, was it better?)<br />see that quesion marks? that's because not all feminists women, and I do not know gender (not sex) of human being under "yana" nik.<br /><br />3. "cannot (and/or doesn't care of)" -- SEE, it's important clarification, isn't it?<br /><br />4. "understand scientifical explanations" -- that's clear as for me, there is NO "kannot understand science" or even "have mental deficiencies" -- that are grave exaggerations and foul twisting of my words. (evil)<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>FORTH -- I CLEARLY STATED</b><br /><br />my intention and real attitude toward question... several times.<br />but it was ignored, postponed in a steamy hunting rush. %)<br /><br />So. It's really looks like witch hunt... that one, I(we, europeans) only heared from news, from USA.<br /><br />So. If such sardonic reactions are not allowed, outlawed. Posed as deadly sin. %)<br />I'm sinner. And that one who do not want redemption. %P<br /><br /><br /><br />\\ and inability to be honest about their own emotional and sexual drives.<br /><br />WHERE? That came from?porohobotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84284684208152065072019-01-23T11:55:30.944-08:002019-01-23T11:55:30.944-08:00@Alfred Differ,
Am I wrong that you don't hav...@Alfred Differ,<br /><br />Am I wrong that you don't have to know anything about the horizontal part of the leap?<br /><br />He knows how much time the fish is in the air. Therefore, he knows how much time it takes to fall from the maximum height, halfway through the arc. From there, it's easy to figure the duration of the fall, which is also the duration of the rise to the top. So height is simply a function of time.<br /><br />Do I err?Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81358040837716851562019-01-23T11:55:01.362-08:002019-01-23T11:55:01.362-08:00@porohobot | In my years, I've learned that ge...@porohobot | In my years, I've learned that genetics has little to do with a talent for science. I suspect we can all do it and the difference between the regular folks and those who appear to excel is more related to experience than anything innate. <br /><br />I'm hoping my generation is the last to believe women (in general) are even slightly worse than men (in general) at math, science, or any of the other academic subject areas. My anecdotal experience says my peers were mistaken and probably believed too much a bias taught them by their parents.<br /><br />While I didn't see many women in grad school when I was, I did see some. They went through Hell to get there and stay there, so I've always thought their low numbers had more to do with the crap they had to tolerate to succeed. Everyone gets angry when mistreated and there is only so much of it we take.<br /><br />The easiest anecdote I have for demonstrating gender equality of talent (in general) comes from my graduate adviser Kenneth Greider at UC Davis. While I was working on my PhD under him, his daughter Carol was at Berkeley working on hers. She finished a few years ahead of me and I may have met her once. Maybe. She went on to win a Nobel in 2009 for the discovery of telomerase. Her father didn't live to see that, but many of his students DID notice. She fought past a number of barriers to do it and a few more that do NOT appear on her Wikipedia page... and won't ever by my hand. Let's just say she is more impressive than the page suggests. 8)Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-29120373560766486712019-01-23T11:49:51.807-08:002019-01-23T11:49:51.807-08:00Darrell E:
My problem is all sources I've rev...Darrell E:<br /><i><br />My problem is all sources I've reviewed about how to use the equations of motion to solve ballistics problems like this seem to contradict that solution except in the special case in which the initial velocity is 0, such as dropping a ball off of a cliff.<br /></i><br /><br />I'll try one last time, and then maybe Alfred can take over. :)<br /><br />The second half of the fish's leap--the part where it falls back to the surface, is exactly the same as the ball dropped off of a cliff. It starts from the height of the leap with (momentarily) zero velocity and then falls a distance of h. You can figure out what h is as long as you know how long the falling takes.<br /><br />And you <b>do</b> know how long the falling takes. The problem tells you that the entire leap takes time t. Each half of the leap--the rise and the fall--take the same amount of time, which means each half takes time t/2. Therefore, the problem reduces to "From what height does a fish fall over a time of t/2 ?" The answer to that question is the answer you are looking for.<br /><br />I realize this says nothing about the velocity that the fish takes off with, which makes it sound as if you don't know how high that velocity will take the fish. But you "know" that by the back-door. You know how long it will take to fall from that height. Therefore, you also know how long it will take to <b>reach</b> that height (i.e,, the same amount of time). Even though physically, the height is a consequence of the initial velocity and the time in the air is a consequence of the height, the equations work in both directions. So you can determine the height from the time spent in the air, which is known.<br /><br />If you so choose, you can also determine the initial velocity, which has to be the same as the velocity at which the fish "lands" in the water.<br /><br />I hope that helps, because I feel like I'm just repeating myself.Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-43488668795737569432019-01-23T11:36:24.087-08:002019-01-23T11:36:24.087-08:00Alfred,
Thank you much for taking the time to go ...Alfred,<br /><br />Thank you much for taking the time to go through that. Though as I said I was about convinced that h= 1/2gt² was the solution and that it seemed intuitively correct to me I had a nagging memory from college physics that there was more to it and that a term was missing.<br /><br />I've got to run but will look at this in detail when I can.Darrell Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14054311762477388637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-51318942663708086002019-01-23T11:20:39.186-08:002019-01-23T11:20:39.186-08:00Larry,
Thanks for giving another try. Initial vel...Larry,<br /><br />Thanks for giving another try. Initial velocity is not 0 in the case being considered. The term "initial velocity" is a standard term used in the equations of motion and it has a specific meaning. Using a cannon as an example, which is exactly the same situation with the leaping fish, initial velocity is the velocity at which the cannon shell leaves the barrel and which is imparted to the shell by whatever propulsive system the cannon uses. In the case of the fish the initial velocity is the speed it left the water with, which was imparted by the action of the fish swimming in the water.<br /><br />Regarding time, I am already convinced that t is equal for both halves of the curve. As I attempted to explain the h= 1/2gt² solution seems intuitively correct to me already. My problem is all sources I've reviewed about how to use the equations of motion to solve ballistics problems like this seem to contradict that solution except in the special case in which the initial velocity is 0, such as dropping a ball off of a cliff. All solutions I've found for models like the leaping fish include terms to account for the vertical component of the initial velocity. That's my quandary. In other words, I've looked for solutions, found many sources, but they don't seem to support what you and I agree seems like a correct solution.Darrell Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14054311762477388637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-52073747709125866982019-01-23T10:53:14.067-08:002019-01-23T10:53:14.067-08:00Darrel E,
There are always shortcuts to these pr...Darrel E, <br /><br />There are always shortcuts to these problems, but it is best to start from first principles until you are comfortable with knowing when shortcuts help. Whenever you get confused, just go back to first principles.<br /><br />(It's like doing long division of integers. There are shortcuts, but the method taught in elementary school works every time and makes for a good fall back.)<br /><br />____________________________________________________________________<br />y = y0 + v0y t - 1/2 g t^2<br />x = x0 + v0x t <br /><br />Put your coordinate origin where the fish does it's leap and y0=x0=0.<br />If you know flight time T (=t-t0), you can observe where fish lands (x=L) and solve for v0x (=L/T)<br />If you know the angle at which the fish leaps, you can solve for v0y =(v0x tan(θ))<br /><br />...or you can substitute all this into the first equation to get<br />y = L/T tan(θ) t - 1/2 g t^2<br /><br />Max height occurs where dy/dt = 0.<br /><br />So dy/dt = L/T tan(θ) - g t = 0 implies L/gT tan(θ) = t(peak)<br /><br />Plug that in for t in the y equation and you'll get the height the fish reaches.<br /><br />H =[ [L/T tan(θ)]^2 * 1/g - g/2 [L/gT tan(θ)]^2 ]= [L/T tan(θ)]^2 [1/2g] {recognize this?}<br /><br />Done this way, you need to know L, T and tan(θ) to figure out H. If the fish leaps straight up, only then do you get to avoid having to know L and tan(θ). Only for a vertical leap would your fishing friends be correct.<br />____________________________________________________________________<br /><br />One extra thing to do periodically is check the units of the terms in your sums. If you have an equation for distances, every term should have distance units. You can catch the silly errors by spot checking units now and then.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-83473926788937228272019-01-23T10:07:59.947-08:002019-01-23T10:07:59.947-08:00All right. Having given benefit of the doubt... an...All right. Having given benefit of the doubt... and with an understanding that the language problems may caus misunderstandings... it certainly does seem as if porohobot is suggesting that women -- as a class -- suffer from mental deficiencies and inability to be honest about their own emotional and sexual drives.<br /><br />Guys, this is a perfect time to trot out the PARAPHRASE CHALLENGE. A mature person might respond by seeking clarification by paraphrasing what you think the other person said. In porohobot's case, this may be crucial, due to the linguistic problem. Hence :<br /><br />"It seems to me that you are saying _______. Is that close to your meaning? And if so, do you also mean that_____?"<br /><br />That would seem more productive than responding viscerally, shouting and leaping. Though in this case I suspect it might still lead to the same result.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-11260860655145858602019-01-23T09:34:49.053-08:002019-01-23T09:34:49.053-08:00@Darrell E,
I'm not sure I'm reading your...@Darrell E,<br /><br />I'm not sure I'm reading your confusion correctly, but I think I am, so...<br /><br />Think of the leap as divided into two halves: up and down. The fish leaps at some initial velocity, but then eventually reaches an apogee and hangs there for an instant. Then, he falls back down from that height <b>with an initial velocity of 0</b>.<br /><br />All you need do then is convince yourself that the time it takes to reach the height is the same time it takes to fall back. So the time of the entire leap (up and down) is twice the time it takes to fall from that height <b>with an initial velocity of 0</b>. Since you start by knowing the total time, divide that by 2 and then derive the height.Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-87886464823699106982019-01-23T07:00:12.155-08:002019-01-23T07:00:12.155-08:00Larry,
Thanks for the input. I'm not sure whe...Larry,<br /><br />Thanks for the input. I'm not sure where you get that I'm confusing myself about the horizontal distance. I really am not. I didn't mention anything about horizontal distance or velocity. The only thing I mentioned was the <i>vertical component</i> of the initial velocity vector. I do appear to be confused about something, but I do clearly understand that vertical velocity is 0 at max height and that, assuming initial H and final H are equal, max height occurs at T/2. I'm also aware that h= 1/2gt² will give you the height that an object falls given that g is the only force affecting it <i>and that the initial velocity is 0</i>. It is commonly called the free fall equation and is a special case simplification of one of the equations of motion.<br /><br />h= 1/2gt² for the leaping fish scenario does seem correct per my intuition for exactly the reasons you mention. The problem is that I can't find any source that doesn't qualify that it only applies in cases where the initial velocity is 0 and at the same time every source I've found for describing ballistic trajectories for projectiles that have an initial velocity that is not 0 always derive H max equations that include a term for the <i>vertical</i> component of the initial velocity vector. And no sources I've found show any derivations or substitutions that reduce to h= 1/2gt².<br /><br />If h= 1/2gt² does correctly give max height even in cases in which the initial velocity is not 0 I suspect this is where I'm not seeing it. Meaning that the H equation that includes a term for the vertical component of the initial velocity is indeed correct for this scenario but that it is a more generally applicable equation and that it can be reduced to h= 1/2gt² in the special case of H max. But I'm not seeing how, I've not messed with the equations of motion for thirty years, and I haven't been able to find a source that shows such a derivation. I've not been able to find any source that shows that you can find max H of a projectile that had an initial velocity greater than 0 if the only variable you know is time of flight. Multiple sources, all I've reviewed, seem to state that you need to know 2 variables.Darrell Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14054311762477388637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-30716364519381465532019-01-23T06:57:22.591-08:002019-01-23T06:57:22.591-08:00 Not so much a plan as an abdominal convulsion. Not so much a plan as an abdominal convulsion.Tim H.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-51318753960829150332019-01-23T06:13:37.508-08:002019-01-23T06:13:37.508-08:00Do you think our orange one has a plan, a plane th...Do you think our orange one has a plan, a plane that he board and fly away when the kitchen gets too hot for him?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-69844831277945617202019-01-23T05:44:27.837-08:002019-01-23T05:44:27.837-08:00@Darrell E, on 1/2gt²,
You know the entire flight...@Darrell E, on 1/2gt²,<br /><br />You know the entire flight time (t), then you know half of that flight time is spent slowing down to 0 vertical velocity and the other half is spent falling back into the water. I don't have time at the moment to remember my physics equations that I learned in the late 70s, but it should be a simple matter to determine what distance an object falls from an initial velocity of 0 in the time t/2.<br /><br />You're confusing yourself by also trying to consider the horizontal distance the fish covers in the same period of time. That really doesn't affect the answer. Flight time gives you vertical distance (height) without regard to launch angle.<br />Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-2353933568819223462019-01-23T05:31:08.703-08:002019-01-23T05:31:08.703-08:00Alfred Differ:
Get thee to a farm. You'll see...Alfred Differ:<br /><i><br />Get thee to a farm. You'll see general GOP voters doing actual science.<br /></i><br /><br />I was being facetious. My point was that <b>if</b> one is going to use anecdotes to "prove" that women can't do science, well, there's a much stronger case to be made that Republicans can't do science.<br /><br />Eddie Murphy: <i>"If you're gonna believe the myths, you gotta believe <b>all</b> them shits."</i>Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-40463054152278144062019-01-23T05:03:28.775-08:002019-01-23T05:03:28.775-08:00Alfred,
I seem to recall you have a physics backg...Alfred,<br /><br />I seem to recall you have a physics background so I thought I'd ask you to help me understand the following physics issue that is driving me nuts. This is about ballistics. The specific scenario is a fish leaping out of the water. I'm being told by others that h= 1/2gt² gives the max height in this scenario so that all you need to figure out the max height is the time from launch till landing. But I seem to remember that it is more complicated than that, that you have to take into account the launch velocity, specifically the vertical component of it, so that to find max height would be something like h= (V0sin(θ))^2/2g where V0 is initial velocity and theta is the launch angle.<br /><br />Looking at various sources on the internet everything I find seems to say that h= 1/2gt² only applies in the special case in which V0 (initial velocity) is zero. I've been trying to find something that shows how to find the max height of a projectile that has an initial velocity if the only variable you know is t (total flight time), but I can't find anything that directly addresses that. Meanwhile every source that I have found regarding ballistic trajectories seems to say that you need two of three variables to solve for the other if the initial velocity is not zero, and for height they give equations like I show above. What am I missing? <br /><br />What am I missing?<br /><br />Any help to get this straight in my head would be much appreciated.Darrell Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14054311762477388637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-59988525871381859532019-01-23T03:42:27.946-08:002019-01-23T03:42:27.946-08:00This amused me:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/20... This amused me:<br />https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/01/davos-billionaires-aoc-tax-proposal<br /><br />What further amuses me is wasn't 70% the level that JFK cut the top rate to? That provides the sole connection to reality of "Trickle down*? Free(er) trade may permit some economic shenanigans if the top rates are increased, I believe that was one of the reasons for it. It even further amuses me that the R. Reagan fan club seems to believe there was no real economy before his (mis)administration.Tim H.noreply@blogger.com