The Director Posted September 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 What does the tag PADC mean? It's in front of the post a day challenge thread on the same position as the 'Pinned' tag. Hmm... You mean the tag PADC is on the Post A Day Challenge thread? Why, whatever could it mean? D: Probably A Dumb Challenge? Principles All Dunk Cheese? Prince Albert Dances Cheerily? Pulmonary Arrest's a Deadly Condition? Just kidding. PADC stands for Post A Day Challenge. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unease Peanut Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 Hmm... You mean the tag PADC is on the Post A Day Challenge thread? Why, whatever could it mean? D: Probably A Dumb Challenge? Principles All Dunk Cheese? Prince Albert Dances Cheerily? Pulmonary Arrest's a Deadly Condition? Just kidding. PADC stands for Post A Day Challenge. Whoopsie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinWarrior Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 What would be your initial reaction if Halo: The Master Chief Collection was delayed to May 5th, 2015. (Was a dream I had last night, sorry if it seems weird ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Is not JL Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 Explain the Monkey and the Hunter theory if you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted September 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 What would be your initial reaction if Halo: The Master Chief Collection was delayed to May 5th, 2015.(Was a dream I had last night, sorry if it seems weird ) It is weird that you would dream that... But I wouldn't mind terribly. My current situation would prevent me from buying it on it's current release date. By May 5th, 2015 though I'd be able to purchase and play it on the release day. Explain the Monkey and the Hunter theory if you can. Lmao time for an essay. Alright, so the Monkey and the Hunter Theory is a thought experiment used to explain the effects of gravity on the motion of a projectile. Basically, a hunter finds a monkey in the jungle that is hanging from a tree. The hunter fires his gun at the same time that the monkey releases his grip on the tree branch, presumably to try to avoid being shot. The monkey will accelerate downward at the rate of gravity (9.8 meters per second squared). The projectile will accelerate at it's initial velocity along the line it was originally fired, but will also fall at 9.8 MPS^2. So the projectile is falling just as fast as the monkey while accelerating towards the monkey. This means that if the Hunter aimed directly at the monkey, then the projectile will hit the monkey. I really enjoy this particular though experiment because it's a perfect metaphor for how Galileo's Law (all objects are pulled toward Earth at the same rate of speed) works. As everyone knows, I love speaking in metaphor, and coming across a perfect one (one that cannot be picked apart) is a rarity. To go off on a tangent here, the only way that this thought experiment wouldn't be applicable is if Terminal Velocity (the top speed of an object being pulled toward Earth) came into effect. Terminal Velocity comes into effect when an object reaches it's top speed because of it's weight. If you were to drop a bowling ball and a tennis ball from 3 feet up, they would both hit the ground at the same time. If you were to drop them from 1500 feet up, the bowling ball would hit the ground first because the tennis ball would have reached it's terminal velocity before the bowling ball did. The bowling ball would have kept accelerating while the tennis ball maintained a constant speed, and thus would have beat the tennis ball in the race to the ground. If we were to apply Terminal Velocity to this thought experiment, that would change everything. The monkey would be able to avoid the bullet because the bullet would have reached it's terminal velocity before the monkey did. The reason that it DOESN'T apply, however, is that the monkey would have to be really high up and the hunter would have to be rather far away for this to happen. This would result in either the monkey's death by splatting, or the projectile being unable to reach the monkey's position in the first place. Now, if we had a super-monkey that could survive an impact with the Earth but had an inexplicable weakness to bullets, the hunter had a Barrett .50 cal, the monkey were high enough to reach terminal velocity (and still have enough height to accelerate enough for the bullet to pass above it's head), and the bullet was fired far enough away and at such an angle to reach it's terminal velocity as well then the monkey could avoid being hit by the bullet. Another off tangent thing (since I love discussing the applications of gravity), did you know that firing a bullet straight up in the air would yield a non-lethal collision to anything under it? This is because bullets fired at a 90 degree angle slow to the point of stopping and accelerate to the ground at 9.8 mps^2. This is FAR slower than the bullet was originally fired. Also, since the bullet is very light it's top speed is just enough to hurt, but not enough to kill. A bullet fired at an angle, however, is still usually lethal. This is because while it also falls at 9.8 mps^2, it is still traveling at nearly the speed it was originally fired along the angle it was fired because the only thing slowing it down is friction. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Composite Armour Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 Can you explain black and white holes? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Is not JL Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 Can you explain brown holes and yellow holes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted September 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 Can you explain black and white holes? Quite easily. Black holes suck, white holes blow. I would like to point out that everything to do with black/white holes is still theory at this point in time, as we cannot currently experiment on them. Everything that follows is put as simply as possible: A black hole is formed when a large star implodes. As it collapses under it's own gravity, the event horizon (the point of which nothing can escape the gravity of the black hole) forms. The star continues to shrink until it reaches the point where it cannot compress any further due to "Loop Quantum Gravity" (might lose you here, but basically gravity and space time are quantified to the point where they are made from loops that cannot be subdivided any further than they have been [google it if I lost you]). When it reaches this point, the loops "bounce" and exert an outward pressure. This creates a "white hole", where the contents of the black hole are explosively ejected back into the universe. This transformation from the beginning of the formation of the black hole to when the white hole is created is only a few thousandths of a second, however it appears to last much longer to us because the gravity stretches light waves and dilates time. Can you explain brown holes and yellow holes *snickers* Well, brown holes usually emit solids and yellow holes usually emit liquids. I use the term usually due to the fact that while the holes are intended to function in that manner, on occasion they reverse their intended functions. Sometimes a brown hole will emit liquids, and sometimes a yellow hole will emit solids. It should also be noted that these holes are not necessarily originally brown or yellow (and in most cases remain their original color) but are stained in that manner over time. They are still called brown and yellow holes because of the coloration of the excretions that are generally emitted from each hole respectively. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caboose The Ace Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 What if Destiny was never made and Sony made a game called Fate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted September 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 What if Destiny was never made and Sony made a game called Fate? Then they would be sued, because there is already a game called Fate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinWarrior Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 Do you think with all exclusivity deals Activision has with Sony that Destiny 2 may be a PS4 exclusive? What would be your reaction if it was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted September 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 Do you think with all exclusivity deals Activision has with Sony that Destiny 2 may be a PS4 exclusive? What would be your reaction if it was? I highly doubt it. Activision spent 500 million (or thereabouts) on the first Destiny. The ONLY way they can break even is by selling between 15 and 16 million copies. They cannot do this by making the game an exclusive title. In the top 40 games ever sold (which starts at 15 million copies btw), the only exclusive titles are for Nintendo, and this is because of their popularity in Japan. There isn't a single PlayStation or X-Box exclusive title on that list. So, for Activision to see a profit on the first Destiny, they have to be sold on as many platforms as possible. IF they decided to make a Destiny 2 (which is doubtful because sequels to MMO's are a rarity, usually they just expand on the original because it's cheaper and they can maintain their population) making it a Playstation exclusive will require them to severely cut the budget for that game to break even. Not to mention that it doesn't make any sense to create a game series that is cross-platform only to have it become an exclusive later. That's like the opposite of the normal route a game series takes. As far as my reaction to it, I would only care a little because of how stupid the decision to do that would be. Destiny is not my cup of tea, as the phrase goes. I have no interest in the game itself, but rather the machinations behind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_Make_Big_Boom Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted September 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? Fourth time I've answered this (in it's many variants), however: A woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted September 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 What's an Avian? A bird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caboose The Ace Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 What do you think will happen if Ms buys Mojang? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted September 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 What do you think will happen if Ms buys Mojang? I think that the PS3 and PS4 versions of Minecraft may stop seeing updates, if not get pulled all together. The updates for minecraft will also be faster, as they will have more funding from M$, and I think that Mojang will finally come out with their other games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeckoningZebra1 Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 Person A, when Person B is present, can converse with Person C at an optimal rate. Person A, when Person B is not present, can converse with Person C at a standard rate. Person A, when Person B is or is not present, can converse with Person D at only a sub-standard rate. Explain this phenomenon please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted September 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 Person A, when Person B is present, can converse with Person C at an optimal rate. Person A, when Person B is not present, can converse with Person C at a standard rate. Person A, when Person B is or is not present, can converse with Person D at only a sub-standard rate. Explain this phenomenon please. Well let's see. If Person A can communicate with Person C with Person B present but cannot do it very well I would say that Person A speaks a language that Person C has studied a little bit but isn't completely fluent in it. Person B acts as an interpreter. Person D, however, seems to not be able to understand the language that Person A speaks or the language that Person B interprets in very well. For instance: Person A speaks English fluently. Person B speaks English and French fluently. Person C speaks English at a standard rate but speaks fluent French. Person D speaks Russian and only speaks a little bit of English and may or may not speak a little bit of French. Or perhaps: Person A is deaf and Person B understands sign language fluently and is not deaf, but only speaks English. Person C understands a standard amount of sign language and can understand English fluently. Person D does not understand English very well and does not know very much sign language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeckoningZebra1 Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 Let me reiterate, Person A, B, C, and D all speak and understand each other perfectly. I'm referring to the 'quality' of the conversation. Person A, when Person B is present, can converse with Person C at an optimal rate. Person A, when Person B is not present, can converse with Person C at a standard rate. Person A, when Person B is or is not present, can converse with Person D at only a sub-standard rate. Person A, when Person B is not present, can converse with Person E at an optimal rate. Person A, when Person B is present, can converse with Person E at a standard rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted September 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 Let me reiterate, Person A, B, C, and D all speak and understand each other perfectly. I'm referring to the 'quality' of the conversation. Person A has social anxiety issues. Person A somewhat enjoys the company of Person C, but is nervous without their "wingman", Person B. Person A either dislikes Person D, or is too nervous to speak to them with or without Person B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted September 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 Let me reiterate, Person A, B, C, and D all speak and understand each other perfectly. I'm referring to the 'quality' of the conversation. Person A, when Person B is present, can converse with Person C at an optimal rate. Person A, when Person B is not present, can converse with Person C at a standard rate. Person A, when Person B is or is not present, can converse with Person D at only a sub-standard rate. Person A, when Person B is not present, can converse with Person E at an optimal rate. Person A, when Person B is present, can converse with Person E at a standard rate. Person A kind of likes Person C, really likes Person E, Person B is their best friend, and Person D they either have a crush on or hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Composite Armour Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 Can you explain the String theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rrhuntington Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 Why is Space Black? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_Make_Big_Boom Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 In pictures of the Planets such as Earth, Saturn, Jupiter and etc, why doesn't the background Galaxy and Stars show up? On Earth on a very dark night you can see the surrounding Universe (Galaxies, Stars, Nebulas, etc) but a picture in space of a Planet yields none of that? Is the Planet too bright? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now