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...
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
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.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
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.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
That was hilarious, dan.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
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. Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Dan,
You can't?
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.
--Steve
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
ha ha ha ha ha!
ha ha! ha ha!
that killed me
giggle giggle snort
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
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 by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That Annie is actually Schroedinger's cat! She types an awful lot for a dead person . . .
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
oooh... if Schroedinger's cat had DSL, would you be able to see a cable coming out of the box anywhere?
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
It's a scientifically proven fact that turtles can breathe through their butts.
Promise. Swear to God.
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
Big deal. I can breathe through a turtle's butt too.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
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.
Posted by Julie (Member # 5580) on :
What ever happened to that thread that said 1=2?
Posted by Schroedinger's Cat (Member # 6106) on :
I'm on wireless broadband, actually.
Posted by SirReal (Member # 5257) on :
It's a scientific fact that I don't drink anymore.
Of course I don't drink any less either. Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
It's a scientifically proven fact that Jon Boy hast lost the funny.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Hmm....if Schrodinger's cat had ADD, would it forget what state it was in?
But looking at cats, I think that they really don't care what state their in, anyhow. Unless it's, like, New Jersey or something...
I'M SORRY--BUT SOMEONE HAD TO SAY IT!!
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Its a scientific fact that Pete Rose does not gamble any more.
Its a hollywood rumor that Pete Rose does not gamble any less.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*pies ssywak*
No, no you did not.
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
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.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Woah Woah Woah
Nobody talks bad about Bill O'Reilly...
Nobody
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
It is a scientifically proven fact that cats don't like having buttered toast duct taped to their bodies. They prefer doughnuts. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think Bill O'Reilly talks bad about Bill O'Reilly.
Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
A = B A^2 = AB A^2 + A^2 - 2AB = AB + A^2 - 2AB 2(A^2 - AB) = A^2 - AB 2 = 1
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
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.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Better go lay the smack down on OSC . . . doesn't he criticize O'Reilly in his latest column?
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
If Schroedinger's cat was online during the experiment, it would void it.
But would it be in an online/offline state?
Posted by larisse (Member # 2221) on :
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.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
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...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I love Psychics humor. But then, you already knew that.
[ January 19, 2004, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
It is a scientific fact that magnets don't work underwater. AJ
[ January 15, 2004, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
::“Accidentally” bumps Bob into a vat of tar::
Ooops, sorry. Didn’t you see that coming?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:A = B A^2 = AB A^2 + A^2 - 2AB = AB + A^2 - 2AB 2(A^2 - AB) = A^2 - AB 2 = 1
that so doesn't work. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Man no one's commenting on my magnet comment. My little bro (a Chem E student) had friends of his convinced using water polarity arguments.
They attempted to rebut using the example of magnets used to clean an aquarium.
His response "Oh those are electromagnets"
I still can't believe they swallowed it hook line and sinker!
AJ
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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 . . .
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
It is a scientifically proven fact that glass is a solid.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
it is a scientifically proven fact that dogs lick themselves because they can.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Actually, glass is not a solid. It's a liquid.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
by the way, dkw, I got the EPA to come in and clean up that vat of tar, thank you very much!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Glass is not a liquid. It's an non-crystalline (or amorphous, if you prefer) solid.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
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).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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).
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I don't care about glass, what is JEllo? Solid? Liquid? Alien matter form from an alternate dimension?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Jello is a gel. Mixtures don't necessarily have to be solid, liquid, or gas.
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.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Oh! I just love starting arguments!
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.
![[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)