posted
The reason the toast always lands butter side down is due to the height of the table and the rate of rotation imparted as the toast falls off -- it has nothing to do with that side being heavier.
Post your scientifically proven facts here...
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason professors all schedule tests for the same day has nothing to do with university scheduling, as commonly believed. Rather, it is an effect of radiation in the Van Allen belts and fluctuates with increased solar activity. The observant student will notice a heightened correspondence of test days when the aurora borealis are especially bright.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is believed that cats always land on their feet and that toast always lands butter side down, however it has been proven that you cannot make a perpetual motion machine, or a workable levitation device, or an anti-gravity field generator by ductaping buttered toast to any part of a cat and throwing them off a cliff.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: it has been proven that you cannot make a perpetual motion machine, or a workable levitation device, or an anti-gravity field generator by ductaping buttered toast to any part of a cat and throwing them off a cliff.
What? You can't? <takes toast off cat's back and walks away from cliff>
There goes my fame and fortune. Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Then you're going to have to explain something to me. Why is it that I have successfully created such a device--and even improved on it!
I took my cat, duct-taped 6 pieces of buttered toast to it (think: "Body Centered Cubic"), and set it spinning inside of a large cardboard box. I then put a Schrodinger Device inside the box (you know--radioactive isotope, cyanide capsule, triggering mechanism).
When I closed up the box, the cat/toast pair was floating nicely in the center of the box. Unfortunately, now I no longer know what the hell state it's in.
So the common turtle has but one weakness -- if you flip it over on its back, it is helpless. Thus I plan too duct tape two turtles back-to-back. They'll be unstoppable!
posted
oooh... if Schroedinger's cat had DSL, would you be able to see a cable coming out of the box anywhere?
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe not scientifically proven, but well documented:
Professors often place amnesia field generators (AFGs) outside buildings and rooms in which their students will be taking exams. They laugh about it with their colleagues. I know. My astronomy professor told me.
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is a scientifically proven fact that eating pop rocks and drinking coke will not make your head explode. The explosion of your head is caused entirely by the upward rush of bile resulting from the explosion of your gall bladder which, incidentally, is due to eating pop rocks and drinking coke. Or taking Bill O’Reilly seriously.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is a scientifically proven fact that cats don't like having buttered toast duct taped to their bodies. They prefer doughnuts. Posts: 4569 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a scientifically proven fact that every time somebody points out that Jon Boy has lost the funny, he dies inside a little more.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How I do love Physics humor. I am laughing way too hard right now. Either that, or it's way too early in the morning for my brain to assimilate properly.
Posts: 822 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's been scientifically proven that if you fall into a vat of tar, your chances of then falling into a tub of chicken feathers triples.
Using this logic, you'd think that you'd be able to get five busty sorority girls to have a pillowfight by shoving them face-first into a pool of freshly laid asphalt. Sadly, you'd be wrong. Quite wrong, actually. Though if you're looking for a way to increase your odds of being kneed in the crotch...
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
AJ, I was busy feeling dumb because I had no idea why anyone would think that, and trying to figure out what the joke I wasn't getting was . . .
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Argh! The notorious "Glass: Is it a solid or a liquid?" debate. Wish I knew. It was my understanding that if you accept energetic degrees of freedom as THE indicator of what phase something is in then glass is indeed a liquid as it displays both characteristic vibrational and rotational patterns seen in liquids. As opposed to solids which only display complete vibrational freedom (and gasses, which display complete rotational, vibrational and translational freedom). But please, correct me. I can't pretend to ever have liked my spectroscopy classes (curse you Hertzburg!). And it’s been far too long since I took one for me to talk about the subject intelligently. Unless I were to dig out my old spec notes... (unlikely).
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I consider this to be the key difference in our opinions:
quote: 9. Interpretation of results. 9.1. A material that flows a total of 2 in (50 mm) or less within 3 min is considered a solid. Otherwise it is considered a liquid.
Which is a totally different definition than the one I was using. Now, I'd agree with this person. Things that go "doink" and not "sploosh" when you hit them are solids But nowhere does she discuss the spectroscopy I was looking for. Mind you, there's a very good chance I was the aforementioned college student whose mind was more on his Friday night date than class and I remember things wrong.
All in all, I need to grab my notes again. Sadly they are in Waterloo and I am not. If my mental notes can manage to last a few weeks I'll grab them when I'm next there and restart this discussion (should it still be going).
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't care about glass, what is JEllo? Solid? Liquid? Alien matter form from an alternate dimension?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Scientifically, then, cold glass is neither liquid nor solid, because its molecules are motionless (like a solid) but random in configuration (like a liquid). This structure is characteristic of all vitreous (glassy) substances.
quote: In the case of liquids a distinction between one-phonon and multi-phonon processes does not make any sense, because there are no phonons in liquids! This is not so for glasses, where it makes sense to distinguish between one- and multi-phonon inelastic scattering processes as in the case of crystals.
I've always wondered why metal is considered solid, when you can hit it with a hammer, and it will change shape without breaking. Or that you can extrude it, while in its "solid" form.
Try that with glass, in any time frame, and it will break.
I was expecting the old "Cathedrals of Europe" arguments. A lot of people buy that one.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
How I do love Physics humor. I am laughing way too hard right now. Either that, or it's way too early in the morning for my brain to assimilate properly.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
