Remember Global Warming on December 12!

On Friday, 9 November 2012 12:26:01 UTC+5:30, Quadibloc wrote:
This science article



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1108142750.htm



seems to fit not just the serious science of global warming, but the

superstitious Mayan calendar scare...



John Savard

There is no ominous comparison right now, several civilizations and dominant species perished due to diseases, floods, earthquakes, avalanches, etc! Global warming already taking on us, will it not further? But we might be safe for the time being in December 12.
Could that be Apophis asteroid in 2029 or 2036?

http://crestvideos.com/asteroid-coll...d-the-reality/

In article id,
lid says...

In sci.astro.amateur message
et, Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:48:03, Paul Schlyter
posted:

A car, standing still with the engine turned off, has
a fuel consumption per km that's not infinite but at least
indeterminate (zero divided by zero).

The consumption is actually infinite, because the fuel will invariably
be evaporating to some extent. Even in a Swedish winter.

If you're going to be that picky: the consumption will be finite,
because the car will invariably be moving to some extent. Even on
a completely calm day in the US -- the Brownian motion of the atoms and
molecules in the car will ensure that, and Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle will add some motion whenever someone tries to measure the
position of the car. The environment of the car is unlikely to be
completely quiet, so the sound waves will also slightly move the car.

Infinity, as well as exact zero, exist only in pure mathematics, but
never in physics.

In sci.astro.amateur message
, Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:11:23, Paul Schlyter
posted:

In article id,
says...

In sci.astro.amateur message
et, Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:48:03, Paul Schlyter
posted:

A car, standing still with the engine turned off, has
a fuel consumption per km that's not infinite but at least
indeterminate (zero divided by zero).

The consumption is actually infinite, because the fuel will invariably
be evaporating to some extent. Even in a Swedish winter.

If you're going to be that picky: the consumption will be finite,
because the car will invariably be moving to some extent. Even on
a completely calm day in the US -- the Brownian motion of the atoms and
molecules in the car will ensure that, and Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle will add some motion whenever someone tries to measure the
position of the car. The environment of the car is unlikely to be
completely quiet, so the sound waves will also slightly move the car.

That is true, of course, if one considers the probable distance moved by
the car in two dimensions. But even there, the performance improves
with time, as the evaporation rate is approximately constant but the
expected two-dimensional distance increases as the square root of time.

But fuel consumption is usually related to the distance forwards that
the car goes; and the most probable, average, or expected value of that
is zero. The actual value is as likely to be negative as to be
positive, and therefore so is the fuel consumption in m.p.g. or L/100km.


More seriously, is that ten seconds proven to be about the right length
of delay for which an ordinary car engine should for fuel consumption
reasons be turned off; or is that an educated opinion?

--
(c) John Stockton, near London. Mail
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, and links.

Quadibloc wrote in news:82fb9ae4-1a93-4e42-bf61-
:

This science article

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1108142750.htm

seems to fit not just the serious science of global warming, but the
superstitious Mayan calendar scare...

John Savard


Somehow, both theories carry the same weight.

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 21:47:40 +0000, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:
In sci.astro.amateur message

, Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:11:23, Paul Schlyter
posted:

In article id,
says...

In sci.astro.amateur message

et, Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:48:03, Paul Schlyter

posted:

A car, standing still with the engine turned off, has
a fuel consumption per km that's not infinite but at least
indeterminate (zero divided by zero).

The consumption is actually infinite, because the fuel will
invariably
be evaporating to some extent. Even in a Swedish winter.

If you're going to be that picky: the consumption will be finite,
because the car will invariably be moving to some extent. Even on
a completely calm day in the US -- the Brownian motion of the
atoms and
molecules in the car will ensure that, and Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle will add some motion whenever someone tries to measure
the
position of the car. The environment of the car is unlikely to be
completely quiet, so the sound waves will also slightly move the
car.

That is true, of course, if one considers the probable distance
moved by
the car in two dimensions. But even there, the performance improves
with time, as the evaporation rate is approximately constant but the
expected two-dimensional distance increases as the square root of
time.

Sorry, but the distance should be the actual total distance that the
car
Moves, not merely the shortest distance between the start and the
Destination points.....

But fuel consumption is usually related to the distance forwards
that
the car goes; and the most probable, average, or expected value of
that
is zero. The actual value is as likely to be negative as to be
positive, and therefore so is the fuel consumption in m.p.g. or
L/100km.

If you run your car in reverse gear, does it then create gasoline???
:-)


More seriously, is that ten seconds proven to be about the right
length
of delay for which an ordinary car engine should for fuel
consumption
reasons be turned off; or is that an educated opinion?

Yes!

--
(c) John Stockton, near London. Mail

Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms,
and links.

On Nov 9, 12:23*am, Quadibloc wrote:
Oh, sorry; remember it this December 21st.

But the typo brings to mind... 12/12/12 is our last chance for a date
like that until January 1st, 2101!

John Savard

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...

On Nov 9, 12:23 am, Quadibloc wrote:
Oh, sorry; remember it this December 21st.

But the typo brings to mind... 12/12/12 is our last chance for a date
like that until January 1st, 2101!

John Savard
===============================================
What do you want for the remembrance, 12 seconds silence at 12:12 pm or
12:12 am?

Remember, remember the fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason, why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.

Guy Fawkes, guy, t'was his intent
To blow up king and parliament.
Three score barrels were laid below
To prove old England's overthrow.

By God's mercy he was catch'd
With a darkened lantern and burning match.
So, holler boys, holler boys, Let the bells ring.
Holler boys, holler boys, God save the king.

And what shall we do with him?
Burn him!

Remember, remember, the fifth of November,
Gunpowder, treason and plot!
A stick or a stake for King James' sake
Will you please to give us a faggot
If you can't give us one, we'll take two;
The better for us and the worse for you!

Guy Fawkes, Guy
Stick him up on high,
Hang him on a lamp post
And there let him die.
Guy,Guy,Guy,
Poke Him in the eye,
Put him on the fire
And there let him die
Burn his body from his head
Then you'll say
Guy Fawkes is dead

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 21:15:25 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Nov 9, 12:23?am, Quadibloc wrote:
Oh, sorry; remember it this December 21st.

But the typo brings to mind... 12/12/12 is our last chance for a
date
like that until January 1st, 2101!

John Savard

There is one way to get such a date sooner: switch to another
calendar! E.g. the Jewish or Moslem calendar.