How are you watching TV??

It's...a magic television that...that...follows me. Wherever I go. I can watch it all the time. 'cause it's magic. The television is.

...

Yep.

However, I enjoyed reading Guess That Buffista, but the physics made my brain curl up in a tiny ball and whimper.

Yes, but how do you feel about auditory vibrations and their interaction, or not, with nearby observers?

Don't just let it sit there--tell us about the others, and the one you believe.

That's why I pointed you to the Flash thing. It posits the exact opposite of what you believe: that reality is made up of waves that collapse upon observation.

I think it's an interesting theoretical way of thinking that can take you to some amazing multidimensional places, but for me, I just think stuff is stuff, period. It's not any less stuff because no one's seen it yet.

It's four seconds, right? One second to accelerate to 10m/s, two to 20m/s, etc. When you say, "acceleration = 10 meters per second squared" you should think of it as "ten meters per second, per second" - i.e. each second of acceleration you add ten meters per second of velocity."

Right, that's how I got it too. I think Gud messed the equation up. The units don't work out.

Isn't the whole point of (some part of ) quantum mechanics that the presence or absence of an observer is fundamentally important to the nature of an event? I think that throws a monkey wrench into your outlook on this matter, ita.

Timelies all!

Woke up this morning to find that there was no running water in the house.(Turned out that a water main broke nearby) A spongebath using filtered water that was in the fridge(The only clean water available) was not fun. The water was back when I got home from work, so I showered after using the treadmill. Am now in pajamas.

OK, so... picture a graph.

Um, OK. The x-axis is time, and the y axis is velocity. So the graph of velocity with respect to time would be a straight line, starting from 0,0 and going through the point where x=4 seconds and y=40m/s. The equation of the line would be y=10x. Got me?

The distance traveled would be equal to the area under the line. You could integrate the equation for x=0 to 4 to get the distance traveled - i.e. the integral would be y=5x². From 0 to 4 the answer would be 80m.

The simple, non-integral way would be to say that you have a right triangle of 4 x 40, the area of which is 80.

OK, so... picture a graph

Do I have to? Can't I picture Colin Firth gazing longingly at me?

Isn't the whole point of (some part of ) quantum mechanics that the presence or absence of an obverver is fundamentally important to the nature of an event?

Right, I think that's part of the idea I'm talking about.

The simple, non-integral way would be to say that you have a right triangle of 4 x 40, the area of which is 80

Right. So...your answer that Gud confirmed was wrong? This fits more with your "take the half of the putative distance traveled" trick.

Do I have to? Can't I picture Colin Firth gazing longingly at me?

Only if he has grid lines overlaid upon his face.

Do I have to? Can't I picture Colin Firth gazing longingly at me?

I think that's what he meant. At least, that's what "graph" equals in my head.

I took P-C's post to make me ask: What the hell is an obverver?

Stoopid fingers.