-
If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread -
The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us. -
>>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
Don't forget to include your username
MistressValerie1
Administrator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 8,736
- Points
- 0
What MayDay said.
Several posts had to be deleted this evening; I will again ask all members to please refrain from off-topic personal arguing here.
Thanks in advance,
Several posts had to be deleted this evening; I will again ask all members to please refrain from off-topic personal arguing here.
Thanks in advance,
Last edited:
Budweiserbob!
Staff
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 3,928
- Points
- 0
oh great and (semi) powerful mayday! If God is the Omega, The Alpha, the almighty and given that the universe is limitless and that it is ever expanding......
Would you like some toast?
😀
Would you like some toast?
😀
How bored are you?
How far into the woods does a bear shit?
If two and one is shoe polish and three and one is oil whats four and one?
How high is up?
"How many Frenchmen can't be wrong?"
The last question is from a Mark Brothers movie and Grocho asks it of his brother Chicko so you have to know Chicko's reply to answer it correcly.
How far into the woods does a bear shit?
If two and one is shoe polish and three and one is oil whats four and one?
How high is up?
"How many Frenchmen can't be wrong?"
The last question is from a Mark Brothers movie and Grocho asks it of his brother Chicko so you have to know Chicko's reply to answer it correcly.
MayDay1
1st Level Red Feather
- Joined
- May 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,170
- Points
- 0
John D. Schmidt said:
1. I'm so bored I can't sleep. That's why I'm answering these at 2:30am (pacific time)
2. Far enough away to not be disturbed by fecalfeliacs.
3. Where the flying hell did you get this equation? At any rate the answer is napalm.
4. I'd give you answer but I'm afraid it would be over your head (rimshot)
5. If Chico knows it, why are you asking me?
nessonite1
3rd Level White Feather
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2003
- Messages
- 9,517
- Points
- 0
You think you have it bad....it's quarter to 6 here.
MayDay1
1st Level Red Feather
- Joined
- May 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,170
- Points
- 0
nessonite said:
Yeah, I know what that's like. Usually two or three nights a week I pull an all nighter. Not by choice but just cuz my sleeping patterns are messed up after the weekends. Of course all the caffiene doesn't help. I don't think this will be one of those nights. Around four or so I should be out cold (it is currently 3:08).
Note to MayDay:The answer to question number 3 is five and the answer to question 5 is "I give up" . Grocho says "I do to" and then Chico asks Grocho a question. I liked your answer to question four. Do you use a tympany drum for your rimshots?
BoundToTickle
TMF Poster
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2004
- Messages
- 123
- Points
- 0
Oh great and wise Mayday, does hot water weigh more than cold? (Given that they are the same amount and in the same kind of container, etc. etc.)
O.K. this is a doozy that stems from a conversation with my husband. He remarked that our Earth and universe couldn't function properly without the property of ice being able to float in water. It has something to do with our weather because hot water rises and cold sinks. But I had to ask what about outer space when there is no planetary gravity? Can ice float in outer space?
So here's the question:
Imagine an airtight container of water (with some air inside) with one ice cube is in zero gravity (taking into account expansion etc.). There is no movement, no temperature changes.. Would the cube float in the water near the air or would it just stay in place wherever it was in the first place. What if you did shake it first and then place it in zero gravity, would the water and air mix slowly over time like a lava lamp with the ice cube in the center? Would the movement of the water and air create enough friction to melt the ice ever so slowly?
Also, if you're bored,
go write a haiku
deliciously addicting
definite brainstretch
O.K. this is a doozy that stems from a conversation with my husband. He remarked that our Earth and universe couldn't function properly without the property of ice being able to float in water. It has something to do with our weather because hot water rises and cold sinks. But I had to ask what about outer space when there is no planetary gravity? Can ice float in outer space?
So here's the question:
Imagine an airtight container of water (with some air inside) with one ice cube is in zero gravity (taking into account expansion etc.). There is no movement, no temperature changes.. Would the cube float in the water near the air or would it just stay in place wherever it was in the first place. What if you did shake it first and then place it in zero gravity, would the water and air mix slowly over time like a lava lamp with the ice cube in the center? Would the movement of the water and air create enough friction to melt the ice ever so slowly?
Also, if you're bored,
go write a haiku
deliciously addicting
definite brainstretch
nessonite1
3rd Level White Feather
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2003
- Messages
- 9,517
- Points
- 0
Bite me, mayday, Im answering. 😀
In the zero gravity of space there IS no up and down so the concept of "floating" is entirely useless. I guess the ice and water would just float around freely in the container with no regard for anything. Of course it would have to be temperature controlled to keep the water from feezing cause isn't space extremely cold? Or is it extremely hot? I suppose it would have to do with your location relative to the sun but I mean just outside of Earth's atmosphere where, presumably, you would be with your ice and your water.
Incidentally...if anyone has links to all the cool anti-gravity experiments NASA has done I have always been curious to see them.
BoundToTickle
TMF Poster
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2004
- Messages
- 123
- Points
- 0
O.K. I did say, "Can ice float in outer space? " and I knew there is no up or down etc without gravity or perspective but my actual question was asking about a completely controlled experiment with zero gravity and no temperature differences (not outer space).
nessonite1
3rd Level White Feather
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2003
- Messages
- 9,517
- Points
- 0
ohhhhh...apologies. 😀
Iluv2Btickled
3rd Level Orange Feather
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2003
- Messages
- 2,575
- Points
- 0
I have a Question..... and I'm being totally serious here...this is for those moms out there..
During childbirth, which part of the baby hurts more when it comes out? The head or the body?
During childbirth, which part of the baby hurts more when it comes out? The head or the body?
nessonite1
3rd Level White Feather
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2003
- Messages
- 9,517
- Points
- 0
---warning...not for male viewing---
Hey look...something I can answer. Im totally hijacking your thread, Mayday. 😀
During the evil and acursed act known as childbirth I had what is called a walking epidural which is like a numbing to the lower half of your body but not as strong as a full epidural...so I didn't feel EVERYTHING but when something like that is happening to you you really can't just whistle and pretend it's not there either. 😀
Anyway...the head gets compressed pretty nicely (which is why newborns have cone heads) so the real painful part is the shoulders. After that (unless you are unlucky) things come out very neatly.
To be honest though the stitches afterwards hurt a million times more....but my labor and delivery was very fast (8 hours, 3 pushes) and my baby was small (6 lbs and a preemie).
Hey look...something I can answer. Im totally hijacking your thread, Mayday. 😀
During the evil and acursed act known as childbirth I had what is called a walking epidural which is like a numbing to the lower half of your body but not as strong as a full epidural...so I didn't feel EVERYTHING but when something like that is happening to you you really can't just whistle and pretend it's not there either. 😀
Anyway...the head gets compressed pretty nicely (which is why newborns have cone heads) so the real painful part is the shoulders. After that (unless you are unlucky) things come out very neatly.
To be honest though the stitches afterwards hurt a million times more....but my labor and delivery was very fast (8 hours, 3 pushes) and my baby was small (6 lbs and a preemie).
Iluv2Btickled
3rd Level Orange Feather
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2003
- Messages
- 2,575
- Points
- 0
I am officially MORE frightened to have a baby now....*shock*
*ahem* thanks Ness.
*ahem* thanks Ness.
BoundToTickle
TMF Poster
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2004
- Messages
- 123
- Points
- 0
Iluv2btickled said:
May I add that the laboring pain is very easily forgotten, how else would anyone have a second?
AcornaMordor
TMF Master
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2003
- Messages
- 766
- Points
- 0
Well it all depends on how far along the baby is and how wide your pelvis is. Wider pelvises have more room thus less stretching needed and less pain, right??
CellarDweller
3rd Level Orange Feather
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 2,504
- Points
- 0
*approaches Mayday and drops to knees*
All great and powerful Mayday....when will Madonna release her next cd? It feels like I've been waiting forever....
All great and powerful Mayday....when will Madonna release her next cd? It feels like I've been waiting forever....
alchemy1
TMF Master
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2004
- Messages
- 626
- Points
- 0
Oh wise Mayday, my question is this:
In Back to the Future, Marty travels back in time to 1955 after Doctor Brown gets shot...then, after mucking about with his parents (thus altering the way they met and thus altering his own future), inventing skateboarding, and inventing rock n roll, he goes back to 1985. However, he does not travel all the way to the point in time in which he left, rather he travels to a point 10 minutes before he actually left in the first place. Now if time is always moving forward, to arrive in the actual present, he would have to travel to a point about a week ahead of the point he originally left. Therefore, when he arrived the in "future" 10 minutes before Doc was shot (or even if he had returned to the exact same point as when he left for that matter), wouldn't he from then on be living in the past (or rather a week behind the actual present)? See chart.
> = the current possition of the present
@ = the point at which Marty originally left (original possition of present)
% = first arrival in 1955
& = point at which he travels forward in time from 1955
$ = point at which he arrives in 1985
---------------------%---------------------------------------------------@>
---------------------%---&-----------------------------------------------$@---->
In this model, Marty is STILL in the past (until the happenings of 2 and 3 or course.
Now this is all under the theory that time is always moving and not a static thing. If it was static however, all of time, both past and future, would already exist and everything would simply exist upon certain point along it. In that case, time would be relative and the concepts of future and past would be absurd since both would always be taking place simultaniously. The only thing that would not be absurd is the current point (or YOUR "present") in time that one happens to inhabit. If this is the case then Marty could muck about as much as he wants (to a degree of course) and always be in the present. Also this theory lends itself to the belief that the time-line is ALWAYS changing and being altered. We are not aware of these alterations because we exist within it rather than appart from it. Therefore, the present that you percieve right now may have been completely different just a few seconds ago, but since you would also be altered with the time-line, you would not be aware of such occurrences. And now, finally, we come the my question(s). Which of these theories is correct and is Marty in the past when he arrives in 1985 or the present?
In Back to the Future, Marty travels back in time to 1955 after Doctor Brown gets shot...then, after mucking about with his parents (thus altering the way they met and thus altering his own future), inventing skateboarding, and inventing rock n roll, he goes back to 1985. However, he does not travel all the way to the point in time in which he left, rather he travels to a point 10 minutes before he actually left in the first place. Now if time is always moving forward, to arrive in the actual present, he would have to travel to a point about a week ahead of the point he originally left. Therefore, when he arrived the in "future" 10 minutes before Doc was shot (or even if he had returned to the exact same point as when he left for that matter), wouldn't he from then on be living in the past (or rather a week behind the actual present)? See chart.
> = the current possition of the present
@ = the point at which Marty originally left (original possition of present)
% = first arrival in 1955
& = point at which he travels forward in time from 1955
$ = point at which he arrives in 1985
---------------------%---------------------------------------------------@>
---------------------%---&-----------------------------------------------$@---->
In this model, Marty is STILL in the past (until the happenings of 2 and 3 or course.
Now this is all under the theory that time is always moving and not a static thing. If it was static however, all of time, both past and future, would already exist and everything would simply exist upon certain point along it. In that case, time would be relative and the concepts of future and past would be absurd since both would always be taking place simultaniously. The only thing that would not be absurd is the current point (or YOUR "present") in time that one happens to inhabit. If this is the case then Marty could muck about as much as he wants (to a degree of course) and always be in the present. Also this theory lends itself to the belief that the time-line is ALWAYS changing and being altered. We are not aware of these alterations because we exist within it rather than appart from it. Therefore, the present that you percieve right now may have been completely different just a few seconds ago, but since you would also be altered with the time-line, you would not be aware of such occurrences. And now, finally, we come the my question(s). Which of these theories is correct and is Marty in the past when he arrives in 1985 or the present?
Last edited:
AcornaMordor
TMF Master
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2003
- Messages
- 766
- Points
- 0
O.O Alchemy, you're one of those scarily smart guys that ponder these things and make people at the comic book conventions stare, aren't you? You're not the same guy that runs that website about the Airspeed volocity of an unladen swallow, are you?
MistressValerie1
Administrator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 8,736
- Points
- 0
LOL! I haven't had a first yet, and am not keen to, but I have never heard any real horror stories about it, so it couldn't be TOO painful for most people.ogleme said:
MayDay1
1st Level Red Feather
- Joined
- May 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,170
- Points
- 0
John D. Schmidt said:
1. I'm afraid not. The answer is napalm. Didn't you see the answer I gave?
2. What movie is this from? I'm got Marx Bros. withdrawl over here.
3. Ladies and gentleman, let me introduce you to my drummer, Shecky Greenblatt! We'll be doing tours of your favorite casinos and shriner's club. Three shows daily! Come by and check it out!
