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.

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

Yes and yes.

ita pointing out that 40 x 4 = 160 made me all, "WTF?"

Note that if acceleration is not constant, the trick doesn't work and you have to integrate.