Miscellaneous desk
< January 5	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 6

Weird example

In the illustrative example section of the Felony murder article, it states that a manager who dies in the midst of bank robbery of a heart attack can have the robbers held responsible for his death on account of the robbery causing the manager enough stress to induce the heart attack. What if the manager had a big fight with his wife or someone else prior to the robbery and that causes the heart attack? Or what if in the case of someone who goes driving while incredibly upset after an argument and then they get into a car crash and die? Should the person they argued with be legally liable for their death? Seems like that kind of charge can easily be abused to me. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because neither fighting with your husband nor having an argument with someone constitutes a felony. The felony murder rule wouldn't apply. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot provide any legal advice. Please read the references to the article you cited, the last of which from a California Appeals court, People v. Stamp, 2 Cal. App. 3d 203 (1959), dealt with the death from a heart attack of a man who was the victim of an armed robbery. Doctors testified that although he had preexisting heart disease, the stress of the robbery caused the heart attack. An armed robbery is a malicious act and the perpetrators are responsible for the consequences. The court said "As long as the homicide is the direct causal result of the robbery the felony-murder rule applies whether or not the death was a natural or probable consequence of the robbery. So long as a victim's predisposing physical condition, regardless of its cause, is not the only substantial factor bringing about his death, that condition, and the robber's ignorance of it, in no way destroys the robber's criminal responsibility for the death. (Cf. People v. *211 Moan, 65 Cal. 532, 536-537 [4 P. 545]; People v. Studer, 59 Cal.App. 547, 552-554 [211 P. 233].) So long as life is shortened as a result of the felonious act, it does not matter that the victim might have died soon anyway. ( People v. Phillips, supra, at p. 579.) In this respect, the robber takes his victim as he finds him. " Edison (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"So long as life is shortened" So what if someone doesn't die during the robbery, but ten years later as a result of it. I can't think of a decent example now, but is there any precedence for felony murder charges being brought well after the felony was committed? 98.228.74.177 (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High School Musical 3: Senior Year

This would be a good question for the Entertainment Ref Desk. StuRat (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<moved to ent desk here> Julia Rossi (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Butterflies

What is the colour of their blood? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.240.123.229 (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typical colours for hemolymph are greenish or yellowish. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue colour of sky

Can you tell me why the colour of sky appears to be blue, whereas the colour of outer space is told to be black? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.103.70.227 (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rayleigh scattering? --Candy-Panda (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That link took me to diffuse sky radiation, which says "the sunlit sky appears blue because air scatters short-wavelength light more than longer wavelengths. Since blue light is at the short wavelength end of the visible spectrum, it is more strongly scattered in the atmosphere than long wavelength red light. The result is that the human eye perceives blue when looking toward parts of the sky other than the sun." Strawless ^(talk) 12:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read something recently that the ocean is actually blue and the sky is a reflection thereof. Darned if I can find a reference though. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can the sky's blue color be a reflection of the sea? You get blue skies thousands of miles from the ocean. This may be a garbled version of the fallacy that the sea is blue because it reflects the sky. In fact water is slightly blue: see Color of water for the fallacy and the truth. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - that's complete twaddle. You may have read that the sea is blue because it reflects the sky - that's a very common misapprehension - and it's twaddle too...but for a different and more complicated reason. Raleigh scattering is the one true answer...there is no other. The light from the sun comes straight at us across the vacuum of space - but the blue light is scattered all over the place when it hits the atmosphere. Hence you only see the red and green light from the sun when you look directly towards it - the blue goes all over the place and can be seen no matter which way you look. Since red and green make yellow - this explains why the sun looks kinda yellowish - most of the blue light having been scattered away. The same reasoning (with some more complicated 'splainin) explains why sunsets happen and some other weirder phenomena like the green flash that sometimes happens around sunset. SteveBaker (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the effect varies quite a bit. At noon in a desert the sky is a very pale blue, while it can be a deep blue or violet at sunrise or sunset at another location. The air density, humidity, and thickness may all contribute. StuRat (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not blue; the sea is blue. The sky is blea. (Maybe at twiliht it can be blue.) A better question is,

White sky

Which gasses would the sky need to be white? -lysdexia 17:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Water vapor (technically, not a gas) - fog, in other words. It works by a slightly different principle than Raleigh scattering - See: Mie scattering. SteveBaker (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what a fog is (a colloid) which is why your answer is wrong. -lysdexia 19:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well - if you're going to get nasty about it - I'm bound to point out that it was the question that was wrong - not my answer! You can't meaningfully ask "which gasses" until you first ask "Is it possible for the sky to be white as a result of ONLY gaseous scattering?"...and the answer to that is an unqualified "No"...so the question you asked was unanswerable and yet I did my best by telling you how the sky COULD be white and what the mechanism would be. I did VERY carefully qualify my reply so you wouldn't be confused...and yet you still bite my hand off!

In order for the sky to be white - a gas mixture would have to scatter all colours equally. However, the strength of scattering depends on (roughly) the inverse-fourth-power of the wavelength of the light - so at longer wavelengths, (red light) scattering is very weak indeed. 450nm blue light is scattered well because it has a much higher frequency than red light at 650nm or so...about four times more strongly. If you change the size of the molecules in the gas, you can alter how much more strongly red light is scattered - but you can't change the ratio of red scattering to blue scattering...hence you won't ever get a white sky by gaseous scattering alone. We already mentioned that Raleigh scattering is the mechanism - and a quick perusal of that article would have answered the question for you. Noting that you evidently didn't do that (or perhaps didn't understand it) - I chose not to babble on about inverse-quartic frequency domain stuff - and instead chose to give you a simple answer that you might not have considered.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't equal scattering of all colours make the sky the same colour as the sun (i.e. not white)? Algebraist 03:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - it would...but the sun IS more or less white - it only looks yellowish because the sky is scattering the blue light and what is left over (red + green + a little left-over blue) looks yellow. The sun (when seen from space) looks pure white. This is partly because the actual spectrum of the sun is reasonably 'flat' over the visual range - and partly because we are creatures that evolved a visual system to see in natural sunlight and hence we perceive the sun's spectrum (direct sunlight + sky scattered light) as "white" because that is the "normal" thing. Even if the sun were in reality (say) a pretty shade of pink - we'd probably have a visual system that made our brains say "white" in response to that and our color vocabulary would have adjusted accordingly. SteveBaker (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Partridge League Baseball

I was given a 'family heirloom' baseball by my father when I was about 10 years old (1967). It was given to him as a young boy by his dad, my grandfather, who worked at Fenway Park as a young man. The ball has been well respected and cared for and is in very good condition. It is clearly marked as an official baseball of the "Partridge League". It is also quite clearly signed by one of the most famous major league baseball players of all time who played between the years 1914-1935! My questions are these: What is the origin and history of the Partridge League and how would a famous player's autograph such as Babe Ruth happen upon this ball? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMAC80103 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a 1907 NY Times article (complete, badly formatted, Google Cache version) that says "The Partridge Athletic League, which comprises the Tenth and Eleventh' Districts of the Public Schools Athletic Lague, held its annual games 5,esterday afternoon on the Pastime grounds, l,' and Avenue A". -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page may be of interest, though it doesn't answer your question directly. You'd have to sign up to view the details; I couldn't be bothered. Given the paucity of G-returns, I assume the league has since collapsed, but it seems it was a NY high-school baseball league that some Yankees players signed some balls for. Matt Deres (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PC shops in / around London

What are some computer superstores like pc world in the UK, around the London area. I'm looking to buy a laptop and i like to actually see them as displayed. Also i don't have credit cards etc so can't buy online. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of them congregated on Tottenham Court Road. I think that's where you want to be. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The superstores will of course be further out of town, but IME you will find a much better selection and get better service in the Tottenham Court Road shops. However, I'm sure PC World's website will supply their addresses if you really want to try them.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, PC World is at the top end of the street. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous shops sell PCs here in the UK. There's the big chain stores found on suburban retail developments - Currys, Dixons, PC World (though those three are all part of the same parent company), and Comet; then there's major supermarkets such as Tesco; and then there's more central department stores such as John Lewis; and finally there are smaller traders either run by a single manufaturer such as Sony or independents such as those you will find in a long strip along Tottenham Court Road in London.

However, the UK is not exactly a cheap place to buy ... anything. If you are a foreign worker/student, you might find it cheaper to buy it next time you are at home. In the UK, prices are high pretty much where ever you go, though they are slightly cheaper in the independents. You might also want to consider applying for a credit card - even with the current financial crisis I wouldn't imagine it would be all that difficult to get one, and it would enable you to take advantage of the lower prices online (after you have done your research in the above mentioned stores), though you might find somewhere with an actual store which will match their online price.

Astronaut (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one that matters, The Apple Store in Regent Street, W1. Don't miss it!--88.111.23.28 (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1841 wine standard

I own a brass container with two handles on either side it is very heavy and is engraved: Nash County, Wine Standard, James Martin, Petersbrug, VA 1841. Would you please tell me anything you can about this brass container. I resembles an ice bucket. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regismanatwo (talk • contribs) 18:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a picture that you can link to. By the way there doesn't appear to be a Nash County in Virgina, but there is one in NC. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody votes...

What happens if, hypothetically, the year of the presidential election, nobody (and I mean NOBODY, not a single person) votes? 71.220.214.56 (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetically pigs fly Dmcq (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would vary state-to-state, as the method of selecting presidential electors is not a federal matter (Article II, Section 1). Should the electors as selected fail to give any candidate a majority vote (as seems likely in such a confused case), the election would be remanded to the US ~~Senate~~ House of Representatives, voting on a state-by-state basis. — Lomn 19:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict. Since my answer is longer I'll just post it too:

Legislators often don't provide for extremely unlikely possible situations. (Heck, they have a hard enough time providing unambiguous and sensible rules for possible situations that aren't all that unlikely. See 22nd Amendment#Interaction with the Twelfth Amendment for one famous example.) If you're talking about the US presidency, the electors are chosen as designated by state law, so each state would look to its own laws to see if they'd covered this extremely unlikely case and, if so, what to do about it. If any electors were chosen, their votes would be counted as usual to determine the president. If not, then no person would have a majority of electoral college votes, so the presidency would be determined by the House of Representatives and the vice-presidency by the Senate under the special voting rules specified by the 12th Amendment.

Note that there is no requirement for them to successfully do so in any particular length of time -- in 1800 it took a week. If no president was chosen that way, the Presidential Succession Act would kick in and an acting president would be designated from one of the cabinet members and other positions named in it.

We are not allowed to give legal advice here, so if you were planning to hypnotize the entire population of your country into not voting in 2012, please do not take this as legal advice on the consequences. --Anonymous, 20:06 UTC, January 6, 2009.

No, I plan to hijack the moon. Much more reliable and effective, since it's kind of impossible to counter a planetoid blocking sunlight and equipped with missile defense using current technology. 71.220.214.56 (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paging Alexander Abian! --Anon, 00:13 UTC, January 7, 2009.

The world ends in 2012 so the joke's on you! 216.239.234.196 (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every election cycle there's a story about a tie election somewhere for small-town mayor or city council. They generally rely on a game of chance to break the tie, often a coin flip. I assume a 0-0 tie would be handled the same way. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... So you're proposing that the candidates didn't even vote for themselves? -- 76.204.96.175 (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is this object?

What is the object to the right? What is it used for? It's in Bude, Cornwall, sitting on a plinth at about head height, atop a reservoir and in proximity with one or two other bits of what look like meteorological equipment. The glass sphere is large fist sized. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a sunshine recorder. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, in fact it's a Campbell-Stokes recorder and should be facing south. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll be. I thought it was a high-tech weather rock. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Necessity of computers!

Please tell why computers are essential for doing our jobs? Why can't anything be done without them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.103.69.24 (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whose jobs might you be referring to? A lumberjack can do his job without a computer. So can a short-order cook, a crossing guard and a babysitter. Wikipedia editors, on the other hand, would not even exist without computers. --LarryMac | Talk 20:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of plenty of jobs that don't require computers. For jobs were they are used, it's usually not because the job can't be done without a computer but because using a computer makes the job easier. Just think of all that paperwork, all those filing cabinets that have been replaced with a single box. Yeah, I wouldn't want work without computers, not that I actually work... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In most jobs - they aren't essential - but they are convenient. When I started work in the late 1970's we didn't have desktop computers. If I needed to send a formal note to my boss (a proposal to do a piece of work say) - I would write it by hand onto paper - walk downstairs to the typing pool - find a free typist and ask her (it was nearly always a "her") to type it on a particular kind of paper with a particular number of copies (typically three - one for the recipient, one for me and one for the files). When she got through with whatever she was doing, she'd come to me with the work (up two flights of stairs) - and I'd proof read it. If it was OK - she'd drop it down to the mailroom for me and the following day (if we got it there by 3pm), it would get where it was going. If it wasn't OK, we'd have to go through the whole thing again. Today I rattle off an email and 30 seconds later, it's there - it's filed for posterity - I have a copy. That's a STUNNING thing. For companies like banks and insurance companies, the savings are unimaginable. SteveBaker (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done various jobs without the use of computers. They are useful and efficient. They are not necessary for a great many jobs. Edison (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about your job, but my job is to program computers. APL (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am terrible with technology but I love technology. I don't know how to use most aspects of a computer but I want the latest and the greatest. Bus stop (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've designed entire buildings by drawing them with pens or pencils and drafting instruments. If we wanted to get fancy, we used pin-registration systems with layers of clear plastic sheet to describe different systems, then printed them in a flat-bed blueprint machine, using ammonia to develop the image. Specifications were typewritten, sometimes from scratch on a typewriter by someone with typing skills, or else by a very literal cut-and-paste operation, then photocopied. It was all desperately slow and inefficient, and took at least twice as many people to do the work as you need with computers. I haven't touched a drawing triangle in years. While I miss drawing by hand (it could be quite pleasing and contemplative), we'd be out of business if we really had to do that now. Acroterion _(talk) 00:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almonds

Why are almonds suggested to people who forget things easily and oftenly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.103.69.24 (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almond#Cultural aspects mentions that it was a belief in India. This explains why some people today think that they will help. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Energy requirements

Which of the following needs most energy and why? 1)A student who studies 6-8 hours daily. 2)A woman who does the house-hold work for 3-4 hours daily. 3)A Growing child of age 3-4 years. Please compare! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.103.69.24 (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a great place to find people willing to do your homework. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The child would likely require the most energy per kilogram, but is smaller. Jim Thorpe, a gifted athlete, reportedly tried to duplicate all the activities of an infant and said it was exhausting. The physical labor of 3-4 hours housework would likely burn more calories than sitting at a desk 6-8 hours turning the pages of a book. Estimates available on the internet may not be taken consistently. Edison (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The basal metabolic rate is where most energy is burnt, and it's generally proportional to weight. So, if the student weighs more, I'd go that way, otherwise I'd go with the housewife. That toddler would need to be a giant to use more energy total. StuRat (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the toddler might use more energy per kilogram of body mass. Unless the exercise is aerobic,and high intensity, basal metabolism (mass and time) probably wins. Edison (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket to Ride question

In Ticket to Ride, where a discrete route is duplicated as two parallel routes, is it allowed for the same player to claim them both? My brother just did that when we played the game today, but the rules don't mention it at all. JIP | Talk 21:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The rules (well, at least the English ones; I don't know if you're playing the Finnish edition or what the translated rules say) clearly state: "A player may only claim a maximum of one route, hence connect two adjacent cities, never more, on his turn. Some cities are connected by Double-Routes. One player cannot claim both routes to the same cities." By doing so, clearly, your brother has revealed himself to be an evil man. Smite him. For the sake of us all, smite him! -- Captain Disdain (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Percent of home owned after downpayment on mortgage

Hi all,

This is a question about home mortgages in the US. I know there might be differences between mortgages, but a general answer would be fine.

From what I've understood, most mortgages stack their interest early on in the mortgage term, so that half-way through the term you may still only own 30% of your house (or whatever). My question is: Does this apply to the downpayment as well, or does all the downpayment go towards the property itself? E.g., if I put down a 20% downpayment, do I now own 20% of the house?

Thank you!
— Sam 63.138.152.238 (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mortgage covers the difference between the cost of the house (often including closing costs as well) and the downpayment. So if you put 20% down, in a manner of speaking you own 20% of the house. One thing that's really interesting/depressing is to look at how little you pay on the principle in the first few years of a mortgage. In some cases less than 20% of the payment actually goes to reduce the principle. Tobyc75 (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the down payment goes directly toward the purchase of the property; your mortgage is a loan you obtain in order to obtain the rest of the money needed to buy. But how much of the house you own really depends on whether you could sell the house and pay off the mortgage. If you can't, it doesn't matter how much you put down, because the value of the house has declined.

Let's take a house you buy for $500,000. When you look for a mortgage, the lender wants you to put 20% down ($100,000). That means your loan will be $400,000 (ignoring fees). What you owe is the balance on your mortgage, regardless of the resale value of the house. If you could sell it for $800,000, you'd owe $400,000. The same is true if the market crashes and you could only sell the house for $200,000--your mortgage is a contract, and you still owe $400,000.

This is why some people are now walking away from their houses--the amount they owe is far more than they could pay even by selling the house, and they don't think it's economically sensible (or possible) to keep making mortgage payments.

Out of curiosity, I just did an online mortgage calculation for $400,000 at 6% for 30 years. The balance would fall below $300,000 in year 14, month 8; below $200,000 in year 21, month 12. --- OtherDave (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not exactly that "most mortgages stack their interest early on in the mortgage term" in a devious way. Early on you owe the "bank" the greatest amount and that is what the interest payment is based on. An additional amount is added to the payment which goes to reduce the debt a bit. The following month the interest is calculated on this slightly smaller debt (and to keep the monthly payment the same) a slightly larger amount as applied to reduce the loan amount etc, etc... The entire calculation is based on the concept that the interest due each month is calculated on the loan size for that month. You're correct that the amount of interest due each month is vastly greater at the beginning of the loan period but that's when the debt is at its greatest. hydnjo talk 05:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For more details, see Amortization schedule. -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roller coaster ride!

You may feel scared at the top of a roller coaster ride in the amusement parks, but you never fall even when you are upside down. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.103.69.24 (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centripetal force. To make it sound simpler than it really is, but just so you get the gist, when you move in a circle, it feels like you're being pushed to the outside of the circle. In a loop-the-loop on a roller coaster, the outside of the circle is usually the seat beneath you (or above you, as the case may be). You can see the same thing if you fill an ice cream bucket with water and swing it around in a vertical circle fast enough, the water won't spill when the bucket is upside down. (Don't try this one indoors!)

Unless of course you're on one of those roller coasters where they stop you at the top of the loop and the attendant laughs while you scream (I've been on one of those). Then, since you're not moving around the circle, there is no centripetal force pushing you against your seat and you're at the mercy of the safety restraints, which is what's keeping you from falling out. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Centripetal force" is wrong.

There are two ways to view the answer: you can consider it in your own reference frame, which is rotating, or in the reference frame of the roller coaster, which is not.

In a rotating reference frame, you feel a centrifugal force that pushes you away from the center of rotation. In the case of the roller-coaster loop, you are rotating rapidly enough (as the car follows the top arc of the loop) that this force is stronger than gravity. It keeps your car pressed against the track, and you pressed against your seat, so you do not fall.
In an inertial (non-rotating) reference frame, your upward motion as you enter the loop provides you with upward momentum. You are pulled downward by gravity and also pressed downward and inward by the reaction force exerted by the roller-coaster's structure as the car, with its upward momentum, presses against it. Because gravity alone is not strong enough to overcome your momentum in the time required for the car to follow the curving path, you do not fall away from the track (and again, you do not fall out of your seat).

In the non-rotating reference frame, the forces I mentioned are partly causing you to move toward the center of the arc, which means it makes you rotate, and partly changing your speed along the path. The term "centripetal force" refers to the part that causes you to rotate. It is exactly equal in magnitude to the centrifugal force that you feel in the rotating reference frame, but opposite in direction.

By the way, this should really have been a Science Desk question. --Anonymous, 00:34 UTC, January 7, 2009.

My bad. I couldn't remember if it was centripetal or centrifugal, so I looked over my high school physics notes and thought I had it figured out. Apparently I had it figured out wrong. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be extra sure the cars have underfriction and you have a bar holding you into the seat so eve if for some strange reason it went a bit slow here's a safety factor. Dmcq (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passport messages

According to Passport a typical passport message says that so-and-so requests that the bearer be allowed to travel, however my UK passport says "requests and requires". Who is the Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State to require anything of foreign countries? --Tango (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a throwback to the days of the Empire. Astronaut (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The British Empire never included the whole world. I think the intended point that the passport is asserting is that the bearer has a right to travel and even a foreign country must admit this, so interference with that right will not be viewed lightly.

By the way, looking back at my Canadian passports over the years, they've always shown that the Minister of Foreign Affairs "requests, in the name of Her Majesty the Queen". This is true even back to the 1970s when they still included the words "a Canadian citizen is a British subject", although the minister's title has varied. --Anonymous, 00:42 UTC, January 7, 2009.

Yes, UK passports are also issued in the name of HM The Queen, but she doesn't have any authority over other countries (other than commonwealth realms) either. --Tango (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't have any "authority" to demand things, even in the UK, let alone in other Commonwealth realms, let alone in other countries. The assertion of the right to travel unhindered, the one that Anonymous refers to, is just that, an assertion, but it's always been meaningless in the face of the laws of foreign countries. They get to decide these matter for themselves. John Howard may have become famous for saying "We will decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances in which they come", but that sentiment is as old as the hills. And rightly so. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When this phrase was first used Britain had an Empire 'on which the sun never set'. She was powerful and arrogant after a century of domination. Thus she could request and require. i.e. demand. Other countries knew it was not a good idea to mess with a British citizen, retribution would follow. Of course, today, it is simply a phrase passed down which (unfortunately) has little or no power any longer.86.197.175.47 (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)DT[reply]

Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State Requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those who it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.
smacks of Pax Britannica and Palmerston's willingness to send a gunboat to protect any British subject threatened by 'Johnny Foreigner'. However much has changed in British society, the Victorian wording of the passport invokes the pride in being a 'subject' of the British Crown which, despite the submission to authority the word emphasises, carries rights and freedoms equal and often superior to many a republic.Arthur, J. (2001). Citizenship through Secondary History. p. 142. OCLC 47727410

...this may seem rather dated, even unreal, to contemporary readers who are likely to have a much less deferential attitude than their forebears towards the British Monarchy and who probably feel the need to suspend their disbelief (and suppress a giggle) when reading the portentous words on the first inside page of their British passports. Yet, on the other hand, it is undeniable that many people both within and outside the British Isles are only too keen to secure a British passport as a confirmation of British citizenship in a world in which this document still commands a relatively high degree of status and, alas, a substantial black market value. Such people are not particularly interested in the dignified aspects of British subjecthood, but they are undoubtedly interested in the utilitarian benefits of British citizenship which now come with possession of a bona fide British passport. Forman, F. N. (2002). Constitutional Change in the United Kingdom. p. 325. OCLC 49873365

On Sunday I made a break for the Syrian border anyway, arriving there after a nerve-shredding drive up the Bekaa valley with a knowledgeable cabbie.Arriving home from Damascus the following afternoon, I met a British woman who had escaped via Tripoli and had been shot at on the way. She was still seething at the embassy's feeble showing.
Old hands have since advised me that to know whats happening in a war zone, you call the Americans, and if you need rescuing, call the French.
But Lebanese friends guffawed as I read from my passport: Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs requests and requires...Now I realise this imperial pretension really is as far as our embassies go. We pay for the diplomats to attend their drinks parties; but when there's a coup, only the taxi drivers will save us. Neather, Andrew. (16 May 2008). Our Chaps Dont Know There's a War On. The Evening Standard

—eric 18:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for your interesting and enlightening answers. --Tango (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requires in this context means needs. The SoS is saying that s/he not only requests cooperation, but s/he needs your coperation to allow the citizen to pass. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil burnstein (talk • contribs) 01:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the Queen need me to able to go on holiday? --Tango (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case that was a serious question, it's not she needs her subjects to go on holiday. It's that, when they do, and they travel to foreign countries, she needs the cooperation of foreign governments in enabling her subjects to enter those countries and partake of their splendours without let or hindrance. Btw, my Australian passport has no mention of "require":

The Governor-General, being the representative in Australia of Her Majesty (not Her Brittanic Majesty) Queen Elizabeth the Second, requests all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer, an Australian Citizen (note capital C), to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford him or her every assistance and protection of which he or she may stand in need. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]