"Light is frame-dependent in PF, but constant in SR"

Motor Daddy said:
The question is, “who is running 7F6 heads on his car?”
Click to expand...

IgnitionMan has the car with the 7F6 heads.

leftmost - Glennsgto has a green Bonneville with 455 engine and number 12 heads.
center left - Motordaddy has a white GTO with 421 engine and 197 heads
center - Jim Hand has a blue Firebird with 400 engine and number 13 heads
center right - IgnitionMan has a yellow LeMans with 428 engine and 7F6 heads
rightmost - JohnV has a red TransAm with 389 engine and 670 heads.
 
Motor Daddy said:
The question is, “who is running 7F6 heads on his car?”
Click to expand...

IgnitionMan

ETA: After looking at RPenner's answer, I see I accidentally put the yellow LeMans to the right of the red Trans-Am, but that did not adversely effect the answer.
 
Motor Daddy said:
However, I was given a problem by a mathematician several years ago. He said only the top 2% of the living population of the world could solve the problem.
Click to expand...
There are a number of books with similar puzzles in them. This one seemed straightforward for the most part, but the cultural knowledge it assumes does hurt the presentation. It assumes that readers are going to be able to distinguish motor numbers from head numbers and that a given make can have many models and that in an arrangement on a left-right spectrum, the leftmost is the "first."

I doubt the 2% figure, but then again, I consistently overestimate the abilities of average human beings.
 
rpenner said:
There are a number of books with similar puzzles in them. This one seemed straightforward for the most part, but the cultural knowledge it assumes does hurt the presentation. It assumes that readers are going to be able to distinguish motor numbers from head numbers and that a given make can have many models and that in an arrangement on a left-right spectrum, the leftmost is the "first."

I doubt the 2% figure, but then again, I consistently overestimate the abilities of average human beings.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the car specifics do hurt the presentation. We were on a Pontiac site so we all knew that information. I just posted it here as he posted it there.

He called it something like a "5 by 5 equation." I don't remember what he called it.
 
Last edited:
Motor Daddy said:
My reply to that is that I was correct all along, you do not think clearly.
Click to expand...

I correctly answered the specific question you claimed to be definitive of clear thinking, so you have just moved your own goalposts. I specifically mentioned an error in attaining that correct answer to test whether you were too intellectually dishonest to admit when your own criteria has been met.
 
Syne said:
I correctly answered the specific question you claimed to be definitive of clear thinking, so you have just moved your own goalposts. I specifically mentioned an error in attaining that correct answer to test whether you were too intellectually dishonest to admit when your own criteria has been met.
Click to expand...

Oh, you were testing me were you?

Well I was testing you too, Syne, and guess what? You blew it!

I was also testing your judgement, and you failed that as well.

You had your chance to shine in the spotlight and PROVE that you are a clear thinker, but you blew it! You chose instead to act like the asshole that you are.
 
MD, your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds. You cannot even manage to stick with your own declared criteria, so all of this is just an excuse to justify all your previous ad hominems.
 
Syne said:
MD, your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds. You cannot even manage to stick with your own declared criteria, so all of this is just an excuse to justify all your previous ad hominems.
Click to expand...

Syne, I just want to point out that you are now speaking about science and not well tested science.
 
...on the other hand, I am speaking "partially tested science" when I say that you don't think clearly. Why? Because I partially tested you and you failed the test.

So to clarify, I am the first person in the history of the world to discover "partially tested science."

Now, to figure out where "actual science" fits into this all.....
 
Motor Daddy said:
Syne, I just want to point out that you are now speaking about science and not well tested science.
Click to expand...

I am not talking about science at all, as I am talking about you, and the former follows from the latter...

Motor Daddy said:
...on the other hand, I am speaking "partially tested science" when I say that you don't think clearly. Why? Because I partially tested you and you failed the test.

So to clarify, I am the first person in the history of the world to discover "partially tested science."

Now, to figure out where "actual science" fits into this all.....
Click to expand...

...So all this is nonsense.
 
Syne said:
I am not talking about science at all, as I am talking about you, and the former follows from the latter...



...So all this is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Nope, not nonsense at all. The only nonsense is you making up 13 kinds of science to keep your original BS going from back when RJ and I were having a productive conversation about science and you came along and started calling people cranks. Well, in light of the new partially tested science, it appears that, in fact, YOU are the crank.
 
Syne said:
Show me where I have tried to refute accepted science. That is the definition of "crank". You know, the definition that regularly suits you.
Click to expand...

I take note of your additional science "accepted science." However, what I am referring to is not science, actual science, well tested science, or even accepted science. I am speaking about partially tested science, which has been verified by your lack of ability to admit that you made a mistake, and on top of that you deny it.

PS: I was willing to leave it the way it was, but you had to start up again, just remember that.




Edit: Does "accepted science" imply that all the other sciences are not accepted? Syne, are you holding out on me? Is there also "unaccepted science" and "BS science" and "junk science" etc, etc???
 
Wow. The scary part is that you probably think you are making sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top