for 50 in
solve
1+1=3
Full Version: 50 KP question
Solve what?
I think he means "prove".
I'm guessing that it doesn't have to be a legitimate proof?
Well, we all learn that 1+1=2 in grade school, but what we don't learn is that when two ones get together, they have a child. But, the child is put up for adoption due to the fact that ones don't get paid that much for being ones (a dollar an hour). So, even though 1+1=2 may technically be true, it is actually 1+1=3.
Well, we all learn that 1+1=2 in grade school, but what we don't learn is that when two ones get together, they have a child. But, the child is put up for adoption due to the fact that ones don't get paid that much for being ones (a dollar an hour). So, even though 1+1=2 may technically be true, it is actually 1+1=3.
MONEY PLEASE! Please!
I know this one! We had this as an example in biology class 
When two people *cough* get together, after "everything" there might be a third person joining
Safety first, kids!
When two people *cough* get together, after "everything" there might be a third person joining
Safety first, kids!
1+1=3 is Synergy. Let's say Krazy Letter holds a tugboat competition. Whichever tugboat can tug the most wins. The first place ends up tugging 10,000 pounds, while the runner-up could pull a little less than that. After the competition, Lappy and I bet how much they can pull together. So a few more members join. One bet is 18,000, while another is 20,000. The tugbaots, when pust together, actually end up tugging 23,000 pounds.
It is like a perfect machine, completely frictionless. When two or more people combine their work for a common purpose, it becomes much more efficient. The accomplishments of the group outweigh the accomplishments of the individual.
Do I get 50kp?
It is like a perfect machine, completely frictionless. When two or more people combine their work for a common purpose, it becomes much more efficient. The accomplishments of the group outweigh the accomplishments of the individual.
Do I get 50kp?
Nah, my idea is better 
no, genesis does. i got this idea from some cheesy billboard in tthe iceland airport.
QUOTE(Timebandit @ Aug 18 2006, 05:31 AM)
no, genesis does. i got this idea from some cheesy billboard in tthe iceland airport.
What the heck? Genesis's reply was crap. Mine actually required thought and work. You would make a good American, you know that?
why are you angry!? 1person+1person =a baby!
QUOTE(guitar_freak22 @ Aug 18 2006, 11:05 AM)
What the heck? Genesis's reply was crap. Mine actually required thought and work. You would make a good American, you know that?
Warns GF_22 for flamebait
Actually, I put some thought into it, making something more elaberate than 1 and 1 have sex and cough up a baby. Besides, synergy-wise, it's impossible to have more than 100% efficiency. 1+1 would equal two, at most. Two people couldn't possibly do more than thier combined individual strengths. It's impossible.
Let's just say that two people got married and bought a kid at Wal-Mart.
QUOTE(Timebandit @ Aug 18 2006, 02:39 PM)
why are you angry!? 1person+1person =a baby!
You failed to specify that the numbers were people.
QUOTE(Genesis @ Aug 18 2006, 03:14 PM)
Warns GF_22 for flamebait
Actually, I put some thought into it, making something more elaberate than 1 and 1 have sex and cough up a baby. Besides, synergy-wise, it's impossible to have more than 100% efficiency. 1+1 would equal two, at most. Two people couldn't possibly do more than thier combined individual strengths. It's impossible.
Actually, I put some thought into it, making something more elaberate than 1 and 1 have sex and cough up a baby. Besides, synergy-wise, it's impossible to have more than 100% efficiency. 1+1 would equal two, at most. Two people couldn't possibly do more than thier combined individual strengths. It's impossible.
So how is it impossible?
QUOTE(guitar_freak22 @ Aug 18 2006, 06:12 PM)
You failed to specify that the numbers were people.
So how is it impossible?
So how is it impossible?
that would have given it away off the bat.
QUOTE(guitar_freak22 @ Aug 18 2006, 06:12 PM)
You failed to specify that the numbers were people.
So how is it impossible?
So how is it impossible?
By the laws of thermodynamics, the energy of one and one will never equal greater than two.
Let's say two people are each strong enough that they can exert a force of, I dunno, 100 Newtons in a line horozontal to the ground. If two people each exert that force on an object, there is a total of 200 Newtons being exerted on that object in that direction. No more, no less. These two people cannot collectively move an object that would take more than a force of 200 Newtons to move.
QUOTE(Herloss @ Aug 18 2006, 08:28 PM)
Let's say two people are each strong enough that they can exert a force of, I dunno, 100 Newtons in a line horozontal to the ground. If two people each exert that force on an object, there is a total of 200 Newtons being exerted on that object in that direction. No more, no less. These two people cannot collectively move an object that would take more than a force of 200 Newtons to move.
Eh?
lol ill dumb this one up so people can understand it, no offince intended at all, lets say there are 2 people, theese people can each lift 100 pounds if they combine their efforts, then they can lift a maximum of 200 pounds, and no more.
QUOTE(serebii @ Aug 21 2006, 05:38 PM)
Eh?
Physics my friend, physics.
QUOTE(Herloss @ Aug 18 2006, 10:28 PM)
Let's say two people are each strong enough that they can exert a force of, I dunno, 100 Newtons in a line horozontal to the ground. If two people each exert that force on an object, there is a total of 200 Newtons being exerted on that object in that direction. No more, no less. These two people cannot collectively move an object that would take more than a force of 200 Newtons to move.
How do you know that they could not move an object that would take more than 200 Newtons? It is possible. Highly improbable, but still possible.
QUOTE(guitar_freak22 @ Aug 21 2006, 06:35 PM)
How do you know that they could not move an object that would take more than 200 Newtons? It is possible. Highly improbable, but still possible.
What? The two combined exert a force of exactly 200 Newtons. If it would take a larger force to move an object, it is absolutly IMPOSSIBLE for that object to be moved with a force of only 200Newtons. SIMPLE physics. There is no probability about it.
QUOTE(guitar_freak22 @ Aug 21 2006, 02:35 PM)
How do you know that they could not move an object that would take more than 200 Newtons? It is possible. Highly improbable, but still possible.
Impossible. Two people (assuming all people have the same strength) can't assume the force of three. Combined, their efforts are greator, but it will never be greater than the total of what they each can do alone.
One thing though. Consider two people who can each push with 100 newtons of force. Now consider a 50kg box that they each push. Friction causes a drag of 50kg on the box. One person alone could accelerate it at 1m/s2. Both people working together could push the box at 3m/s2
QUOTE(Mynck @ Aug 21 2006, 09:31 PM)
One thing though. Consider two people who can each push with 100 newtons of force. Now consider a 50kg box that they each push. Friction causes a drag of 50kg on the box. One person alone could accelerate it at 1m/s2. Both people working together could push the box at 3m/s2
There's quite a bit missing, from your calculations, so my boring explanation shall follow in the spoiler...
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «
The reason that 2 will accelerate the box at a higher rate is only because the first 196 Newtons of force is wasted overcoming the frictional force. The added force of the second person doesnt double the acceleration, but multiplies it by a factor of the ratio of the new force to the old net force.
In a frictionless environment, this would not be the case, as friction would not have to be overcome.
Edit: and all of this is irrelevant, because it doesnt prove that 1N + 1N = 3N, only that a box can be accelerated at a higher rate by increasing the force applied to it... which we already knew.
Well, maybe the tugboat example is affected by friction in the same way.
QUOTE(Mynck @ Aug 21 2006, 10:14 PM)
Well, maybe the tugboat example is affected by friction in the same way.
What's the friction between a liquid and a solid? lol. We'd be looking at water resistance.
How about we look at work done? In my example, we have a single person acceleration a 50kg box by .98m/s2, and two people at 5.88. For the hell of it, let's round to 1 and 6. If we have two people each moving a seperate 50kg box accelerating at 1m/s2 for one minute. They average 30m/s2. So they each move their own box a total of 1800m... so that's 100kg moved 3600m... 360,000 Joules.
2 moving one box accelerating at 6m/s2. They move their 50kg box 10800m... for 540,000 Joules...
[edit] does work include the duration?[/edit]
Dammit... that doesnt support my claim at all. I shall do as many christians do and throw this evidence out, and still make my claim! lol.
You know, this still doesnt prove that 1N + 1N > 2N. two forces of 1N applied in the same direction still only equals a net force of 2N, and if an object has a static friction force of 3N, those 2N aren't going to move it.
my idea:
1 refers to l which in some fonts look the same and l is a variable equiling 1.5
so
l=1.5
1.5+1.5=3
i know my answer is probably the most improbable.
1 refers to l which in some fonts look the same and l is a variable equiling 1.5
so
l=1.5
1.5+1.5=3
i know my answer is probably the most improbable.
One guy plus one girl equals 3 people.
you uys think to hard. S.W.A.T got it right. duh.
QUOTE(Herloss @ Aug 21 2006, 06:35 PM)
Dammit... that doesnt support my claim at all. I shall do as many christians do and throw this evidence out, and still make my claim! lol.
Methinks you forgot to account for the work lost as heat through friction.QUOTE
You know, this still doesnt prove that 1N + 1N > 2N. two forces of 1N applied in the same direction still only equals a net force of 2N, and if an object has a static friction force of 3N, those 2N aren't going to move it.
No, it really doesn't. If anything, efficiency can only be lost if it's added up that way.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.