Equilibrium's quest, true or fool?

[ObiWanShinobi]

So, what the user title says, "Is there a balance?"

My personal opinion, no, no balance, i have physical evidence with me right now. My left foot is simply longer than my right foot.

Also, look at presidential elections, when has there been a tie? When have two presidents of two different opinions shared something or were able to commit to both parties?

Equillibrium is fiction.

[Equilibrium]

There is always balance. Your right foot might be longer than your LEFT, but all that means is that the center of gravity in your body which is given by the formula XCM=(SigmaiMiXi)/M is going to be in a slightly different area of your body.

So therefore, regardless of your right foot, you will always have equilibrium.

As for presidential elections, how many presidential elections can you think of? 55?

I promise you if you draw out presidential elections to 1000, 2000, 3000, you'll see that the standard deviation is 0. In other words, on a long enough time scale you'll see that exactly 50% of the time the president is Democrat and 50% is Republican.

So you are wrong. there is always a balance. Equilibrium is not fiction, but it can be friction.:)

[Darth Stujitzu]

There is always balance. Your right foot might be longer than your right, .:)



Obi's got two right feet!!!! :eek:
Definetly not dancing with him. :laugh:
Mind you when it comes to dancing, I've two left feet, so we would be balanced therefore I deduce that Equilibrium exists!!!

[Equilibrium]

Obi's got two right feet!!!! :eek:
Definetly not dancing with him. :laugh:
Mind you when it comes to dancing, I've two left feet, so we would be balanced therefore I deduce that Equilibrium exists!!!

LOL, thanks for that. Correction made.

[ObiWanShinobi]

There is always balance. Your right foot might be longer than your right, but all that means is that the center of gravity in your body which is given by the formula XCM=(SigmaiMiXi)/M is going to be in a slightly different area of your body.

Aha! I've trapped you. Because the center of gravity in my own body is due to my own devices. other people who are different have different centers of gravities. Therefore, we are all not balanced, but each individually, therefore promoting equillibrium on a micro scale, but not on a personal scale, therefore limiting it's importance and viability.


I promise you if you draw out presidential elections to 1000, 2000, 3000, you'll see that the standard deviation is 0. In other words, on a long enough time scale you'll see that exactly 50% of the time the president is Democrat and 50% is Republican.


Aha! But from whence do you draw these conclusions? Territory and environment are considerably more important to what founds our beliefs than we like to admit.

If America continues industrially then that candidate will choose that which appeals to their needs. If america continues economically then we will vote for that candidate.

My proof is that after Carter, we have no more than Clinton's two terms with republican smack daddery in the middle. If America continues, it is how we shall end up.

Predicting equillibrium for something that is based off of ergonomics and fascism will not work. It simply contradicts logic and inevitability.

So, we have learned that A. Because equillibrium happens on a micro scale it cannot transfer to a macro scale and B. That presidents are determined by personal factors relating to geography and fascism and thus predicting equillibrium in such tomfoolery is whimsical fantasy.

[Equilibrium]

So, we have learned that A. Because equillibrium happens on a micro scale it cannot transfer to a macro scale and B. That presidents are determined by personal factors relating to geography and fascism and thus predicting equillibrium in such tomfoolery is whimsical fantasy.

No we havent. That defies the logic of physics. If something balances on a small scale, then the large scale...known as the system balances out as well.

Take for example a collision problem. 99% of all collisons are elastic.That is even the atom particles in the air collide with each other.

When two objects collide with each other, the mass and velocity of both is the same...because Po=Pf (Initial momentum=final momentum) herefore since the conservation of momentum is present, everything you have at the beginning, you have the same but in different forums afterwards. Thus the system is balanced.

Yes presidentts are determined by personl factors but there are only two choices. 50% and 50%. Simple mathmatics tells you that evetually most of the counbtry will split in half if u draw the times scale out.

[ObiWanShinobi]

No no no no no.

If two particles clashed together they would create what the dude calls, "Adjutant overflow."

In liaman's terms, you throw two things together of the same exact mass and they wouldn't break the same way. They would break differently.

This would support your theory if only the human eye could detect particles that reduce mass of one object.

In other words, because the human eye cannot see why two things of the same mass collided and one was bigger than the other, you cannot prove the existence of equillibrium to a human. The end result, is adjutant overflow, or what we wish to see and can predict but cannot be informed upon.

We know the dog peed on the rug, but we couldn't feel the anguish of seeing the dog do it. Although he did it in front of our eyes, which still could not see him.

Argument won.

[Equilibrium]

No no no no no.

If two particles clashed together they would create what the dude calls, "Adjutant overflow."

In liaman's terms, you throw two things together of the same exact mass and they wouldn't break the same way. They would break differently.

This would support your theory if only the human eye could detect particles that reduce mass of one object.

In other words, because the human eye cannot see why two things of the same mass collided and one was bigger than the other, you cannot prove the existence of equillibrium to a human. The end result, is adjutant overflow, or what we wish to see and can predict but cannot be informed upon.

We know the dog peed on the rug, but we couldn't feel the anguish of seeing the dog do it. Although he did it in front of our eyes, which still could not see him.

Argument won.


WTF?

if momentum is conserved that wtf are you talking about the smaller particles not being detectable??

You're just talking gibberish now. Back it up with forumlas if you can, but anyone can spit out random BS.