"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 51

02-08-2007, 12:29 PM

no spam wrote:

>>>I disagree on the target issue. Motorcyclist are the most in danger
>>>because
>>>people in cars seem to think that we are nothing but small cars and treat
>>>us that way. When a car over takes a walker or biker most of the time it
>>>will pull over to give extra room. When they pass a motorcycle they
>>>don't.
>>
>>In 20 years of motorcycle riding, I've never been passed by another driver
>>in my same lane. So by definition every time I was overtaken the driver
>>moved over into the adjacent lane.
>
>
> You will note I said EXTRA ROOM. On a 4 lane road most cars will move to
> the far left (passing) lane if they can when they see a bike on the
> shoulder. Most cars seem to just clear the line when passing me on the
> motorcycle.
>
>

So what's the danger in that? You're in a lane and they pass in the
adjacent. I don't see how the motorcyclist is in the most danger because
of this.

Wayne

02-08-2007, 12:34 PM

The Real Bev wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>> More on drivers out to kill and collide with others! Yes, there are a
>> very few psychotics out there. Am I going to assume they are after me?
>> No. Should anybody assume that? No. If you did, then you'd have to
>> yield inappropriately at every junction out of fear that the boogey
>> man had finally found you.
>
>
> Have you ever actually driven a motorcycle? You've never seen somebody
> deliberately open a door in front of you? Yeah, I know that's what
> happened -- the little ****head was looking right at me and laughing
> when he did it.

When I ride my motorcycle or my bicycle, I do not operate in the Door
Zone, therefore suddenly opening doors are irrelevant to me. Where you
operate within the lane is a basic element of cycling safety.

>
>> I think a safer and more realistic attitude is to assume that people
>> don't want to hit you, but might make a mistake and accidentally do
>> so. So you drive your vehicle in such a way as to mitigate that risk.
>
>
> Yeahyeahyeah, but it's a lot more efficient to just assume the worst --
> active malevolence -- and plan accordingly.

And live in constant paranoia? Not for me.

Wayne

02-08-2007, 01:10 PM

no spam <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>>>>>> True Christians have two rules to follow (if someone isn't following them then it doesn't
>>>>>> matter what name they use) those rules are: Love God completely and love your neighbor as you
>>>>>> love yourself.

>>>>> How odd that that fool that was stupid enough to get
>>>>> nailed up by the romans didnt say anything like that.

>>>> Your ignorance is showing, where do you think it comes from?

>>> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

>>> That fool never ever said that there are just those two rules.

>>> Really,

>> Yep.

>>> what other rules did he say there were?

>> Even you cant actually be THAT stupid.

> IOW, there are no others or you would have posted them.

Guess which pathetic little rabid fundy has just got egg all over its pathetic little face, as
always ?

Even someone as stupid as you must have noticed the one about the eye of the needle.

Then there's the one about throwing stones too.

They aint the only ones either.

> Thank you for helping proving my point.

No thanks for that pathetic excuse for bull****.

>>> Try reading the Bible yourself.

>> Been there, done that,

> And that's why you can't tell me any more rules Christ pointed out.

Just did.

> Because they ain't in there.

Fraid so.

>> likely before you were even born thanks.

> I don't think you are anywhere THAT old.

>>>> You will find out.

>> Been there, done that, likely before you were even born thanks.

> Another example to show your docs of you repeating yourself.

Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?

>>>>>>> One last thing, Christ told us we are to spread the Word but if the people don't want to
>>>>>>> hear or believe then we are to knock the dust off our feet and never visit them again. Its
>>>>>>> up to them at that point.

>>>>>> Or that either.

>>>>> Nearly a direct quote from the 'Christian manual'.

>>>> Bare faced lie. That fool said a hell of a lot more than that on that matter.

>>> Again you are showing your ignorance.

>> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

> IOW, you are wrong but aren't man enough to admit it.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

>>>> We, Christians, are told to spread the word but if the people who hear the word turn a deaf ear
>>>> we are to leave them.

>> Pig ignorant lie. Have fun explaining what that fool did with the money changers.

> What in the world does the money changers in the temple have to do with spreading his msg?

He clearly didnt just leave them when they turned a deaf ear.

<reams of your rabid mouth frothing frenzy that any 2
year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

>>> I know it won't do any good because you have shown yourself to be a closed minded bigot

>> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

> More repeating

Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?

> and proving my statements.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

>>> but read Matthew chapter 10 verses 11-14.

>> Irrelevant to the other stuff that fool DID that is nothing like that.

> Now you can't even form coherent thoughts. Please explain what that is supposed to mean?

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

>>>>>> FYI, a religion does not need to believe in an all powerful god.
>>>>>> Many of them 'worship' a man or idea.

> >>> That aint a religion, fool.

>>> You are the fool if you can believe that.

>> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

> Which translates to, can't support my side of the debate must run away, run away.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

>>> What's the difference in praying to a tree or some man claiming to be a profit or saying he has
>>> the way to perfection?

>> An idea aint a religion, fool.

> Just another word for the same thing.

We have different words for a reason, fool.

> Do you believe in the big bang?

I accept that the evidence shows that quite a bit of stuff didnt happen
anything like its claimed in that pathetic collection of fairy storys.

>>> Remember the nuts who thought the space ship was following the comet? Are you saying they were
>>> not a religion?

>> Irrelevant to whether an idea is a religion, fool.

> Watch him run away. You'd think my arguments were killer white ribbits. Did you soil your armor as
> well?

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

02-08-2007, 01:53 PM

no spam <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>>>>>> We will never admit it if we "catch bin laden" nor will we admit if we kill him.

>>>> Have fun explaining what happened to Saddam.

>>> Simple

>> We'll see...

>>> Saddam was not the leader of a religious sect

>> Neither is bin laden.

> Yes he is.

No he isnt.

> Do a little research on his teaching on Wahhabism.

Dont need to. That doesnt make him a LEADER of anything.

> He's like a Jim Jones,

Nothing like.

> if you are too young to remember that name

Nope.

> try David Korish. People follow HIM first, then his teachings.

Didnt happen with bin laden.

>>>> who united and controlled his followers using their religious beliefs.

>> Neither does bin laden.

> See above.

See above.

>>> He was a thug who ruled a country by paying good money to other thugs

>> So did bin laden.

> Nope.

Yep.

> If that was true now that he's hiding in a cave his power would fail.

It has. He hasnt managed a damned thing since.

>>> to keep the people in fear.

>> So did bin laden.

> What people are following him due to fear?

Nope, his enemys are those kept in fear, just like Saddam.

>>>> By showing the people that he was dead you showed them that he wasn't going to make a political
>>>> come back.

>> Just as true of bin laden.

> Nope, killing him would 'lift him to a higher plane'.

Pig ignorant fantasy.

You previously claimed that it was his money that produced the converts.

You cant have it both ways.

>>>>> If we catch him he has a nice public trial, we are the US remember,

>>>> Have fun explaining what has happened to so many of his associates, many of them have just been
>>>> killed and their bodies displayed.

>>> Simple, they are nothing more than soldiers who were easily replaced.

>> Just another of your pig ignorant fantasys.

> Running away again I see. Be a man and stand up for what you believe. Ooops sorry you can't
> because it falls like a house of cards when faced with facts.

Just another of your pig ignorant fantasys.

>>> They were not the brains and political leader of the movement.

>> Pity about Saddam.

> Yes it was. He should still be fighting Iran with the US providing support to both sides.

Not even possible for something like that to go on for that long.

> I tried to persuade those in power at the time of the beauty of this

And they noticed that you havent got a clue.

> but they were like you, closed mined bigots, and would hear NOTHING that involved any kind of
> support to Iran.

> Thank about all the good would have come from it. We would have provided jobs for US workers
> making weapons, had cheap oil coming from Iran AND Iraq and all the Islamic nut cases would have
> been there killing each other and not bothering us.

Just another of your pathetic little rabid drug crazed fantasys.

> Oh well, no use crying about spilled milk.

You could do the decent thing and set fire to yourself in 'protest' or sumfin.

>>>> to preach his msg and will be a magnet for even more nut cases.

>>> Have fun explaining what happened to Saddam.

>>> did that.

>> Nope.

> Yep.

Nope.

>>>>> If we kill him and hold up his body for the world to see he becomes martyr and hero for his
>>>>> cause.

>>>> Have fun explaining what happened to Saddam.

>>> See above

>> See above.

> See above.

See above.

>>>>> His msg will be fewer and fewer and longer between each then he
>>>>> will just disappear. After we have sucked all the intel from tracking him.

>>>> We'll see...

>>> We have been seeing have we not?

>> Nope, not on that silly claim you made we havent.

> Have you been getting msg from him that the rest of us haven't?

Irrelevant to that stupid pig ignorant claim about intel.

>> Those that have been hunted down have been hunted down in other ways.

> How?

Mostly by torturing those minions they have caught when
they ****ed over the Talibums very comprehensively indeed.

> You don't make hits like we have been making w/o some VERY good intel.

Yep, and thats not hard to get when you can
torture those details out of those that get caught.

Doesnt have to be minions either, some VERY senior people
have split the beans, mostly those captured in afghanistan,
pakistan and quite a bit of the middle east like yemen etc.

> And you don't get intel like that from low level peons.

Indeed, but they've got plenty of the high level people now.

>>>>> Ever wonder how we know just which house or car to blow up to kill his subordinates?

>>>> It aint that way.

>>> Sure it is.

>> No it aint.

> Yes, it is <sticking out my tongue> yhann (hey, acting childish can
> be fun. is that why you do it?)

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

>>> How many of these people have been killed in specific strikes?

>> **** all.

> OOO, another of your famous come backs. Now are you going to pout?

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

>>> We have intel on where they are and make that place disappear.

>> Pity that isnt obtained that way.

> I can tell you have a vast knowledge in the field of intelligence. I bet you had a secret decoder
> ring as a kid and today you have a "special" hat made of aluminum foil that either allows you hear
> things others can or protects your brain.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

>>>>> Ever wonder how someone who is such a smart person he can not be found even with a
>>>>> multimillion dollar reward on his head can't get out a cassette tapes with a speeches on a
>>>>> regular basis to rally his troops?

>>>> Makes a lot more sense to just keep everyone guessing.

>>>> Rabid fanatics like that don't need cassette tapes with speeches.

>>> Sure they do.

>> You clearly don't know any of them.

> No and its too bad. I could use the money I could get by turning them in.

>>>> Only a small number of them are true rabid fanatics.

>> You clearly don't know any of them.

> Repeating yourself again.

Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?

>>> With the rest if you don't keep rallying the troops they start to fade from the fight.

>> You clearly don't know any of them.

> Do I hear the sounds of someone running away?

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

>> The activitys of the US like the invasion of Iraq is all it takes.

> And what got them going BEFORE that happened?

The US involvement in the first gulf war.

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed how rabid
bin laden was about any US troops in middle eastern countrys.

In spades with Saudi. He was actually stupid enough to believe
that he was all that was needed to keep Saddam out of Saudi.

>> In spades with Afghanistan.

> And what got them going BEFORE that happened?

Repeating yourself again.

>>>> He didnt bother with speeches even before 9/11

>>> yes he did, we just weren't listening.

>> No he didnt. He doesnt make speeches.

> So you admit that those tapes we have been told are him have be produced by the FBI.

Nope, those arent speeches to gee his devotees up, they're just him
making an obscene gesture in the general direction of the US and its allies.

> You have now admitted that your are an intelligence AND that the tapes of binny boy's speeches are
> not him because he does not make speeches.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

> Either he makes speeches and we hear them or he doesn't and the tapes are fake. Which is it?

See above.

>>>>> I do and I wonder if he's dead now and we are the ones producing the tapes we are hearing.

>>>> Mindlessly silly conspiracy theory.

>>> But you do have to wonder don't you?

>> Nope, not when he has gone out of his way to rub the west's nose in the fact that he aint dead
>> yet.

> No one outside the intel services knows if he's dead or alive.

No one inside does either unless they have killed him since the last tape.

And if they had, they'd be displaying his body if they had
managed to leave enough pieces intact to be identifiable,
just so they look like they arent too hopeless to catch him.

> If I were a betting man I'd give better than even odds binny boy is being eaten by worms in some
> cave right now.

Have fun explaining the tapes.

Yeah, yeah, the FBI is faking them to show that the US cant catch him.

Yeah, right.

>>> Here's a man with millions of dollars at his finger tips

>> You don't know that is true anymore.

> Even the public records show this is true.

Not since he was ****ed over very comprehensively indeed in Afghanistan they dont.

> Millions upon millions are being paid to him for 'protection' from his attacks.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

It was him spending heaps of his money in afghanistan.

You dont know he's got anything left now.

>>> but the best he can do is a few hard to hear tapes?

>> Because thats the best way to ensure that he cant be found.

> bull, how much harder is it to pass along a video tape than an audio tape?

You have absolutely no idea about how desperate his circumstances are now.

> How much more effect would it be to see a vid of him listening to the BBC world broadcast than
> some hard to hear tape of what we are told is him?

He may well have **** all choice on that currently.

He's clearly not been able to organise a damned thing since he got
****ed over so comprehensively in Afghanistan and has to spend
all his time hiding in some hole, just like Saddam ended up doing.

Likely there isnt even any power in the hole.

02-08-2007, 01:56 PM

no spam <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>> Such locations are supposed to have reduced speed warning signs so
>>>> that stopping from the reduced speed is possible. If these signs
>>>> don't exist, the transportation engineer in charge should be
>>>> notified.
>>>
>>>
>>> Transportation engineer <BAHHH HAAA HAA COUGH!!> <wiping tears
>>> from my eyes> Oh man THAT IS A GOOD ONE. The county I came from
>>> didn't even have building inspector (note that is for the entire
>>> COUNTY) and you expect them to have a transportation engineer.
>>>
>>> As for the state roads the spot is well known because during the
>>> summer tourist season there is usually at least two MAJOR traffic
>>> accidents (one time involving a state trooper).
>>>
>>> The point is slow speed objects in a place where they are not
>>> expected are dangerous. It doesn't matter if the object is a car,
>>> tractor, bike or cow..
>>
>> Wow. A state transportation department full of ingoramuses
>> responsible for a known hazardous situation that could easily be
>> fixed.
>
> Have you ever tried dealing with a state department? Been there
> (several times) and didn't even get a lousy tee shirt. I was sure
> that after in one year a trooper had been rear ended and a
> motorcyclist KILLED at that intersection something would be done. I
> was on that same road last year and there was a change. . .they
> repainted the lines.
> Remember you can't sue the state w/o its permission.

Pig ignorant fantasy.

02-08-2007, 03:09 PM

no spam wrote:
>>>>> We don't, but until you start considering forced abortions, genocide
>>>>> and euthenasia, there's not much we can do about the population.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are those options acceptable to you?
>>>> I would prefer to limit the baby factories somehow, whether trough
>>>> education or, if need be, by a fertility inhibitor in the food.
>>>> Now the choice would be food and no children or children and starve.
>>> And who gets to pick the breeders? What criteria do we use? Do we only
>>> allow the 'perfect' people to breed?
>> It isn't a popular subject but over the last 20 years or so we have been
>> handing out welfare to the lowest achievers and paying them to have more
>> of the same. The over achievers some times never have kids because they
>> are the "I want it all" mindset. So our population is coming mainly from
>> bottom of the barrel. That's "Reverse evolution" to me.
>
> First, you failed to answer my main questions, who gets to pick who breeds?

Whoever controls the military, as in politicians.
>
>
>> Care to comment on the obvious?
>
> Sure, short sighted politicians learned that they could buy their offices by
> giving tax dollars to voters and short sighted people who think its cruel to
> 1) make people work for there free money and 2) to make people live with the
> consequences of their actions and bad choices.
>
> Poverty is almost always a result of bad choices. People choose to not work
> in school. People choose to have kids when they know they can't afford
> them. People choose to drop out of school. People choose to sell drugs to
> make a fast buck. People choose to screw up their lives why should I be
> FORCED to pay to "fix" their problems?
>
Bad choices is electing politicians who don't have a clue, or those who
should have retired long ago. I didn't invent welfare but those that are
on it have obviously learned how to milk the system. Now that we have a
glut of school aged children everybody is complaining about not enough
schools, yet nobody is addressing the main issue.
Bill Baka

02-08-2007, 03:19 PM

Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote:
> "Bill Baka" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> news:mnuyh.3316: > Are you saying that all things held
> equal, adding more
> : > mass to a vehicle will not change the force
> required to
> : > accelerate said vehicle enough to overcome friction
> and
> : > maintain a constant velocity?
> : >
> : >
> : > peace
> : > dawg
> : >
> : >
> : I am saying that once you get the mass up to speed it
> matters very
> : little how much mass. It would probably be easy to
> get stretch limo up
> : to 35 MPG as long as it stayed at 65 MPH. The stop
> and go of city
> : driving negates any improvement to mileage that I
> could do or think of
> : except to carry some amount of batteries for that
> kind of driving.
> : Some things are hard to engineer.
> : Bill Baka
>
> I may agree with you if this limo was in space but here
> on earth with gravity your argument does not hold
> water. The more weight (mass affected by the force of
> gravity) the more friction and the more energy to
> maintain the velocity. If you have your lime at 65mph
> and you stop putting energy into it, it will slow down
> and stop. The more mass in the limo the faster it
> stops. You are simply ignoring friction which is a fact
> of life dude. ................ are you a republican?
>
>
Seriously it is only a matter of air flow and friction, down here on
earth. I run my car tires at 40 PSI to minimize the effect the tires
have. The weight is on roller or ball bearings so that is kind of a
non-issue. The limo will slow down at a lesser rate than a non-stretched
car due to the extra mass being affected by the air. The same kind of
dynamics apply to my little Mazda and my daughter's newish Kia.
And don't call me a Repuglican. THAT is an insult. Even the limo could
make 30 MPG on the highway if it was geared right and had a lock up
converter.
Side note, since this is a bicycle group that got contaminated.
Talking about efficiency, compare a regular bike with a streamlined
recumbent and the recumbent will always be faster with the same rider
fitness level. Why? Less air to push. Starting, stopping, and hills make
for a great equalizer.
Bill Baka

02-08-2007, 03:31 PM

no spam wrote:
>
>>>> The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make many
>>>> decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say.
>> Nonsense. It is Catholic dogma to excommunicate anybody who challenges the
>> Pope's primacy. The *nature* of his primacy can be debated, but his
>
> If that were true then it seems to me that 90% of the US Catholics should be
> kicked out. They are openly thumbing their noses at him and his teachings
> on birth control, divorce and more.

But none of those actions dispute the Pope's primacy. They're simply
sins that should be confessed and repented. Challenging the Pope's
primacy is more akin to telling the Queen of England that she isn't the
rightful heir to the throne.

>> As I said, I'm not Catholic myself, but I've spent enough time with
>> practicing Catholics to have learned a thing or two....
>
> Ask them if they are following the teachings of the church on all things.

Most of the ones I know either attempt to follow the church on all
things (and confess their failures), or are actively lapsed and
acknowledge that they were raised in a Catholic tradition but no longer
actively practice.

>>> Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules.
>> Most of the "religious" people I know, regardless of faith, don't follow
>> their own rules.
>
> Which is my point. I'm telling you I'm a vegetarian but I eat pork, beef,
> chicken and fish. Now am I a vegetarian or not?

Well, that's a different thing -- vegetarianism isn't a matter of faith
-- but I get your meaning.

> I can tell you I'm a Catholic (not to pick on them but because we have been
> talking about them) but I don't go to mass, have sex outside marriage, use
> birth control and support abortion on demand. Now am I a Catholic?

I think that's a symptom of the way our society intertwines faith and
culture. Plenty of people were raised in one Christian tradition or
another, celebrate holidays like Christmas and Easter, but never go to
church, read the Bible, or pray. It works the same way in other
religions -- cultural Jews often break fast on Yom Kippur despite never
going to synagogue, for example, and cultural Hindus celebrate Diwali
despite never going to temple. I've even known non-practicing Muslims to
fast during Ramadan.

> My point had very little to do with Catholics in specific. I picked them
> because they are world known and I know a little about their religion. My
> point was and is you can't condemn a group based on actions of people who
> are only claiming to be members of that group.

That I agree with wholeheartedly. I didn't mean to sidetrack you, I only
jumped in to correct some information I knew to be wide of the mark....

02-08-2007, 03:50 PM

R.H. Allen wrote:
> Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote:
>> "Bill Baka" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>> : It would probably be easy to get stretch limo up
>> : to 35 MPG as long as it stayed at 65 MPH.
>
> I don't know about THAT. You might be able to *design* one that does so,
> but you'd probably have to sacrifice a lot of things that are desirable
> in a stretch limo. Perhaps engine power, perhaps interior space (to
> allow for improved aerodynamics) ... just pulling things off the top of
> my head.

Almost. It isn't that hard once you get up to speed to just kick in an
overdrive gear where the engine is loafing along at about 900 RPM for a
V-8. The undercarriage of the limo might need some streamlining and the
tires pumped up to about 40 PSI but it can happen. A full sized car only
takes about 14--15HP to maintain 65 MPH and a V-8 can put out that much
at around 900 RPM. It would have to put out about 90 foot pounds of
torque to make that much power, but with a well tuned engine that should
be no problem. Every engine has an optimum HP Vs. efficiency that could
be graphed, but very few of the car magazines both to show below
2,000RPM. The magazines always put the power at 5,200 RPM and the peak
torque curves in the pages, but I haven't seen one (yet) that shows a
graph of efficiency versus power. I don't care if it makes 100 HP at
6,000 RPM because I almost never go that high unless I have to get out
of the way of a semi or something. The 14 HP thing was for my big
Chrysler so it should be much less for an economy car.
>
>> I may agree with you if this limo was in space but here on earth with
>> gravity your argument does not hold water. The more weight (mass
>> affected by the force of gravity) the more friction and the more
>> energy to maintain the velocity.
>
> No. You're neglecting inertia. A moving object tends to keep moving, and
> if it's heavy it's harder to stop than if it's light.

That may be over simplifying the problem, but Newton and those other
scientists did get it right, and that was taught way back in grade
school. Inertia makes the limo get crummy mileage in town but makes no
difference at all on the highway unless the driver is always speeding up
and slowing down. The cure for that is simple, just get another driver.
>
>> If you have your lime at 65mph
>> and you stop putting energy into it, it will slow down and stop.
>
> Yes.

Too obvious.
>
>> The more mass in the limo the faster it stops.
>
> No. Let's ignore aerodynamic drag for a moment and pretend that the only
> force slowing the car down is rolling resistance. The rolling resistance
> of a car tire on asphalt is about 3% of the car's weight. Thus, the
> deceleration force on a 1000kg car is 300N, and the deceleration force
> on a 2000kg car is 600N. By Newton's second law, the first car
> decelerates at a rate of 300N / 1000kg = 0.3 m/s^2, and the second
> decelerates at a rate of 600N / 2000kg = 0.3 m/s^2. In other words, both
> cars slow at the same rate.

If this is done in neutral it will determine the effects of weight on
the tires combined with the actual rolling resistance. Do it with the
transmission in gear and you will really notice the difference of engine
drag.
>
> Rolling resistance does increase with velocity, but on two identical
> vehicles it will increase by the same amount for each, so the result
> will be the same -- both vehicles will slow at the same rate.
>
> Now it *is* true that the more weight you put on a tire, the larger its
> contact patch with the ground. This *might* increase the coefficient of
> rolling resistance, but only very slightly if at all (the material the
> tire is made from and the surface it's rolling on have far greater
> influence on rolling resistance). Let's say it's 3.1% for the heavier
> car instead of 3% -- almost certainly an overestimate -- which would
> produce a force of 620N. Over the course of a mile, that would require
> 32,000J of extra energy compared to the lighter car to maintain constant
> speed.
>
> Let's say the lighter car gets 30 mpg and both cars transfer energy from
> the gasoline to the road at 25% efficiency. There are 120 million joules
> in a gallon of unleaded gasoline, so 40 million joules are burnt each
> mile. The extra 32,000J the heavier car requires each mile correspond to
> 128,000J/mile of extra gasoline. Therefore, the extra weight degrades
> the car's mileage to 29.9 mpg. The difference of 0.1 mpg may as well be
> zero considering that it's an overestimate to begin with, and that other
> factors such as driving habits and regular vehicle maintenance (or lack
> thereof) make a far greater difference in mileage than that.

I was initially talking about a constant 65 MPH on cruise control or a
very calculating driver who knows how to hold the speed with very little
throttle jockeying.
>
> Now if you factor in aerodynamic drag, both vehicles -- being identical
> aside from weight -- will face the same drag force. They will expend the
> same amount of energy overcoming it to maintain a constant speed.
> However, if you let your foot off the gas and coast to a stop, you'll
> find the heavier car coasts farther. I refer you back to Netwon's second
> law to understand why.

That applies very well to a car doing 65 MPH, but the place where you
will find the answer to the amount of rolling resistance by the tires is
around 20--30 MPH. The bleed off of speed with my big Chrysler was about
40 to 45 seconds with wind resistance being a lesser factor.
Anyone who doubts the effect of the air should take a car out and try it
for themselves.
BTW, the slick looking car may be less aerodynamic than the brick
looking car. Why? Take a look at the underside and see how much junk the
air on the bottom has to go through. Of course auto makers don't expect
people to look there.
Bill Baka

02-08-2007, 04:17 PM

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:29:55 -0500, "R.H. Allen" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
> wrote:
>
>> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:42:04 -0500, "R.H. Allen" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You're just describing the centuries-old rift between Catholics and
>>>> Protestants (some of whom, primarily Lutherans, still accept the primacy
>>>> of the Pope). If I were Catholic I'm sure we could get into a heated
>>>> debate about it.
>>> I assume that you somehow mean that SOME Lutherans accept the primacy
>>> of the Pope.
>> Precisely. Sorry if my wording was confusing. Though I think that to say
>> they accept the *primacy* of the Pope is a bit strong -- they accept the
>> doctrine of apostolic succession, which opens the door to papal primacy,
>> but the degree to which such non-Catholic churches accept primacy varies
>> (and for the most part, the non-Catholic churches that accept this are
>> Eastern churches rather than Protestant ones).
>>
>>> While I am not aware of any, and am aware that the three
>>> largest Lutheran churches in the U.S. do not, I guess it could be
>>> true. Like to hear the name of the Lutheran Church and where it is
>>> located. It could be true, but I doubt it.
>> As I recall, they call themselves Evangelical Lutherans, Evangelical
>> Catholic Lutherans, or some variation thereof. I guess a specific
>> example would be the Evangelical Community Church-Lutheran, an offshoot
>> of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. They follow an episcopal polity,
>> their priests are ordained according to apostolic succession, and they
>> won't ordain women until such a time as the Pope okays it. Here's one I
>> was able to find in Kansas City via Google:
>>
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> The answer, then, is no, the major Lutheran Churches do not recognize
> the primacy of the Pope.

I made no claims about the major Lutheran churches, only that there
exist some Lutheran churches that accept papal primacy.

> Apostolic succession as recognized by the Lutheran churches does NOT
> in any way recognize the primacy of the Pope - rather, it is a claim
> that the sources of the church go back in succession to Peter. That
> does not in anyway make the current Pope his avatar. So, no, apostolic
> succession does not equal papal primacy.

Hence my weakening that statement in my last message, though there are
smaller Lutheran churches that do appear, in the information I can find
about them, to make the jump all the way to papal primacy. Aside from
the one I linked to in my last message you'll find a few if you google
"evangelical catholic lutheran", and in the external links section here:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Some don't go all the way to papal primacy, but some do. That's all I
ever said.

> The small church that you indicated does show deference to the Roman
> Catholic church and the Pope. It can't hold some of the listed dogma
> and doctrine and hold belief in the primacy of the Pope without
> reservation. And while it is evidently HQ'd and started in Missouri, I
> rather doubt much connection to the Missouri Synod. If they came from
> there, they would have had to reconstitute apostolic succession.

Evidently they did, as apparently it was founded by former members of
the Missouri Synod and explicitly accepts papal primacy and papal
infallibility:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Of course, it's Wikipedia, but if you click through the sources on the
church's own site I think you'll get pretty much the same picture
painted by Wikipedia.

At any rate, there are evidently folks running around the planet who
call themselves Lutheran, conduct services in a Lutheran tradition, and
accept the primacy of the Pope. All I ever claimed is that such folks
exist. If you don't believe me, fine, you don't have to.