Your Ideas...

Post Reply New Topic

YAYYYYYY PHYSICS!! !!

Since energy has relativistic mass (the old mass-energy equivalency part of E=mc²), energy can not travel faster than light, in any reference frame.

What you thought of has been used in science-fiction stories for decades. Perhaps you've heard of...

... the Transporter?

I had a random idea today sparked by a conversation with my mother.
Y'know how radiators are close to the wall but have a slight gap between the wall and the radiator? well, my Mom was complaining that the gap is too small to accomidate an adult's arm when trying to retrieve a wayward sock or a pair of underpants.

Her soluton was to use a coathanger to dislodge the clothing items that have fallen down the gap.

My solution? Hount the radiator on a hinge so that it can be flush against the wall when used purely for heat or extended to accomidate piles of laundry without risk of items falling down the gap!

I assume you meant "Mount."

A radiator flush aganst the wall is inefficient, as it presents only the front for radiative and convective heating to occur. Further (assuming a steam-heated radiator), the plumbing would require a hose or collar joint to allow the plumbing to flex or swivel with the radiator. Electric radiators would not be so constrained.

How its has a 1 dementional path... ith has only 1 mesurable demention length... so since u cannot derive mass form a 1D object it cannot become infintely massive...

I've thought of creating my own language with unique unambiguous character set, reads in an alternating manner, and combines all cases, tenses, voices, et cetera, of all previous languages into one language.

English, Please?

This is english... -.-

Even one-dimensional objects ought to obey the laws of physics. However, the laws of physics are descriptive rather than prescriptive, but seem to have a high probability of successive events following them.

Anything with mass or mass-equivalence obeys the laws of physics. The problem with one-dimensional objects is that they are purely conceptual - that is, they exist only in a person's imagination. Thus, while they do not have to obey any physical laws, neither are they real.

Do you understand the difference between description and prescription?

The effects are real, but if you're a solipsist then it would be a waste of time explaining this.

Effect alone is not proof of concept. There must be a preceding causal event or condition with measurable qualities.

I think it would be valid to assume an effect has a cause....

This is not a rhetorical question and it is for you to answer:

What is the difference between description and prescription?

Prescription is a statement of how the speaker thinks things should be, according to his or her own arbitrary determination. This is common in solipsistic personalities and idealistic (or "wishful") thinking.

Description is a statement of how things actually are, according to objective determination through observation of repeatable and verifiable causal events. This is foundational to the Scientific Method.

Now, your point is ... ?

To describe is to state how things appear.
To prescribe is to order how things shall be.


Does a map describe or prescribe a coastline or border?

Also, does physical "law" describe or prescribe how events occur?

Will you just get to your freeking point (if you have one) instead of playing these juvenile word games?

No wonder NTs think Aspies are wierd.