A Simple Little Centripetal Problem.
Henri Wilson
P
|
|
|
|
\o/
The above diagram is supposed to represent a bucket half filled with water on
the surface of which a ball is flaoting.
If the bucket is rotated rapidly around point P, does the ball sink lower,
flaot higher or stay at same level?
Henri Wilson.
Applied Physicist.
Mu-Pi
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:1ratuvckb9eok70d3...@4ax.com...
*sigh*
Henri... you are the self proclaimed expert. Why don't you answer your own
question?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:1ratuvckb9eok70d3...@4ax.com...
>
What happened to your other signatures?
| Henri Wilson.
| See the Stupidity of Relativity.
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
and
| Henri Wilson.
| Any connection between Einsteinian relativity and truth is purely coincidental.
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Any connection between the ball and your brain is purely coincidental.
Dirk Vdm
Edward Green
One doesn't want to jump on the flame wagon, but the irony you flag
for the individual who want to demolish relativity, and then comes
back to ask about a simple question in buoyancy, is indescribably
delicious.
I personally would want to at least master buoyancy before moving on
to demolish Einstein, but then Mr. Wilson's genius could not wait.
Oops... I've jumped on the wagon after all.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Edward Green" <null...@aol.com> wrote in message news:2a0cceff.0312...@posting.google.com...
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<mIyHb.100420$xg7.4...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
> > "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:1ratuvckb9eok70d3...@4ax.com...
> > >
> > > P
> > > |
> > > |
> > > |
> > > |
> > > \o/
> > >
> > > The above diagram is supposed to represent a bucket half filled with water on
> > > the surface of which a ball is flaoting.
> > >
> > > If the bucket is rotated rapidly around point P, does the ball sink lower,
> > > flaot higher or stay at same level?
> > >
> > > Henri Wilson.
> > > Applied Physicist.
> >
> > What happened to your other signatures?
> > | Henri Wilson.
> > | See the Stupidity of Relativity.
> > | www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
> > and
> > | Henri Wilson.
> > | Any connection between Einsteinian relativity and truth is purely coincidental.
> > | www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
> >
> > Any connection between the ball and your brain is purely coincidental.
>
> One doesn't want to jump on the flame wagon, but the irony you flag
> for the individual who want to demolish relativity, and then comes
> back to ask about a simple question in buoyancy, is indescribably
> delicious.
I specially liked the "Applied Physicist" :-)
>
> I personally would want to at least master buoyancy before moving on
> to demolish Einstein, but then Mr. Wilson's genius could not wait.
>
> Oops... I've jumped on the wagon after all.
Don't hesitate. Jump, it's fun. And for the flamed it seems to
be even more than fun... It is food and drink - they love it.
What? Yes, they need it.
O.t.o.h. I don't think he came to ask a question.
Ralph Rabbidge aka Henri Wilson always has a hidden agenda.
Dirk Vdm
Uncle Al
>
> P
> |
> |
> |
> |
> \o/
>
> The above diagram is supposed to represent a bucket half filled with water on
> the surface of which a ball is flaoting.
>
> If the bucket is rotated rapidly around point P, does the ball sink lower,
> flaot higher or stay at same level?
Object weight vs. weight of displaced water volume, crackpot. Now
factor in Coriolus effect. Where in the bucket does the ball reside
at equilibrium?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Franz Heymann
>
>
[snip]
> I specially liked the "Applied Physicist" :-)
What gum did they use when they applied him, to what did they apply him, and
did he stick?
Franz
tj Frazir
sinks and you stink.
The ball hits the side of the bucket first .
Go stand out on deck ,,you would live for 4 minuts .
I saw a shark on deck awile ago .
He chewed on the anchor chain till the bow came back down then came
back and kissed the bulkhead once ,,,
think it was after the tuna but I ate it an hour ago.
raw ,,fins and all ...
whale of a tale I know ,,but its all true I swaer on my tatoo
tj Frazir
water is not compressable .
spin it fast enouph and the ball will be at the bottom of the can .
Michael Varney
"tj Frazir" <Gravity...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2835-3FE...@storefull-3211.bay.webtv.net...
> No No uncle ,,the dencity of the water wount change . factor it out.
> water is not compressable .
> spin it fast enouph and the ball will be at the bottom of the can .
LOL!
Henri Wilson
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:1ratuvckb9eok70d3...@4ax.com...
>>
>> P
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> \o/
>>
>> The above diagram is supposed to represent a bucket half filled with water on
>> the surface of which a ball is flaoting.
>>
>> If the bucket is rotated rapidly around point P, does the ball sink lower,
>> flaot higher or stay at same level?
>>
>> Henri Wilson.
>> Applied Physicist.
>and
> | Henri Wilson.
> | Any connection between Einsteinian relativity and truth is purely coincidental.
> | www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
>Any connection between the ball and your brain is purely coincidental.
>
>Dirk Vdm
>
I take it you cannot answer the question.
Can't you find it in your book Dirk?
Henri Wilson.
Applied Physicist.
Henri Wilson
Don't you want to commit yourself to solving a real physics problem?
Can't you fathom it out? Do you want to avoid the revelation that you know
absolutely nothing about physics?
Obviously you cannot even recognize that this is quite a complicated problem.
Henri Wilson.
Applied Physicist.
tj Frazir
The water in a standing bucket will turn over as the earth turns and
the water dont.
From the north it looks to turn one way and from the south the other
way BUT you see the same role from opposit ends .
That ball will hit the back side of the buket then sink.
I used a nut and a glass ,,Uncle als head would have been too much nut
for the glass.
A whale OF a tale I know ,,but its all true I swear on my tatoo
Henri Wilson
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>
>> P
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> \o/
>>
>> The above diagram is supposed to represent a bucket half filled with water on
>> the surface of which a ball is flaoting.
>>
>> If the bucket is rotated rapidly around point P, does the ball sink lower,
>> float higher or stay at same level?
>
>Object weight vs. weight of displaced water volume, crackpot. Now
>factor in Coriolus effect.
Indeed! And what about the inverse-space centrifugal left-right hyperbionic
pionic fluidific nasal snoz effect?
>Where in the bucket does the ball reside at equilibrium?
What happens to the surface of the water, idiot?
Bloody hell! I can't even have a decent conversation here any more!
______
Funny. All the best known physics crackpots have had their say. Except Varney,
of course, who probably cannot even understand the question.
Anyway, present score: 5 nil against any sensible answer.
Am I the only real physicist here?
Henri Wilson.
Applied Physicist.
Mark Folsom
> water is not compressable .
> spin it fast enouph and the ball will be at the bottom of the can .
>
Not a chance, stupid.
Mark Folsom
Dirk Van de moortel
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:bsnmeu$e0d$7...@titan.btinternet.com...
Autogum. He sticks (and stinks!) to the soles of people's shoes :-)
Dirk Vdm
John Schoenfeld
> Am I the only real physicist here?
Most likely.
> Henri Wilson.
> Applied Physicist.
JS
darktalon
> centrifial not centripial ...moron ..
< http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=centrifial >
"No entry found for centrifial".
Better luck next time.
tj Frazir
You newbee morons can go jump
Jim
>On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 12:09:10 -0800, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>> P
>>> |
>>> |
>>> |
>>> |
>>> \o/
>>>
>>> The above diagram is supposed to represent a bucket half filled with water on
>>> the surface of which a ball is flaoting.
>>>
>>> If the bucket is rotated rapidly around point P, does the ball sink lower,
>>> float higher or stay at same level?
None of the above.
As the ball rotates from below point P, to above point P, its level
changes.
>>
>>Object weight vs. weight of displaced water volume, crackpot. Now
>>factor in Coriolus effect.
>
>Indeed! And what about the inverse-space centrifugal left-right hyperbionic
>pionic fluidific nasal snoz effect?
>
>>Where in the bucket does the ball reside at equilibrium?
>
>What happens to the surface of the water, idiot?
>Bloody hell! I can't even have a decent conversation here any more!
Point to a past thread, in which you could.
Jim
Anne
>
> O.t.o.h. I don't think he came to ask a question.
> Ralph Rabbidge aka Henri Wilson always has a hidden agenda.
>
> Dirk Vdm
>
>
To Dirk Van De Moortel.
The family would be grateful if you will refrain from using our late
father's name on these newsgroups.
Thankyou.
Anne Wilson (nee Rabbidge).
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>centrifial not centripial ...moron ..
> sinks and you stink.
> The ball hits the side of the bucket first .
> Go stand out on deck ,,you would live for 4 minuts .
> I saw a shark on deck awile ago .
> He chewed on the anchor chain till the bow came back down then came
>back and kissed the bulkhead once ,,,
> think it was after the tuna but I ate it an hour ago.
> raw ,,fins and all ...
Did you gut it first?
> whale of a tale I know ,,but its all true I swaer on my tatoo
Henri Wilson.
Applied Physicist.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>No No uncle ,,the dencity of the water wount change . factor it out.
> water is not compressable .
> spin it fast enouph and the ball will be at the bottom of the can .
What is a failed chemist doing on this physics NG anyway?
....As we used to say at uni, the only good feature of chem students was their
big tits.
Henri Wilson.
Applied Physicist.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
Notice that nobody mentioned the nonlinear pressure gradient in the rotating
bucket.
I doubt if they would know how to calculate it anyway.
Nobody considered the effect of the sloping sides or the curvature of the
surface.
..and that silly bloody chemist could only mumble 'coriolis' - which is
probably the only physics expression he knows...... or did he mean to write
'clitoris'?
Henri Wilson.
Applied Physicist.
tj Frazir
I gutted it ,,,saved the best fer U.
I spit the boans out.
Im cooking tomarrow ...the Thialand cooks never herd of sour crouts..
Cabbage ,,look ..add porky pig and ster.
They been calling troy porky ,,and he wount come out of his cabbin .
That was a big shark Great white the bow came up with ,,,and was it
pissed to be on deck. I dont think it lived .
It impailed on 50 things then cam back and slammed the deckhouse
bulkhead real hard.
Its a pool shark now.
Whale of a tale BUT its all true I swear on my tatoo. ( curt douglass
in moby dick )
tj Frazir
ball to the side ,,and the CF sinks it...
I used a NUT instead of a ball ,,and a glass that was plastic..
No Uncle Als wer harmed in this test.
Jeff Relf
Re: Your consumption of a ( ? 800 pound ) tuna raw
( ? In one sitting ) ,
You wrote ,
" I gutted it ,,, saved the best for U .
I spit the bones out "
Even with your 8 foot , 500 pound , build ,
that must have weighed you down a bit .
darktalon
> Its not a cetripital problem fucking dumbasses.
What is a cetripital problem, and how does it copulate with a mentally
deficient donkey? On a semi-serious note, if anyone out there knows
what "cetripital" is supposed to mean, do tell. (Centripetal?)
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>Its not a cetripital problem fucking dumbasses.
> You newbee morons can go jump
Actually it is.
Henri Wilson.
Applied Physicist.
Jim
>On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:00:44 -0500 (EST), Gravity...@webtv.net (tj Frazir)
>wrote:
>
>>No No uncle ,,the dencity of the water wount change . factor it out.
>> water is not compressable .
>> spin it fast enouph and the ball will be at the bottom of the can .
>
>What is a failed chemist doing on this physics NG anyway?
The exact same thing as an Applied Physicist.
Jim
John Schoenfeld
> bucket.
> I doubt if they would know how to calculate it anyway.
Parrots don't calculate, they repeat.
> Nobody considered the effect of the sloping sides or the curvature of the
> surface.
>
> ..and that silly bloody chemist could only mumble 'coriolis' - which is
> probably the only physics expression he knows...... or did he mean to write
> 'clitoris'?
Judging by the links to obscene porn he regularly posts, I would say the latter.
tj Frazir
Its the gravy that gets ya.
tj Frazir
Less R*C is more speed ..more R is less speed. AS the rock on string
raps around the pencil itwill speed up ,,,centriFF is converted to
centriPPPP
Jackasses
tj Frazir
I can drink some milk ad smoke a joint and never get sea sick.
Smoke a cigarrett and you will puke ..
dont eat and you will puke ..eat raw tuna and you might want to puke.
Not me ...I can eat raw tuna and milk and smoke a joint and stay at the
helm all day and all night .
joe smells like diesel and dont puke ..
matt pukes and turns green if I even say tuna.
the stormin windy gut tossin head churnin sea has been back to back
and anything over 5 knots is risky ..
Its hard to type when yer ass is seatrubbin
vomit comit on BIG swells 40 mph winds aft the fan tail but no
broach I cant back out of.
10 knots ritee now would ram the bow down and stand us up on end.
The trip up was nice ,,the trip back is wicked as hell. we saw road
waves and whales jumping
and it gets so dark you dont know whats comming at you.
The wind sounds like a train going by.
we roled so far over once you could have grabbed the sea.
8 decks up ,,,falling 100 feet and swinging so quick my hat fell
off.
No flownder ..
poweder yer ass ,,have a seat.
sit with no powder and the skin will come off yer ass in awile.
No fising boats out here. it would swallow them up . I keep listening
for any distress sigs ..its nasty out here today.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Anne" <A...@secret.com> wrote in message news:iF0Ib.69354$aT.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
You see Ralph, that is the tragedy of the compulsive liar. No one
will ever believe him anymore, whatever they say. You will have
to do better than this.
Dirk Vdm
Jeff Relf
" The crew has been talkin to Ralf fer a week now "
They talk to Ralf , you talk to Relf .
Sea sickness is a panic attack ,
control the panic and the sickness goes away .
You control the ship , You were raised on the sea ,
so you never panic .
P.S. Are you still coming to Seattle ?
Franz Heymann
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:1ratuvckb9eok70d3...@4ax.com...
>
> |
> |
> |
> |
> \o/
>
> The above diagram is supposed to represent a bucket half filled with water
on
> the surface of which a ball is flaoting.
>
> If the bucket is rotated rapidly around point P, does the ball sink lower,
Same level. Why did you bother asking?
Franz
Pmb
"Jeff Relf" <M...@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:fzgx91dp...@x.Jeff.Relf...
> Hello T.J. , Re: Sea sickness , You wrote ,
> " The crew has been talkin to Ralf fer a week now "
>
> They talk to Ralf , you talk to Relf .
>
> Sea sickness is a panic attack ,
I disagree. Most often sea sickness is motion sickness and has more to do
with the inner ear than with a panic attack.
Pmb
Jeff Relf
Re: To my notion that Sea sickness is a panic attack ,
You replied ,
" I disagree .
and has more to do with the inner ear
than with a panic attack . "
Then why do cigarettes make T.J.'s crew puke ?
Why does mentioning the word " Tuna " cause puking ?
I'm not saying that T.J.'s crew could stop puking
if they just controlled their minds better ,
sometimes sedatives ( Shudder ) are the only answer .
The mind is bizarre like that , often uncontrollable .
It's the mind that causes the puking .
Pmb
"Jeff Relf" <M...@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
> Hello Pete [ Pmb ] ,
> Re: To my notion that Sea sickness is a panic attack ,
> You replied ,
> " I disagree .
> Most often sea sickness is motion sickness
> and has more to do with the inner ear
> than with a panic attack . "
>
> Then why do cigarettes make T.J.'s crew puke ?
Got me. Perhaps the smoke aggravattes the nausea
> Why does mentioning the word " Tuna " cause puking ?
Same thing.
Have they tried dramamene?
Pmb
Jeff Relf
Re: Why words and cigarettes
cause seasick people to puke ,
You replied ,
" Perhaps the smoke aggravates the nausea .
...
Have they tried dramamene ? "
If motion sickness were caused by motion ,
then explain this to me :
Why do drivers Not get sick while passengers so ?
Motion sickness is purely mental ,
but that does not mean that
anyone can prevent it by thinking differently .
Sometimes sedatives are the Only answer .
I don't have to tell you what a crappy option that is .
Pmb
"Jeff Relf" <M...@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
> Hello Pete [ Pmb ] ,
> Re: Why words and cigarettes
> cause seasick people to puke ,
> You replied ,
> " Perhaps the smoke aggravates the nausea .
> ...
> Have they tried dramamene ? "
>
> If motion sickness were caused by motion ,
> then explain this to me :
> Why do drivers Not get sick while passengers so ?
These are not the same things. Motion sickness results when there is a
conflict in information which the brain is recieving from visual sensors and
from the inner ear.
See - http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/907367055.html
This happens to astronauts too. I don't see why you think there is a
relationship between motion sickness and panicing. this has been studied
extensively with astronauts.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2000/motion.html
> Motion sickness is purely mental ,
In the sense that the inner ear is throwing the mind off yes.
> but that does not mean that
> anyone can prevent it by thinking differently .
>
> Sometimes sedatives are the Only answer .
Then why do you think Dramamene works? It's not a seditive.
Motion sickness doesn't happen in just boats either. It happens whenever
there is a conflict in sight and motion like in an airplane or in an
elevator etc.
Pmb
Jeff Relf
Re: How Dramamine abates motion sickness ,
You ask ,
" Then why do you think Dramamine works ?
It's not a sedative . "
Dramamine is a sedative .
From :
http://www.asma.org/Publication/abstract/v68n10/68-890.htm
" Dramamine's effectiveness may be related to
its sedative properties "
And let's not quibble over the word " Sedative " ,
any pill that has a " Calming effect " ,
will help prevent motion sickness .
That's a mental state ... It's not a corporal one .
Re: How drivers don't get motion sickness ,
You say ,
" Motion sickness doesn't happen in just boats either .
It happens whenever there is a conflict in sight
and motion like in an airplane or in an elevator etc. "
No , That happens only in people who
really Really hate those conditions .
It's not that different from claustrophobics .
It's all in the mind ... Not corporal .
Again , I'm not saying that everyone can control
what they think , all the time ...
Regrettably , " Calming drugs " are often necessary .
Pmb
"Jeff Relf" <M...@Privacy.NET> wrote
> Re: How drivers don't get motion sickness ,
> You say ,
> " Motion sickness doesn't happen in just boats either .
> It happens whenever there is a conflict in sight
> and motion like in an airplane or in an elevator etc. "
>
> No , That happens only in people who
> really Really hate those conditions .
> It's not that different from claustrophobics .
> It's all in the mind ... Not corporal .
I understand that is what you believe. What scientific evidence do you have
that its true? What scientific basis is there for your claim? Are you
claiming that all of Nasa's work on motion sickness is bogus and that you've
proved that it's all panic attacks? How have you proved this?
Pmb
Pmb
"Jeff Relf" <M...@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
> Hello Pete [ Pmb ] ,
> Re: How Dramamine abates motion sickness ,
> You ask ,
> " Then why do you think Dramamine works ?
> It's not a sedative . "
>
> Dramamine is a sedative .
Thanks. I've never taken it as dramamine. However I've taken it many times
now that I see what it is.
It's a drug that makes you sleepy. All it really is is an antihystamine -
i.e. it's benedryl,
> And let's not quibble over the word " Sedative " ,
> any pill that has a " Calming effect " ,
> will help prevent motion sickness .
What proof do you have of this?
> That's a mental state ... It's not a corporal one .
Is there a reason that you think your brain is not connected to your body?
> No , That happens only in people who
> really Really hate those conditions .
That's not true. On what are you basing this assumption? I've gotten motion
sickness plenty oif times. It happens when I read in the car. The motion as
detected by my inner ear does not jive with what I see. So that screws
things up. But that doesn't mean that I hate the condition of being in a
car. I love going for a ride.
Pmb
Jeff Relf
Re: Motion sickness not being " corporal " .
You ask ,
" Is there a reason that you think
your brain is not connected to your body ? "
From Dictionary.COM
" corporal , adjective ,
affecting or characteristic of the body
as opposed to the mind or spirit "
There are obviously inflictions that effect only the Mind .
Re: My statement that mental inflictions
such as motion sickness and claustrophobia
only happen in people who really Really hate
those conditions ,
you replied ,
" That's not true .
On what are you basing this assumption ?
I've gotten motion sickness plenty of times .
It happens when I read in the car .
The motion as detected by my inner ear
does not jive with what I see .
So that screws things up .
But that doesn't mean that I hate
the condition of being in a car .
I love going for a ride . "
Screws what things up ? Your mind ?
I imagine that , like me ,
you concentrate deeply when you read ,
Then the car swerves , you get startled ,
your heart races , etc. .
It's all Mental ,
It has to do with your persistent mental habits ,
how Deeply you concentrate ,
and how you react to being startled at that time .
The mind is also primal ,
You can't always control it without the aid of drugs .
Continuing with this same topic ,
How motion sickness only happens in people who
really Really hate those conditions .
like claustrophobics .
You also ask ,
" What scientific basis is there for your claim ?
Are you claiming that all of Nasa's work on motion sickness
is bogus and that you've proved that
it's all panic attacks ? How have you proved this ?
And you also asked about what proof I have that
any " Calming drug " abates motion sickness .
No , I haven't looked at any scientific studies at all ,
But I don't have to , I know from experience that
motion sickness is :
_ A mental infliction .
_ It's partially due to my mental history .
( Possibly related to my tendency to concentrate deeply )
_ It's partially due due to my primal ,
immutable , mind . e.g. Being startled .
_ " Calming drugs " abate the symptoms .
( But such drugs are very damaging )
Pmb
"Jeff Relf" <M...@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
> Hello Pete [ Pmb ] ,
> Re: Motion sickness not being " corporal " .
>
> You ask ,
> " Is there a reason that you think
> your brain is not connected to your body ? "
>
> From Dictionary.COM
> " corporal , adjective ,
> affecting or characteristic of the body
> as opposed to the mind or spirit "
I asked about your brain. Not your mind. But do you think your mind has
nothing to do with your brain?
>
> There are obviously inflictions that effect only the Mind .
>
> Re: My statement that mental inflictions
> such as motion sickness and claustrophobia
> only happen in people who really Really hate
> those conditions ,
> you replied ,
> " That's not true .
> On what are you basing this assumption ?
> I've gotten motion sickness plenty of times .
> It happens when I read in the car .
> The motion as detected by my inner ear
> does not jive with what I see .
> So that screws things up .
> But that doesn't mean that I hate
> the condition of being in a car .
> I love going for a ride . "
>
> Screws what things up ? Your mind ?
Nope. You're inner ear and the confusing of signals
Let me remind you that your claim is that its caused by panic attacks.
> No , I haven't looked at any scientific studies at all ,
> But I don't have to , I know from experience that
> motion sickness is :
> _ A mental infliction .
> _ It's partially due to my mental history .
> ( Possibly related to my tendency to concentrate deeply )
> _ It's partially due due to my primal ,
> immutable , mind . e.g. Being startled .
> _ " Calming drugs " abate the symptoms .
> ( But such drugs are very damaging )
benedryl is not damaging.
Arriving at conclusions only from personal experience is the worst way to
form a scientific conclusion. It's often proved wrong. Nasa's research has
proven that to be the case here since they've done the research.
Pmb
Jeff Relf
You claim ,
" Benadryl [ Diphenhydramine ] is not damaging "
Pete , That's a stupid comment .
All drugs are damaging .
Benadryl causes :
blurred vision , vertigo , tinnitus , etc. , etc. .
Here are some " adverse reactions " From ,
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&newwindow=1&q=Benadryl+%22side+effects%22&btnG=Google+Search
" has additive effects with alcohol
and other CNS depressants
( hypnotics , sedatives , tranquilizers , etc. ) "
" anaphylactic shock , photosensitivity ,
excessive perspiration "
" Hypotension , headache , palpitations "
"Sedation , sleepiness , dizziness ,
disturbed coordination , fatigue , confusion ,
restlessness , excitation , nervousness , tremor ,
irritability , insomnia , euphoria "
" blurred vision , ... vertigo , tinnitus "
" nausea , vomiting , diarrhea , constipation "
" Urinary frequency , difficult urination "
Jeff Relf
" Arriving at conclusions only from personal experience
is the worst way to form a scientific conclusion "
What " scientific conclusion " ?
I could cite links , but I don't have to .
I Understand motion sickness .
It's possible to read all day long about motion sickness
and still not Understand it .
over the years , I've absorbed a lot of data about it .
Jeff Relf
Re: The what motion sickness is ,
You wrote ,
" You're inner ear and the confusing of signals
Let me remind you that your claim is that
its caused by panic attacks . "
No , Motion sickness is merely similar to panic attacks .
It's a racing of the heart ,
it's a primal reaction to certain mental scenarios ,
including a fatigued mind due to over concentration .
It's mainly a feeling of a loss of control .
But like many other such mental disabilities ,
it often requires " Calming drugs " .
Jeff Relf
You ask ,
" do you think your mind has
nothing to do with your brain ? "
Motion sickness is partly due to your primal mind ,
which is fairly immutable ,
and partly due to your present mental robustness ,
and partly due to your mental habits ,
and partly due to what's happening to you .
Pmb
"Jeff Relf" <M...@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
That means there are negative side effects to the brain in some cases. It
doesn't mean it damages the brain. However one has to be careful when
reading side effects. They describe *all* side effects which were
experienced by the entire group of individuals on which they tested the
drug. It may even be that the side effects were not caused by the drug.
I was speaking about actual permanent damage.
Pmb
Jeff Relf
You wrote ,
" I was speaking about actual permanent damage "
Just look at Rush Limbaugh , he lost his hearing .
Benadryl is like that too ,
it's known to cause permanent
blurred vision , vertigo , tinnitus .
Like all drugs , Benadryl is a poison ,
the liver has to metabolize it .
There is a direct correlation between
metabolism and longevity .
Just imagine if you should cryogenically hibernate ,
you'd live a long time ... Right ?
( But that's not a very active life , is it ? )
On a per pound basis ,
squirrels consume oxygen seven times faster than horses ,
therefore horses live seven times longer .
The less food you give rats and worms over the months ,
the slower they age and the longer they live .
It's just a Hard Fact !
Sue the tobacco companies ?
Hell no , we should be using Ronald McDonald .
Anne
>
> "Anne" <A...@secret.com> wrote in message
news:iF0Ib.69354$aT.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> >
> > The family would be grateful if you will refrain from using our late
> > father's name on these newsgroups.
> >
> > Thankyou.
> > Anne Wilson (nee Rabbidge).
>
> You see Ralph, that is the tragedy of the compulsive liar. No one
> will ever believe him anymore, whatever they say. You will have
> to do better than this.
>
> Dirk Vdm
>
Thanks. You sympathy is much appreciated.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>Centripital is centrifical converted to speed .
'Centrufugal' is an imaginary force that exists only in the rotating frame.
It is equal inmagnitude to the centripetal force of the rest frame but opposite
in direction.
Henri Wilson.
Applied Physicist.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>The crew has been talkin to ralf fer a week now.
Hey tj, you aren't a time traveler by any chance, are you?
What you just wrote could have described events 1000 years ago.
Henri Wilson.
Applied Physicist.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Anne" <A...@secret.com> wrote in message news:aUmIb.70793$aT....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
If I would have any reason to believe you, I would sympathize.
Alas, you have given me no reason to believe anything you ever
said, say and will say. Isn't that sad, "Henri"?
Dirk Vdm
Jeff Relf
You comment ,
" As we used to say at uni ,
the only good feature of chem students
was their big tits "
Uncle Al has Big tits ?
Henri Wilson
<notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:1ratuvckb9eok70d3...@4ax.com...
>>
>> P
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> \o/
>>
>> The above diagram is supposed to represent a bucket half filled with water
>on
>> the surface of which a ball is flaoting.
>>
>> If the bucket is rotated rapidly around point P, does the ball sink lower,
>> float higher or stay at same level?
>
>Same level. Why did you bother asking?
Why do you bother to ask why I am asking? Can't you answer it?
Maybe I ask simply to find out if anyone here actually knows anything about
physics. Present indications are that they don't.
What difference does the size of the ball make?
What if the ball is compressible (more or less so than water)?
Does the surface of the water become spherical rather than flat?
What is the effect of the vastly different pressure gradient in the water?
Franz your lack of imagination suggests some of your brain cells have
disappeared.
>
>Franz
>
Henri Wilson.
Applied Physicist.
Jim
>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:19:52 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
><notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:1ratuvckb9eok70d3...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> P
>>> |
>>> |
>>> |
>>> |
>>> \o/
>>>
>>> The above diagram is supposed to represent a bucket half filled with water
>>on
>>> the surface of which a ball is flaoting.
>>>
>>> If the bucket is rotated rapidly around point P, does the ball sink lower,
>>> float higher or stay at same level?
>>
>>Same level. Why did you bother asking?
>
>Why do you bother to ask why I am asking? Can't you answer it?
Since you missed it. He answered: "Same level".
Jim
tj Frazir
.
Its not a centipital problem anyway ,,its a centrifical one.
Do you know enouph physics to know the two henry willson ??
tj Frazir
It takes a big mean sob to swim 50 feet down for 20 miles . Mad enouph
to tap ussr cables.
I few hits on a dubby was good to keep me from ever getting sea sick .
Its not to bad out here now and doing 7 knots.
If we were not so loaded down I could do 17 knots.
amanda
Funny that insomnia was listed as a side effect. It was precisely for
insomnia that I took Benadryl (no physician was consulted for a
reason) every night for the second half of my grad school years, about
1 - 1&1/4 year.
Sedation and sleepiness was exactly what I was after. Benadryl helped
me; was my *savior* at the time.
Nothing else was experienced except may be .....
Hypotension: My blood pressure is quite low NOW and but it was always
like that to begin with.
Jeff Relf
You wrote ,
" Funny that insomnia was listed as a side effect .
It was precisely for insomnia that I took Benadryl "
My days average out to about 25 hours long ,
sometimes longer , sometimes shorter .
I wake up at a different time every day ,
always later than before .
I find that I always sleep one third of the time ,
if I sleep more then I'll wind up being awake longer .
The long-term side-effects of taking a daily drug
are not obvious from day to day .
But they are surely there anyways .
AaronB
Of course the water's density won't change. The change in weight of
the ball would be negligible, unless you are dealing with a REALLY
large axis of rotation, which would make the problem needlessly
complicated. Centripetal force is component of circular motion along
the <r> axis. Centrifugal force is a ficticious force. Centrifical
means nothing.
Well, looking at your problem, you are assuming that the ball is
floating on the surface of the water. Thus, the ball must be less
dense than that of the water, and the buoyant force must equal the
force of gravity, when it is not spinning, and rests, we'll say.
When the bucket is spinning (assuming uniform speed), the problem gets
more complicated, naturally.
At the lowest point in the spin, the buoyant force is greater than the
force of gravity, because the net force must point toward the centre
of the circle; distance between the ball and P is decreased; the ball
moves up.
At the top of the spin, both the buoyant and gravitational force act
in the same direction; the ball, again, is closer to P (moreso than
above, I believe), so the ball moves down.
From this, I would venture a guess that the ball follows a simple
harmonic motion with a max at the top, and a min at the bottom, though
the total distance between the ball and P is always less than that if
the ball was stationary.
It's been awhile since I've done fluid dynamics, so I could be
completely off on this one. Depends how simple of solution you're
looking for, too, I guess.
Pmb
"amanda" <amand...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Funny that insomnia was listed as a side effect. It was precisely for
> insomnia that I took Benadryl (no physician was consulted for a
> reason) every night for the second half of my grad school years, about
> 1 - 1&1/4 year.
>
> Sedation and sleepiness was exactly what I was after. Benadryl helped
> me; was my *savior* at the time.
>
> Nothing else was experienced except may be .....
>
> Hypotension: My blood pressure is quite low NOW and but it was always
> like that to begin with.
As I mentioned in a previous pots, those side effects cover everything.
Have you ever watched a TV commercial for Ambien? Its a sleep aid. I always
got a kick out of it when they write the disclaimer "Warning: Causes
drowsiness"!!! :-D
Pmb
Edward Green
> Hello Pete [ Pmb ] ,
> Re: The what motion sickness is ,
> You wrote ,
> " You're inner ear and the confusing of signals
> Let me remind you that your claim is that
> its caused by panic attacks . "
>
> No , Motion sickness is merely similar to panic attacks .
>
> It's a racing of the heart ,
> it's a primal reaction to certain mental scenarios ,
> including a fatigued mind due to over concentration .
> It's mainly a feeling of a loss of control .
An impending feeling of loss of control over the urge to puke.
In my limited experience I found that in the open air, able to see the
horizon, riding the bronco was exhilarating more than sickening: cold
spray in the face helped a great deal also. I felt like a Viking
rather than a puke.
OTOH, I once swam for a long time in the surf, swinging up and down
with the waves: it was also exhilarating and viking-like, but when I
climbed out on the beach I noticed the symptoms of sea-sickness! So
your mental state can control or suppress the symptoms, but there is
some real physiological effect to being shaken, not stirred, which
can't be erased.
Gauge
> Hello Pete [ Pmb ] , Re: The side effect of Benadryl ,
> You wrote ,
> " I was speaking about actual permanent damage "
>
> Just look at Rush Limbaugh , he lost his hearing .
That's called a bad reaction. Some people can die from eating
strawberries. But one doesn't normally say that strawberries cause
permanent damage.
Pmb
Jeff Relf
You recount a very interesting episode of motion sickness ,
Saying ,
" I once swam for a long time in the surf ,
swinging up and down with the waves :
but when I climbed out on the beach
I noticed the symptoms of sea-sickness ! "
What a great story . Land sickness ? ha !
When you switch from swimming in the sea
to standing on dry land ,
you felt a sudden loss of control , You were confused .
Ha ! That's it ! Motion sickness is confusion .
If you concentrate too much , e.g. reading in a car ,
and then odd things happen in that car ,
like sudden swerves , you get excited and confused .
Your heart races and you might even puke .
Paul R. Mays
"Gauge" <gau...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e7203033.03123...@posting.google.com...
You haven't seen my waist line then... Strawberry's Kill!!
Just really, really slowly...... ;)
>
> Pmb
tj Frazir
thats even stranger.
Im not on dry land very much.
Last time I slept in a bed on land I thought I had run aground ,,I
dreamed the USS Jason was up on dry land and a mall was conected to
second deck . They painted the bridge black and installed a stair way
beside the helm.
I awoke in a rage .
I slept on rattle snake island wile the IB was in dry dock . At least
I could hear the waves .
I sleep best in a 20 deg role ..where I can feal the engine run.
Jeff Relf
You wrote ,
" My legs and feet feel strange when I walk on land .
Nothing moves and that's even stranger . "
...
" I sleep best in a 20 deg role ...
where I can feel the engine run . "
Yea , Motion sickness is an overwhelming confusion ,
The primal brain doesn't like sudden surprises .
Gauge
Oxygen does too. I have proof of that - Everyone that has ever died
spent their life breathing that toxic gas - therefore oxygen kills -
just very slowly. :-)
Pmb
Mu-Pi
In your case, not slowly enough.
Jeff Relf
You say , " oxygen kills - just very slowly . :-) " .
Over the long run ,
The faster you consume oxygen the sooner you die .
Over the long run ,
The faster you consume food the sooner you die .
Over the long run ,
The faster you consume sedatives the sooner you die .
This is a hard fact ,
It's the hardest biological fact there is .
jab
> Hi Pete [ PMB ] , Re: The side effects of sedatives ,
> You say , " oxygen kills - just very slowly . :-) " .
>
First you launch a death threat against /The Internet/.
Now, you go paranoid about *oxygen*.
What's next?
Are your precious bodily fluids being eviscerated by Socialists who put
flourine in the drinking water?
Jeff Relf
You ask ,
" Now , you go paranoid about Oxygen . What's next ? "
I'm not " paranoid about oxygen " ,
I'm just saying that :
People who live faster will die faster , that's all .
I make no judgment calls about
whether it's better to live faster or slower .
Usenet Council
> Hi jab , Re: The Rate of Living theory ,
> You ask ,
> " Now , you go paranoid about Oxygen . What's next ? "
>
THE USENET COUNCIL HAVE VOTED TO BAN YOU.
Pmb
"Jeff Relf" <M...@Privacy.NET> wrote
> The faster you consume food the sooner you die .
A person who exercises more will live a longer healthier life, all other
things being equal. Aerobic exericise is awesome for better health in fact.
Pmb
Usenet Council
> A person who exercises more will live a longer healthier life, all other
> things being equal. Aerobic exericise is awesome for better health in fact.
>
I prefer anaerobic exercise.
I go into a vacuum chamber and ride an exercise bicycle until I'm blue
in the face. Then they pull me out and resuscitate me.
It does wonders for my abs.
Pmb
"Usenet Council" <use...@internet.net.gov.mil.org> wrote in message
news:tZ_Ib.4050$6B....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
And I've decided that there shall be no fish for dinner on the 21st of ever
month in the entire US.
But when all is said and done both of our proclamations mean diddly.
Pmb
POOP
LOL!
Well, I for one can't see how Jeff Relf could possibly post here
again after this.
--
POOP
Registered Linux user #314060
POOP Inside®
Usenet Council
SILENCE FOOL. WE OF THE USENET COUNCIL HAVE DECIDED THAT YOU MAY MOCK
US AT WILL. SEE -- OUR POWERS ARE LIMITLESS !!!
Jeff Relf
You say ,
" A person who exercises more
will live a longer healthier life ,
all other things being equal .
Aerobic exericise is awesome for better health in fact "
Wrong .
You're confusing today's health
with what happens in the long run .
Take a look at those super healthy football players ,
Can you tell me this ? :
What happens to their health in the long run ?
Pmb
"Jeff Relf" <M...@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
You ignored the qualifier " all other things being equal"
football players are in a high risk category. But this is a general rule
which applies overall. It fails in certain cases such as those whose health
would be compromised by exercise etc.
Pmb
Jeff Relf
You say , " I prefer anaerobic exercise " .
That explains a lot of your recent posts , doesn't it John ?
POOP
He said 'exercise'!
Not 'slamming into other bastards at high speeds'.
Jeff Relf
Re: Your statement ,
" Aerobic exercise is awesome for better health " ,
You say ,
" this is a general rule which applies overall "
But there is an obvious trade off between
living an Active healthy life today and living longer .
It's a fact :
The faster you live the sooner you die .
Too much exercise , too much food , too much drugs ,
all are known to shorten one's lifespan considerably .
Usenet Council
Once again, I tend to agree with you, unfortunately.
However, I would emphasize the /oxygen/ theory. It's the eating of
higher-energy food that kills us. Take a Gallapagos turtle or tree
sloth. Sluggish, but eating lots of little things. A good grazer will
outlast a carnivore any day.
Re:exercise, I read what I thought was an interesting comment by a
/health expert/. He was saying that exercise is not the same as health
-- because most exercises are repetitive movements that we naturally
like to do. Why do we /jog/ -- well, for exercise, sure, but also
because it's fun to run. But when we run, we use up knee cartilege and
other resources because of /repetition/.
Real exercise means bending and stretching in ways that we would not
normally do.
Jeff Relf
Re: Pete's statement ,
" Aerobic exercise is awesome for better health "
You replied ,
" He said ' exercise ' !
Not ' slamming into other bastards at high speeds ' . "
The example of people who live in excess ,
too many drugs , too much food ,
and , yes , too much exercise ,
is simply that : An obvious case .
To see the finer points of the rate of living theory ,
you have to look at studies of rats , worms , etc. .
Interestingly ,
this same principle extends to Objects as well ,
e.g. The faster the cigarette burns ,
i.e. The deeper the drags ,
the shorter is it's lifespan .
Henri Wilson
>Hello Henri Wilson , Re: Uncle Al ,
>You comment ,
>" As we used to say at uni ,
> the only good feature of chem students
> was their big tits "
>
>Uncle Al has Big tits ?
Only half of them had the tits.
Al's half had minute penises (so the first half reckoned)
In our physics faculty there was only ONE solitary female - and she was flat
chested and terribly ugly.
Henri Wilson.
Applied Physicist.
Richard Henry
> A good grazer will
> outlast a carnivore any day.
I just finished two cheeseburgers.
Jeff Relf
You say ,
" Real exercise means bending and stretching
in ways that we would not normally do "
Very Good John !
What formal degree(s) do you have ?
( Including when and where )
Henri Wilson
>Gravity...@webtv.net (tj Frazir) wrote in message news:<19140-3FF...@storefull-3218.bay.webtv.net>...
>> The dencity of the water wount change but the ball will have more weight
>> .
>> Its not a centipital problem anyway ,,its a centrifical one.
>> Do you know enouph physics to know the two henry willson ??
>
>Of course the water's density won't change. The change in weight of
>the ball would be negligible, unless you are dealing with a REALLY
>large axis of rotation, which would make the problem needlessly
>complicated. Centripetal force is component of circular motion along
>the <r> axis. Centrifugal force is a ficticious force. Centrifical
>means nothing.
>
>Well, looking at your problem, you are assuming that the ball is
>floating on the surface of the water. Thus, the ball must be less
>dense than that of the water, and the buoyant force must equal the
>force of gravity, when it is not spinning, and rests, we'll say.
>
>When the bucket is spinning (assuming uniform speed), the problem gets
>more complicated, naturally.
>
>At the lowest point in the spin, the buoyant force is greater than the
>force of gravity, because the net force must point toward the centre
>of the circle; distance between the ball and P is decreased; the ball
>moves up.
>
>At the top of the spin, both the buoyant and gravitational force act
>in the same direction; the ball, again, is closer to P (moreso than
>above, I believe), so the ball moves down.
You have introduced another factor into this. However I think the same two
forces would act on the water too and so balance the effect you mention.
It would be best if we could eliminate the alternating effect of gravity from
this experiment. Maybe the rotation could take place in the horizontal plane.
>
>From this, I would venture a guess that the ball follows a simple
>harmonic motion with a max at the top, and a min at the bottom, though
>the total distance between the ball and P is always less than that if
>the ball was stationary.
You can expect some very rude replies to this.
>
>It's been awhile since I've done fluid dynamics, so I could be
>completely off on this one. Depends how simple of solution you're
>looking for, too, I guess.
If the ball is quite compressible, and the rotational speed sufficiently high,
I reckon the ball will sink.
Henri Wilson.
Applied Physicist.
Usenet Council
Only one: Biology, B.S., 1982, Princeton.
I dropped out the U. of Pittsburgh, MS in Information Science program
when I ran out of $$$.
Jeff Relf
Re: Bailo's informed comment ,
" A good grazer will outlast a carnivore any day " ,
You tell us , " I just finished two cheeseburgers " .
Nothing wrong with that ... Why not live for today ?
Growing old is overrated , in my opinion .
Most people want to be cheetahs , not cows .
( Hmm ... I just read that cheetahs can be trained )
Usenet Council
> Growing old is overrated , in my opinion .
>
Depends on the person.
Once the party's over...why hang around ?
Bill Vajk
> Jeff Relf wrote:
> Depends on the person.
There's a party? :-)
Uncle Al
There is Amanda Peet the theorist and Amanda Peet the actress. One
posits that the later would be a trophy to shelve and the former would
be the one to know. One can always hose down the scientist but you
cannot make the pretty one worth talking with.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Edward Green
If you are going to impersonate some quasi-cabalistic body, then you
had better refrain from banter.