hefner

That makes you a real SICKO mister! ..the odd man left out in the dark. Good stinkin' riddance to pathetic ignorant sanctimonious self-absorbed stilted pedant jerks! :lol::lol::lol:

:hihi: DON'T be confused! :) The depth of my research equals exactly zero, as well it should, since the forum is meant for fun and frolic, NOT just for dusty ol' sanctimonious pedantry Or well, that's my position.

That is patently untrue! ..it sounds extremely sharp and crisp and loud, when done expertly. As for your arithmetic rebuttal, I'll only venture that yes, you can and do achieve the necessary force and speed. I mean, isn't it obvious now that Jab2 has brought up the "snapping shrimp"?? I had never heard of the creatures, but if it's a known fact that they break the sound barrier with their muscular twitch, then it's not at all unreasonable to think we too can achieve this. Obviously the shrimp uses its twitch for propulsion thru the water, and it would only snap when caught and brought up in a net. Then its twitch becomes a frantic one indeed.

I did the bandaid test and the snap did NOT soften any. No, I'll argue, the sound of air being moved around is mostly silence, especially for something as small and aerodynamic as a finger. Sure, noise could issue and we'd fully expect that to be a WHOOSH. So you might argue that a sudden burst of acceleration to great speed changes a whoosh to a snap? It could happen maybe depending on how steep the acceleration and how great the final speed. But I am likely convinced that whoosh becomes snap only when the sound barrier is broken. Um, yes whips are long, resulting in good leverage; but we also possess good leverage using the brief build-up of muscle tension just before the snap.

When you snap a long whip, the loud crack heard results from the tip material moving (through air) in excess of the speed of sound. This is well known. I have in turn surmised that when you snap your finger, the noise results from your fingertip moving in excess of the speed of sound. I've posted about this before, here and elsewhere, and nobody seems to agree. But that noise is clearly NOT created by your middle finger slamming against the base of your thumb, no! When I snap my fingers (learned late in life) it's a fairly soft/awkward landing made against the base of the thumb. No, I am still convinced. Heck, it's only about 750 MPH that we're talking about. The whip end achieves it and I believe that the human physiology also can and does move that fast :shrug: to make the noise. I'm not closed-minded entirely, but I stand convinced at this time.

Check back at their site, Babala.org, because the latest version 0.4.0 now incorporates Web high scores posting -- big whoop. :) And there is a free browser game, Cetris. And there is an early alpha test version of another free browser game, Papalot.

You're wrong on all 6 or 7 indictments. Hideous sanctimony, shallow, pedantic. Wrong because only claims and assertions are "usually backed by" evidence. Theories can be theoretical, duh? Wrong because if you'd stuidied the passage, he was referring to internal organs never being the source, as I had to so rightfully qualify, because the original writer was UNkempt. *************************************** Derogatory remarks removed!

O2, a run-away reaction with same, as theorized. No I hadn't read it but it was lousy and it didn't sway me. Your operative phrasings: - I have yet to hear a single case - not a case has yet to be classified - extraordinary claim * * but mine's a theory, not a claim Benecke's operative phrasings: - the article seems to be one of the major sources of information for Germans interested - The Expert Sources: To my knowledge, no scientific book or article written by... I only agreed with his "is further proof that combustion never starts from [deep] inside a human body". :hihi:

That's a hollow rebuttal, citing no documented evidence. Even if studies were to conclude the extreme unlikelihood of combustion of dead human tissue, that would in no way refute my theory about how it occurs. "..whacked-out sci-fi shows" <-- another hollow rebuttal

SHC-Spontaneous Human Combustion is one of the most thoroughly documented of the mysterious, seemingly supernatural phenomena. There are thousands of coroner's photos for example. Unsolved-M did a superb segment or 3 about it. My opinion on SHC is pretty clear: I think it's 100% feasible to occur naturally. To understand how, first y'gotta be aware that biologically we must always exist at the cutting edge (else an apter species would encroach our niche?). Socially, we can lounge and relax, but biologically we're always on the cutting edge, fine-tuned, with little leeway for error. To maintain vitality, every cell of your body needs a continuous supply of Oxygen (call it O2), except nails and hair of course. Because of the way energy is bound up in O2, nearly every reaction with it tends to release energy, much/most of it thermal, I reckon. Combustion, FIRE, is simply a run-away reation with O2, nothing more. And here's your body sucking in O2 like a hog. There must exist certain key molecules to moderate these heated O2 absorption reactions, eh? There are zillions of crazy different molecules in the bloodstream of course so who knows? Anyway, when conditions are just so, as an aberration, when a body is slightly dehydrated perhaps, or deficient in those tempering agents, it can happen; run-away reacting with O2, resulting in the actual combusting of bodily tissues. That's my theory. :eek_big:

Check back at their site, http://www.babala.org, because the 200-level version has NOW ARRIVED! Playing time is about double what it was previously. Also added are translations into German. I predict you will enjoy this "mental aerobics marathon".

I stumbled onto a free game that is really REALLY special -- a work of art, a masterpiece; suited to all ages; runs under Windows or Linux. Some guy in the Czech Republic devised it. Find it at Babala.org. It's still in beta but exceptionally stable, and very 'together'. There are 125 levels, soon to be about 35 more... eventually maybe 200. What's really great about this game is that learning it is utter simplicity, but prevailing at the higher more difficult levels is a tremendous challenge. I could say a lot more but it's a real small download and you oughtta just go and try it yourself. Let the kids have at it too. You won't be disappointed, I guarantee. And there is no hidden commercial plug in this whatsoever -- it's a purely cerebral & academic project: TRUE FREEWARE! :)

It is said that the crack of a whip is due to sonic boom when the last inches whip into straightness at speeds in excess of sound. Could finger snapping be alike? Can anyone devise for example some freeware Basic program to show a big displayed timer counting in miliseconds on a computer screen and then film a person snapping their finger in front of the screen. People nay-say me about this always, but I would like to see an actual trial, if it is to be rightly disclaimed.

Do they completely understand tornado formation? 'Last I heard, nay. I know it requires a concentrated low pressure area passing overhead. But why the tight spiral from the ground? Perhaps it sucks highly pressurized air from within the ground itself. There are surely such vast resources and pockets down there. The depleted Ogalala aquifer is merely one example. It is hard to draw gas through soil, so when finally a tiny break-through is achieved, it quickly becomes a torrent. The twist is analogous to water twisting into a drain. The ground you'd think would show injury if this is true, but perhaps that detail is camouflaged in all the other wreckage.

Something is amiss from that list: numbers 1 & 2 are meaningless by themselves, but fit hand-in-glove with a third SR effect, clock dissynchronicity. Considering 1 & 2 alone, without that other, would result in self-contradiction as regards the twin paradox. As for mass increase, it is indeed relativistic, not absolute, since an object's speed is never absolute. So I greatly prefer to attribute the inability of fast-as-light motion to the unusual way that velocities add. When rocket engine propulsion is employed, you have thrust originating in the object's very own rest frame, so it cannot labor extra from any supposed mass increase.

No sir I will not. I've stepped over no line. I'll say what I please and if some despot doesn't like it then they can PROMPTLY expel me from this forum. Go ahead... make my day.

To my previous post above, I just want to add that you are advised to read not only the page that I cited in the link, but the next two in sequence as well, in order to grasp the impossibility of using quantum entanglement to circumvent Einsteinian causation limitation. Anyway... our Coordinated Universal Time is plenty accurate enough that if it had been feasible to transcend lightspeed causality we would've already definitively demonstrated it between (for example) New York and LA. I haven't read the SciAm article or anything else, but come on -- those yokels are just looking to sell magazines by titilating the imagination. There's no substance as yet to any claims of superluminal information transmission.

No, I am unconvinced that quantum entanglement has any bearing whatsoever on the feasibility of superluminal transceiving of information! NO, I do not believe that the lightspeed causation limit is ever violated! I found this TREATISE helpful in debunking any notion of such superluminal feasibility. Yeah dream on, fools.

Please: where is that proven? can u cite anything?

Precisely what I found as well! Hence my answer in post #3 above was the correct one: the hypotenuse bulges somewhat in the lower drawing, and is a tad concave on the top specimen. :hyper: Afterthought: that puzzle is one of the kewlest tantalizers ever!!!

It looks like some subtle fudging in the drawing of the two specimens. The hypotenuse of the bottom specimen is bowed ever-so-slightly outward, while the opposite is true of the top one. You can detect this by where the upper left corner of the #4 piece touches the hypotenuse in the bottom drawing, and compare that to the same locale in the top drawing.

If you're correct, Tormod, then that clears it up satisfactorily for me, thanx.

While I agree with your main critique of that "Law of Theoretical Velocity" essay, you have made a very bad misstatement in the passage above. It is you who has made the misinterpretation if you think that SR distortions can be explained by length contraction without time dilation. In fact, time dilation is every bit as crucial as length contraction and they go hand-in-hand... along with a third distortion that can be loosely termed "clock dissynchronicity". The computations of SR work out correctly only when applying all three of those! P.S. Can you spot the three spelling corrections I made in your quoted passage? :hyper:

Um, I also believe in General Relativity, but understand it a bit less well. Although I think that even under GR, space is the absence of any thing. Yes, space is curved by gravity, but that again relates to material objects and their influence. Absent of material objects, one is still left with space equalling nothingness. And I think "space curvature" is primarily palatable phrasing -- the real truth is wound up in the nitty gritty math. I fail to see how that GR wording eliminates "action at a distant". I mean, if space is warped 100 miles from the gravity source, isn't that also "action at a distance"?? Yes, the Einsteinian gravity tensor is mathematically a bit different than the rudimentary Newtonian gravitational field, but what's the big difference?? Wordplay is wordplay, but the math is truly telling. (That's an invitation for comment.) As for equating my scientific allegiances to a RELIGION... BAH! NEVER! I'd change my mind in a nanosecond if the evidence were compelling. I just happen to like SR and understand it well. I'm even willing to backpedal about being some kind of 'purist'... okay?? :hyper:

The cited essay includes this passage: "...the energy invested in overcoming inertia is retained as the kinetic energy or momentum of any moving body". I think it is a flaw to put the connector "or" between kinetic energy and momentum, since it has been found that these two are entirely different, and each is independently conserved. Perhaps that's where the author erred. Aside from that, I don't think the author understands Relativity correctly. I cannot believe that anyone would, at this late date, question the formulas for kinetic energy and in the same breath claim that differently moving observers reckon different speeds (by a factor of 20 or more!!!) for the same light beam. ALL of that stuff is extremely well established and tested and employed successfully every single day; by NASA, by The Pentagon, by FermiLab and so forth. I can't believe this guy's audacity (or more likely, stupidity).