Unusual/Astonishing facts post....

[WVaHillbilly]

About the thing with the penny and doubling it. My kids got involved in one of those programs where all you have to do is get two people to buy from you and you'll get rich in no time. I wrote out the penny progression to show them how it worked. If everyone did as they were told, and only got two people in one week, and didn't get anyone else (which by the way, gets you a whole lot more money!!!!!!), in 25 weeks the progression would be more than 33, 000,000 people. Now that's if everyone said yes. If half said no, then double that number of people. WOW, I think I'm catching on now. I must have been crazy not to get in on that gooooooood thing.

Makes me think of Amway or the old pyramid money scheme of the 1970's.

 

[KYErik]

The circumference of the earth is about 25,000 miles, so an extra 32 feet would be almost meaningless.

I would guess the band would be only 0.000000001 inches above the ground- a practicaly indetectible amount.

 

[Podunkadunk]

I've never really given this a lot of thought until now, but it astonishes me!

Like a lot of folks in this Country I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit. In order to get that paycheck. I am required to pass a random urine test, which I have no problem with. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with enabling someone to sit on their keester, and buy dope with mine and your hard earned money.

Could you imagine how much money the government would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

 

[BTDT]

I've never really given this a lot of thought until now, but it astonishes me!

Like a lot of folks in this Country I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit. In order to get that paycheck. I am required to pass a random urine test, which I have no problem with. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with enabling someone to sit on their keester, and buy dope with mine and your hard earned money.

Could you imagine how much money the government would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

See, it's out of the box (or in the toilet?) thinking like that, that qualifies you to run for office.

 

[RobertN]

Here is one for you. I'll bet you a buck you can not do this...

Take one piece of plain white bread(Wonder Bread). Eat the piece of bread in less than one minute.

Restrictions: you can only eat the slice of bread by itself; no drinks, water etc.

 

[TedLaRue]

Suppose the Earth is a perfect sphere, and you have a steel band wrapped tightly around it. Suppose you cut that band and weld in an additional 32 foot section with your new Miller. If this new band is centered around the earth, how far above the surface would the band be? Could you crawl under it? Could you slide a piece of cardboard under it? Could you slide a 0.001" shim under it?

I'll leave this unanswered for now. But I'm pretty sure several posters here can come up with the correct answer.

Well, I was right about that prediction. If the band were centered around the Earth, it would be about 5'-1" above the surface. If tight against the surface on one side, then it would be 10'-2" above the surface on the other side. The fact that some may find interesting is that the diameter of Earth doesn't matter.

 

[TedLaRue]

Did you know that two citizens of Fort Worth, Texas have the same number of hairs on their head? This isn't an Internet "urban legend". I can prove it. Can you? (Don't go trying to count people's hair strands...you might get arrested... : )

 

[TedLaRue]

The track on a DVD is a spiral from inner to outer edge (like the old vinyl LP "records"). The track on a standard single-layer single-sided DVD is about 7.8 miles long. Anyone who's ever tried to wind 18 feet of line on a weedeater spool can appreciate that.

That track passes under the laser at about 24 miles per hour. Now picture yourself driving 24 MPH while leaning out the window trying to read the little pits (dents) in the surface of the road. You might need your bifocals, though. Each pit is only 0.000028 inches in diameter. And you'll want to count fast. There are more than 35000 of them in each inch, so you'll have to count to 5 million every second.

 

[KYErik]

Ted,

Can you please explain the metal band riddle. I guess I am a little slow

Why doesn't the circumference matter?

Lets scale it down. Lets say we are adding 3.2 inches (instead of 32 feet). and to a band that is around my tractor tire which has a circumference of 150 inches vs. my lawnmower wheel which has a circumference of 12 inches, the answer would be the same?

 

[cp1969]

Ted,

Can you please explain the metal band riddle. I guess I am a little slow

Why doesn't the circumference matter?

Lets scale it down. Lets say we are adding 3.2 inches (instead of 32 feet). and to a band that is around my tractor tire which has a circumference of 150 inches vs. my lawnmower wheel which has a circumference of 12 inches, the answer would be the same?

It is the distributive property of mathematics. Remember it? It says:

(a + b) x c = (a x c) + (b x c)

or (a + b)/c = a/c + b/c

Applied to the circumference problem,

Circumference of a circle = diameter x pi

Circumference of a slightly larger circle = (diameter + increase) x pi

Now this problem was worked backwards, ie, we knew the circumference, not the diameter, so it became

(Circumference + delta c) = (diameter + delta d) x pi

If you rearrange this to isolate delta d (the unknown in this case), it becomes

((Circumference + delta c)/pi) - diameter) = delta d

Using the distributive property on the first term gives

Circumference/pi + (delta c)/pi - diameter = delta d

But circumference/pi is the same as diameter, so those two terms cancel each other leaving:

(delta c)/pi = delta d

Where where delta c is the change in circumference and delta d is the change in diameter.

Anybody still awake? Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?