Test your Brain

[Sandurz]

How does dimensional analysis have ANYTHING to do with this?

[Armored Wolf]

How does dimensional analysis have ANYTHING to do with this?

Dimensional analysis says you just got pwned.

[Sandurz]

And humor says you made a bad joke. Actually, two bad jokes.

[Armored Wolf]

Dimensional analysis says I just got pwned.

[Renegade_Turner]

Wouldn't it be really funny if denialdesosa jumped out from behind his post and yelled "Gotcha! The correct answers is 5000! Pretending it's a different answer with "facts" to back it up fool everybody!"

Huh? Your lack of comedic talent greatly disturbs me.

[kehaar]

Figures all you smarties got 4100 on a verbal question.

Hey, I went to art school....

[Uberbeard]

Don't start another one here Renegade, at least keep them localized.

[Assaultman67]

How does dimensional analysis have ANYTHING to do with this?

Dimensional analysis is a method of doing math operation on units to see if a relationship is plausible ...

Basically its a method converting units ... to see if two different measurements are "compatible"

Here is an example which is plausible according to dimensional analysis:

Is (Mass*Acceleration*Meter/Second) = Power ?

(Mass*Acceleration*Meter/Second) => "Force=Mass*Acceleration" => (Force*Meter/Second) => "Force*Meter=Work" => (Work/Second) => "Work/Second=Power"

Therefore (Mass*Acceleration*Meter/Second) = Power

(This is actually a true relationship ... however dimensional analysis cannot definitively prove a functional relationship ... just say if its plausible ... see the xkcd interpretation of that here ... dimensional analysis actually works out, but its an insane assumption to consider it a relationship let alone think it equals pi ...)

This one is false ...

(Posts)=>"???"=>(Degrees)

Now that i said something actually semi-intelligent, ill have to balance out the internet equilibrium by posting 10 videos of a dancing chimp somewhere out on the internet ...

[Sandurz]

I know what dimensional analysis is thankyouverymuch, we covered it for an entire week in chem, and then another in algebra last year. I was just wondering how it applied to adding integers together.

BTW I saw that one the other day, I laughed my balls off.

[tokage]

Well, I guess Sandurz is right about the dimensional analysis. After all the degrees (of an angle) aren't hardly a real unit, just an arbitrary way to write a multiple of pi.
Proof:
Circumference of a circle is U=r x 360° because 360° is equal to 2pi in radians.
But the unit of circumference is only dependent on the unit of r.

I still learned the other arbitrary way to write it: one circle has 400 Gon(whoops, wikpedia said they changed the name).

[Armored Wolf]

wikpedia said

And we all know that Wikipedia never lies.

This is not a direct response to Tokage's statement, it is an outlet of my general hate for Wikipedia's inaccuracy.

[h2ostra]

This is not a direct response to Tokage's statement, it is an outlet of my general hate for Wikipedia's inaccuracy.

If you know how to use wikipedia properly, this should rarely be an issue. There is also the fact that print encyclopedias can be just as unreliable, they're just not under as much scrutiny.

[Renegade_Turner]

Here here. I'm tired of people bashing Wikipedia the whole time. Obviously it takes a bit of common sense, but you can pretty much spot the bullshit information (which rarely stays for more than 10 minutes) a mile away. If you see "George Bush is a prick LOL!!!" on George Bush's wikipedia page, you can make an educated guess for yourself.

That is, unless you're stone-fucking-retarded.

Also, our lecturers generally say that it's not a problem to read Wikipedia to glean a rough background of understanding on a particular topic, just don't rely upon it as a source. You can rely on some of the sorces it links to. They don't reccommend Wikipedia, but they recognise it as a quick and easy way of finding out about something which would otherwise take a while to find out.

For example, if I keep hearing the term "equity" in lectures, and can't for the life of me remember what the hell equity is, I can just look it up on Wikipedia.

[h2ostra]

Also, our lecturers generally say that it's not a problem to read Wikipedia to glean a rough background of understanding on a particular topic, just don't rely upon it as a source. You can rely on some of the sorces it links to. They don't reccommend Wikipedia, but they recognise it as a quick and easy way of finding out about something which would otherwise take a while to find out.

This is exactly what wikipedia is good for. Get the general idea, then follow the sources. Not only will they give you the same information reliably, they will also expand upon it. Think of it as a collection of relevant articles, just annotated into prose form.

Also, as someone who spends a fair deal of their time on wikipedia, and knows the ins and outs, a lot of the claims of inaccuracy are exaggerated. Unreliability is different from inaccuracy.

There are, however, certain things that wikipedia is not so good for. Musical genres, for example. Even something like last.fm is much more likely to give you a good idea of what genre a band plays.

[tokage]

Here here. I'm tired of people bashing Wikipedia the whole time. Obviously it takes a bit of common sense, but you can pretty much spot the bullshit information (which rarely stays for more than 10 minutes) a mile away. If you see "George Bush is a prick LOL!!!" on George Bush's wikipedia page, you can make an educated guess for yourself.

Well, you are right, that "information" inserted by a 13 year old troll is easy to spot. That shouldn't really be a problem for the readers, although cleaning up the mess binds resources.
What really is a problem is what is not written in an article and how the presented information is weighed in context, though. There are topics, where there really is no neutral point of view, others are being influenced by certain peer groups. Topics linked to scientology or nazi ideology, for example, are notorious for edit wars.