iamcal.com

• Newbie topic - April 2012
• Newbie topic - March 2012
• Newbie topic - February 2012
• Newbie topic - January 2012
• Merry Christmas everybody :)
• Newbie topic - December 2011
• Newbie topic - November 2011
• Newbie topic - October 2011
• Newbie topic - September 2011
• Newbie topic - August 2011
• Everyone ok in the riots?
• Newbie topic - July 2011
• Newbie topic - June 2011
• Newbie topic - April 2011
• Newbie topic - May 2011
• FORK.
• Hippie Colony
• Boobs
• I made this :)
• Apologies

I would like to start one.

On a massive farm which we could use to grow our own food. (We would be self-sustaining vegetarians)
Have access to the Internet. Live in lovely little bungalows. Sit in the sunshine and play and eat fruit all day, and not have to do grotty jobs (except a bit of farm work). Who would like to join me? What else can you add to the vision?

Um, I can wear my straw hat, and smoke my pipe.

(Don't know how helpful that would be, but I sure can do that)

"(We would be self-sustaining vegetarians)"

I assume the electricity would be generated by burning the massive methane output.

I can't join as I would be unable to survive on purely veg.

Goddamn tree hugging hippies.

Lucid : That would be fine. And everyone has to grow their hair long. And wear rough cotton clothing and Jesus sandals. And smoke pot.

What would we call ourselves? It would have to be the something something tribe of the something

hmmmmmmm

/scratches head

Take a puff and get with the vision, brother Brock.

What's a hip pie? Is it like a new dish that stems from canibals who have a particular love for the meat on human hips?

Eeeeuw.

Also syl, to access the internet you need a little thing called money ;]

What you have mentioned here does not state how you would actually be able to pay for internet access (or anything else for that matter).

Cups and string anyone?

bunch of salmon kissing weirdos

LOL!! All AMD employees wear rough cotton clothing and Jesus sandals? Screw Intel, I'm there!

:sigh:

Yea I just need the sandals, duude...

We could sell ornate carved 'craft' ornaments to pay our internet bill, man...

O but we have to grow grapefruits.

Isn't that a little too close to capitalism and the evil Western World and all the money grabbing that hippies try and get away from by becoming smelly, backwards miscriants?

Or sell surplus farming produce...
Or sell our bodies (I bags that option) KIDDING!
Or sell the "hemp" that we grow

I can drive a tractor / combine harvester - could be handy if you need to do things on a large scale.

We won't be smelly!

Or sell internet services (Alfie, Arsepuppy, Cal...)

I have a job for everyone...Rosie can run a mail order business where she sends people random things in the post like stale vitimins, eh Rosie?

But you'll still be backwards miscriants with skewed views of how the World works, right syl?

;D

h1: "Hey, man, duuude, I'm, like, so fed up of the evil western world"
h2: "Yeah, dude, and, like, that capitalism and money grabbing, it really sucks, man"
h1: "Too right, laddie."
h2: "There's only one thing to do, my son"
h1: "Duuuude! You're not suggesting ... "
h2: "Yeah, man. It's the only way to be sure. We've got to become smelly."
h1: "Man! Heavy! I guess we've got to become backwards miscrients as well."
h2: "I would have thought miscreants would be more appropriate."
h1: "No way, dude. Miscrients. It's the only option."
h2: "Duuuude."

*click click*
DOUble POSt.

-[2w874320987432097

Yes

Pedantic much?

Oh, I'm nothing. You should see Alphie and Brick once they get going on correcting people's spelling and grammar.

Okay, Brock, we'll toss a rotten chicken into your cage every now and then, how's that? But it has to have died of natural causes.
(We can have someone who routinely "trips" over the chickens)

Or we could shape one for him out of quorn.

Sul will be in charge of brewing the Tribe's liquor

It's the worst kind of comeback when someone has to resort to criticising your grammar and/or spelling in order to score points ;]

Maybe he can invent Liquorn!

How many points did I get for that little screenplay then? 3/10?

I mean, to be honest (ha!), I was more criticising the idea that becoming smelly and backwards is the best reaction against global capitalism. It's more a by-product, surely?

I wouldn't mind being smelly for a while. But after that I would like to able to have a nice hot bath.

Nothing wrong with pedantry, tosspots. It stops me being overly personal and making you all cry.

Tossers.

"Or sell internet services (Alfie, Arsepuppy, Cal...)"


me?? huh??

sob

I don't know where this whole "ooh a vege diet makes your gassy" thing comes from Brock. I rarely if ever fart despite being a vege for over a decade.

"We fart because we're not the only ones who digest our food. Inside our intestines and bowel there are lots of bacteria that help us digest the fibre in our food. They get energy from this and so do we. It's a pretty good arrangement.

As the bacteria digest the fibre they produce lots of gas which has to go somewhere.

Really smelly farts may be caused by not enough fibre in your diet or by too much meat or other foods that sit in your gut too long and rot. This produces bad-smelling gases. It is not good for you to have these poisons sitting round inside you for too long.

So eat a healthy diet with plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables and you won't have much of a (smelly) problem."

carrot fascist.

viva la brocolli revolution

AP, I fawt yoo was a Internet person? Sorry, what would you like to do?

That's right, Alfie. When you eat properly you still fart, but they don't smell bad. I really do believe we should be vegetarians, but most people will disagree so we'll agree to disagree before it becomes heated.

oh it's not the first time it's got heated
I love it when the "Hitler was vegetarian" line comes out to play. :)

More of a graphic designer, really. My recent stuff is quite good as well (I usually my biggest critic). I'm a fule when it comes to the interwebnet.

I love it when veggies/far-left sorts get all preachy and thus begin to display right wing tendencies.

Ahem! Okay, I know I will be shot down for this but : I think it's bad karma to eat animals. There I said it and I'm not taking it back.
;)
Where can we see your stuff AP?

The stuff I had online was absolutely awful (some intentionally, though) so I took it down. The recent (good) stuff isn't online yet, in part due to certain restrictions, I suppose like copyright issues in a way.

I love it when the "Hitler was vegetarian" line comes out to play.

And he tried to ban fox-hunting =]

"The recent (good) stuff isn't online yet, in part due to certain restrictions, I suppose like copyright issues in a way".

oh dear

The Doctor Lucid Tribe of The Randomly Insane

Now I know why Hitler was so uptight all the time! He was a closet hippy trying to break free!

"Goddamn zis country I vil make a Vorld ver der iz no hunting of ze fox and everyone eats ze vegetable only! I sink vhile I am at it, I shall use it as a vay to kill millions of Jews!"

BAD KARMA!

tee hee hee ;D

If the bible can be believed then God didn't send people to Hell for eating meat. I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't solely a vegetarian either.

syl: Nah, it's just I did stuff for companies, and things like that so I don't know how much 'ownership' I have of my own work, if that makes sense. I never bothered to look it up. May get away with some of it though. Similar situation with uni stuff in that I heard we weren't meant to release stuff into the public domain as its uni property blah blah blah.

I could upload shots of certain things. I made a CD-ROM program thingy last year which was especially sexy though.

I know a group of West African's called the Tribe of Doris, but that's another story

Didn't the Bible *encourage* people to eat meat? I think it's in Genesis. Not the band. Or the Sega console.

The Hippies vs The Christians;

Kind of the lesser of two evils, if you'll excuse the pun.

OGG! VORBIS!!!!

Able sacrificed lambs for God so he could eat them (Cain 'sacrificed' turnips, then got jealous because God prefered the lamb).

And Jesus ate fish at the last supper, did he not?

WHAT ABOUT THE LOAVES AND FISHES!!!!

He was cool though. He could replicate bread and fish, turn water into wine, and hung around with hookers. Nice guy, too.

"I could upload shots of certain things. I made a CD-ROM program thingy last year which was especially sexy though".

You could put them up, let me have a peek, and then take them down again?

I don't know why, but that sounds terribly lurid...

<notlewdminx> Jesus would be so much cooler if he hatched from an egg
<coke-> haha
<notlewdminx> Immaculate conception? BIG DEAL
<notlewdminx> Eggboy? AWESOME

Yeah, I may do if I have the time. Bit busy for the next month or so though (finals, etc.)

that's ace!

okay...
:)

I see it as more of a Buddhist thing than a bible thing. I'm not big on bible

eh?

The karma thing...I believe in karma. I do!

*thud*

Do you believe in Feng Shui as well?

Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

...mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

...mmmmmmmmmmm.

I'm contemplating Syl's navel (among other things).

Well it's MY lunch break and I can if I want to.

Not eating animals though isn't entirely within keeping of Buddhist principles, is it? I always think of Buddhism (with respect to the people that choose to follow Buddhism who were not born into it) as a convenient religion to follow if you're scared of what comes after death.

Personally I don't believe in any religion particularly. I like the idea that there is life after death (either in Heaven/Hell or in the way of reincarnation) but where is the actual proof that this is the case? We have examples of people being regressed to share experiences from former lives but how accepted is that as actual proof that reincarnation exists? It scares me to think that there is nothing after death, infact I feel a sense of real desperation at the thought of it; but without proof then surely the only thing that can come after death is nothing.

As long as you don't go to Haven after you die. Those chalets are mad cold.

i'm rather fond of the concept that you are what you leave behind.
Life after death is living on in the memories and thoughts of others.

su - nice :)

The reason I believe in Karma is because of balance. There are laws
in the Universe and balance is one of them. How can you do vile things
and end up with the same fate as a saint? Talking of Hitler, if it's true
that you just die, how shit would that be? The damn coward took a pill
and copped it before he could even go to jail for war crimes.

WarHead you made the screen all long :(

Surely your argument there contradicts the existence of karma?

Syl, since you're unlikely to be able to get a bigger screen right away, I've edited my chant.

"Surely your argument there contradicts the existence of karma?"

No...because I believe that one day, he will get what's coming to him. Or wherever he is, he is.

Syl, since you're unlikely to be able to get a bigger screen right away, I've edited my chant.
LOL! :D Thanks sweetpea *bat bat*

Isn't karma more earth-based though?

"No...because I believe that one day, he will get what's coming to him. Or wherever he is, he is."

This depends on if the afterlife exists. Or reincarnation. In regular terms, the wanker got away with it.

Well, it's things like that that make me believe that some sort of afterlife exists. I think Karma is bigger than just earthly life.

carbonite - Hitler wasnt a vegetarian, that was my point

I like more travelling in time than going to hell. And who wouldn't.

I don't understand how he is supposed to have "Got away with it". He died. What could you possibly have done to him to punish him that is worse than killing him, without being worse than him anyway (ie torture etc.)

Dead is Dead!

Nonsense!

I've seen 'Ghost Dad'.

There are worse things than death.

This is getting too heavy...sigh

I've been dead once and resuscitated.
I can't remember anything about it, but I'm not at all afraid to die, I figure that's a good sign.

Really Miki? What happened?

What is worse than death? I'd say being dead is up there with your own private Hell of being forced to listen to pop music and watch the Teletubbies and Hoobs, its pretty bad as punishments go. He's no longer alive, no longer able to inflict pain and suffering on other people. I'd say that's a pretty good deal. You'd rather he was alive so you could inflict pain and suffering on him like he did to all those millions of people (either directly or indirectly)?

Bad astma attack, I was about 8.
They put a needle in my heart, Pulp Fiction stylee.

Like I said, I dont remember any of it. I was unconscious long before that bit.

The Hoobs is hideously vile, but I challenge you to sit through the infinitely worse 'Boobah'.

OMG Miki. You don't remember any of it?

"You'd rather he was alive so you could inflict pain and suffering on him like he did to all those millions of people (either directly or indirectly)?"

Not me. I wouldn't want that on my head. but how about him coming back as one of his victims?

Life after Death AND time travel??

Good to see we're keeping it sensible.

Eva Braun?

His niece?

That'd be weird. Sort of wanking, but not.

*hits 88mph*

I like more travelling in time than going to hell. And who wouldn't.

Alternate Universe. Why the heck not?

/can of worms going into opener

He'd still be dead then wouldn't he syl? A victim would imply that it is someone that suffered the ultimate price under his regime. I'd say that coming back as a living person (holocaust survivor, soldier who lived through the war etc) is not really any kind of comparison to being dead.

lol, alternate universe? Once again there's a slight problem with proof with that one =]

"...holocaust survivor, soldier who lived through the war etc)is not really any kind of comparison to being dead".

I could live with that ;)

NEWTON CROSBY!! MALFUNCTION!! NEED INPUT!!!!!

Time doesn't exist. It's an illusion. That being true, who says there can't be parallel Universes?

definition of true?

It doesn't exist as an entity, but that means Jack Shit, little miss over-simplification!

ALL ABOARD THE SIXTH FORM PHILOSOPHY TOURBUS!

Ssshhhhh!! You'll wake up Doc, and then it'll get really fucking weird...

And to that same end: Who says there can?

Anyone can say "I'm from a parallel universe". How can they physically prove it...more to the point how can they replicate it and move between parallel universes? It's not possible and even if I am proved to be wrong in the distant future, everyone here that bears witness to my claims will be dead anyway!

All I said was Why Not?

Done y'all get peesy wi' me jez cos ye caynt aynswer the quaystion! (That was meant to be a Southern Mamma accent, but oh well)

Why would there be? It's impossible to explain how there could be an alternate universe. The chances are, in this universe (because it is seemingly infinite), there is another planet which is identical to Earth in every respect. That wouldn't be an alternate universe though...

I'm going to come back and pinch all of your bums :D

And it's sixth form physics arsepuppy

I'll be on my holidays in the alternate universe when you come over syl!

"...That wouldn't be an alternate universe though..."

no, not at all. But everything is energy, so it seems to me that everything is possible, by manipulating that energy.

*paging David Icke*






*and maybe Uri Geller*

syl: It's only Physics if it's physical, you pillock. If we don't know if it's there or not, it's philosophical.

I meant the Theory of Relativity

Since when is energy not physical?

One step at a time, dearie.

I'll wait a few hundred years and then discuss it with you dum-dums :D jee wiskers

You can't answer the question : "Why Not?"

You were talking about Alternate Universes and life after death.

And also, not everything is energy. Matter isn't. It just has energy.

Matter is just dense energy

And you can't answer the question "Why would there be?"

Ha ha! I asked you first! :P

Syl is just dense energy ;)

:P

(and not very energetic at that)

:(

No it isn't! Take a football for example. While it is just sitting stationary it has no energy. You have to impart force onto it in some way or other (i.e. kicking it) for it to have energy.

Syl: Bollocks. Matter has Mass and must take up space. Energy does not do either. You should get a bit of research in before you go too much further with your Star Trek definition of the universe...

No matter (no pun intended) how dense you make something, you cannot add mass, merely concentrate it.

The football is made up of what?********

Star Trek? :(

(Star Trek was the polite version of "Horseshit")

ha ha hahah!

Atoms syl. Arranged in a specific way.

Where's Ana when you need her?

Atoms are made up of what?*********

She is too polite to come in and blow your naive shite out of the water.

/Big slice of WRONG pie for the South African table, please

syl: THEY ARE MADE UP OF MATTER!!! TRY USING GOOGLE!!!

Well, then enlighten me, Oh Brock!

These ********* were all rhetorical questions)

Energy
www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-...

Matter

www.thefreedictionary.com/m...

Is that where you've been? Google?

Never mind Ana! We've got Spock! I mean Brock!

What happens when you split an Atom?*********

At

om




Simple, really.

Add a nice warm mug of shut the fuck up to that order, and put a move on it!

*mouth fart at arsepuppy*

In alternate universe Syl is working, not wasting time on t'internet.

Oops. Warhead's here. :S He's gonna be mad.

I'm just trying to prevent you getting your arse kicked by The Ogre, but it's your job, not mine.

Ana, if you ever read this thread, please come and explain this to us. Thanks.

Oh yes, The Ogre...

Bye

Damn. I meant to ask if there was going to be 'free love' in this colony.

It'll be just like my hippy days in the 70s.

Yes. There will. Bye.

Get me an application form.

O, well let me see.

*clicks fingers together in Dastardly Doctor Darcy Tyler manner*
(he's a doctor! it can't induce arthritis!)

o ----- O ----- 0

parallel universe // time matter mass

imagine, if you will, a big plate of cold sausages
and then imagine the plate being empty.

Yea, so if Hitler was a vegetarian, WHO ATE THEM?

But if you were to go back in time to find out, and then accidentally spill them all over the floor.

Would you be the cause? And in that case, if you never went back in time to find out, would you still be the cause?

Dammit,

Laughs really loudly at Doc (a real belly laugh)

The plate of sausage experience has scarred you deeply, hasn't it Doc?

Bless.

my work here is done

I'm off to go get on a train to Brighton, transforming into Uncle Moc on the way. Bye!

How does that work? There's no doors on phoneboxes these days.

"Matter has Mass and must take up space. Energy does not do either."

but we can't see energy - we feel it - does that mean it does or doesn't take up space?

Erm light?

We don't feel energy. We feel the result of energy acting upon matter.

:p

i hate to say it, but syl sounds right.

wave particle duality. matter is just made of arranged energy. isn't energy nowadays either chemical, electrons, bosons, gravitons, etc? aren't these just matter? and vice-versa?

pwnd by syl, dear me.

No, Cal. They are essentially different, I'm certain. Molecules are made of matter held in an arrangement by energy which is where I think the confusion comes from. It is the fundamental building method of everything, but not the bricks themselves.

Even if she was right, I would be doing my best to change the universe in it's basic structure till she wasn't, i can assure you.

however, I am pretty confident in my memory of Physics, and none of the googling has led me to believe it to be wrong. Have you got Stephen Hawkings e-mail address? The reply might be typed a bit slow, but at least we would have a chance of gleaning the right answer from among the headbutt-typo's.

Just a thought.

this goes some way to backing me up

"They are essentially different, I'm certain."

you can be certain all you like - since people who know about this stuff all disagree, your opinion doesn't really matter :)

Show me the proof, then bitch!! And read the page that link goes to...

(and check your mail)

There we go. No phonebox required.

That would make a fantastic Album title, Mocster. Maybe for some cheesey 80's kind of music from a band leader gone solo.

Or something.

Oi, Perci!! It's a Phil Collins gag, geddit?.....


*pauses*...



.....there ya go!

No, I don't get that one either. Hang on...

Wait, wait, I have a question.


What's the matter?

universe is held together by 4 forces (electromagnetic, gravity, strong and weak) and made of 4 quantum particle types.
i like the neatness of that.

(not getting involved in the debate, just a random musing)

err, there are 12 quantum particles:

Electron & Electron Neutrino
Muon & Muon Neutrino
Tau & Tau Neutrino
Up, Down, Top, Bottom, Strange & Charmed Quark


"Matter has Mass and must take up space. Energy does not do either"

expand out this rather well known equation: E = mc^2


This page might interest you, since it goes beyond A-Level physics, unlike yours:
home.comcast.net/~jeffocal/...

Later in Chapter two the quantum properties of mass and energy were defined in terms of the integral energies associated with resonate "structures" formed in space by the oscillations or interactions of the continuous non-quantized mass and energy components of space. The formation of these resonate "structures" was derived in terms of a dynamic balance between the continuous non-quantized mass and energy components of space defined by the equation E=mc^2. These resonate "structures" are called mattercules.

It was shown the "energy position" or the "equivalent temperature" of the space a mattercule is occupying determines where the resonance equilibrium "point" occurs between the mass and energy components of space internal to these resonate "structures" called mattercules.

ahh, four types. my mistake :)

but really there are three families, which kinda matters more

expand out this rather well known equation: E = mc^2
Ahahahahahaha!

E = mc² is a much nicer way of writing it (ALT + 0 1 7 8).

Just for reference, that equation dictates that the energy that a body has is proportional to the mass of the particle and the square of it's velocity. It does not in any way imply that the energy contains any mass.

Or is everything made up of 'velocity' too?

(I am fully conversant with the use of that equation, so you know. I used it in BOTH my A-levels, and my Engineering honours degree ;p )

Haven't you got a cylinder block to rebore or something, instead of constantly reboring ME?

While I am fully prepared to be wrong over this issue, I would like to see some proof on it first.

I am only prepared to be wrong over any particular matter (No pun!) ONCE, so I want to be sure before I change my position!

I will check out that link when I get home... Or maybe at lunch

:D

WH:Don't read it if it's making both your brain cells hurt, sweetie.

;)

I thought it was up,down,sideways and sex appeal.

What you do in your own time is your own business Abe. I think you physics geeks should start a new thread for this and let us hippies live in blissful ignorance.

Amazing how something so uninspiring as hippies can spawn an intelligent (?!) conversation on quantum physics, matter, energy, Star Trek, Religion, Hitler, Vegetareans and Karma.

Welcome to the glory that is iamcal.

We rock 'da house', my old china.

Or 'da caravan', if we're being hippies.

Good point. Although I think there may have been a mention of a tent or something near the top of the thread. I can't be arsed to look, though.

'Da Bungalow'

That's made me think of that 'Dick and Dom' program.
I haven't seen it.
I don't need to.
It's shit.

I don't agree with the thing about not feeling energy. Or maybe I am not defining what I mean correctly...

How come then I can "sense" or "feel" when someone I know is close by?

For example, I can be alone at my house and I think of a person and within minutes that person arrives? NOt all the time of course, but sometimes it happens

Before the sarcasm starts, I don't mean after I have spoken to them on the phone and they have said, "yeah right, see you in a minute then"

*snigger*

Beaten to it ;)

That is a whole new sort of ESP debate. Not sure I want to get involved in that one.

I think it's probably because Pluto is entering Uranus.

"but sometimes it happens"

the law of averages.

I would suggest that someone you know is likely to be someone you think about occassionally, and also likely to be someone who comes round occasionally.

when the two things happen one after the other your brain remembers it and it seems unusual. if it doesnt happen then your brain doesnt bother remembering it. "oh i thought about him and he didnt show up" is not worth remembering.

so you end up remembering the times that it does happen. but it's just coincidence

as an example sometimes i pick up my phone and a second later i get a text message from Emma. I remember this happening but i ignore all the other times when she texts me and im not holding the phone or i pick up my phone and she doesnt text me.

but it's not some special sense, just that she texts me regularly and i pick up my phone regularly.

Love the new show, Derren.

actually it could be due to the Transit of Venus

She used to use it to sell dodgy fridges down the Dog'n'Duck, didn't she?

Nicely explained Alfie.

Next?!

Q: If you had a candle in an otherwise lightless room, does the amount of light in the room increase if you place a mirror next to the candle?

no
next :D

Wrong =]

Light distribution would increase (hence perceived light, ie it might get brighter). But the amount of light energy would NOT increase.

Miki's right- Gold star

Grim's wrong- stand in the bin.

Bullshit - light energy would increase because it would be in the room for longer.
Think about it.

Have done. You're wrong. I shall now pour dog shit into the bin.

It can't increase because the mirror is only a reflector not an amplifier. It can only change the direction of the light, not make more of it. Keeping it within the room only makes more use of the light energy available. Less wastage, if you will.

Um - I don't think you have much of a clue what you're talking about

If the light can stay in the room for longer, that means there is more of it, as the candle is constantly generating light.

yup :)
Alfie Star-in-a-Car(tm) ?

So the room would get progressively brighter and brighter till it melts would it? I DON'T think so!

The room was sealed to light from the outside. Therefore there is no reason to assume that it was escaping anywhere, so it would stay in the room, just get reflected off the walls. Therefore no light increase just for putting a damn mirror next to it..

I know what I'm talking about thanks. You, my boy, are just worried about getting another drubbing like the other day.

Try it tonight under your duvet as you pleasure yourself to sleep.

Step One.

Imagine a spherical room with a point light source in it's centre. The rooms
radius is 2x10^8m (this is due to the speed of light being 2x10^8m/s, so
calcs are easier). The light source gives out 360x10^6 photons per second,
and the walls are black and absorb 100% of the light reaching them. So
turning the light on at t=0s, the first photon will reach the wall at t=1s,
and at this point there will be 360x10^6 photons in the room, as the wall
will absorb the photons as they reach it, the room is in steady state.

Step Two

Same room, but this time coat half the room with an 100% reflective surface.
Turn the light on at t=0, again the photons reach the wall at t=1, but only
half are absorbed, so we now have (360+180)x10^8 photons in the room, at
t=2, the 180 million have reached the centre, the 360 million released at
t=1 have reached the wall, and half have bounced back to the centre
(reflected along the original path they travelled) so we have
(360+180+180)x10^6, at t=3 the original 180 now reached a black wall and so
are absorbed, along with half the photons released at t=4, so we have
steady-state with 360 million being added and 360 million being absorbed,
but we have (360+180+180)x10^6 photons in the room, so the room IS twice as
bright.

Sorry if that's a bit too much like a physics lesson, now - in the shit-filled bin with you!

The phrase, I believe, is pwned.

=]

But your mirror example does not remove any of the light absorbent surfaces (as in that example) so the SAME AMOUNT of light will be absorbed by the walls, floor and ceiling. Two entirely different examples.

Nice try.

If you put a mirror into the second room, it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference to the light in there. Remember, you placed it next to the candle, not put it on the wall.

Back at ya.

Of course it does - it casts a shadow.

The reason for the reflective walls was simply to keep the calculations easy.
Placing a mirror anywhere facing the candle (except for in it, perhaps) would increase the distance light has to travel before it is absorbed.

Not in a spherical room with 100% reflective walls, you twat!

Are you in the bin yet?

Haven't lost yet. Your original question doesn't prove your point.

re. shadow: still only reflects the light that otherwise would have travelled where the shadow is now. I agree that if you change the absorbtion you change the amount of light, but I don't agree your original question changes the absorbtion.

Questions don't prove points.

Which bit are you having trouble understanding?

Miki: Placing any reflective object into the path of the light would change the absorption.

The harder question here is which of you two I would prefer to see in the bin ;)

The point was, you hadn't changed the absorption rate in the room, as Miki says. I see the point that you are making (or, bless you, trying to), but to be right, you would have needed to specify that the mirror was placed on the wall, not just next to the candle.

Small point but pivotal to your proof.

I guess it is, because the light question has already been answered.
By me.
Correctly =]

No the light question was ASKED by you, and answered correctly by Brock and me, sjeesh.

*whoooosh*

Oooh! Was that a set of fast moving goalposts on their way to proving another of Grim's badly worded questions?

Miki: Anyway, it's MY bin, and even if I'd been wrong, I'd still have stuck it on the twats head.

But I'm not. :D

Brock: much appreciating your dedication to binning Grim...
doesn't mean I can't still hope Grim... returns the favour and I get to see both :D

Um, Brock, did you just say that placing a reflective surface in a room doesn't change the absorption rate?

Unless the mirror is placed in the light source, the distance the light has to travel is increased.

And what goalposts?
It must be a pretty crap life if you get this upset about being wrong, because you seem to be wrong a lot =]

Miki seems to have a bit of a perverse obsession with bins...

And dog shit

But she is Dutch, I guess.

;P

Dutch?

I though she was Hollish =/

*sigh* It doesn't change the absorbtion rate. Or are you saying that distance is the same thing?

Bad karma here. You're both going to be reincarnated as single cell amoebae to reflect your knowledge and intelligence!

Not quite: Light doesn't move instantly, so the greater the distance it travels before it hits something, the longer it is in the room, making it brighter.
Absorption isn't really an issue, distance and time is. Placing a mirror next to a candle will increase the amount of light in the room.

Interestingly, you can't say 'would make the room brighter', because there isn't a measurement of brightness.

No. Brightness is a subjective term. It would seem brighter to the naked eye, but not necessarily with a greater candela quantity of luminescence. That was the whole point.

um. *Whooosh*

And in your example that you quoted, it is only brighter in the room because the light was not absorbed.

Are you saying that it would be twice as bright if the room was twice as big then, if distance is the all important factor?

If the room was twice as big, there would be twice as much light in it.
As I've just said (d'uh) I was careful to avoid the word 'brightness'.

Look at our post counts go! =]

as miki said, the light reflected by the mirror would just mean that those photons are being reflected back into that half of the room, the other half is not getting so much light, so overall the room isnt any birghter. an area of the room might be brighter but overall the total light in the room remains the same

Thanks Alfie. He won't listen, though. He can only see a small part of the picture.


Ooooh! Maybe he needs a mirror to reflect the light?

Chay: No.
Read the big post - the longer the photons are in the room, the more light there is.

still, best ever scientific argument on cal is here

Brock: According to you, a mirror wouldn't help =]

I don't know why you bother Grim, Cal's just gonna come on here and bitch-slap you in a Beargod style.

ah Grim...s wonderful gaps between the stars comment

"A photon of light will continue traveling through space until it strikes an
object that absorbs it. In an enclosure such as a room this happens very quickly (it
takes only a few nanoseconds for the light to reach a wall in a 10 X 10 foot room).
While the light may be reflected a few times it will eventually strike something that
will absorb it. Your eyes cannot resolve events shorter than a few milliseconds. A
given photon might strike a wall up to a 100 thousand times (reflecting each time) in
this time period. Even if only 0.1% of the light was absorbed (99.9% reflected -- such as for a pretty good household mirror) at each wall interaction it would be down to
undetectable levels long before it reached a 100 thousand reflections."

Ah, the old God / Infinity thread.
Notice how the might of IAmCal intellect backs down on the infinite stars theory when they realise they are arguing against Mr Hawkins =]

Abe: Doubt it - I'm right.
Alfie: Er, thanks. Did you have a point?

ah Grim...s wonderful gaps between the stars comment

Not mine, Dr. Hawkins.
I just happen to agree with him.

there is as little use arguing with Mr Hawinks as there is arguing with Mr Potato Head

btw, Cal thanks for fixing the search thing it's perfect again

uh, no. we didn't suggest that the universe was infinite. just that your "why isnt the whole sky one big bright mass of stars" was interesting to say the least

Grim.. my point was your room thing is silly.

if you are in a room next to a mirror does that mean there are twice as many grim...s in the room?

i hope not

Oh yeah. Well... :shrugs:

I still believe in God.

wow it only took 3 minutes for him to go from being a Mr to a Dr

Silly, yeah, no-one said it wasn't.
It's also a pointless discussion, because the increase in light (as you said) would not be noticeable.
But theoretically, it's answerable, even though, in a practical sense, it wouldn't make much difference.

if there is a Grim... in a room next to a mirror, you can be certain that the room is not twice as bright.

add a glass of water though...

re:twice as many Grim...s

Unless it's a really big room, it's unlikely.

Twice as much UGLY though.

(All my posts seem to be referring to 2 post's previous at the moment).

I doubt it even took 3 minutes (in real life this is, captain pedantic).

He's at his graduation, he's a Mr, he gets given his award (or whatever you get with a PHD) an he's a Dr.

Yay!

Unless it's a really big room, it's unlikely.

A really big room - I need to start doing some kind of excersise =]

Head exercises

What are they?

they go a bit like this:

*thud*
*thud*
*thud*

hehe

You're right, getting you guys to understand stuff is a bit like that =]

Hippies - loads of time to contemplate life, the universe and everything :-)

=]

Hey Grim, If a tree falls in the forest and it hits a mime, does anyone give a toss?

ROFL!!

I so nearly choked when I read that!

Abe: Brock would if it disagrees with him =]

Only if the white-gloved twat was wrong

:D

=]

i hate to come into this discussion late, but

FFS

Grim is right, and you lot are being thick again.

Facts:

* If light takes longer to reach the walls then there's more of it in the room at once (details are above)

* Placing a mirror anywhere inside the room facing the light source will mean that at least some light that hits it will now take longer to hit an absorber (a wall).

* The amount of light that travels further than it would otherwise is a function of the reflective index of the mirror.

* the extra distance it has to travel is a function of the distance of the mirror from the light source and it's angle (and the shape of the room).


an example:
we put a mirror on the wall. any light that hits it would have otherwise hit the wall and been absorbed and reflected at a ratio deternmined by the color & material of the wall. because the mirror has a higher reflective index than the wall, the ratio is higher (more light is rebounded). *any* light that is rebounded then has a longer path before absorbtion. so a room with a mirror in CAN HAVE MORE LIGHT than without.

brock - you haven't even made an argument against it, besides saying "no, you're wrong". try refuting the points instead of just saying that you're right. when you're not.

but given the speed of light is that extra light perceptable?

No! He's wrong!

we only argue cos its fun to argue with Grim
don't spoil our fun!

Grim... didn't specify that the candle was lit.

Arent mirrors used in ill illuminated areas to help increase light? Like in my crappy bathroom. This may be wrong in the context of the argument but I'm pretty sure its true.

Actually... I dont wanna get involved.

"we put a mirror on the wall. any light that hits it would have otherwise hit the wall and been absorbed and reflected at a ratio deternmined by the color & material of the wall. because the mirror has a higher reflective index than the wall, the ratio is higher (more light is rebounded). *any* light that is rebounded then has a longer path before absorbtion. so a room with a mirror in CAN HAVE MORE LIGHT than without. "

As I said (when I was making an argument against, I refute the allegation. I just didn't go to the quote databank! read my posts closer), Grim said the mirror was put next to the candle NOT on the wall. I have already said above that changing the light absorbtion ratio of the walls would have a difference, but not placing a mirror next to the light source. The problem here is that, whilst the argument that he then goes to make (the dull room versus the reflecty room) is correct, his original question (the one that me and miki were arguing against) is not an example that proves that.

He, originally, just put a mirror NEXT to a candle. This actually (if anything) makes exactly zero difference to the path that the light would take, twice as much light (cos it is reflected) only crosses one half of the room, therefore 2 x 1/2 =1 . The half behind the mirror, assuming the candle is in the centre, would therefore be in shadow. Again, the point he argues further on makes sense, but he has changed the goalposts halfway through by implying the example is the same as if the wall's reflective index were changed. This is not true to his original question.

I am prepared to concede a badly worded question to the point that Grim was trying to make. I understand and accept his argument if that was his intention to prove the point (changing the reflective/absorbtion index of the walls) all along, as long as I ignore the original question. My argument to the original question still stands, and nothing mentioned here would seem to disprove it given the structure of the question.

Two different points being argued here, methinks...

of course his candle might be near a wall, for the mirror to be on the wall though he did say that the candle was in the centre.

and I still choose to believe that the candle isn't lit :P

must.....get.....out......more.......

Arguing on t'interweb is NEVER going to get me laid. it may get me sacked for thinking about poxy light sources all day as opposed to working, though...

Boo. :(

allo tacko wai son!! mica dona and my crew are 'jacking' the paris boat into the sea with a global effort of all our might! and boy is it an evenful weekend. to say I got a sun tan would be to over egg the pudding! i bought the ray disease with a fairly tropical way of doing things!

iamcal in google sits neatly between www.youngerbabes.com and Live chicks with dicks ... blowjobs transexual gangbangers transexual cartoon naked transvestites transex ... tranny fuck hardcore tranny tranny cock hot tranny tranny ...
www.smashingthumbs.com/sex/... -

om shanti

Dick and Dom is fucking ace.

Surely this thread is conclusive proof that Grim... actually is a complete and utter geek?

I have to agree. Even though it has "Da" in the title and I'm very rarely awake in time to watch it you still have to laugh at the way they torture the kids on the show.

Yeah. I don't approve of the 'Da' either.

And you being Welsh, and all.

Surely this thread is conclusive proof that Grim... actually is a complete and utter geek?

The only reason you watch that show is because you fancy the presenters.

ALL ABOARD THE [redacted] HOMOPHOBIA EXPRESS!!



(How can you say something's shit if you've never seen it?)

Haha, coming from the man that called a gay guy homophobic

(Is it really any good?)

This thread is amazing.

There's my real name. Oh.

Can someone that can edit that make it go away?

No, but at least I know why facebook keeps suggesting you as a friend now.

Ever put a dog on a full length mirror?

No, what happens?
I've put socks on the dog before...that's pretty funny. especially on alternate legs only.

To post to the iamcal discussion forum, you need to first register for a free account.

Choose a username:

If you're already registered, please click here to login.

The following tags are allowed:

<b>bold text</b>, <strong>bold text</strong>

<i>italic text</i>, <em>italic text</em>

<a href="http://flickr.com/">links</a>

images: <img src="http://woo.com/yay.gif" width="100" height="75" alt="my image" />

<small>small text</small>

<blockquote>quoted text</blockquote>