"How would you like that snowball in your pants?
Posted on 08/03/2008 6:33:19 PM PDT by Delacon
Robt beats GW to the camel..... (But remembers not to gloat about it.)
“an author who begins with a children’s book and a flawed physics example...”
This is the Democrat’s version of “settled science”.
Gannett is totally agenda driven, nationwide.
This is so funny my eyes shut tight with laughter.
Only last night on Oz tv Prime Minister Rudd mentioned "climate change deniers".Considering the usual care politicians (particularly prime ministers)take when choosing words it sent a chill up my spine.
Some of this stuff is hilarious and some of it is not funny at all.
In the presence of significant friction, the above is not true. Try rolling a marble and a bowling ball down a grassy hill and see which goes faster.
Cheers!
Cheers!
“In the presence of significant friction, the above is not true. Try rolling a marble and a bowling ball down a grassy hill and see which goes faster.”
In the presence of my significant foot stepping on the marble, the above is also not true. What’s your point? The Ithaca writer’s point was invalid because it was based on an increased mass causing increased speed. What you are talking about is momentum. Btw if you applied equal amounts of force on the marble and the bowling ball to get them rolling down that grassy hill, your bowling ball wouldnt move at all, while the marble would move quite a bit.
Even citing Wikipedia would be better.
LOL. Saving that link to my favs.
Gore used footage from a Futurama episode. How much more proof does anyone need?
A small snowball will have a certain amount of friction acting against it as it rolls down a hill (or doesn't). A larger snowball will not have a proportionately larger amount of friction. On a moderate incline, it's possible for larger snowballs to roll whereas smaller ones will not (since only in the former case will gravity overpower friction).
Btw if you applied equal amounts of force on the marble and the bowling ball to get them rolling down that grassy hill, your bowling ball wouldnt move at all, while the marble would move quite a bit.
Place a marble and a bowling ball both on a grassy hill with a 30 degree slope. The bowling ball will roll just fine even without anyone pushing it. The marble won't (at least not if the hill is ordinary grass, as opposed to e.g. a putting green).
In Al Gore’s film he refers to a pool of “melting water” on the Larsen B ice shelf. Since when does water melt?
Also, when talking about polar bears not being able to have solid ground to stay on due to melting ice, he shows a computer-generated image, not actual footage.
Noticed how you left out the momentum part of my post which you have to consider in both your examples. Force needed to start things rolling(or keep them from rolling before you want them to) and such. But come supercat, we digress. The writer was wrong. A snowball doesn’t gain speed strictly due to an increase in mass.
Re-read the article. The author addressed your comment with the following parenthetical statement.
(I would have to think about what increasing diameter would do to a ball rolling downhill and its speed -- but the author's argument is about weight, not size, so this is irrelevant."
The idiot who made the original argument must have never hear of Galileo and the wood ball and the iron ball --- in other words, 7th grade science. But of course Galileo got in trouble for being a 'denier' too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.