stevestojan Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Happens all the time. I just don't feel the need to post every ignorant half-formed thought that passes through my head as a desperate cry for attention, so you don't often see it... 234318[/snapback] So, you have 12,000+ fully informed, intelligent thoughts on here, and yet the other type of thoughts happen all the time? Man, even if your ratio is 2:1, you must have a whole stockpile of moronic thoughts... (how's that for some lahjik?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 So, you have 12,000+ fully informed, intelligent thoughts on here, and yet the other type of thoughts happen all the time? Man, even if your ratio is 2:1, you must have a whole stockpile of moronic thoughts... (how's that for some lahjik?) 234325[/snapback] Stevie putting old Tommy in his place. Well maybe he is getting wiser with age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assquatch Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Happens all the time. I just don't feel the need to post every ignorant half-formed thought that passes through my head as a desperate cry for attention, so you don't often see it... 234318[/snapback] Could you type that again slower? Those of us who can only half-form our thoughts (Oh look! A bird!) can't quite keep up with your dizzying intellect or your 12,500 fully-formed thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kegtapr Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 SPOILER BELOW Next week, they're still on a island. Shocking isn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Anybody catch the possible reference to the British show "The Office?" The daughter of the guy who gave Charlie a job told him that her father was visiting "a paper company in Slough." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 So, you have 12,000+ fully informed, intelligent thoughts on here, and yet the other type of thoughts happen all the time? Man, even if your ratio is 2:1, you must have a whole stockpile of moronic thoughts... (how's that for some lahjik?) 234325[/snapback] Twelve thousand posts in several years. As opposed to your twelve thousand posts in, what, four months? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Could you type that again slower? Those of us who can only half-form our thoughts (Oh look! A bird!) can't quite keep up with your dizzying intellect or your 12,500 fully-formed thoughts. 235072[/snapback] ...he says, in response to a statement that can only offend precisely those that deserve to be offended by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kegtapr Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Twelve thousand posts in several years. As opposed to your twelve thousand posts in, what, four months? 235082[/snapback] Time is relative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Twelve thousand posts in several years. As opposed to your twelve thousand posts in, what, four months? 235082[/snapback] 16 months... but remember, i post all of my moronic thoughts. you keep yours to yourself. if you posted everything, you'd have 50.000+, as you stated you have moronic thoughts all the time. by the way, i figured you would like to know, i am currently laying on my couch, smoking a cigarette, watching tv, and typing this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 16 months... but remember, i post all of my moronic thoughts. you keep yours to yourself. if you posted everything, you'd have 50.000+, as you stated you have moronic thoughts all the time. Hearsay. I could have been lying to make a point. For all you know, I only very rarely have moronic thoughts. by the way, i figured you would like to know, i am currently laying on my couch, smoking a cigarette, watching tv, and typing this... 235090[/snapback] I'll file that under "Images I neither needed nor care about". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Hearsay. I could have been lying to make a point. For all you know, I only very rarely have moronic thoughts.I'll file that under "Images I neither needed nor care about". 235101[/snapback] i know this is a wierd place for this question, but you like weird sh-- like this. at work, we were discussing terminal velocity. However, techically, in a vacuum, there would be no terminal velocity. So, in theory, what would happen if you had a vacuum that was incredilby tall... and i mean like hundreds of yards tall or taller. Now, if you were to (again, this is all in theory) take an object, lets say a steel ball, and drop it, could it, in theory, gain so much speed, it would eventually surpass the speed on light? I mean, as it is right now, we have nothing that can go that fast, but in a "bottomless vacuum", couldn't this happen? Ok, I am seriously looking for your thoughts on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puhonix Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Just a note from a newbie on the whole Driveshaft thing, according to an interview with the actor that plays Charlie, His character was supposed to be from a rock band, that was in the script, but... and this can shoot down the theory real fast... He made up the little diddy and song on the set during the filming. So unless the writers are quick to fit this in, I think its a dud theory. However, I am curious, does this effectively end the Ethan story line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 i know this is a wierd place for this question, but you like weird sh-- like this. at work, we were discussing terminal velocity. However, techically, in a vacuum, there would be no terminal velocity. So, in theory, what would happen if you had a vacuum that was incredilby tall... and i mean like hundreds of yards tall or taller. Now, if you were to (again, this is all in theory) take an object, lets say a steel ball, and drop it, could it, in theory, gain so much speed, it would eventually surpass the speed on light? I mean, as it is right now, we have nothing that can go that fast, but in a "bottomless vacuum", couldn't this happen? Ok, I am seriously looking for your thoughts on this. 235116[/snapback] Okay, I'm a sucker for speed of light questions.... I think you're probably just jerking Tom's chain (given your "hundreds of yards tall or taller"), but I'll dive in anyway.... First of all, you're assuming an object is being pulled by a constant force, like gravity. Gravity is relative to the proximity to mass, and is only at 9.8 meters per second squared (near the surface of the earth) so you have to realize that you're making a huge assumption that something will excellerate and not hit the object it's attracted to before getting to the speed of light. So, your theory is if things accelerate without resistence they will eventually surpass the speed of Light (if I understand right). I think the only place there's gravity that strong is near a black hole, and no one really know what happens close to the center. The theories of relativity (general and special) say that as you approach the speed of light, time slows down, and your mass increases! (?) Interpret this how you will.... This is tough enough to stump even the most sober physicists (and I doubt you are either ) First link is written in Geek, second in English-geek: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic..._a_vacuum?.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Okay, I'm a sucker for speed of light questions.... I think you're probably just jerking Tom's chain (given your "hundreds of yards tall or taller"), but I'll dive in anyway.... First of all, you're assuming an object is being pulled by a constant force, like gravity. Gravity is relative to the proximity to mass, and is only at 9.8 meters per second squared (near the surface of the earth) so you have to realize that you're making a huge assumption that something will excellerate and not hit the object it's attracted to before getting to the speed of light. So, your theory is if things accelerate without resistence they will eventually surpass the speed of Light (if I understand right). I think the only place there's gravity that strong is near a black hole, and no one really know what happens close to the center. The theories of relativity (general and special) say that as you approach the speed of light, time slows down, and your mass increases! (?) Interpret this how you will.... This is tough enough to stump even the most sober physicists (and I doubt you are either ) First link is written in Geek, second in English-geek: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic..._a_vacuum?.html 235170[/snapback] yes, while discussing this at work, the obvious problem is that on earth, any vacuum tube "tall" enough to make a drop to even come in the realm of that speed would be so far away from the surface of the earth, the gravitational pull would be either non-existant or so far away that the gravitional pull would be coming from another body. That's why I said hundreds of yards (because once you say miles, you are away from the Earth's pull enough and someone would quickly dismiss the qquestion right there). Anyway, let's assume we are on a planet 1000 times the size of earth. And then we build a vacuum 15 miles high. Drop something. Although the gravitional pull would start weak, it would still be there. And it would grow as the object got closer to the 'planet', thus the acceleration would grow exponentially (i believe). Someone with just a basic understanding of physics (like me) would have to assume that it would HAVE to reacch the speed of light. I mean, the speed of light it a set number, not a limit. This is one of those things I almost don't like to think about too much, because it is just so huge of an idea to even grasp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF Bills Fan Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 There was a funny reference to the BBC show The Office thrown in. That English girl said her dad was off "buying a paper company up in Slough". If you know that show, it was a nice nod. I was pissed that Charlie killed Ethan. There was stuff we needed to know. Sayid would have stuck bamboo reeds in his fingernails and he would have sung like a canary. But, it was good to see Jack deliver the beatdown. I was surprised Ethan fell into the trap so easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 i know this is a wierd place for this question, but you like weird sh-- like this. at work, we were discussing terminal velocity. However, techically, in a vacuum, there would be no terminal velocity. So, in theory, what would happen if you had a vacuum that was incredilby tall... and i mean like hundreds of yards tall or taller. Now, if you were to (again, this is all in theory) take an object, lets say a steel ball, and drop it, could it, in theory, gain so much speed, it would eventually surpass the speed on light? I mean, as it is right now, we have nothing that can go that fast, but in a "bottomless vacuum", couldn't this happen? Ok, I am seriously looking for your thoughts on this. 235116[/snapback] No. I can't explain it without delving into General Relativity, and its 11 at night...so just take my word for it, it doesn't work that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eSJayDee Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Are my #s right? The spped of light is ~186,300 mi/sec IIRC. This translates to ~6.7*10^9 mph. That means that the object will be falling for almost 21 million seconds which is like 242 days. In that time it will cover 335,340,000 or almost 4 trips to the Sun from here. As you can see, this is a theoretical question only, 'cuz 1)one can't create a vacuum that large, and 2) over that distance, obviously gravity is no longer constant and the object will be acted upon by several other bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Is the speed of light really a limit that cannot be surpassed? What happens inside a black hole? What is the sound of one hand clapping? How can an commercial airplane rip apart and crash in midflight and so many people live without broken bones on a tropical island with... polar bears? I'm pretty sure that no one here knows the answer to these questions (except perhaps the one hand clapping ), but it is fun to muse on.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assquatch Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 ...he says, in response to a statement that can only offend precisely those that deserve to be offended by it. 235084[/snapback] Don't give yourself so much credit. Had I been offended, my response would not have been so tongue-in-cheek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Is the speed of light really a limit that cannot be surpassed? What happens inside a black hole? What is the sound of one hand clapping? How can an commercial airplane rip apart and crash in midflight and so many people live without broken bones on a tropical island with... polar bears? I'm pretty sure that no one here knows the answer to these questions (except perhaps the one hand clapping ), but it is fun to muse on.... 235253[/snapback] Yes. Sort of. There is one possibe exception to that rule, but it involves explaining the concept of "before the universe was created", which I don't feel like doing. Impossible to answer. No current theory can explain it. <clap><clap><clap><clap> (What, I'm supposed to link to an audio track?) Dramatic license. Any other questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts