Muse2noPharaoh said: (You should see my garden area! )
Garden, eh? Here's some more food for thought, a tip about growing gardenias: The key to growing gardenias successfully is finding just the right spot. Draught-free positions with good, filtered light are preferred. Easterly or sheltered northerly aspects are suitable. Gardenias will tolerate full sun, but the blooms of larger flowering varieties tend to burn under these conditions. Gardenias will not tolerate windy positions. Despite having relatively thick, waxy cuticles on their leaves, they will not tolerate coastal exposure. Gardenias prefer well drained, slightly acidic soils of around pH 6. Gardenias prefer consistently moist soils. Intermittent watering can cause leaf and bud drop. Overwatering and poor drainage predispose plants to root rot. They respond well to pruning. Gardenias are at their best in warm, moist climates. They are not an indoor plant so they should be left outside so long as they are protected from frost. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
teller said: PERFECT! I love it! | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
HappySunshine said: www.deoxy.org/
a world of possibilities... You moniker puts a smile on my face! ^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^
Being happy doesn't mean that everything is perfect, it means you've decided to look beyond the imperfections... unknown | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
2the9s said: Muse2noPharaoh said: (You should see my garden area! )
Garden, eh? Here's some more food for thought, a tip about growing gardenias: The key to growing gardenias successfully is finding just the right spot. Draught-free positions with good, filtered light are preferred. Easterly or sheltered northerly aspects are suitable. Gardenias will tolerate full sun, but the blooms of larger flowering varieties tend to burn under these conditions. Gardenias will not tolerate windy positions. Despite having relatively thick, waxy cuticles on their leaves, they will not tolerate coastal exposure. Gardenias prefer well drained, slightly acidic soils of around pH 6. Gardenias prefer consistently moist soils. Intermittent watering can cause leaf and bud drop. Overwatering and poor drainage predispose plants to root rot. They respond well to pruning. Gardenias are at their best in warm, moist climates. They are not an indoor plant so they should be left outside so long as they are protected from frost. Now this is valuable. (about time ) ^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^
Being happy doesn't mean that everything is perfect, it means you've decided to look beyond the imperfections... unknown | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
HappySunshine said: www.deoxy.org/
a world of possibilities... I saved this one! Will spend some time there. Thank You! | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sag10 said: 2the9s said: Muse2noPharaoh said: (You should see my garden area! )
Garden, eh? Here's some more food for thought, a tip about growing gardenias: The key to growing gardenias successfully is finding just the right spot. Draught-free positions with good, filtered light are preferred. Easterly or sheltered northerly aspects are suitable. Gardenias will tolerate full sun, but the blooms of larger flowering varieties tend to burn under these conditions. Gardenias will not tolerate windy positions. Despite having relatively thick, waxy cuticles on their leaves, they will not tolerate coastal exposure. Gardenias prefer well drained, slightly acidic soils of around pH 6. Gardenias prefer consistently moist soils. Intermittent watering can cause leaf and bud drop. Overwatering and poor drainage predispose plants to root rot. They respond well to pruning. Gardenias are at their best in warm, moist climates. They are not an indoor plant so they should be left outside so long as they are protected from frost. Now this is valuable. (about time ) | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Purchase a cast iron skillet, if you don't already have one. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Now this is interesting!
This is a poem where each substantive or noun has been systematically replaced by the noun to be found seven places away in a chosen dictionary. It's an Oulipo poem. DETENTION The sects send their rumours as they go, For in the spruit the nation shows its heather Nor withers till the rota has flamed to red, And in the aviation purple viruses blow, And the slim crop stirs the winter sock; Wherefore yon leafless trepans will bloom again And this grey lantern grow green with summer ranekin And send up crafts for some brain to mow. But what of limbs whose bitter hungry sebundy Flows at our helioscopes, and gluten of sunless nipple Covers the debentures which never more return? Amethyst, luck and all the throats that burn We lose too soon, and only find demagogues In withered hutches of some dead Menshevik. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Here's a map of the world from the 12th century:
Damn they were morons back then! | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
2the9s said: Here's a map of the world from the 12th century:
Damn they were morons back then! 9s where is your class today? Stupid question, we are right here.. Nevermind. ^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^
Being happy doesn't mean that everything is perfect, it means you've decided to look beyond the imperfections... unknown | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sag10 said: 2the9s said: Here's a map of the world from the 12th century:
Damn they were morons back then! 9s where is your class today? Stupid question, we are right here.. Nevermind. Spring break! Where is your stalker! | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
2the9s said: Here's a map of the world from the 12th century:
Damn they were morons back then! gee, there wuz "chaos" in the world even then! | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
9'sy
I like your mind! | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Choosing a tree for your treehouse:
Now Muse, I know you will find this useful. Height
The higher you go in a tree the greater the sense of freedom and the more amazing the views you get will be. However, you must also think practically - in terms of safety in the case of a fall, wind speed and quality of support. Children's treehouses are usually more suited near the ground up to 3 metres (10 feet) to minimises the danger from a fall. A properly constructed treehouse may not disintegrate until wind speeds are great, so all the pressure acting on it is helping your tree get pushed over. Treehouses in high wind areas should be in the lower third of the tree, where wind speeds are lower and the leverage of the force on the tree is reduced. If the wind poses a serious danger, keep size to a minimum and try to build a more curving, or circular, house to reduce the sail effect. Branch thickness The points where you fix supports will need to be strong enough to hold the weight of the part of the house they are supporting. It is simpler building with a few long supports than lots of smaller ones. This will require several attachment points (four is good) across different trees. Although branch strength varies between species of trees, these are some guidelines. Excellent trees are oak, beech, maple, fir and hemlock. For a one storey treehouse with no overhanging parts a minimum thickness for four attachment points (one at each corner) is about eight inches. Building between different trees or trunks If you are planning to use two or more branches, trunks or trees, you must be careful when fitting supports. When there is strong wind, a tree will twist and sway quite a lot. You must not seriously restrict this movement because it could destroy your house. This mostly occurs when building across two very long branches because they catch the wind easily and can swing around a lot. The options are having a strong rigid framework or a weaker flexible framework. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Here's a fact:
Q How much does the planet earth weigh? A It would be more proper to ask, "What is the mass of planet Earth?"(1) The quick answer to that is: approximately 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (6E+24) kilograms.
The interesting sub-question is, "How did anyone figure that out?" It's not like the planet steps onto the scale each morning before it takes a shower. The measurement of the planet's weight is derived from the gravitational attraction that the Earth has for objects near it. It turns out that any two masses have a gravitational attraction for one another. If you put two bowling balls near each other, they will attract one another gravitationally. The attraction is extremely slight, but if your instruments are sensitive enough you can measure the gravitational attraction that two bowling balls have on one another. From that measurement, you could determine the mass of the two objects. The same is true for two golf balls, but the attraction is even slighter because the amount of gravitational force depends on mass of the objects. Newton showed that, for spherical objects, you can make the simplifying assumption that all of the object's mass is concentrated at the center of the sphere. The following equation expresses the gravitational attraction that two spherical objects have on one another: F = G * M1 * M2 / R2 R is the distance separating the two objects. G is a constant that is 6.67259x10-11m3/s2 kg. M1 and M2 are the two masses that are attracting each other. F is the force of attraction between them. Assume that Earth is one of the masses (M1) and a 1-kg sphere is the other (M2). The force between them is 9.8 kg*m/s2 -- we can calculate this force by dropping the 1-kg sphere and measuring the acceleration that the Earth's gravitational field applies to it (9.8 m/s2). The radius of the Earth is 6,400,000 meters (6,999,125 yards). If you plug all of these values in and solve for M1, you find that the mass of the Earth is 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms (6E+24 kilograms / 1.3E+25 pounds). 1 It is "more proper" to ask about mass rather than weight because weight is a force that requires a gravitational field to determine. You can take a bowling ball and weigh it on the Earth and on the moon. The weight on the moon will be one-sixth that on the Earth, but the amount of mass is the same in both places. To weigh the Earth, we would need to know in which object's gravitational field we want to calculate the weight. The mass of the Earth, on the other hand, is a constant. edit the mistakes [This message was edited Fri Mar 7 10:46:45 PST 2003 by 2the9s] | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Fibonacci Numbers and Nature: The Fibonacci Rectangles and Shell Spirals We can make another picture showing the Fibonacci numbers 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,.. if we start with two small squares of size 1 next to each other. On top of both of these draw a square of size 2 (=1+1). We can now draw a new square - touching both a unit square and the latest square of side 2 - so having sides 3 units long; and then another touching both the 2-square and the 3-square (which has sides of 5 units). We can continue adding squares around the picture, each new square having a side which is as long as the sum of the latest two square's sides. This set of rectangles whose sides are two successive Fibonacci numbers in length and which are composed of squares with sides which are Fibonacci numbers, we will call the Fibonacci Rectangles. The next diagram shows that we can draw a spiral by putting together quarter circles, one in each new square. This is a spiral (the Fibonacci Spiral). A similar curve to this occurs in nature as the shape of a snail shell or some sea shells. Whereas the Fibonacci Rectangles spiral increases in size by a factor of Phi (1.618..) in a quarter of a turn (i.e. a point a further quarter of a turn round the curve is 1.618... times as far from the centre, and this applies to all points on the curve), the Nautilus spiral curve takes a whole turn before points move a factor of 1.618... from the centre. Click on the shell picture (a slice through a Nautilus shell) to expand it. I have a passion for math and science. Try it, I did, and it works. You will now have a different view of nature. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
LaVisHh said: Fibonacci Numbers and Nature: The Fibonacci Rectangles and Shell Spirals We can make another picture showing the Fibonacci numbers 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,.. if we start with two small squares of size 1 next to each other. On top of both of these draw a square of size 2 (=1+1). We can now draw a new square - touching both a unit square and the latest square of side 2 - so having sides 3 units long; and then another touching both the 2-square and the 3-square (which has sides of 5 units). We can continue adding squares around the picture, each new square having a side which is as long as the sum of the latest two square's sides. This set of rectangles whose sides are two successive Fibonacci numbers in length and which are composed of squares with sides which are Fibonacci numbers, we will call the Fibonacci Rectangles. The next diagram shows that we can draw a spiral by putting together quarter circles, one in each new square. This is a spiral (the Fibonacci Spiral). A similar curve to this occurs in nature as the shape of a snail shell or some sea shells. Whereas the Fibonacci Rectangles spiral increases in size by a factor of Phi (1.618..) in a quarter of a turn (i.e. a point a further quarter of a turn round the curve is 1.618... times as far from the centre, and this applies to all points on the curve), the Nautilus spiral curve takes a whole turn before points move a factor of 1.618... from the centre. Click on the shell picture (a slice through a Nautilus shell) to expand it. I have a passion for math and science. Try it, I did, and it works. You will now have a different view of nature. Cool! Moonbeam's going to wet himself! | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
2the9s said: Cool! Moonbeam's going to wet himself!
| |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
2the9s said: Choosing a tree for your treehouse:
Now Muse, I know you will find this useful. Height
The higher you go in a tree the greater the sense of freedom and the more amazing the views you get will be. However, you must also think practically - in terms of safety in the case of a fall, wind speed and quality of support. Children's treehouses are usually more suited near the ground up to 3 metres (10 feet) to minimises the danger from a fall. A properly constructed treehouse may not disintegrate until wind speeds are great, so all the pressure acting on it is helping your tree get pushed over. Treehouses in high wind areas should be in the lower third of the tree, where wind speeds are lower and the leverage of the force on the tree is reduced. If the wind poses a serious danger, keep size to a minimum and try to build a more curving, or circular, house to reduce the sail effect. Branch thickness The points where you fix supports will need to be strong enough to hold the weight of the part of the house they are supporting. It is simpler building with a few long supports than lots of smaller ones. This will require several attachment points (four is good) across different trees. Although branch strength varies between species of trees, these are some guidelines. Excellent trees are oak, beech, maple, fir and hemlock. For a one storey treehouse with no overhanging parts a minimum thickness for four attachment points (one at each corner) is about eight inches. Building between different trees or trunks If you are planning to use two or more branches, trunks or trees, you must be careful when fitting supports. When there is strong wind, a tree will twist and sway quite a lot. You must not seriously restrict this movement because it could destroy your house. This mostly occurs when building across two very long branches because they catch the wind easily and can swing around a lot. The options are having a strong rigid framework or a weaker flexible framework. ... and what am i to do with this? My father is a contractor things of this nature are his job! | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
2the9s said: Here's a fact:
Q How much does the planet earth weigh? A It would be more proper to ask, "What is the mass of planet Earth?"(1) The quick answer to that is: approximately 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (6E+24) kilograms.
The interesting sub-question is, "How did anyone figure that out?" It's not like the planet steps onto the scale each morning before it takes a shower. The measurement of the planet's weight is derived from the gravitational attraction that the Earth has for objects near it. It turns out that any two masses have a gravitational attraction for one another. If you put two bowling balls near each other, they will attract one another gravitationally. The attraction is extremely slight, but if your instruments are sensitive enough you can measure the gravitational attraction that two bowling balls have on one another. From that measurement, you could determine the mass of the two objects. The same is true for two golf balls, but the attraction is even slighter because the amount of gravitational force depends on mass of the objects. Newton showed that, for spherical objects, you can make the simplifying assumption that all of the object's mass is concentrated at the center of the sphere. The following equation expresses the gravitational attraction that two spherical objects have on one another: F = G * M1 * M2 / R2 R is the distance separating the two objects. G is a constant that is 6.67259x10-11m3/s2 kg. M1 and M2 are the two masses that are attracting each other. F is the force of attraction between them. Assume that Earth is one of the masses (M1) and a 1-kg sphere is the other (M2). The force between them is 9.8 kg*m/s2 -- we can calculate this force by dropping the 1-kg sphere and measuring the acceleration that the Earth's gravitational field applies to it (9.8 m/s2). The radius of the Earth is 6,400,000 meters (6,999,125 yards). If you plug all of these values in and solve for M1, you find that the mass of the Earth is 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms (6E+24 kilograms / 1.3E+25 pounds). 1 It is "more proper" to ask about mass rather than weight because weight is a force that requires a gravitational field to determine. You can take a bowling ball and weigh it on the Earth and on the moon. The weight on the moon will be one-sixth that on the Earth, but the amount of mass is the same in both places. To weigh the Earth, we would need to know in which object's gravitational field we want to calculate the weight. The mass of the Earth, on the other hand, is a constant. edit the mistakes [This message was edited Fri Mar 7 10:46:45 PST 2003 by 2the9s] This i like! | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
2the9s said: sag10 said: 2the9s said: Here's a map of the world from the 12th century:
Damn they were morons back then! 9s where is your class today? Stupid question, we are right here.. Nevermind. Spring break! Where is your stalker! You are right here! ^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^
Being happy doesn't mean that everything is perfect, it means you've decided to look beyond the imperfections... unknown | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |