What would have been even better would be for one of them to roll up in a ball and have someone give them a slight push towards the camera. Just enough so they would get close, then start sliding backwards again. But, very fine. I worked on the project back in the '90s.

Wow.

That video collapses my emotion function from the superposition of all possible emotions to happiness.

Molarity times Amperes?

I'm not gonna lie. That put a huge grin on my face.

jigger: Molarity times Amperes?

Molarity cross Apmeres. They're both vectors, after all.

/ dp/dt

F the force? Fark the police!

Re: the car analogy, every time I happen to have a helium balloon, I've been trying to test a corollary. Tie it the string to the parking brake handle, close the windows. mash the gas pedal to accelerate.

The thinking, I think, is that the air remains more or less stationary, and thus as I accelerate, the air pressure should increase by the rear window, and decrease by the windshield, so the balloon should move forward, towards the windshield.

Haven't gotten this to work yet, but I was in a small hatchback before. I should try it again w/ my present car (a larger sedan).

cheers

wjilope:

It works exactly as described.

I feel stoned.

It only works because there is no gravity in space.

That was really cool.

You can't cross a scalar with a vector you silly goose.

wjllope: Re: the car analogy, every time I happen to have a helium balloon, I've been trying to test a corollary. Tie it the string to the parking brake handle, close the windows. mash the gas pedal to accelerate.

The thinking, I think, is that the air remains more or less stationary, and thus as I accelerate, the air pressure should increase by the rear window, and decrease by the windshield, so the balloon should move forward, towards the windshield.

Haven't gotten this to work yet, but I was in a small hatchback before. I should try it again w/ my present car (a larger sedan).

cheers

I've seen it happen, especially in the turns. Helium balloon moves toward the inside of the turn.

Flt209er: jigger: Molarity times Amperes?

Molarity cross Apmeres. They're both vectors, after all.

/ dp/dt

At first I typed that, then I thought it looked stupid, so I cha...ah, fark it.

/I believe molarity is scalar

jigger: At first I typed that, then I thought it looked stupid, so I cha...ah, fark it.

Hah, that was my exact thought process when replying. And yes, you're correct about molarity being scalar. Technically, amperes is also scalar. The usual way to vectorize current is to use amperes per square meter (J in maxwells equations) because doing that requires you assign a direction to the current flow.

See, I was trying to reply to your silly statement with my own silly statement, then though it was getting much to silly and...eh fark it.

EVERYONE (including me) in this thread need to get laid.

maverickzy: You can't cross a scalar with a vector you silly goose.

Your mom's mass is a vector quantity.

Xaxor: Hmm. Headline could have gone the 'May the M x A be with you.' But more people would be confused, maybe.

"M * A the force..." would've worked efficiently. This was the joke subby was trying to make (which I thought was clever) but the poor fool didn't realize that everyone would read that as a cross-product.

/geek tab rigor is not to be trifled with!

maverickzy: You can't cross a scalar with a vector you silly goose.

This is what I thought when I read the headline. Confusing.

This reminded me of: Ohhhhhh the atmospheeeeeeeeere...oooooooooooh

bcbwilla: maverickzy: You can't cross a scalar with a vector you silly goose.

Your mom's mass is a vector quantity.

Yeah well, your father was skew symmetric!

maverickzy: bcbwilla: maverickzy: You can't cross a scalar with a vector you silly goose.

Your mom's mass is a vector quantity.

Yeah well, your father was skew symmetric!

I had to look up what that means, so you win this round.