.
Printable View
.
<he he. It did it again. Took your advice, Az. thanks. :)>
*smiling and horribly disappointed at being unable to stump abdo* yes. You're just as astute as I thought you were. Two seconds, right? Ax, yes, your answer could have worked too. I like the idea that they weren't actually related, but that was a fault on my part-it was supposed to be a father and his son. I suppose it could be a stepdad too. But the point is to challenge the person's perception of gender roles; most people start thinking along the line of fathers when they come across it, and ignore the fact he must also have a mother. Abdo, do you intend on ever telling us the answer to your 'reading rainbow' riddle? Do tell.Quote:
Originally posted by AbdoRinbo
The surgeon was his mother.
Ax, I don't really see what earth years and gravitational acceleration have to do with the velocity of neutrinos (though I suppose it's all relative). ?:confused: My point about quantum is that they don't seem that sure of their theories because how sure can they be of their data? Well, I mean, you know, they have to change their theories to suit reality because it's a physical science, but then how sure are they of their perceptions of reality? *drifting off into unknown territory* One thing I meant to ask you about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (As I understand it, the more precisely momentum is known, the less precisely position.) It's not just that they can't measure it accurately, it's that the particles can't possess the two characteristics. Why not? *feels like she's asking a dumb question, but hasn't studied quantum so wouldn't know anyway. Admitting own ignorance*
Abs, I think Ax was relating to physics when he said the sphere was not infinately divisible. Physicists probably wouldn't want that because then couldn't everything be made up of nothing? (since the infinitesmally small parts would tend to zero) Whilst it could be mathematically (wondering about physically?) broken up into an infinite number of parts (I think) and still take up finite space, the paradox was that it could do that and then be rebuilt into something with twice the volume, and the same density, which physically wouldn't work, and perhaps would only work mathematically if the sphere had infinite density (going by what Az said. not sure on this one, since I didn't fully get the theory to begin with). Anyway, by mass over volume, the only way density could hold is if it had infinite mass. Or so it would seem..... I think, anyway... but do you think something could have infinite mass?
So can someone explain russell's paradox to me? :confused:
.
Oh no..... those things? I thought it was math....Aren't you going to give the ans to your riddle?
.
ok, will SKIPPY PLEASE ans the riddle?
.
.
Abs, you gotta tell me the keyboard command for acute accents and accent graves. I want to be able to say *ss, at least. (but we're kinda getting off topic here.....)
.
Did you just call me an *sshole???!! As for keyboard commands, I definately remember simpler ones from when I did French. that requires waaaayy too much effort than I'm willing to put in.
*wondering when Az will post so we can get back on topic*
.
real mature.
.
Yeah. Ouch. Never heard those before. :rolleyes: :P