>> ^ForgedReality:

Looks like Flash, not hand drawing...


Well, according to the creator... "It is frame by frame hand drawn vector art with a few animated tweaks here and there. About 400 hours worth of rotoscoping total. LOL"

>> ^rottenseed:

That wikipedia entry was way too simple in that it doesn't explain boo but the equations. I think it boils down to conservation of (angular) momentum when an object has angular momentum along (3) axes. So far I can't give but a rudimentary explanation. A more simple system that would convey the fundamentals would if you were to hold a spinning bike wheel while sitting in an office chair (that can spin). As you rotate your arms (holding the axis of bicycle tire spin) the angular momentum lost will be gained in the seat you're sitting on (making you spin). Here, watch this doofus and see for yourself...

I don't know if it's more complicated in theory, or just in added dimensions
>>


^dannym3141:
It's a shame that hyperphysics doesn't have anything on this cos they're usually a good balance of words and maths (i find the wikipedia entry disappointingly mathematical; i expect a bit of background and discussion) as this is something i discovered as a kid playing with the sky remote.
I used to hold the controller at the base with a thumb and a finger or two, then try to flip it end over end one full flip and catch it in the palm of my hand. I found it really hard, but i eventually worked out that it was because i was imparting some sort of force to it as my wrist twisted because if i added more twist it would do a complete spin on both axes and land nicely, and when i tried less twist it would only do half a turn on that axis.
So then i started to hold it across, with one thumb and a finger (bit like a barre grip for a guitarist) straight across it width ways and gently flip it, and bet people they couldn't do it every time but i could



You don't lose angular momentum by rotating the wheel. When you hold the bicycle wheel vertically, the angular momentum vector of the system in the axis of you and your seat is 0, as the angular momentum of the wheel is not in that same axis.

When you turn the wheel horizontal, the angular momentum vector is pointing either up or down depending on which way you turn it. So the chair spins in such a way that it sets up an opposing angular momentum vector (ie. by spinning opposite way to the wheel) to make the net ang' mom' 0 in that axis.

I think it is likely to have something to do with the moment of inertia of the object about the 3 different axes, and probably the axis around which it is unstable has the smallest value of angular momentum (don't wish to prove that for the object in the video lol). I would call on the example of my tv remote. I've just tried spinning it around two axes - end over end, and helicoptor wise. The third axis is width ways, and you don't even need maths to intuit that i require less force to spin it width ways; more of the mass is centred towards the axis, and angular momentum is dependant upon mass and the distance of the mass from the axis of rotation.

So if it's got less angular momentum, it will not only require less force to make it rotate (remember i have to use my trick to reduce force imparted on either side of the controller as i toss it), but it also has less resistance (any?) to being spun in that axis whilst already spinning in another.

My theory at least. I have a feeling it's close as that seems to tie in with the maths too. Could just be something that only makes sense mathematically. It's not like anyone's ever explained why fermions can't coexist in the same quantum state to me in anything but maths either.

This may scare some to hear, but realistically speaking you may actually be able to make the opposite case. The case that in fact there are really no true "full numbers" as she is stating, that in fact these numbers are merely representations of fractions and other such logical pantomime... Exactly as @Mikus_Aurelius says Math is a very large framework of logical conclusions and determinations about numbers and their nature. It's up to us no matter the argument to decide and resolve the issue--maybe it changes how we use Math, but that TRULY is doubtful.

I could destroy her whole concept by reducing the entire mathematical world to a structure scheme that can ONLY be ever displayed as a fractional environment, except for 0 or infinity, as they are special forces unto Math. Why not also bring our ever lingering doubts about structure in the small scale into the mix? You can only know one of two facts (at the electron scale for example) leaving you with a permanent variable in every problem. Then we could bring in Quantum Mechanics to make it even more fun...

So I would ask her this question concerning .9999~ not equaling one. If we take two pinballs and start to count all the electrons--but, midway through we strip ONE electron from one pin; essentially making this our .9999~ pinball. By the time we get done counting the electrons which pinball will have less and which will have more? Well the problem is that IN FACT the pinball that had one taken off could actually NOW have more than the other pinball. So do either actually equal one?

This is why Mathematics are very specific, but in use--in the field--they will have LARGE caveats where the majority of the mental masturbation falls completely apart. Because, many of these discussions DO OCCUR at the EXTREMES of Math (if you know what I mean) and fundamentally the only places that use these parts are in extreme measurements; measurements where chance can become a powerful player.

Another way to look at this is to realize that the number missing--that doesn't equalize .999999~ to 1--is SO SMALL that it LITERALLY escapes anyway we have in our own Universe to describe it as energy, dimensions, vectors, scalars, or entropy. It is so small that it is essentially "virtual" to us, literally. Hopefully, this helps others understand why .9999~=1 (other than ALL OF THE PROOFS), it just has too.

>> ^therealblankman:

>> ^Barseps:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^PHJF:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^PHJF:
Trick question, without knowing the speed's vector direction one could very well end up exactly where one started while traveling at a constant 80 miles per hour.

But--you will have traveled 80 miles.

Not true my good sir, for you see we are all at this very moment hurtling through space at great velocity! The only correct answer to the man's question was "not enough information given, please reexamine your query."

If you are traveling at 80mph--no matter what the directional component of the vector is--at the end of one hour your wheels will have covered 80 miles of distance.

Of course, I'm not considering the Earth's rotation, or the motion of the Earth compared to the sun, or of the sun compared to the galaxy, or of the galaxy compared to the Local Group, or of the Local Group compared to the Great Attractor.

The tides, the tides....don't forget the tides. The MOON plays it's part as well y'know, if you don't believe me, just ask any werewolf.

But what if I'm carrying a coconut?


mind = blown

>> ^therealblankman:

>> ^Barseps:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^PHJF:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^PHJF:
Trick question, without knowing the speed's vector direction one could very well end up exactly where one started while traveling at a constant 80 miles per hour.

But--you will have traveled 80 miles.

Not true my good sir, for you see we are all at this very moment hurtling through space at great velocity! The only correct answer to the man's question was "not enough information given, please reexamine your query."

If you are traveling at 80mph--no matter what the directional component of the vector is--at the end of one hour your wheels will have covered 80 miles of distance.

Of course, I'm not considering the Earth's rotation, or the motion of the Earth compared to the sun, or of the sun compared to the galaxy, or of the galaxy compared to the Local Group, or of the Local Group compared to the Great Attractor.

The tides, the tides....don't forget the tides. The MOON plays it's part as well y'know, if you don't believe me, just ask any werewolf.

But what if I'm carrying a coconut?


Depends, African or European coconut?

>> ^Barseps:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^PHJF:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^PHJF:
Trick question, without knowing the speed's vector direction one could very well end up exactly where one started while traveling at a constant 80 miles per hour.

But--you will have traveled 80 miles.

Not true my good sir, for you see we are all at this very moment hurtling through space at great velocity! The only correct answer to the man's question was "not enough information given, please reexamine your query."

If you are traveling at 80mph--no matter what the directional component of the vector is--at the end of one hour your wheels will have covered 80 miles of distance.

Of course, I'm not considering the Earth's rotation, or the motion of the Earth compared to the sun, or of the sun compared to the galaxy, or of the galaxy compared to the Local Group, or of the Local Group compared to the Great Attractor.

The tides, the tides....don't forget the tides. The MOON plays it's part as well y'know, if you don't believe me, just ask any werewolf.


But what if I'm carrying a coconut?

>> ^PHJF:

Trick question, without knowing the speed's vector direction one could very well end up exactly where one started while traveling at a constant 80 miles per hour.


Speed is scalar. Velocity has vector.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^PHJF:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^PHJF:
Trick question, without knowing the speed's vector direction one could very well end up exactly where one started while traveling at a constant 80 miles per hour.

But--you will have traveled 80 miles.

Not true my good sir, for you see we are all at this very moment hurtling through space at great velocity! The only correct answer to the man's question was "not enough information given, please reexamine your query."

If you are traveling at 80mph--no matter what the directional component of the vector is--at the end of one hour your wheels will have covered 80 miles of distance.

Of course, I'm not considering the Earth's rotation, or the motion of the Earth compared to the sun, or of the sun compared to the galaxy, or of the galaxy compared to the Local Group, or of the Local Group compared to the Great Attractor.


The tides, the tides....don't forget the tides. The MOON plays it's part as well y'know, if you don't believe me, just ask any werewolf.

>> ^PHJF:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^PHJF:
Trick question, without knowing the speed's vector direction one could very well end up exactly where one started while traveling at a constant 80 miles per hour.

But--you will have traveled 80 miles.

Not true my good sir, for you see we are all at this very moment hurtling through space at great velocity! The only correct answer to the man's question was "not enough information given, please reexamine your query."

If you are traveling at 80mph--no matter what the directional component of the vector is--at the end of one hour your wheels will have covered 80 miles of distance.


Of course, I'm not considering the Earth's rotation, or the motion of the Earth compared to the sun, or of the sun compared to the galaxy, or of the galaxy compared to the Local Group, or of the Local Group compared to the Great Attractor.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^PHJF:
Trick question, without knowing the speed's vector direction one could very well end up exactly where one started while traveling at a constant 80 miles per hour.

But--you will have traveled 80 miles.


Not true my good sir, for you see we are all at this very moment hurtling through space at great velocity! The only correct answer to the man's question was "not enough information given, please reexamine your query."

>> ^PHJF:

Trick question, without knowing the speed's vector direction one could very well end up exactly where one started while traveling at a constant 80 miles per hour.


But--you will have traveled 80 miles.

Trick question, without knowing the speed's vector direction one could very well end up exactly where one started while traveling at a constant 80 miles per hour.

I dont get it ?

you think because the blower is putting it in front is a fail ? thats just positioning the snow so one can blow it into a more acceptable area, rather than the street or on the cars. You california people have no idea of snow plowing vectors do you ? its all just rain and gutters to you all

You don't have to be Republican to be afraid of the police force. The police have brought on this assholery by, if not directly abusing people's rights, harboring the members who do behind the blue wall.>> ^liverpoolfc:

You claim Police stopping people for random breath testing will lead to all that paranoid crap i'm not going to bother repeating.
If you think police performing random traffic stops to catch drunk-drivers is a dangerous thing I feel sorry for you and the state America is in.
I'm not British but i'd put money on you being a Republican. I'm not afraid of my Government or police force - clearly you are.
>> ^budzos:
It's not a strawman.. nowhere did I say that those things were equilvalent. In fact I was illustrating a vector of unreasonable search and seizure, from one plateau of disreason to another. I see from your handle that you could possibly be British, which would explain your comfort with the government's head up your arse.
Who's to say a drunk driver hasn't killed one, or more, of my friends at various times? Being against random stops is not being pro drunk driving.
>> ^liverpoolfc:
Bahahah nice straw men. Why not just eliminate the police force entirely, speed limits, laws etc. No one has any business telling you what you can or can't do right???
Wonder if you'd feel the same way if a drink driver killed your mother, father, brother, sister, husband, wife, son or daughter.
>> ^budzos:
I didn't watch the clip but I do not agree with random road-checks for any reason. I don't care if the premise is that you're making the roads safer... I think Benjamin Franklin has a quote about that.
If the government thought they could get away with it, they'd institute random house searches. Why wouldn't you want your house searched unless you have something to hide!?
What about forced screenings/vaccinations for various diseases? I'm sure that's in the public/economic interest?
Let's just give our whole bodies and souls over to the government daddy to tell us where we can go and what we can consume at all times. It's good for the economy.

You claim Police stopping people for random breath testing will lead to all that paranoid crap i'm not going to bother repeating.

If you think police performing random traffic stops to catch drunk-drivers is a dangerous thing I feel sorry for you and the state America is in.

I'm not British but i'd put money on you being a Republican. I'm not afraid of my Government or police force - clearly you are.

>> ^budzos:

It's not a strawman.. nowhere did I say that those things were equilvalent. In fact I was illustrating a vector of unreasonable search and seizure, from one plateau of disreason to another. I see from your handle that you could possibly be British, which would explain your comfort with the government's head up your arse.
Who's to say a drunk driver hasn't killed one, or more, of my friends at various times? Being against random stops is not being pro drunk driving.
>> ^liverpoolfc:
Bahahah nice straw men. Why not just eliminate the police force entirely, speed limits, laws etc. No one has any business telling you what you can or can't do right???
Wonder if you'd feel the same way if a drink driver killed your mother, father, brother, sister, husband, wife, son or daughter.
>> ^budzos:
I didn't watch the clip but I do not agree with random road-checks for any reason. I don't care if the premise is that you're making the roads safer... I think Benjamin Franklin has a quote about that.
If the government thought they could get away with it, they'd institute random house searches. Why wouldn't you want your house searched unless you have something to hide!?
What about forced screenings/vaccinations for various diseases? I'm sure that's in the public/economic interest?
Let's just give our whole bodies and souls over to the government daddy to tell us where we can go and what we can consume at all times. It's good for the economy.