Googliefest!

[Vev]

Not the Archaic measurement?

[Corellion]

Maniac: Yes, the quantum world has very little to do with Euclidean geometry. However, Euclidean geometry still exists within our minds as a useful approximation on a macro scale and for theroretical objects.

Interestingly enough, I believe a study posted a short while ago actually measured that the universe, over long distances, does obey Euclidean geometry, at least within the limits of Feynman diagrams and the uncertainty principle.

As for Drogue's arguments, that is definitely a view taken by many philosophers and scholars. After all, what difference does it make whether something is real if you never know it is not? However there are many other schools of thought in that area too. Many believe in the existance of an 'absolute world', where things either exist or they don't, and it is merely our perception which is flawed or not. Some of the former school even go so far as to state that, for you, nothing exists outside of what you experience yourself, at least for you. Others may have their own worlds, and there's no way to know. In the end, it's like all philosophical arguments... impossible to prove with certainty (at least at the moment).

[Jamski]

Archaic measurement system? I still use 360° degrees in a circle, temperature in Farenheit, pounds and ounces, feet, inches and yards, and convert all currencies into pounds, shillings and pence. Much more convenient than using the French system

-Jam

[Snowflake]

Do pounds, shillings and pence really exist for you, comrade?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Corellion
I usually omit the word 'radian(s)' because it's redundant and superfluous.

Evidently it isn't, since most people still assume you mean degrees when you mean radians. If it has a use (that of infomin peopel what you mean) then it is neither redundant nor superfluous. It may not be needed whe talking to technical people, however you must tailor what you say to the audience

Originally posted by Corellion
edit2: Speaking of redundant and superfluous, did I really need to use both words?

No.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Drogue

Originally posted by Corellion
edit2: Speaking of redundant and superfluous, did I really need to use both words?

No.

But it does make your point come across more powerfully and make you sound more like you know what you are talking about.

[Hercules]

I always find ghosts a bit hard to explain in this 'real world' of quantum physics and absolutes and universal laws.

[Snowflake]

Another form of existence. Positive electrons perhaps?

[jtsisyoda]

Positronic ghosts? I hope they're not positronic-- they would annhilate everything they touched in an explosion many times more powerful than H-bombs!

You don't need physics to explain ghosts. They are explained by medicine, i.e. hallucinations.

[Hercules]

They are explained by medicine, i.e. hallucinations.

There are many who would argue differently.

Maybe Googlie is a ghost and that's why he disappears every so often and speaks of things not of this planet.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by jtsisyoda
Positronic ghosts? I hope they're not positronic-- they would annhilate everything they touched in an explosion many times more powerful than H-bombs!

That's why although there were people who swear they have seen them, nobody swear that they've actually touched a ghost. For anybody who had done so was annhilated right there at that moment.

As for Googlie, he is not a ghost but a god. They may be of similar form of existence, but they live in different places. You know, one under us and one above us?

[Hercules]

For anybody who had done so was annhilated right there at that moment.

Were there witnesses?

You know,

one under us and one above us?

You are not speaking of the 'Evil' one, also known as 'liv E', ViL e, Ile V, the 'Veil',
3+3,4+2, 5+1, fella, a bit horny.

[Vev]

Bill Gates?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Hercules
a bit horny.

[Snowflake]

Horny positronic ghost?