Like the concept, but not the names -- why does spoon dominate the first part of both names, and fork neither?
Spork is established, but I would suggest knoon and fnife. And where's "splayd" come from? There isn't a single L, A, Y, or D in any of the other words. I say "knispork" or "fnifoon".
Well, "fife" is already a thing.... "Foon" is a fine spork replacment. I think they are using 'blade' as a root in Splayd. But no fork bit at all as I can see... how about 'Splark'?
Yeah I've read these theories, but the problem is they can't seem to find a splayd. Last I read, at CERN they were flinging sporks and anti-knifes at each other at 6 TeV and still can't break loose a splayd.
This could mean they need higher energies, but it could also mean they need only try to realize the truth.. There is no splayd.
I'm beginning to think they are completely missing an axis. My preliminary calculations show that if you add a chopstick dimension you still can't produce a slayd, but you can predict a splorfstick.. at least on paper, and at very high energy. The lack of a splayd, is in fact consistent with a 4D GUC, assuming all dimensions are perpendicular.
Not only that you can that, with a 4D GUC you can get rid of the cutlerological constant which is required to make the 3D standard model work.
Poppycock! You have been reading too much of the eastern drivel.
Everyone knows the three dimensional model is purely for ease of manipulation and doesn't hold up at near relativistic speeds. I doubt a four dimensional model will either. I haven't done the math, mind you, but I bet we will find that flatware is just a sub-set of the tableware dimensionalty and attempts to seperate it as a standalone axiomotic system are doomed to failure.
Interesting. It's certainly not inconceivable a 4D model would run into the same difficulty as the standard model at extreme energies, but it does seem to answer the immediate splayd question, or rather.. the lack of splayd question. Of course even that is all theoretical because I have no way to stage a chopstick <-> anti-fork collision at the energies required.
Still you have given me something to think about.. indeed.. why just 4D? Hawking himself needed at least 11 dimensions to describe the entire SYLie (string-yarn-lanyard inter-stitch-al equation).. what if, and I know this is completely counter to settled science.. but what IF there's a relation of cutlery to.. setting?!
If this was true, it could pull the tablecloth completely out from under the entire conventional understanding the entire quantum dining theory!
It might even have sidereal implications for our understanding of barware. Imagine the implications.. how wonderful would be a quantum entangled beer opener that could bypass p-brane causation* and respond to your
( ... )
Comments 9
Spork is established, but I would suggest knoon and fnife. And where's "splayd" come from? There isn't a single L, A, Y, or D in any of the other words. I say "knispork" or "fnifoon".
Reply
I think they are using 'blade' as a root in Splayd. But no fork bit at all as I can see... how about 'Splark'?
Reply
http://lightmyfireusa.com/spork.html
Reply
Reply
This could mean they need higher energies, but it could also mean they need only try to realize the truth..
There is no splayd.
I'm beginning to think they are completely missing an axis. My preliminary calculations show that if you add a chopstick dimension you still can't produce a slayd, but you can predict a splorfstick.. at least on paper, and at very high energy. The lack of a splayd, is in fact consistent with a 4D GUC, assuming all dimensions are perpendicular.
Not only that you can that, with a 4D GUC you can get rid of the cutlerological constant which is required to make the 3D standard model work.
Reply
Everyone knows the three dimensional model is purely for ease of manipulation and doesn't hold up at near relativistic speeds. I doubt a four dimensional model will either. I haven't done the math, mind you, but I bet we will find that flatware is just a sub-set of the tableware dimensionalty and attempts to seperate it as a standalone axiomotic system are doomed to failure.
Reply
Still you have given me something to think about.. indeed.. why just 4D? Hawking himself needed at least 11 dimensions to describe the entire SYLie (string-yarn-lanyard inter-stitch-al equation).. what if, and I know this is completely counter to settled science.. but what IF there's a relation of cutlery to.. setting?!
If this was true, it could pull the tablecloth completely out from under the entire conventional understanding the entire quantum dining theory!
It might even have sidereal implications for our understanding of barware. Imagine the implications.. how wonderful would be a quantum entangled beer opener that could bypass p-brane causation* and respond to your ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment