Oh? You mean “I think flowers are called for, Molotok”.
(Note the slight difference, talking about making things complicated…)

But you are right.

Jade, please accept my apologies!

I did complicate the matter on purpose, but the quote was purely accidental. That part is a language thing, I guess I don’t even understand the expession “leave time to react to the impending disaster”, because I still don’t see the difference (except grammatically) from to “leave time for a reaction”.

Lol, now THIS thing is getting complicated… how will I get out of this, without bruises…?

By the way, I didn’t know that I misquoted you. I thought I misquoted Jade.[/quote]

Ummmm Molotok…I am offended! It would appear you thought it ok to misquote me but not Brian…it’s not ok to misquote at all!! ******, man - you sure know how to hurt a girl’s feelings!

mechanical, relatavistic, or quantum, we simply would not aquire enough info about the object until it was too late to do anything to prevent impact.

Jade’s daughter did answer both these questions, answer 1. 1/3 answer 2. no

now, that was fun, as i told Jade that if we got an answer, the person would try to make it sound more complicated, and add qualitfiers that simply were not present in the question.

but thanks for putting thought into it.

(p.s. the reason i said sorta right on #1: 33.333% or 33.334% are recognized as implying the .3 to infinity. or, as the 12 year old so wonderfully said it, with no ambiguity, 1/3.)[/quote]

1.I would have used the bar over the last 3 to indicate run-on as I usually do, but I can’t do that at help.com.

2.That’s why I asked what class this was for. The answer varies depending on what class/subject/set of assumptions you are in. I’ve taken three different classes in uni, that have different responses to this and other similair questions. So I just gave the simplest answer I could.

:-P

By the way, I didn’t know that I misquoted you. I thought I misquoted Jade…

We had a similar case here, when the National Traffic Board came on TV, stating that “if two cars collide with eachother heads-on, from opposite directions, each driving in 55 mph, the impact is like driving into a solid mountain wall in 110 mph!”
So there was this little kid, simply saying “no”. He had a Physics teacher who tried to correct him. But he was persistent and convinced the Physics teacher to forward the question to other Physics guys… The matter caused a very intense debate between professors and God-knows-who. They brought very advanced Physics and Math into it, but it all ended with the National Traffic Board issuing a statement that they had been wrong.

The funny thing was that while the professors were slugging with their advanced formulas, the boy prooved his case with a piece of toilet paper! And once again in another way, with a mirror! And it was easily understood!

For each of the cars, it is like driving into a wall in 55 mph.

Just saying Variables, do not answer the question..

and , friend, I hate being misquoted, and say specifically what i mean.

not “leave time for a reaction” but, “leave time to react to the impending disaster”

there is no need to add stress and complication here..hehe.

a 12 year old kid, just took an intutive leap, and her answers still feel more genuine to me. The point of this one (thanks Jade) was to show how many of us will try to “amp it up”, so to speak, so that it is hard to dispute the answers…and often, people will just sit back and say “Lordy, he sure SOUNDS smart, he must be right”

No offensive intended, but, really, maybe THIS is the reason our world is so hard to understand for most people..we make it too complicated..

I ask you, “you want a beer?” how many ways can you come up with to answer that? and Why?

His phone call travels with approximately (space has not absolute vacuum, and the light speed is approximate) the speed as shown below (shown between the earth and the moon), for one year (his measure), before they hear it. He travels with a third of that (still his measure), or with 223,538,876.4 MPH

Just a simplification of the question, of course… hehe…

(ps…I could not answer them and as Brian was explaining the answers to me on the phone my daughter was figuring the answers out next to me on paper..she was two steps ahead of what he was saying. I was completely amazed that her mind was able to focus on the simple vs making it complicated which was what I was doing.)

mechanical, relatavistic, or quantum, we simply would not aquire enough info about the object until it was too late to do anything to prevent impact.

Jade’s daughter did answer both these questions, answer 1. 1/3 answer 2. no

now, that was fun, as i told Jade that if we got an answer, the person would try to make it sound more complicated, and add qualitfiers that simply were not present in the question.

but thanks for putting thought into it.

(p.s. the reason i said sorta right on #1: 33.333% or 33.334% are recognized as implying the .3 to infinity. or, as the 12 year old so wonderfully said it, with no ambiguity, 1/3.)

I thought it was 42 (yes I am a Douglas Adams fan)

2.In a mechanical, Newtonian universe, not a problem. You know enough variables, you can predict the outcome; but quantum physics blows that out of the water.

Sorry… dumb as a post here… Now tell the truth Jade…. Your 12 year old daughter brought these questions home to YOU! Did you get ‘em right? ;)
Bright blessings ~ Richard