Mathematical equations, physics buffs. - Page 7

flappist · 24-04-2011, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shedcoupe

So a kilo is a kilo is a kilo ???

Assuming you are referring to a kilogram then yes it is.

When was the last time you saw the price of gold quoted in dollars per kilo?

shedcoupe · 24-04-2011, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

Assuming you are referring to a kilogram then yes it is.

When was the last time you saw the price of gold quoted in dollars per kilo?

a few seconds ago .....

Gold Price per Kilo in Australian Dollars

http://goldprice.com.au/

Mr Smartypants also says that an ounce = 28.4 g or thereabouts, whereas a troy ounce = 31 g.

But I take your point - it is sloppy to refer to a kilogram as a 'kilo' in a science-ey discussion.

BigAL_250 · 24-04-2011, 12:28 PM

If you were travelling the speed of light, towards a star, would you intercept the light from that star at a closing speed of twice the speed of light?

flappist · 24-04-2011, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shedcoupe

a few seconds ago .....

Gold Price per Kilo in Australian Dollars

http://goldprice.com.au/

Mr Smartypants also says that an ounce = 28.4 g or thereabouts, whereas a troy ounce = 31 g.

Got it.

Anyone who has ACTUALLY weighed precious metals, gems or black powder would know that they are measured in Troy rather than Avoirdupois.

Unfortunately it appears to be far too common for people to assume they understand a subject due to some theoretical knowledge rather than actual practical experience.

This does not just apply to weighing, there are several other topics on AFF to which this also appears to apply.......

shedcoupe · 24-04-2011, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

Got it.

Anyone who has ACTUALLY weighed precious metals, gems or black powder would know that they are measured in Troy rather than Avoirdupois.

Ha ha. I just jagged it there, as I had no idea about the weighing of those things (other than gold and silver) - it was just a (superfluous) remark.
Looks like blokes' intuition is real phenomenon .....

But gems are weighed in carats aren't they ?

(Carats apparently come from the weight of a carob tree seed, which are almost completely uniform in weight regardless of the individual tree that produces them, allowing the jewellers of the past a common, easily-obtained unit. If my brain cell is correct).

gtfpv · 24-04-2011, 01:38 PM

heres one for yous all . is lady gaga a male or a female . my tingle sensation says she is a male , therefore i have no tingle .
one for the science buffs .

flappist · 24-04-2011, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shedcoupe

Ha ha. I just jagged it there, as I had no idea about the weighing of those things (other than gold and silver) - it was just a (superfluous) remark.
Looks like blokes' intuition is real phenomenon .....

But gems are weighed in carats aren't they ?

(Carats apparently come from the weight of a carob tree seed, which are almost completely uniform in weight regardless of the individual tree that produces them, allowing the jewellers of the past a common, easily-obtained unit. If my brain cell is correct).

Yes they can be but the point of my question was that not everything is actually what you believe it is and sometimes logic is defeated by reality.

The same can be said about how many litres in a gallon?
It depends on with what standard the gallon complies.

Those who blindly stand behind their position and would rather win yet be wrong than lose and learn are the greatest threat to the advancement of human society since the contraceptive pill.

If a strawman wearing a P plate was running above the speed limit on conveyor in front of a speed camera in a school zone, would he take off........(theoretically of course)

In Focus · 24-04-2011, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

Which are the heaviest, a pound of feathers, a pound of gold, a pound of black gunpowder, a pound of diamonds or a pound of uranium (measured in the same place by the same people)?

All the same, of course. It's meant to be a trick question, but if everything weighs a "pound", then they all weigh a pound. Of course, it takes a lot of volume of feathers to be equal in weight to a pound of uranium...

In Focus · 24-04-2011, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigal_250

If you were travelling the speed of light, towards a star, would you intercept the light from that star at a closing speed of twice the speed of light?

Nope, you would intercept it at light speed. In a similar way, if you collide head on with another car, and you're both travelling at 100km/h, then the impact speed is 100km/h. Of course, just to make sure, physics also adds another factor to the equation by stating that nothing can travel faster than light.

MAD · 24-04-2011, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by In Focus

Nope, you would intercept it at light speed. In a similar way, if you collide head on with another car, and you're both travelling at 100km/h, then the impact speed is 100km/h. Of course, just to make sure, physics also adds another factor to the equation by stating that nothing can travel faster than light.

He has asked about the closing speed not the results of an impact.
Yes the distance between the two objects is changing by twice the speed of light.
If you had two cars starting at a distance of 200km apart traveling to meet each other at the exact middle, it would take them 1 hour, at a speed of 100km/h, to meet. So the distance between them was changed by 200km in 1 hour.

flappist · 24-04-2011, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by In Focus

All the same, of course. It's meant to be a trick question, but if everything weighs a "pound", then they all weigh a pound. Of course, it takes a lot of volume of feathers to be equal in weight to a pound of uranium...

You missed it completely.

There are different standards for a "pound" that apply to different materials

Assuming that as you have only ever known one "pound" then that is all there can be and must be applied to all situations is the point of the question.

A 1971 Ford Mustang has a fuel capacity 40 gallons as per the brochure.
A 1971 Ford Falcon GT has a fuel capacity of 40 gallons as per the brochure.

Which holds the most fuel?

P.S. I know the actual capacities of those vehicles are different just in case there are no trains to spot at the moment....

flappist · 24-04-2011, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by In Focus

Nope, you would intercept it at light speed. In a similar way, if you collide head on with another car, and you're both travelling at 100km/h, then the impact speed is 100km/h. Of course, just to make sure, physics also adds another factor to the equation by stating that nothing can travel faster than light.

Somebody had better tell all the Tachyons ......

shedcoupe · 24-04-2011, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

A 1971 Ford Mustang has a fuel capacity 40 gallons as per the brochure.
A 1971 Ford Falcon GT has a fuel capacity of 40 gallons as per the brochure.

Which holds the most fuel?

1 US gallon = 3.785 411 78 litres
1 Imperial gallon = 4.546 091 88 litres

do I get a black jellybean ?

sudszy · 24-04-2011, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

You missed it completely.

There are different standards for a "pound" that apply to different materials
.

and you've lost me with what you are trying to prove?

your original question asked what weighs more a pound of gold, uranium, gun powder or feathers.

Perhaps outline how many grams perhaps one pound each of these is rather than this obtuse diatribe about how we are all uneducated plebs.

Anyway, I thought I got a nice answer in to your question before that: http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...&postcount=172

Work Horse · 24-04-2011, 09:20 PM

In 1971 Ford released the legendary XY GTHO Phase 3 Falcon.
The factory understated the engines output as 300hp to satisfy insurers.

The real figure was closer to 380hp, the exact same engine built today would make less than 320hp.
Both outputs are correct.

In Focus · 24-04-2011, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

You missed it completely.

There are different standards for a "pound" that apply to different materials

Assuming that as you have only ever known one "pound" then that is all there can be and must be applied to all situations is the point of the question.

A 1971 Ford Mustang has a fuel capacity 40 gallons as per the brochure.
A 1971 Ford Falcon GT has a fuel capacity of 40 gallons as per the brochure.

Which holds the most fuel?

P.S. I know the actual capacities of those vehicles are different just in case there are no trains to spot at the moment....

Hmm, I still say a pound is a pound, if you're talking about WEIGHT. If you're referring to MASS, then that's different.

In Focus · 24-04-2011, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

Somebody had better tell all the Tachyons ......

Still only a theoretical particle... I'm not sure science has the ability to prove (or disprove) their existence.

flappist · 24-04-2011, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by In Focus

Still only a theoretical particle... I'm not sure science has the ability to prove (or disprove) their existence.

As is the theory that nothing can go faster than light......

In Focus · 24-04-2011, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

As is the theory that nothing can go faster than light......

Prove it wrong.

ford man xf · 25-04-2011, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtfpv

a definition of nothing is easy , an infinite void with no substance or light , or deviation , reaction, consciousness, nothing to define it .
i guess that still could be regarded of an area. but if no one was there to recognize or react to it, it wouldn't matter .

With that, you are describing "something" that is "somewhere". It comes down to consciousness and awareness perhaps. But then your left to describe the mind...

ford man xf · 25-04-2011, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodp

Consider the vastness of the universe/multiverse. We're on a rock orbiting a finite sun which is orbiting a black hole(s). Hundreds of millions of stars in a galaxy which have their own celestial bodies that orbit them in hundreds of millions of galaxies that make this universe. To believe that we're the only life that exists anywhere is naive in my opinion (not that I claim this is what you believe). I don't think the odds are that unimaginable. I'd be willing to bet Earth isn't the only celestial body in our Solar System that harbors life.

Yes, but have a think about what needs to not only be in place for life to exist (sun, water, chemicals, ozone layer, the list goes on), but the exact process that needs to occur for life to get started, there are mathematical equations that calculate the chances of life occurring on Earth by random chance, and you couldn't even fit the numbers on this page it is so large.

If you have evidence that suggests that there are other planets with life on them I would gladly take this on board, but with all the research that is currently being done with such instruments such as the Hubble telescope and the many fixed telescopes which suggest that "X" planet has Earth like features or could possibly harbour life is not evidence but merely hypothesis.

ford man xf · 25-04-2011, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtfpv

imagine the different forms of life earth has had in its history , maybe similar beings many times over . maybe thats the way it is

I have often thought of this a few times, but from an evolutionary point of view it would be very highly unlikely as the Earths age is around 4.5 billion years old, to get to where we are now is said to have taken around 3.8 billion years.

Rodp · 25-04-2011, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ford man xf

Yes, but have a think about what needs to not only be in place for life to exist (sun, water, chemicals, ozone layer, the list goes on), but the exact process that needs to occur for life to get started, there are mathematical equations that calculate the chances of life occurring on Earth by random chance, and you couldn't even fit the numbers on this page it is so large.

Do you have a link to that equation? Never seen it myself.

What about Drake's equation?

Only my opinion, but I think you're over-estimating what's needed to harbor and sustain life on other celestial bodies, otherwise NASA wouldn't have a hard-on about sending probes to several moons that orbit Jupiter and Saturn in a search for life.

If you have evidence that suggests that there are other planets with life on them I would gladly take this on board, but with all the research that is currently being done with such instruments such as the Hubble telescope and the many fixed telescopes which suggest that "X" planet has Earth like features or could possibly harbour life is not evidence but merely hypothesis.[/QUOTE]

Clearly I don't have evidence of life on other planets.

I opined that the existence of life is unlikely to be confined to one lowly rock in the vast expanse of this universe.. and if it is, it's wasted on us.

Kepler has found in excess of 1000 planets in its short life-span. It's discovering them by detecting them transiting their sun. Given that, it's clear that planets orbiting a sun is a very common phenomenon. To then have a planet with conditions able to sustain life would probably happen more than once.

shedcoupe · 25-04-2011, 11:37 AM

Well maybe some moons in the solar system do harbour life, or life-ish, but what about this one -

You have not shaved for X time and have stubble.

Your woman's core body temperature is slighty above 'normal'.
She thinks you look rugged.

Your woman's core body temperature is slighty below 'normal'.
She thinks you look scruffy.

Okay smart guys - why is it so ???

(Yes, ladies - I am a very bad man)

Glen 5150 · 25-04-2011, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shedcoupe

Well maybe some moons in the solar system do harbour life, or life-ish, but what about this one -

You have not shaved for X time and have stubble.

Your woman's core body temperature is slighty above 'normal'.
She thinks you look rugged.

Your woman's core body temperature is slighty below 'normal'.
She thinks you look scruffy.

Okay smart guys - why is it so ???

(Yes, ladies - I am a very bad man)

Easy, you need a higher paying job?

I guarantee with a bigger pay packet you'll always look rugged?

shedcoupe · 25-04-2011, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5150gk

Easy, you need a higher paying job?

I guarantee with a bigger pay packet you'll always look rugged?

We have a winner. Yep, the bulge of the wallet is the bulge that really counts.

Bad guy = exciting and dangerous = weekend of fun
Good guy = reliable and boring = servant for lifetime