edna Posted December 16, 2006 Report Share Posted December 16, 2006 god is dead God is dead. Signed: Nietzche Nietzche is dead. Signed: God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted December 16, 2006 Report Share Posted December 16, 2006 ^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edna Posted December 16, 2006 Report Share Posted December 16, 2006 That was a famous graffiti from the late sixties... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted December 16, 2006 Report Share Posted December 16, 2006 and very funny! I wrote it down, so I won't forget it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c_s_1987 Posted December 16, 2006 Report Share Posted December 16, 2006 (edited) If anyone considers the following post sexist - sorry. A proof that women are evil. First we state the women require time and money. Women = Time * Money And everyone knows that "time is money". Time = Money So line one can be restated as: Women = Money * Money Women = Money^2 We also know that money is "the root of all evil". Money = sqrt(Evil) Women = Money^2 = Evil Women = Evil Therefore women are evil. Oh yes, and to edna's post. Edited December 16, 2006 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcM Posted December 16, 2006 Report Share Posted December 16, 2006 good night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawna Posted December 16, 2006 Report Share Posted December 16, 2006 Women are all evil. It just takes some of them longer to realize their potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted December 16, 2006 Report Share Posted December 16, 2006 I love maths jokes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c_s_1987 Posted December 18, 2006 Report Share Posted December 18, 2006 *reminds self to find more maths jokes* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted December 18, 2006 Report Share Posted December 18, 2006 Postulate 1: Knowledge is Power. Postulate 2: Time is Money. As every engineer knows: Power = Work / Time And since Knowledge = Power and Time = Money It is therefore true that Knowledge = Work / Money . Solving for Money, we get: Money = Work / Knowledge Thus, as Knowledge approaches zero, Money approaches infinity, regardless of the amount of Work done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted December 18, 2006 Report Share Posted December 18, 2006 *excited hand clapping* I'd repeat what I said earlier, but I don't want to pressurise anyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Seeker Posted December 18, 2006 Report Share Posted December 18, 2006 I'm worse at Maths than I thought I was, which isn't very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJonSurfer Posted December 18, 2006 Report Share Posted December 18, 2006 During High School Geometry, I stood up in front of the class to explain Euclid's Parallel Postulate....when finished, my teacher said, "Well that was a fine explanation of Ron's Parallel Postulate, what about Euclid's?" Ahem: Two lines in two-dimensional Euclidean space are said to be parallel if they do not intersect. In three-dimensional Euclidean space, parallel lines not only fail to intersect, but also maintain a constant separation between points closest to each other on the two lines. Lines in three-space that are not parallel but do not intersect are called skew lines. If lines and are parallel, the notation is used. In a non-Euclidean geometry, the concept of parallelism must be modified from its intuitive meaning. This is accomplished by changing the so-called parallel postulate. While this has counterintuitive results, the geometries so defined are still completely self-consistent. In a triangle , a triangle median bisects all segments parallel to a given side (OK I know you know I cheated to get this information) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted December 18, 2006 Report Share Posted December 18, 2006 Thank you. But that wasn't a joke... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJonSurfer Posted December 18, 2006 Report Share Posted December 18, 2006 My teacher thought it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted December 18, 2006 Report Share Posted December 18, 2006 (edited) There's just one part I don't understand so I disregard it. I don't know Euclidian anything so it might be entirely my fault if I understand what I do. Edited December 18, 2006 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawna Posted December 18, 2006 Report Share Posted December 18, 2006 I'm no good with math, either, so everything that RonJohn said is completely beyond me. I do, however, believe in a parallel universe. However, my question is (and I know I've mentioned this before 100 years ago): if you're on a plane hurtling through the air at 600 mph, and you jump into the air for a second, does the plane weigh less for that second while you're in the air? And do you stay stationary while the plane continues forward for that second of time? Things that make you say, "hmmmm..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Seeker Posted December 18, 2006 Report Share Posted December 18, 2006 No, you don't stay stationary, because you've got the same speed as the plane, I think. I'm not sure about the first part, but I don't think so. You're still inside of the plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJonSurfer Posted December 18, 2006 Report Share Posted December 18, 2006 I'm no good with math, either, so everything that RonJohn said is completely beyond me. I do, however, believe in a parallel universe. However, my question is (and I know I've mentioned this before 100 years ago): if you're on a plane hurtling through the air at 600 mph, and you jump into the air for a second, does the plane weigh less for that second while you're in the air? And do you stay stationary while the plane continues forward for that second of time? Things that make you say, "hmmmm..." That question is on the SAT's isn't it? Therefore, the answer is "C". Thank You. Oh and one more thing...parallel lines never meet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSYCHOcatholic Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 Well...im suing... You guys made my brain explode...and i kinda needed it. THANKS!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawna Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 Oh and one more thing...parallel lines never meet. Mr. Smarty-pants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c_s_1987 Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 Postulate 1: Knowledge is Power. Postulate 2: Time is Money. As every engineer knows: Power = Work / Time And since Knowledge = Power and Time = Money It is therefore true that Knowledge = Work / Money . Solving for Money, we get: Money = Work / Knowledge Thus, as Knowledge approaches zero, Money approaches infinity, regardless of the amount of Work done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c_s_1987 Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 I'm no good with math, either, so everything that RonJohn said is completely beyond me. I do, however, believe in a parallel universe. However, my question is (and I know I've mentioned this before 100 years ago): if you're on a plane hurtling through the air at 600 mph, and you jump into the air for a second, does the plane weigh less for that second while you're in the air? And do you stay stationary while the plane continues forward for that second of time? Things that make you say, "hmmmm..." To save you from reading my explanation, the answer to the first part is that it depends on whether you consider the jumping person part of the plane or not, and the answer to the second question is most definitely no. The problem with the first part of the question is that it really depends on personal opinion. If you think an airborne person inside a plane is part of the plane, then it does weigh the same, but if you do not consider the person to be part of the plane, then it weighs less. From a physics perspective, the plane does weigh less. The inertia, momentum and kinetic energy of the plane would decrease slightly, and would be transferred to the person. The quantities would then be transferred back to the plane when the person falls to the floor of the plane, since the person can be considered part of the plane again. If you did remain stationary while you jumped, you would fly backwards in the plane at 600mph (since the plane would be travelling 600mph faster than you), and you would almost certainly die. Even if you were only in the air for one second, you would travel over 250 metres towards the back of the plane in that time. The reason why you continue to travel at the same speed as the plane while in the air is because of Newton's First Law - "A body at rest remains at rest, and a body in motion continues to move in a straight line with a constant speed unless and until an external unbalanced force acts upon it". Sorry if I caused further brain explosions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Fish Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 The problem with the first part of the question is that it really depends on personal opinion. If you think an airborne person inside a plane is part of the plane, then it does weigh the same, but if you do not consider the person to be part of the plane, then it weighs less. From a physics perspective, the plane does weigh less. The inertia, momentum and kinetic energy of the plane would decrease slightly, and would be transferred to the person. The quantities would then be transferred back to the plane when the person falls to the floor of the plane, since the person can be considered part of the plane again. Man, I was just thinking over this. Good thing we have someone who knows what they're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSYCHOcatholic Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 In The Beginning... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now