For the person who has everything, a bottle to keep it in.
in [Math]
|
Prev: Good Point by JSH
Next: INVERSE 19 MATHEMATICS ANNOUNCES THE FIRST EVER RATIONAL, PSEUDO PRIME INFINITE SERIES AND ITS RATIONAL CONSTRUCTION -- PRIMALITY IS NOW A NON BRAINER!!!!!
From: Mike Lyle on 13 Mar 2010 16:25 John Holmes wrote: > Otto Bahn wrote: >> "Peter Moylan" <gro.nalyomp(a)retep> wrote > [...] >>> >>> -- >>> Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org >>> For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> >> What's not safe for work about Newcastle?! Does Australia >> have zero tolerance in the workplace? > > You've got the abbreviation wrong. It stands for Newcastle, Sydney, > Wollongong. I once, out of mere devilment, invented a proverb about the 'Gong, but it didn't catch on. -- Mike.
From: Bill Marcum on 16 Mar 2010 16:48 ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.religion.kibology.] On 2010-03-11, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp(a)retep> wrote: > Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote: >> Here are four more interesting questions: Given the stated premise that >> Klein bottles "contain everything", for a bottle with a finite radius of >> cross-section (say 1 metre), what is the mean density of its contents? >> How big does such a Klein bottle need to be before its surface is >> outside of its event horizon? What about outside of its Schwarzschild >> radius? Would such a Klein bottle be considered rotating or non-rotating? >> > Ordinary Klein bottles contain all of space. A sufficiently large > _rotating_ Klein bottle would contain all of time. > Somebody alert Al Gore! A Klein thermos bottle is the solution to global warming. -- THEY'RE IN UR BED, EATING UR DREAMZ
From: Bill Marcum on 16 Mar 2010 17:10 ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.religion.kibology.] On 2010-03-10, Chuck Riggs <chriggs(a)eircom.net> wrote: > On 10 Mar 2010 00:22:05 -0800, R H Draney <dadoctah(a)spamcop.net> > wrote: > >>David DeLaney filted: >>> >>>Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups(a)NTLWorld.COM> wrote: >>>>> They are empty, they contain everything, including themselves and any >>>>> scale you use to weight them, so they cannot have weight. >>>> >>>>So here's an interesting question, then: What's the acceleration due to >>>>gravity at the surface of a Klein bottle? >>> >>>It's a trick question, because Klein bottles do not suck. >> >>Maybe you should check that statement with *Mrs* Klein....r > > No can do. She's in another dimension. With voyeuristic intention? -- THEY'RE IN UR BED, EATING UR DREAMZ
From: Bill Marcum on 16 Mar 2010 17:09
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.religion.kibology.] On 2010-03-12, Otto Bahn <Ladybrrane(a)GroinToHell.com> wrote: > "R H Draney" <dadoctah(a)spamcop.net> wrote > >>>> Here are four more interesting questions: Given the stated premise that >>>> Klein bottles "contain everything", for a bottle with a finite radius of >>>> cross-section (say 1 metre), what is the mean density of its contents? >>>> How big does such a Klein bottle need to be before its surface is >>>> outside of its event horizon? What about outside of its Schwarzschild >>>> radius? Would such a Klein bottle be considered rotating or >>>> non-rotating? >>>> >>>Ordinary Klein bottles contain all of space. A sufficiently large >>>_rotating_ Klein bottle would contain all of time. >> >> Perhaps one *does*...that would sort of close the book on cosmology, >> wouldn't >> it?...r > > Ack! DO NOT REPEAT DO NOT close the book on cosmology. I'd rather > die a slow heat death. > A Klein thermos bottle would prevent that. > --oTTo-- > > -- THEY'RE IN UR BED, EATING UR DREAMZ |