Is My Gmail Account Compromised And Is Ronald Reagan The Answer?

[Egbert]

I certainly know @Reagan.com cannot tell where I am on a map, because they can barely put together an aesthetically pleasing web site. Geolocation is almost certainly beyond their pay grade.

That is part of the plan. Idiots will conclude, from the appearance of their site, that they couldn't possibly master geolocation. This will draw in the simpletons who are easily fooled.

[Wiglaf]

A safe would need a parachute if you tossed it out of a plane with the intention that it should parachute to the ground.

Excuse me but wouldn't a parachute attached to a safe be rendered entirely ineffective by the safe's weight, assuming the safe was made of what safes typically are made of, and contained what safes typically contain? I am not sure again of the precise geometric physical property at work here, be it buoyancy or solvency, but I am fairly sure that throwing a safe out of a plane, even if attached to a parachute, would result not in the image provided by Reagan.com, but with a flat parachute dragged under the safe. This may also be related to terminal velocity and scalar motion. What Reagan.com would have us believe is that, in such a bizarre scenario --- which I have not seen even in an action movie --- the safe would at least appear to deploy once out of the moving airplane without any problems, and the clear implication in fact is that the parachute would actually be effectively buoyant thereafter. To quote Piers Morgan, that seems like fatuous nonsense.

Are you sure it's a parachute for the safe? It could just be a special type of umbrella to keep the safe from getting rusty ... or even a scalloped radish being used to crack the safe.

It's clearly a parachute because the safe is off-kilter, as if floating side-to-side in mid-air. I called them last night and confirmed that it's a parachute but got no further before they begin their sales pitch about restoring America's future. A reminder: http://apolyton.net/attachment.php?a...5&d=1336804194

[Wiglaf]

I have decided to solve this the old fashioned way, using the Internet and math skills and the scientific method.

Objectives:

1. Wiglaf will be able to calculate the density of an object by measuring its mass and volume and then applying the density formula.
2. Wiglaf will be able to predict if an object will sink or float based on its density.
3. Wiglaf will be able to apply his knowledge of sinking and floating to novel situations such as when objects are placed in a substance other than air, such as when objects are placed in space.
4. Wiglaf will be able to explain why he thinks an object will sink or float.

Formulas:

d = density
m = mass
v = volume

formula 1.) d = m/v
formula 2.) m = dv
formula 3.) v = m/d

Hypothesis: A safe CANNOT be held up in the air by a parachute. That would be RIDICULOUS

Given: For an object to float, its density must be equal to or less than the density of the thing on which it is to float.

Proof: Density of Air
d = m/v
Mass of a cloud (I assume we drop the safe off into a cloud because 'air' is too general)
Cumulonimbus cloud: ten kilometers tall, with a base ten kilometers in diameter. The MASS IS four billion kilograms.

Per Yahoo, the volume is 785 billion cubic meters per cloud. (the billion cancels out)
Density of air therefore = 4/785 OR IN ENGLISH 4 / 785 = 0.0050955414



The density of a safe similar ly depends on the dimensions of the safe and what it is made of. I will assume an empty safe made of titanium.
D = m/v

Mass of safe
4.5 grams per cubic centimeter, according to Yahoo, which seems accurate. 4.5 centimeters = 0.045 meters


Volume of safe
2x2= 4x2 = 8 cubic meters, again according to Yahoo, I am not sure how big safe's are.

Density therefore needs to be converted to similar units, 0.045/8. OR IN ENGLISH 0.005625

WOW THAT IS CLOSE. But I am right, the hypothesis is true

0.005625 FOR THE SAFE

vs.

0.0050955414 FOR THE CLOUD WE DROP THE SAFE ON INTO.

But that suggests THE SAFE WOULD NOT BE BUOYANT and would sink, barely. HYPOTHESIS PROVEN. Physisicts, is that within the margin of error of what, 1, or 2 percentage points? Does it all just depends on what the safe is made of, just like everything else in science...or is this myth really busted?

My "explanation" for my results, per my objective, is just that heavy objects require more displacement to float in the air, and parachutes only provide so much displacement.

[Dinner]

I have scientifically determined that Wiglaf routinely gets buggered by mules because we found photos of him getting bummed in this way on the cover of the national enquirer. The man's expression was oddly satisfied.

[Wiglaf]

I'm sorry what? If you are making fun of my proof, that's one thing, proofs are made to be critiqued, but personal attacks have no place in this thread. Thanks.

[Tuberski]

If a parachute can slow down a space capsule, it can probably hold a safe.

ACK!

[Wiglaf]

Did you not see the proof I posted? I don't see how that's possible unless you use multiple parachutes as seen here: http://www.dullneon.com/randomnotes/...n-droptest.jpg. But then you are modifying my proof, which had just one parachute and one safe.

Again anecdotes are one thing but it's hard to argue with a proof, that's kind of the point of math.

[Tuberski]

Well it takes 3 to hold a tank, so one should be enough for a safe:



ACK!

[Wiglaf]

Again three parachutes completely changes the dynamic. This is a property of equality, a basic one, you can't just multiply one side of a proof and expect the proof to still work out. You are just proving my point, anyway, those tanks are dropping like rocks, which is what my proof says the safe would do. They are not floating down gracefully AT ALL.

[Tuberski]

They also have shock absorbers underneath them. The parachute just has to slow the safe enough for the safe to be openable on landing. Even if it isn't, what's inside is still safe from what's outside.

ACK!

[KrazyHorse]

Wiglaf is obviously a french spy; note his use of the metric system.

[Wiglaf]

This thread is offiically useless, I'm getting a reagan email address.

[Aeson]

Even that is not a sure fire solution. Writing with lemon juice becomes very visible under ultraviolet light. A well aimed gun can bring down a pigeon. There is no sure way to evade the snooping of big brother.

If you use truly invisible ink though, rather than some boy-scout-decoder-ring-spy-pack-cracker-jack-mole-creation-kit, there's no problems. Even if the pigeon is taken down by a bullet or sucked into the jet of a commercial airliner, your secrets will be safe!

[Aeson]

It's clearly a parachute because the safe is off-kilter, as if floating side-to-side in mid-air. I called them last night and confirmed that it's a parachute but got no further before they begin their sales pitch about restoring America's future. A reminder: http://apolyton.net/attachment.php?a...5&d=1336804194

Hello!?! Have you never taken physics? Ii am beginning to think you outsourced your proof to someone in India ... Safes can be very heavy and so thieves would be likely to use INCLINE PLANES to move them up or down. Or maybe levers to tip them over. Either of these safe-cracking methods could explain the tilt of the safe.