Callipygous

wow... im in calculus and i dont have the faintest clue how to even start with that... ill think about it.

good work. that post was just barely not a worthless pile of shit. your response to my post was nothing but an insult directed at me, it wasnt convincing anyone of anything. you have already stated that there is no answer (without bothering to put any thought into explaining why). i made a post where i tried to explain WHY there is no answer. if you dont like that keep it to yourself. read the title of the ****ing web page. so... i guess you really have nothing worth hearing to say. you get a special honor, first name on my ignore list : P

why would you bother to say that? are you here to piss people off? give some constuctive feedback or shut the **** up.

yes, there has to be a spot, but there is no way to prove where that spot is. with the facts he gave us it is impossible to prove that he is at the same place at any given time on the two days. what if on the first day he went 3/4 of the way, then stopped and meditated for an hour, then finished, and on the second day he went 1/4 of the way and then meditated and finished his journey? if he goes the same pace and starts at the same time he meet at a certain point. if he stopped in the middle on each day it would be an entirely different point. we dont know when he stops or what pace he goes at so the question is impossible to answer.

he says at which point, not what part. : P is that the answer?

im having trouble believing this has an actual answer... maybe a play on words.

serpents for hair. like snakes coming out of your head.

this has been dead for a long time now, but im getting interested in it again. lets try a broader approach this time... i want to have a fairly simple, cheap contraption that will sit there and do its thing (electrolizing water) until its possible to lift off, and then after it floats for a while i want it to explode in a fiery blaze. im curious if its possible. what electrolyte should i use? will a 9volt have enough energy to electrolize all that water and still be able to spark at the end? whats required to get a lot of hydrogen and oxygen fairly quickly? do i need high voltage? will i have to use carbon rods? whats the best set up you guys can come up with?

lol... 7, nice. im level three. i get to sit out in the mud and rain with no shelter and have cerebus claw and bite me.

i particularly like his one on newtons force and work, where he trys to tell us that our definitions of work and force are wrong because he thinks the words themselves mean something different. : ) ROFL. check out his one on the big bang. hes not even trying

i really think he must be joking, or at least just seeing how many stupid people he can fool. he seems to have a fairly wide understanding of physics, and then in the example above he uses mass instead of weight solely for the purpose of making the math not work. im guessing hes just taking basic principles and doing stupid little things like that, which the average highschooler might not catch, but most educated people will. (wait a minute... im in highschool )

sure. pick numbers for the hypotenus(sp?) and angle of each, from there find the the lengths of the sides, devide them, and find out that they are in fact the same ratio.

i did... and i think my way of proving hes an idiot works just fine, thank you.

if you know that they share one angle and they are both right triangles then you know that the other angle is also the same. they are definately similar triangles. i think the laws of similar triangles pretty much go straight from that to the kind of thing you are looking for. that is, if you know two triangles are similar then you also know that the ratio of a to A equals the ratio of b to B. an actual proof is hard to get. the best way i can think of is to just assign some numbers to the sides and angles. (my brain just totally died on me, sorry if this isnt what your looking for : P)

i dont bother with any of that math stuff, i just like to use pure logic. anyone who has ever ridden on one of those spinny things in the playground knows that this guy is full of... stuff. anyone who has taken physics understands that the reason is because the thing pushes you one way, but then the wall is there, so your constantly trying to move to the wall and its constantly turning your momentum in another direction, where there is yet again, a wall. if you think through the situation in your head you realize that as long as the person had contact with something on the ship to get him moving in a circle he would be pulled to the outside.

do you mean an actual geometric proof? like those annoying things they made me do in 8th grade? or do you mean a logical proof? like just how to work through the facts you have to get to the result a/b=A/B? i can help with the latter but not the former. i dont know the names of all those properties and crap they make you learn in geometry any more : P

is he joking? i havent read a single one yet that isnt absolutely rediculus. i cant tell if hes really full of himself and actually that dumb or if its supposed to be a joke.

not all of them the one who gets a higher score. you seem to be suggesting that the faster reader gives up on things more quickly. i dont see why one would assume that. the better iq tests i have taken are timed but dont have a time LIMIT. so the person who can figure out the problem more quickly gets more points for faster comprehension. the slower person who gets more right might still get the same score but because their mind required more time to figure it out, they still get the same score as the person who answered fewer of them correctly but required less time. im curious what makes you think they havent. something you dont seem to be catching on to here: NOT ALL THE TESTS ARE THE SAME. there are several different styles and rulesets. some are not timed at all some are timed, but testers can take as long as they want, other require to finish in a set period. people who are slow readers should aim for an untimed test to get results that dont reflect their slow reading. someone who reads more will become more intelligent. not just more educated or informed. their brains will develope the kind of abilities necessary for performing such tasks. no. even if you consider such a person to be braindamaged your still suggesting that scoring under 111 means you werent stimulated enough in your childhood. that is simply not true. everyone has a different level of ability. some people are smarter than others, no matter how much reading they do. the thing you dont seem to be getting is that the set average is 100. if everyone on the planet magically became twice as smart the average would still be 100. people scoring 100 does not mean they are stupid, in fact it means they are smarter than half the rest of the population. your comment about 75% scoring under 111 means NOTHING. that will always be a fact based purely on how the test is set up. our entire society could advance to be as smart as einstein and hawking and 75% would still score below 111. are you getting this yet?

yeah, Tao is pretty much what hes talking about, but then he really would have to move this to the religious section.

infinity, by definition, does not have size. thats what infinite means. (which, by the way, is why our brains ARE incapable of fully comprehending it)

unfortunately, no. that doesnt work : P

im confused about what kind of answer your looking for then. DOH i take it back, thats not right : P

[hide]tan(pi/4)=1 after you know that much its not very hard to boil it down to 2a/2 which equals a the above contains total neglect of parentheses... sorry [/hide]