05-21-10 04:14 PM
68 123
tools
  1. highjakker's Avatar
    oh good lord
    and apparently the message is something of a religious nature...
    05-21-10 12:08 PM
  2. Radius's Avatar
    A lot of repressed tensions here. Am I the only one with an internet connection and 5 minutes of privacy around here?
    05-21-10 12:09 PM
  3. highjakker's Avatar
    A lot of repressed tensions here. Am I the only one with an internet connection and 5 minutes of privacy around here?
    5 minutes?? braggart!!
    05-21-10 12:11 PM
  4. Mavis Fesselmeyer's Avatar
    reason #296 why Jen *hearts* Canadians.
    05-21-10 12:11 PM
  5. Radius's Avatar
    reason #296 why Jen *hearts* Canadians.
    Do I get a prize at 300?
    05-21-10 12:14 PM
  6. Mavis Fesselmeyer's Avatar
    do i get a prize at 300? :d
    yes!

    .......
    05-21-10 12:18 PM
  7. Radius's Avatar
    yes!

    .......
    Ok, as long as there is no skill testing question. I hat that 4+3-1 then apply the results to a fluid dynamics theorem describing movement in a vacuum. My answer is always off by 0.005573E-10.
    05-21-10 12:23 PM
  8. highjakker's Avatar
    you lost me at "Ok".....
    05-21-10 12:26 PM
  9. username0022's Avatar
    Ok, as long as there is no skill testing question. I hat that 4+3-1 then apply the results to a fluid dynamics theorem describing movement in a vacuum. My answer is always off by 0.005573E-10.
    Are you correctly applying inviscid flow, as outlined in the Euler equation? Are you assuming classical or relativistic situations? Then again, the results might be off but still be valid depending on the standard deviation of the allotted testing equipment.
    05-21-10 12:28 PM
  10. SterlingArcher's Avatar
    i think hes talking about the viscosity of maple syrup in a vacuum
    05-21-10 12:29 PM
  11. username0022's Avatar
    i think hes talking about the viscosity of maple syrup in a vacuum
    Oh, then that's simple... He probably just misplaced the decimal point of the fluid density. Happens.
    05-21-10 12:32 PM
  12. Radius's Avatar
    Are you correctly applying inviscid flow, as outlined in the Euler equation? Are you assuming classical or relativistic situations? Then again, the results might be off but still be valid depending on the standard deviation of the allotted testing equipment.
    I'm assuming in a vacuum there is no turbulence and also no fluid boundaries so inviscid flow is perfectly applicable here. Makes things more simple.

    But being I can't use a scientific calculator to save my life and my testing equipment consists of me, a straw and a glass of ware I can see where it might not be the most accurate way to do things. Might account for some of the strange results I've seen in the past anyhow.
    05-21-10 12:34 PM
  13. username0022's Avatar
    I'm assuming in a vacuum there is no turbulence and also no fluid boundaries so inviscid flow is perfectly applicable here. Makes things more simple.

    But being I can't use a scientific calculator to save my life and my testing equipment consists of me, a straw and a glass of ware I can see where it might not be the most accurate way to do things. Might account for some of the strange results I've seen in the past anyhow.
    Slight imperfections in the straw may be the culprit.

    Even under the most ideal of lab conditions I was never able to get things to go just right... What's consistent data?
    05-21-10 12:40 PM
  14. Mavis Fesselmeyer's Avatar
    keep this going you two. you KNOW how I love the sciency/mathy talk
    05-21-10 12:57 PM
  15. username0022's Avatar
    I'm assuming in a vacuum there is no turbulence and also no fluid boundaries so inviscid flow is perfectly applicable here. Makes things more simple.

    But being I can't use a scientific calculator to save my life and my testing equipment consists of me, a straw and a glass of ware I can see where it might not be the most accurate way to do things. Might account for some of the strange results I've seen in the past anyhow.
    I'm just curious... One of these such strange results didn't produce this deliciously hideous creature of utter douchery, did it?

    05-21-10 01:01 PM
  16. LazyStarGazer's Avatar
    I'm just curious... One of these such strange results didn't produce this deliciously hideous creature of utter douchery, did it?

    Is viscous fluid keeping his hair plastered to the side of his head, or is there some sort of wind tunnel effect?
    05-21-10 01:04 PM
  17. Mavis Fesselmeyer's Avatar
    I'm just curious... One of these such strange results didn't produce this deliciously hideous creature of utter douchery, did it?

    I KNEW that kid looked familiar!!

    05-21-10 01:07 PM
  18. username0022's Avatar
    Is viscous fluid keeping his hair plastered to the side of his head, or is there some sort of wind tunnel effect?
    It is human bodily fluid keeping his less-than-hetero follicles perfectly douchey. That's as far as I'm going...
    05-21-10 01:09 PM
  19. trucky's Avatar
    05-21-10 01:10 PM
  20. highjakker's Avatar
    But being I can't use a scientific calculator to save my life..
    here, use mine.......

    05-21-10 01:13 PM
  21. SterlingArcher's Avatar
    who's the cute lesbian?
    05-21-10 01:19 PM
  22. trucky's Avatar
    05-21-10 01:20 PM
  23. username0022's Avatar
    who's the cute lesbian?
    Radius created this beast one day in the lab...
    05-21-10 01:22 PM
  24. Mavis Fesselmeyer's Avatar
    Is Justin B the result of not having a calabrated scale or an abacus? What went wrong in the Jonas Brothers' case? Thank in advance for your scientific explanation
    05-21-10 01:25 PM
  25. Radius's Avatar
    Radius created this beast one day in the lab...
    Yes, never get caught with your pants down near a petri dish full of strep bacteria.
    05-21-10 01:26 PM
68 123
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD