: Wildepad <noreplies>
: Question One: Which of these violates the most laws of physics?
What makes you think any of them violates any of the laws of physics?
That certainly wouldn't be my first guess as to what's going on.
Possibly you mean something different by "laws of physics" than I
might mean by the phrase. For example, I would count "there are only
four forces" as a law of physics. nor "the standard model" (though it
probably comes closer). I'd say more along the lines of conservation
of this-and-that or invariance wrt thus-and-such.
Or put it this way. How many "laws of nature" would you say that
decay by the weak force violated (before the discovery of the neutrino)?
Now. How many novel physical phenomena are embodied by each object?
I couldn't possibly say, since they were all ruined before they could
be measured closely enough to conclude much of anything. But I would
guess they all are based on a single new physical phenomenon. Just
based on their provenance, not their behaviors.
: Question Two: Which, if any, would you be most interested in procuring
: another sample of for more rigorous testing?
I wouldn't prefer any over the others.
: Assumption A) It is basic human nature to apply 'a little more force'
: when faced with something that you know should move but won't. If you
: never do it, replace the "you receive a package . . ." with "you are
: present when a colleague receives a package . . ." and replace all
: instances of: "you [do this or that]" with: "the colleague who you
: can't stop [does this or that]."
Other than concluding that the "coleague I can't stop" is a complete
and utter moron, I'm not sure what else this is supposed to imply.
I mean, sure, the first one. Maybe even the second one. Ruining
the third one before measuring it far more closely is so incredibly stupid
it boggles the mortal mind.
If more were aquired, the first order of business would be to ensure that
the coleague didn't lay a hand on them. Restrained in a straight jacket
if necessary.
Maybe if you handed them to three different coleagues you can't stop,
and they do these things without knowing about the others, it would
be slightly less incomprehensible. Almost, I would marvel more at
the coleague's thought processes than at the widgets.
Um, alleged thought processes.
Wayne Throop throopw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sheol.org/throopw
|
