Yes already do.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
looks like it just didI need an escort to the annual vegetable show in Fulchester, so if you can make it you'd be doing me a great favour.Is this leading to a joke about displaying a certain type of vegetable?
Here's a scenario and a question sent in by Alan:Not if it is open to the same atmospheric conditions of pressure, the water will be under the same infuence. The water from the sides will fall at the rate that is governed by the ammount of water above the holes height, same for the bottom only the bottom will have more water above it.
Picture a concrete trough 40m L x 80cm W x 50cm H, which catches rainwater falling onto the roof of a six-storey building in Johannesburg.
The trough has 30 drain holes approximately 70cm in diameter drilled into its side where it meets the bottom, spaced evenly along its length.Rainwater drains through these side holes and is routed through drainpipes to the outside of the building.
In addition to the side holes, the trough has 4 other open holes each of 100mm diameter drilled through its concrete base, 13.8cm in from each end of the trough with a distance of 3cm between holes 1 & 2, 6.4cm between 2 & 3, and 3cm between 3 & 4. This allows water to fall through them at a height of 6 storeys to an open terrace below, and because the water hits the same areas each time, it damages by force the surface of the open terrace.
My question is this: will gravity pull the rainwater through the four open holes in the base of the trough at a faster and more forceful rate than through the side drain holes in the trough?
Can anyone answer?
That can be read as denser gravitational areas having differing effects (suprise or light having mass, or energy being affected by gravity like momentum. After reading Einstein saying he had disproved the aether and then proved it i stopped really caring, lots of other examples.But then again so seems most of relativity, wormholes, pretty much all of theoretical physics, they just seem to be chasing there tail.
At least relativity has a massive amount of experimental evidence supporting it.
If the wind energy inpacts the earth it has an effect, both wind directions with a residual exess in one direction. If it counteracts other opposite airflow its dissipated in one way or another, with the same residual exess. The net force is the same. The energy that is extracted to generate the electric is the atmospheric energy of freeflowing winds, water vapour(quite a major ammount) pressure atmospheric expantion.Your theory is suggesting that the wind blows without impedance if windmills are not present, it also suggests (although I stand to be corrected, if you would clarify please)they do not originate from temperature differences but in the earths rotation.No. I assumed that without windmill, the overall restrictions on the wind are balanced between westward and eastward direction, thus they don't have net effect on earth rotation. The homogenously directed windmills create the imbalance which makes the crust of the earth rotates faster eastward.
Your theory is suggesting that the wind blows without impedance if windmills are not present, it also suggests (although I stand to be corrected, if you would clarify please)they do not originate from temperature differences but in the earths rotation.That's funny, but it doesn't represent the idea proposed in this thread.the net westward wind produced by the wind turbines.https://xkcd.com/1378/
Consider this spinning globe.
The spherical glass prevents external forces from directly affect rotation of inner ball, which is floating in a fluid.
If I add a small impeller on the equator, anchored to the inner ball, directed westward and turn it on, the fluid will rotate westward. Due to conservation of angular momentum, the inner ball will rotate eastward faster.
Slightly off-topic, but do any of you think Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator?Yes, but so where the UN, USA and the coalition. Dead children do not make you popular and lead to liberal societies and enlightenment, see germany post ww1 due to reparations and the crash, they sort of make Hitler look good.
Invented by British soldiers in Burma during the war, shark-jacking provided hardened troops with a highly effective method to blow off steam between battles. Blowing off steam by having sex with natives was not an option due to their unshakable conservative stance against premarital and extramarital sex. This recreational activity especially appealed to brits that did not like playing soccer. "They would swim out to a shark-infested area of the Indian Ocean and would lure these deadly creatures to them by having meat tied around their ankles. When the shark approached, the three 'sleepers' would wrestle the shark into submission and the 'baiter' would manually stimulate the shark.I think it would more likely have been meat, buoy, grenate, dead shark. Where on earth did you find above quoted info.
I'll rephrase the question: if Skull Island was real and you were there to observe him and his behavior, etc, would you conclude he has some level of sentience?An orangutan at a zoo I once went too would not look me in the eye, quite sad, I should say he was not going to be a circus attraction.
Sentience, in this context, does not simply mean "one that can sense things", but also one that has some level of self-awareness and knowledge that consists of objectivity.
Sentience is the ability to sense things, so yes.In the context of sensing the concious realm, being self aware, rather than animalistic. Common usage.