Forums / Fun! / Riff-Raff

308,844 total conversations in 8,990 threads

+ New Thread


HA HA HA, BOTTLES

Last posted May 19, 2012 at 11:52AM EDT. Added May 12, 2012 at 12:34AM EDT
51 posts from 20 users

Piano wrote:




Discuss.

That’s not a bottle.

That’s a Retort Flask.

May 12, 2012 at 12:43AM EDT
Quote

Cale wrote:

That’s not a bottle.

That’s a Retort Flask.

Actually, it’s a porron.

Last edited May 12, 2012 at 12:45AM EDT
May 12, 2012 at 12:45AM EDT
Quote

Bottlenose Dolphin anybody?

May 12, 2012 at 12:46AM EDT

Piano wrote:

Actually, it’s a porron.

Is it?

The primary opening does not exhibit the typical length for such a container.

The Tapered end is also raised and shortened.

Last edited May 12, 2012 at 12:50AM EDT
May 12, 2012 at 12:50AM EDT
Quote

Cale wrote:

Is it?

The primary opening does not exhibit the typical length for such a container.

The Tapered end is also raised and shortened.

This seems unresolvable. We shall run tests.

May 12, 2012 at 12:53AM EDT

(notices thread was made byRussianFedora)

inb4 someone posts a vodka bottle

May 12, 2012 at 12:53AM EDT

American Tanker, Hell on Tracks wrote:

(notices thread was made byRussianFedora)

inb4 someone posts a vodka bottle

May 12, 2012 at 12:54AM EDT

User Name wrote:

Your image is broken.

May 12, 2012 at 01:00AM EDT

Cale wrote:

Is it?

The primary opening does not exhibit the typical length for such a container.

The Tapered end is also raised and shortened.

The feature you should be observing, sir, are the primary tube’s unique taper and the handle’s peculiar curve. Their altitudes and lengths are irrelevant in the classification of a porron.

May 12, 2012 at 01:00AM EDT
Quote

FUCKING KLIEN BOTTLES
 


 
HOW DO THEY WORK

Last edited May 12, 2012 at 01:30AM EDT
May 12, 2012 at 01:30AM EDT
Quote

Now if only there was a way to place salad in a bottle…..

Oh the laugh’s that would create.

May 12, 2012 at 02:37AM EDT
Quote

Drpepperfan #1 Fan Of Osaka wrote:

Now if only there was a way to place salad in a bottle…..

Oh the laugh’s that would create.

>Implying that’s impossible

May 12, 2012 at 03:39AM EDT
Quote

Lolrus wrote:

FUCKING KLIEN BOTTLES
 


 
HOW DO THEY WORK

Fucking Klien Bottles… Do they work?

May 12, 2012 at 09:37AM EDT
Quote

Doubl Rainbow wrote:

Fucking Klien Bottles… Do they work?

And the point of that…was…?

May 12, 2012 at 10:06AM EDT
Quote

量子 Meme wrote:

And the point of that…was…?

It was a play on the phrase “How do they work”. By removing the “how” and changing the sentence to “Do they work”, a play on words referencing the “Magnets” Meme is made reflecting the fact that Klein Bottles do not, in fact, work.

May 12, 2012 at 11:00AM EDT
Quote

Cale wrote:

It was a play on the phrase “How do they work”. By removing the “how” and changing the sentence to “Do they work”, a play on words referencing the “Magnets” Meme is made reflecting the fact that Klein Bottles do not, in fact, work.

Incorrect, my dear Kasrkai. In the third dimension they do not work, but in the second dimension they are perfectly plausible, and can also be easily utilised in dimensions higher than the third.

May 12, 2012 at 06:46PM EDT
Quote

I Was Phone wrote:

>This thread

YOU CANNOT GRASP THE TRUE FORM OF OUR SCIENCE

May 13, 2012 at 09:01AM EDT

User Name wrote:

YOU CANNOT GRASP THE TRUE FORM OF OUR SCIENCE

It’s funny because he’s grasping the cat

May 13, 2012 at 09:34AM EDT
Quote

Cale wrote:

It was a play on the phrase “How do they work”. By removing the “how” and changing the sentence to “Do they work”, a play on words referencing the “Magnets” Meme is made reflecting the fact that Klein Bottles do not, in fact, work.

Actually no, the phrase acknowledges the point that there is no proven way a Klein Bottle can work, but it can be proven by experiments and tests.
That goes for everything else.
Except God.
I can’t prove an invisible man in the sky.

May 13, 2012 at 10:22AM EDT
Quote

Piano wrote:

Incorrect, my dear Kasrkai. In the third dimension they do not work, but in the second dimension they are perfectly plausible, and can also be easily utilised in dimensions higher than the third.

I don’t recall discussing the nature of physics and space when applied to alternative dimensional locative.

We are discussing bottles.

In the Three-Dimensional space we occupy.

May 13, 2012 at 11:20AM EDT
Quote

Cale wrote:

I don’t recall discussing the nature of physics and space when applied to alternative dimensional locative.

We are discussing bottles.

In the Three-Dimensional space we occupy.

Klein bottles occupy the third dimension as well as others. I was simply stating the fact that they can work.

May 13, 2012 at 11:37AM EDT
Quote

Piano wrote:

Klein bottles occupy the third dimension as well as others. I was simply stating the fact that they can work.

Jesus Christ, you know what I mean.

May 13, 2012 at 09:41PM EDT
Quote

This thread is lolz.

Seriously.

May 13, 2012 at 10:39PM EDT

Cale wrote:

Jesus Christ, you know what I mean.

^Broke character.

May 14, 2012 at 12:25AM EDT
Quote

Best I could tell, Fedora, that was simply an interjection due to annoyance. Not breaking character.

May 14, 2012 at 12:32AM EDT

Sorry I wasn’t here sooner; this thread has horribly inaccurate statements that must be rectified.

Kazrkae, the Witch King of Cats wrote:

…Klein Bottles do not, in fact, work.

RussianFedora (Hypercubed) wrote:

In the third dimension they do not work, but in the second dimension they are perfectly plausible, and can also be easily utilised in dimensions higher than the third.

Okay, let’s try to summarize. There is a technical definition of a Klein bottle, by which both of the above statements are wrong. It’s been said that a Klein bottle is rather like a four dimensional Möbius strip, and there are connections between the two.

While a Möbius strip is formed by joining opposite ends of a rectangle with reversed orientation, thus creating a non-orientable 2-D surface (i.e., there is no way to define consistently what side of the paper you’re on, because the paper only has one side) that can’t be represented in less than three dimensions, a Klein bottle is formed by curling a Möbius strip into a torus (donut) which would also be non-orientable. You can’t actually do this with a Möbius strip, because we live in three spatial dimensions. A true Klein bottle can only exist in a four-dimensional or higher space. In two (Euclidean) dimensions, the concept doesn’t make sense, but in our 3-D world, you will see Klein bottles as in Lolrus’ picture. That Klein bottle holds liquid, so in a sense, it “works” in three dimensions.

In constructing a 3-D Klein bottle however, a hole must be made for the “neck” of the bottle to pass through and connect with the other end, making an incomplete surface. In 4-D not only is this hole unnecessary, but a Klein bottle can have uniform width just like a 3-D torus. Note Lolrus’ bottle has proper gradations reading zero, because technically the liquid is outside of the bottle.

So, Klein bottles? Less than 3-D: impossible. In 3-D: possible with distortion and a hole. More than 3-D: easy as a Möbius strip.

Lone K. Rainbow’s #2 Fan wrote:

Actually no, the phrase acknowledges the point that there is no proven way a Klein Bottle can work, but it can be proven by experiments and tests.
That goes for everything else.
Except God.
I can’t prove an invisible man in the sky.

Whew, where to begin? Okay, let’s point out that your first sentence is self-contradictory, so I’m not sure if you’re BSing, or simply mis-typed. There’s plenty more here, though.

You seem to be referring to the scientific method when you say “experiments and tests” but you are wrong on two levels. First, you can’t perform “experiments and tests” on a Klein bottle, since Klein bottles are 4-D and we’re not. Klein bottles are less a matter for scientific scrutiny than mathematical curiosities.

Secondly, and more important, you misrepresent the scientific method in a manner that bothers me because I think such misrepresentation is nearly as responsible for denial of evolutionary theory (and such things) as religious zealots who support and encourage such denial. Science NEVER proves ANYTHING; and that’s a very important fact. Scientists like Galileo and Newton revolutionized science, but not by “proving” anything; they did it by disproving previous theories. Later, Einstein and his contemporaries disproved Newton, and modern physicists like Hawking have disproved Einstein. While scientific theories are established through evidence and experimentation, they are never “proven”, because later generations find data that pokes holes in today’s theories, and thus will establish new theories to cover that data. That’s how science works: not showing truth, but eliminating untruth.

I think this misrepresentation yields naysayers because when one says science “proves” something, people get confused about scientific errors. “If science proves evolution, then what’s with Piltdown Man?” they say, but Piltdown shows both the weakness and strength of science. Weakness in that many people believed Piltdown to be a hoax, but didn’t say so due to fear of ridicule. Strength in that when the scientific community recognized the hoax, it simply revised theories to fit corrected data and that’s perfectly fine.

Last point that I won’t dwell on lest I derail this into a theology discussion: Saying God cannot be examined scientifically may be a closed-minded statement. It depends on the nature of God, doesn’t it? If a religion were to really claim God is literally “an invisible man in the sky” (I’m not aware of any) then scientists could examine the sky for evidence of an invisible man. After all, astrophysicists regularly search the sky for evidence of objects that are not visible to the naked eye (Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto) or not visible at all (black holes and “dark matter”). Whether or not science has any say about theological matters (or vice-versa) really is a matter of how much overlap people believe they have.

Last edited May 14, 2012 at 07:01AM EDT
May 14, 2012 at 06:57AM EDT
Quote

Brucker wrote:

Sorry I wasn’t here sooner; this thread has horribly inaccurate statements that must be rectified.

Kazrkae, the Witch King of Cats wrote:

…Klein Bottles do not, in fact, work.

RussianFedora (Hypercubed) wrote:

In the third dimension they do not work, but in the second dimension they are perfectly plausible, and can also be easily utilised in dimensions higher than the third.

Okay, let’s try to summarize. There is a technical definition of a Klein bottle, by which both of the above statements are wrong. It’s been said that a Klein bottle is rather like a four dimensional Möbius strip, and there are connections between the two.

While a Möbius strip is formed by joining opposite ends of a rectangle with reversed orientation, thus creating a non-orientable 2-D surface (i.e., there is no way to define consistently what side of the paper you’re on, because the paper only has one side) that can’t be represented in less than three dimensions, a Klein bottle is formed by curling a Möbius strip into a torus (donut) which would also be non-orientable. You can’t actually do this with a Möbius strip, because we live in three spatial dimensions. A true Klein bottle can only exist in a four-dimensional or higher space. In two (Euclidean) dimensions, the concept doesn’t make sense, but in our 3-D world, you will see Klein bottles as in Lolrus’ picture. That Klein bottle holds liquid, so in a sense, it “works” in three dimensions.

In constructing a 3-D Klein bottle however, a hole must be made for the “neck” of the bottle to pass through and connect with the other end, making an incomplete surface. In 4-D not only is this hole unnecessary, but a Klein bottle can have uniform width just like a 3-D torus. Note Lolrus’ bottle has proper gradations reading zero, because technically the liquid is outside of the bottle.

So, Klein bottles? Less than 3-D: impossible. In 3-D: possible with distortion and a hole. More than 3-D: easy as a Möbius strip.

Lone K. Rainbow’s #2 Fan wrote:

Actually no, the phrase acknowledges the point that there is no proven way a Klein Bottle can work, but it can be proven by experiments and tests.
That goes for everything else.
Except God.
I can’t prove an invisible man in the sky.

Whew, where to begin? Okay, let’s point out that your first sentence is self-contradictory, so I’m not sure if you’re BSing, or simply mis-typed. There’s plenty more here, though.

You seem to be referring to the scientific method when you say “experiments and tests” but you are wrong on two levels. First, you can’t perform “experiments and tests” on a Klein bottle, since Klein bottles are 4-D and we’re not. Klein bottles are less a matter for scientific scrutiny than mathematical curiosities.

Secondly, and more important, you misrepresent the scientific method in a manner that bothers me because I think such misrepresentation is nearly as responsible for denial of evolutionary theory (and such things) as religious zealots who support and encourage such denial. Science NEVER proves ANYTHING; and that’s a very important fact. Scientists like Galileo and Newton revolutionized science, but not by “proving” anything; they did it by disproving previous theories. Later, Einstein and his contemporaries disproved Newton, and modern physicists like Hawking have disproved Einstein. While scientific theories are established through evidence and experimentation, they are never “proven”, because later generations find data that pokes holes in today’s theories, and thus will establish new theories to cover that data. That’s how science works: not showing truth, but eliminating untruth.

I think this misrepresentation yields naysayers because when one says science “proves” something, people get confused about scientific errors. “If science proves evolution, then what’s with Piltdown Man?” they say, but Piltdown shows both the weakness and strength of science. Weakness in that many people believed Piltdown to be a hoax, but didn’t say so due to fear of ridicule. Strength in that when the scientific community recognized the hoax, it simply revised theories to fit corrected data and that’s perfectly fine.

Last point that I won’t dwell on lest I derail this into a theology discussion: Saying God cannot be examined scientifically may be a closed-minded statement. It depends on the nature of God, doesn’t it? If a religion were to really claim God is literally “an invisible man in the sky” (I’m not aware of any) then scientists could examine the sky for evidence of an invisible man. After all, astrophysicists regularly search the sky for evidence of objects that are not visible to the naked eye (Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto) or not visible at all (black holes and “dark matter”). Whether or not science has any say about theological matters (or vice-versa) really is a matter of how much overlap people believe they have.

I can’t drink with it so it doesn’t work.

Science: 0
Mathematics: 0
Kazrkae: 2

May 14, 2012 at 07:30AM EDT
Quote

@Brucker

Wow. That’s some interesting information right there.

And for everyone else having this discus-

May 14, 2012 at 07:55AM EDT
Quote

American Tanker, Hell on Tracks wrote:

Your image is broken.

Here is a man so blinded by racism and intolerance he cannot witness my message!

HE MUST BE CURED

May 14, 2012 at 08:47AM EDT

Brucker wrote:

Sorry I wasn’t here sooner; this thread has horribly inaccurate statements that must be rectified.

Kazrkae, the Witch King of Cats wrote:

…Klein Bottles do not, in fact, work.

RussianFedora (Hypercubed) wrote:

In the third dimension they do not work, but in the second dimension they are perfectly plausible, and can also be easily utilised in dimensions higher than the third.

Okay, let’s try to summarize. There is a technical definition of a Klein bottle, by which both of the above statements are wrong. It’s been said that a Klein bottle is rather like a four dimensional Möbius strip, and there are connections between the two.

While a Möbius strip is formed by joining opposite ends of a rectangle with reversed orientation, thus creating a non-orientable 2-D surface (i.e., there is no way to define consistently what side of the paper you’re on, because the paper only has one side) that can’t be represented in less than three dimensions, a Klein bottle is formed by curling a Möbius strip into a torus (donut) which would also be non-orientable. You can’t actually do this with a Möbius strip, because we live in three spatial dimensions. A true Klein bottle can only exist in a four-dimensional or higher space. In two (Euclidean) dimensions, the concept doesn’t make sense, but in our 3-D world, you will see Klein bottles as in Lolrus’ picture. That Klein bottle holds liquid, so in a sense, it “works” in three dimensions.

In constructing a 3-D Klein bottle however, a hole must be made for the “neck” of the bottle to pass through and connect with the other end, making an incomplete surface. In 4-D not only is this hole unnecessary, but a Klein bottle can have uniform width just like a 3-D torus. Note Lolrus’ bottle has proper gradations reading zero, because technically the liquid is outside of the bottle.

So, Klein bottles? Less than 3-D: impossible. In 3-D: possible with distortion and a hole. More than 3-D: easy as a Möbius strip.

Lone K. Rainbow’s #2 Fan wrote:

Actually no, the phrase acknowledges the point that there is no proven way a Klein Bottle can work, but it can be proven by experiments and tests.
That goes for everything else.
Except God.
I can’t prove an invisible man in the sky.

Whew, where to begin? Okay, let’s point out that your first sentence is self-contradictory, so I’m not sure if you’re BSing, or simply mis-typed. There’s plenty more here, though.

You seem to be referring to the scientific method when you say “experiments and tests” but you are wrong on two levels. First, you can’t perform “experiments and tests” on a Klein bottle, since Klein bottles are 4-D and we’re not. Klein bottles are less a matter for scientific scrutiny than mathematical curiosities.

Secondly, and more important, you misrepresent the scientific method in a manner that bothers me because I think such misrepresentation is nearly as responsible for denial of evolutionary theory (and such things) as religious zealots who support and encourage such denial. Science NEVER proves ANYTHING; and that’s a very important fact. Scientists like Galileo and Newton revolutionized science, but not by “proving” anything; they did it by disproving previous theories. Later, Einstein and his contemporaries disproved Newton, and modern physicists like Hawking have disproved Einstein. While scientific theories are established through evidence and experimentation, they are never “proven”, because later generations find data that pokes holes in today’s theories, and thus will establish new theories to cover that data. That’s how science works: not showing truth, but eliminating untruth.

I think this misrepresentation yields naysayers because when one says science “proves” something, people get confused about scientific errors. “If science proves evolution, then what’s with Piltdown Man?” they say, but Piltdown shows both the weakness and strength of science. Weakness in that many people believed Piltdown to be a hoax, but didn’t say so due to fear of ridicule. Strength in that when the scientific community recognized the hoax, it simply revised theories to fit corrected data and that’s perfectly fine.

Last point that I won’t dwell on lest I derail this into a theology discussion: Saying God cannot be examined scientifically may be a closed-minded statement. It depends on the nature of God, doesn’t it? If a religion were to really claim God is literally “an invisible man in the sky” (I’m not aware of any) then scientists could examine the sky for evidence of an invisible man. After all, astrophysicists regularly search the sky for evidence of objects that are not visible to the naked eye (Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto) or not visible at all (black holes and “dark matter”). Whether or not science has any say about theological matters (or vice-versa) really is a matter of how much overlap people believe they have.

Well, crap. I assumed that Klein bottles worked below the third dimension as theoretical shapes, and above the third dimension as truly existent entities. I should probably read the Wikipedia page better next time…

May 14, 2012 at 01:27PM EDT
Quote

User Name wrote:

Here is a man so blinded by racism and intolerance he cannot witness my message!

HE MUST BE CURED

All I’m saying is that I can’t see what you posted.

What was it?

May 14, 2012 at 01:58PM EDT

Cale wrote:

I can’t drink with it so it doesn’t work.

Science: 0
Mathematics: 0
Kazrkae: 2

If someone was able to get the liquid in there, then it should be no more impossible to get it back out. Show some some ingenuity.

Science: 1
Mathematics: ln(e) + sin(2Pi)/42
Kazrkae: FAIL.

May 14, 2012 at 09:46PM EDT
Quote

Brucker wrote:

If someone was able to get the liquid in there, then it should be no more impossible to get it back out. Show some some ingenuity.

Science: 1
Mathematics: ln(e) + sin(2Pi)/42
Kazrkae: FAIL.

Do you think I’m that sort of person.

That I would go about and shatter bottles for their sweet nectar.

Do you honestly believe someone would do that. Just get on the Internet and break the property of others.

I don’t.

I believe in an Internet where the impossible stays improbable, and the improbable stays on paper.

Where a man can lift his bottle and drink the blood of the earth, and that no man will suffer because of it. But lo, it may never be, for I have seen men sweep aside bushels and crates of bottles and beakers. I have watched factories burn and glass-blowers weep as their children die: Broken, shattered, and alone. Do not presume to know the heart of the pure container, for I have listened to the cries of the bottles, through glass and liquid and time. The time for man’s arrogance is at an end. Now they shall drink, and you will hold.

May 14, 2012 at 09:58PM EDT
Quote

American Tanker, Hell on Tracks wrote:

All I’m saying is that I can’t see what you posted.

What was it?

I know what you meant.

It’s a That’s Racist gif.

May 15, 2012 at 02:30AM EDT

Cale wrote:

Do you think I’m that sort of person.

That I would go about and shatter bottles for their sweet nectar.

Do you honestly believe someone would do that. Just get on the Internet and break the property of others.

I don’t.

I believe in an Internet where the impossible stays improbable, and the improbable stays on paper.

Where a man can lift his bottle and drink the blood of the earth, and that no man will suffer because of it. But lo, it may never be, for I have seen men sweep aside bushels and crates of bottles and beakers. I have watched factories burn and glass-blowers weep as their children die: Broken, shattered, and alone. Do not presume to know the heart of the pure container, for I have listened to the cries of the bottles, through glass and liquid and time. The time for man’s arrogance is at an end. Now they shall drink, and you will hold.

Um…okay.

Or you could just use a bendy straw, maybe?

May 15, 2012 at 05:46AM EDT
Quote

Brucker wrote:

Um…okay.

Or you could just use a bendy straw, maybe?

Find me a place to put in a straw without breaking the bottle.

May 15, 2012 at 07:42AM EDT
Quote

Cale wrote:

Find me a place to put in a straw without breaking the bottle.

May 19, 2012 at 08:43AM EDT
Quote

Doubl Rainbow wrote:

It’s funny because he’s grasping the cat

But the cat is not science. Nor does it symbolise science as symbolism is not in use. It cannot be used as it visualises a moment supposedly equivalent to what’s going on in this thread. Therefore he cannot grasp comprehension of the scale of science this thread is on. Say… all this talk is making me thirsty…

May 19, 2012 at 09:42AM EDT

User Name wrote:

But the cat is not science. Nor does it symbolise science as symbolism is not in use. It cannot be used as it visualises a moment supposedly equivalent to what’s going on in this thread. Therefore he cannot grasp comprehension of the scale of science this thread is on. Say… all this talk is making me thirsty…

I… don’t know how to respond so… here’s a tree.

May 19, 2012 at 11:42AM EDT
Quote
Skeletor-sm

This thread is closed to new posts.

Old threads normally auto-close after 30 days of inactivity.

Why don't you start a new thread instead?

Namaste! You must login or signup first!