Ion01

Funny thing is, I being the religious (what some would consider very religious) agree. Although, I do find something quite ironic. If you are athiest, and particularly, believe in evolution it should be expected that you are a jerk as your only "moral" is survival of the fittest. On the other side, however, we have the religious (with the exception of muslim extremist and other such religious extremist) claim to want to save people and that christ is about love and mercy so they want to force thier beliefs on people through regulation of morality (which the funny thing is that is where hitler started and was praised for have the most moral society) when, in fact, the religious should be the largest advocates of freedom. Athiest should be against freedom the most as government is for the most fit or evolved as so they can move evolution forward (also hitler and his death camps and super race). So once again, no freedom leads to the same place.

Even by OT standards, there isn't anything at all wrong with homosexuality. There's nothing in there that says it's morally right or wrong to be either heterosexual or homosexual. There's just a bunch of tripe about where, when, how, and with whom it's okay to have sex. Edit to add example: OT says adultery is wrong heterosexuals commit adultery therefore: heterosexuality is morally wrong? You have obviously never read the bible! How about 1 cor 6:9 for starters? As for miss beverly hills: there are extremists everywhere and we don't live under the old testament and there are actually numerous things that were wrong in the old testament that aren't anymore. For one you had to be a jew, also you couldn't eat certain unclean things, and if a woman, even in defense, grabbed a mans balls her hand was to be cut off. Jesus came to fulfill the old testament/will and bring a new one. Once the requirements of a will or testament have been met or fullfilled it is no longer in effect. It works that way even today. Technically, we don't even live by the ten commandments anymore. Ever read the sermon on the mount? And, as stated earlier, gay people are no more a sinner than any other sinner and that includes me becuase I have sinned too and obviously will again no matter how hard I try. This is also an example of why freedom is so important. If we are to make law based on religion then we end up with the opposite kinds of nuts in power like we have now. Instead of putting gays to death for religion they were put to death for not being evolved, as were many others, in the past. I don't want some government trying to tell me what I can and can't believe and how I must act so why should I want some government to do that to someone else? If you want to know what I believe I will tell you and why, and if I want to know what you beleive I will ask you. thats as far as it should go. Either way, religious or athiest extremist who don't want freedom will take us to the same place. The government should stick to the constitution and leave us alone. The government was established to protect our freedoms (which the government didn't give us by the way) not to restrict them or "protect" us from ourselves! If I want to be fat then I will be fat and I will have to pay for it either with increase medical cost or whatever.....but its my decision. Its my life. I am not effecting anyone elses freedoms! Maybe, like skydiving, I decided the payoff for being fat is worth the risk! What if I want to drive without my seat belt and kill myself. Its just me! Its my life! I am not effecting anyone elses freedoms. What if I want to drive drunk. I haven't effect anyone elses freedoms. Once I do then I should be so severly punished that I would have never even considered driving drunk but the very act of driving drunk is not effecting anyone elses freedom! (I don't even drink by the way....never tasted an achoholic drink in my life.) For goodness sakes. You can take away someone right to life (murder them) and only get a few years in jail or just claim insanity and just get "treatment" but the government thinks the problem is that there isn't enough gun regulations! Only the law abiding people follow them! Why not murder? The ramification aren't that bad...... Anyways, the point is we are supposed to be free. That even means the freedom to be gay and if you want to contract with another gay person what does the government have to do with that anyways? Besides, isn't marriage a religious institution anyways, so what the government involved with that for anyways. If it just a contract then its just a contract and the only thing the government can do is enforce a binding contract. Where does the government get the right to decide who can contract with who and for what? Why does a court get to decide that a contract is no longer binding and the ramifations not be binding when one party breaks the contractual agreement (someone cheats in a marriage and get custody of the kids and half of the stuff)? If you break any contract you are subject to the full ramifactions of that contract.....unless we call it a marriage! Anyways, I am done.

I would make sure there is no possible way he could come out of the harness and that is going to take some serious custom work.

That is incredibly awesome. I would never call people like you disabled as even with the use of my legs you are probably a much better back flyer and even belly flyer than I am! Life is about meeting challenges head on. Thats why we all skydive!

All you people whining about animals in captivity: Have you never own a fish or gerbal or dog or cat? They live in the wild too you know!

Those hillbillies that kill deer are actually contributing to the eco-friendlyness. If they don't kill deer then the deer become to numerous and spread disease, destroy crops, eat too much food depriving other animals of food, etc. This is why in some cases hunters have been called in to hunt and why hunting is seasonal and varies in time depending on the population. Ever wonder why chickens and cows aren't extinct? because we kill and eat them! The buffalo was quickly becoming extinct until the government finally made it legal to hunt, farm and kill them! Once they made it so the private industry could benefit it was no longer a problem. In fact, I often eat buffalo meat because it is so lean. This stategy has also worked with numerous animals in africa to prevent thier extinction! So, all those fat drunks who camo up and kill deer are preventing the population from become out of control and keep you from dying of some disease that the deer bring. They are the eco freindly ones! Not you. Want to see what happens without those fat drunk camoed up deer killers (by the way all the hunters I know are farmers who live off thier land and are not fat or drunks)! http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/12/science/out-of-control-deer-send-ecosystem-into-chaos.html?pagewanted=1

Their "will" has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with them being in captivity and swimming the same pattern in the enclosure. Actually, scientist are unsure as to why thier fins slump in captivity. Although there are theories, they are just that, un-proven and untested theories. So, no one really knows.

And as soon as they start teaching actual science instead of un-scientific, untestable, un-falsifiable, made up ideas such as dark energy, or falsified ideas such as intrinsic redshift, there won't be a problem.

Current according to the USPA is a jump every 30 days until you get your license and then I don't know after that. Thats about what I had to do until I got licensed as its pretty expensive but now that the jumps are only 20-25 dollars I go very 2 weeks and jump all I can (about 4 jump so a total of about 8 a month). I wish I could jump more but I am not made of money and if I did it more my wife wouldn't be happy with me so I take what I can get. But its plenty and I learn a bunch....almost too much to process all at once sometimes. Take your time, have fun and don't try to rush it. In my short time I have seen so many people get bummed out and a few quit because they weren't jumping every weekend and didn't get their A at exactly 25 jumps. Its about fun so just keep it that way!

Well, since your talking morals I think it would be appropriate to use the ultimate example of morality (God) since the only moral without a creator is survival of the fittest. Here is what God says: 2 Thes. 3:10For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. 11For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. 12Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.

BTW- I am sure they had done something violent before this and if appropriate action had been taken then it would never have gotten this far. I don't see why if it happens in school, fights, beatings, death threats, its not handled by police. If it happens outside of school it is so why is it suddenly different in school. Sometimes if it happens outside of school the school is still the one to "handle" the situation.

But, the religious folks in the "Jesus" thread are telling us we should "turn the other cheek" and not fight back against evil! It should be enough for us to know that god will punish these evil girls when they die, some 50 years in the future, and therefore we should endure all their bullying and do nothing. Because violence never solves anything. I don't know what they are saying but Romans 13:2-7 clearly makes the point that God has placed the government in authority to punish evil. Couple this with the example of Paul making the point that he was a roman citizen after being beat (which was against the law without a proper trial) and his appeal to the court of Caesar and it is clear that these girls should be held responsible and punished. Not by getting a group of people to go beat them up but by calling the police if your face gets punched after beign pushed into a locker, ect. You are not fighting back in this way, the ones with authority to do so are. A modern day example of turning the other cheek properly and its effect. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/clerk-recounts-alleged-robbers-dramatic-change-heart/story?id=8887628

Is this their current pattern of behavior? As stated earlier it is not. You are taking old and outdated data and trying to apply it to the current timeline which is, at best, flawed. The current data and trends/pattern of behavior is safe and in line with current safety practices.

Everyone always has to be "made an example of", which is really a nice way of saying that they will be punished differently and held to a different standard than everyone else. Besides, are you about to claim you have never made a mistake? That you are perfect and knowone has ever been put at risk due to anything you have done? Knowingly or unknowingly you have made mistakes, will continue too, and have and will continue to put others at risk........ Your human! So should we all look back into your history and find something to make an example out of you for. Maybe at some point you pulled lower than the SIM allows for your license. So lets pull your ratings and license so that we can make an example out of you because if we don't then people will know that they can pull as low as they want and get away with it because you did a long time ago. If we don't act now then people will be bouncing all over the place and it will be because we didn't make an example of you. Maybe you it wasn't a low pull but some other mistake. Oh! How about base jumping! Anyone here do that? Its illegal almost everywhere so technically if you have jumped you actually broke the law, unlike the TI's! So lets pull all your ratings and license and put you in jail and make an example out of all of you! If we don't it will be anarchy! Anarchy I tell you!

Okay, I see my gap. If your going foward at 60 and reverse and go back at 60 the total reversal is 120. If you have a twenty mile per hour headwind then your speed going forward relative to a fixed object is 40 and downwind is 80 so the total reversal is 120. So in both cases 120 is the velocity used to calculate inertia meaning inertia is the same in both cases. My problem was I compared 60 to 40 and 60 to 80 instead of totaling them like I did above and compare the totals. I was comparing the wrong numbers. Time is another part of the equation so if you make the turn the exact same way in both scenarios then the amount of time it takes to make the turn is the same so the inertial effects are the same in both cases. I will admit I was wrong but I find it interesting that no one could find this flaw in my example earlier. It would have made for a much shorter debate and a lot less confusion. So, true speed or velocity does matter but the inertial results are the same whether you use true velocity or relative as you are only looking at the reversal. Also, that means that gravity has nothing to do with the scenario as the car or plane has the same lateral inertial effects with or without gravity.

Yes, in a slow standard circle inertial differences are not apparent. However, if you look at the original example of the car on a non-moving plane: if things work as you describe then things could move faster than the speed of light if you were to put something in an object moving at the speed of light and move the inside object forward. However, that doesn't work because the inside object would be moving faster than the speed of light and thats not possible. The point being that true speed as determined by non-motion is relevant particularly when determining the inertia of an object or its resistance to a change in velocity. Therefore you must look at true velocity not its velocity as compared to its surroundings which is what you do when you look at airspeed only to determine the inertia of the object and its change in direction, which is so small it is does not show up in the circling plane but will show up in the quick high performance maneuvers.

Here is something else. For years physics teachers have been using a simple example to illustrate inertia. They take a ball in a little spring loaded cannon on a cart and roll the cart. The spring shoot the ball and the ball lands back in the cannon while moving. They then teach the equation to explain this. However, they don't included wind resistance of the ball, deceleration of the cart due to friction of the axles, etc. Does that mean these things aren't having an effect and if replicated in much larger scenerios that it will working without taking wind resitances and friction into effect? No, they are still present just ignored and in extreme examples must be taken into account. The same is happening in this example. The slowly circling plane works within the framework of ignoring inertia but in extreme cases with extreme winds and sharp turns and such inertia must be taken into account properly.

They can't be identical if in one case you are going from 0mph ground speed to 60 in one case and 0mph ground speed to 80 in the other. Now just make the turn a little less dramatic each time and it is easier to overcome the inertia until the turn is so smooth that inertia seems to have no effect and everything is just moving with the wind.

Also, that is why I said when doing this maneuver I must have more altitude when the winds are higher...... which means the winds do have an effect.

I am not in the aircraft at the time but it is a maneuver which a fixed wing aircraft does find itself in from time to time when I am having fun with it.

Okay, real world: Airplane is moving at 60mph and banks left and pulls back so hard (45degree deflection on the elevator) that it quickly decelerates to 0mph facing the opposite direction. With a 2:1 thrust to wieght ratio the airplane accelerates back to 60 mph and full flight. Now there is a 20mph headwind. The plane is going 60mph relative to wind but 40 to the ground. It makes the same adrupt turn coming to a stop facing the opposite direction before accelerating back to 60mph relative to the wind and 80 mph to the ground. What is the total acceleration and inertial effect on the aircraft? Is it the same in both scenarios?

Thats wher gravity helps deminish this effect and, in your case, if the car is on the earth and stops moving its still on the earth and therefore only slows down to 800mph which is still only a deceleration of 60mph.

Also, if anyone can fly any size aircraft at 20mph in a car going 60 please let me know!

This is the reason in my original example that I replaced the earth with a theoretical plane that does not move. Therefore, when I was refering to a stationary object I was refering to a truely stationary object not a object on the earth that is moving. So if the plane in the car is making circles at a constant speed of 20mph and the car is going 60 and is on a theoretical plane that is not moving at all then when the plane flies towards the back of the car it is going 40 and when flying towards the front it is going 80 so when it transitions and makes the turn from back to front it accelerates 40mph and inertia must be applied in this way with an acceleration of 40mph not 0 in relation to the car.

No, if the plane is making a circle in the car there is no acceleration in relation to the car. The plane is making a circle at a constant speed in relation to the car but not in relation to a stationary object. In relation to the stationary object the plane in the car flies slower when facing the back of the car and faster when going toward the front meaning it accelerates when turning toward the front and decelerates when turning towards the back. Therefore, when looking at inertia you cannot use the car as the reference point but the stationary object for true speed.