with potential for lots of fun

dose it cost more than 3.14d? *Looks under table for Schrodinger's cat*

Well. I give a fuck Mexwell.

If Schrodinger had a Cheshire cat would it be grinning or dead pan?

I think the best answer for this is: 'Who the hell knows?' ;-)

~:

You are being very allusive Smiley.. One of these days I will get a straight answer from you. ~:

Actually Ag, the best answer was... God knows ;o) Catch me on the right day John and I'll be a bit more serious...

Oh HOW I'd like to catch you on the right day.

Missi, if you have something interesting to talk about that doesn't include either an Arsenal game or taking the piss out of others, please, I beg you, please put up a thread...

No problem. *God knows* hahahahahah... Good answer.~:

Well, I have never started a thread about Arsenal and I don't take the piss, I tell the truth. (at least where slimey and the wallaby shagger are concerned)

How could you not find that equation interesting missi? I mean look at it... Its beautiful.. ~:

I would have found it more interest6ing if I knew what the outcome was, as it is I wasn't really sure whether or not you were just having a bad attack, and I didn't like to say anything.

bad attack probably about right missi. Happens from time to time.. But I do get over it. ~:

Pure dribble and waffle......you pack of Physics muses have proved bugger all about nothing and you damn well know it! And a stupid cat in box mind experiment based on wabbly human reason is not pure logic...it's just another pie in the sky God syndrome...much alike that stupid Gravitron wave blaster you twats can't figure out by firing photons through a piece of steel pipe. Like what the hell kind of locomotion is an electron other than simply just one sided gamut in a duality equasion.......and you wonder where the contradiction came from...like bugger me over and call me Shirley Temple...you lot are making it up as you go..helllooooooo! Get over it and simply reinvent the archetype because that's where you've all gone wrong! And mathematics is a fallacy also as 0 is the centre of all and yet it has no physical value whatsoever....so drop it as it either exists or it doesn't.....it's that simple! And if it ain't round or square, you twats reckon it must be somehow because of Euclidean Geometry. But then I'm yet to see a straight line anywhere in the universe! Nor a perfect circle either. And you can't even prove this planet exists objectively...so what the hell has relativity got to do with what is universally true? Nothing that's what...and you lot just presume without proof that it has been proven already.....AHHHHHH...TALK ABOUT ANOTHER WITCH HUNT! So tell me John, why are you so dead set to prove a coincidence has some relevent code of reason within content, rather than in context! I know a cup filled of water is a cup of water, which makes the combination of the two elements something other than simply a cup and water! But if I hop into a perfect vacuum to drink it, we all become the very same element. So the real question of Natural Philosophy should be, what is it we become...not what are we to get somewhere else...geddit?

Oh I know you do John. As a matter of interest what WAS the outcome?

>And mathematics is a fallacy also as 0 is the centre of all and yet it has no physical value whatsoever< Jasper. Don't confuse the concept of zero with the concept of 'nothing', they represent different things when considered in terms of infinity and finite. Now if you are going to argue on this subject Jasper, you need to express it on terms other than mere words. Words are just words! Try this. (a).(a) - a.a = a^2 - a^2 "For any finite a. So if we factor by (a), using the identity-----(a^2 - b^2) = (a - b) (a + b) "for the other side" We can write this as: a(a-a) = (a-a)(a+a) Now dividing both sides (a-a) gives a = 2a So dividing by (a) = 1 =2. And hences how we divide 2 by 0. In other words Jasper. a - a = 0, but it took a + a to arrive at that so called valueless non quantity. *Dose infinity represent 'nothing', Jasper? Another way to look at this is of course me dear friend Einstein. *Just in-case my language is to simplistic for you Jasper* When we consider the concept of Zero in terms of 'rest mass' Jasper, we are talking about a particle defined by the energy of the 'isolated' particle at rest, (divided by c^2) *Your Vacuum analogy* Jasper. The total energy of a free particle Jasper, (regardless of any F****g objection by you), is ....................................______________________ ................................E\/p^2c^2+m^2c^4 Where p is momentum and p = 0. or in simpler terms Jasper, E=mc^2. If that don't work for you jasper, try E = Y m c^2 where & = 1/1-v^2/c^2 where Y m = mass of a moving Y particle and E includes both the mass energy and the Kinetic energy. If the equation don't format right on the forum Jasper, I'm sure you will be able to piece it together. *Zero has no value*! Me thinks you are confused dear boy. ~: BTW. Spaces is not a vacuum Jasper.