Soliton signing out!

12/25/2008 | Soliton

[DevNet]

. Volume can be easily determined by measuring how much water is displaced by submerging that body.

No it can't. Every time I put the speaker underwater it stops working - this proves that you can not use water to measure volume.

[NinoFan]

Oh, that was a groaner.

[metmom]

Translation:
We don’t have to prove that we’re right. Everyone else has to prove that we’re wrong.

What a racket.

[DevNet]

When posting the AIG motto you really should give them credit.

[Swordmaker]

No it can't. Every time I put the speaker underwater it stops working - this proves that you can not use water to measure volume.,p> Nope, you have proved nothing. You have merely falsified the contention that all definitions of "Volume" can be measured by displacement... now let's see if we can determine how many volumes comprise the Encyclopedia Britannica by immersing a set in water.

[DevNet]

The answer I received after doing the experiment was Pie. Minced Meat pie to be exact.

[Swordmaker]

The answer I received after doing the experiment was Pie.

Excellent! That means the results are reproducible... except I got Lemon Meringue Pie, but that well within the range of experimental error... Shall we publish?

[MHGinTN]

Wait! I got chocolate yogurt pie with peanut butter/coolwhip topping. Can I be named also?

[Swordmaker]

Wait! I got chocolate yogurt pie with peanut butter/coolwhip topping. Can I be named also?

Hop on board. The More the Merriam... Webster that is. Of course the real test beyond reproducibility is the predictions based on our observations...I wonder if this is a universal phenomenon? Would we get pie with dictionaries volumes? How about all the volumes of the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language? Probably get Shepherd's Pie! We should check for that.

I just tossed in a Dictionary of Mathematics and the results were π e, so I multiplied 3.14159 by 2.71828183 and got Apple π ala Mode! I think we should check the frequency of the results...

I think were on to something here...

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Oh...and last time I checked, objects in motion still tended to remain in motion,

You are talking to a guy that believes the Sun's "actual" position leads its "apparent" position in the sky by 2.1 degrees, i.e., that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Welcome back.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

For the record, say good by to Soliton

And say hello to DevNet.

[Sam's Army]

In other news: Death and Taxes no longer exist.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

By the way, it is impossible to prove anything

I just proved there is a cabbage in my fridge. All I had to do is open the door and check.

[DoctorMichael]

Do you really think that you’ll win people over like that?

Given that you and others here very apparently seem to know everything already, why try.

(See my Tagline)

[LeGrande]

Newtons laws are not wrong. It just depends on how they are used and what reference frame the measurements are made in.

How do they work at relativistic speeds? And how precise are they at non relativistic speeds? 12 decimals? That isn't precise enough.

[LeGrande]

Newtons laws are wrong.

Please provide sources to back up your contention.

Newton is M=A/F. Einstein is M=C²/E. Einstein is correct and Newton is wrong.

Are you disputing the math? We have gone down this road before and you don't seem to understand E=MC². May I suggest "Relativity" by Einstein? It is an excellent primer on the subject.

[LeGrande]

Sure...after all, we might be wrong about that whole germ theory thing...it's not proven, somebody may come along and falsify it.

That is how science works and that is why they are theories not facts or laws.

If I take a ball and drop it, am I proving the Law of Gravity? Einstein showed that gravity is a distortion of space.

[LeGrande]

Oh...and last time I checked, objects in motion still tended to remain in motion, objects at rest still tended to remain at rest and every action still had an equal and opposite reaction.

That is very interesting. Do you know of any objects that are at rest? I don't.

Lets say that you take two masses and speed them up to close to the speed of light will you agree that their masses have increased? I will assume an affirmative. Now lets slam them together so that they are now at rest relative to you. Have the masses of the particles stayed the same, increased or returned to the same mass as before the acceleration?

[LeGrande]

I mean, after all, its impossible for you to prove that your statement is true, but everybody can come along and falsify it.

Go for it!