@ Sapience

[gangsta77]

Question About your space time continuum theory.
What if, and if my math is correct, a sOON is equal to half a Soon but most definitely greater than a soon.

[Schirf]

Speaker A writes SOON at time point x1 refering to time point x2.

Observer B reads SOON at time point y1 and assumes it refers to time point y2.
Later, Observer B reads SOON at time pont z1 and assumes it refers to time point z2.

x1 ------------------------------------------------------------ x2
------ y1 ------------------------------------------ y2 ----------
-------------- z1 --------------------------z2 -------------------

The larger the delta between the writing of SOON is from the reading of SOON, the more the assumption is that SOON = NOW.

This is known as Whiner's "But That Was Yesterday's SOON" Law.

[Schirf]

Changing the scale...

Speaker A writes SOON at time point x1 (not shown) refering to time point x2.

Observer B reads SOON at time point y1 and assumes it refers to time point y2. After y2 has past, the greater the Delta between y2 and y3, the more impatient and depressed Observer B becomes.

-------------------------------------------------------- x2
------ y1 ----------------- y2 ---------- y3 ----------

This is known as Smith's "How Soon Is Now?" Law.

"When you say it's gonna happen now what exactly do you mean?
See, I've already waited too long and all my hope is gone."

[Ceejay90]

I don't understand.....but the answer is 42

[Dotlbeme]

I prefer Yoda 'Soon' as in

"Soon, you will be with him" (You already ARE with him, you dunce...)

[Nymphonic]

And this has nothing to do with the price of tea in China

[Schirf]

SOONer or LATEr we'll understand.

[Yosoff]

Question About your space time continuum theory.
What if, and if my math is correct, a sOON is equal to half a Soon but most definitely greater than a soon.

I'm going with the assumption that it's actually a binary system where upper case letters equal a zero and lower case letters equal a 1. It also appears likely that all measurements are in weeks.

Therefore:
SOON = 0000 = 0 weeks
SOOn = 0001 = 1 week
...
Soon = 1000 = 8 weeks
...
soon = 1111 = 15 weeks

eventually = 1111111111 = Not in your lifetime.

[Sapience]

Schrif's posts are pretty good. All measurements are accurate but also entirely relativistic. So as Schrif points out, the Soon statement is accurate at the time it is made, but may not reference the same period of time understood by a later reading. Because Soon started (and ends) at a time relative to the poster's view, not the reader's.

So it is entirely possible that Soon may be either sooner or later than the reader's understanding of Soon. However, the original reference point is always very specific as viewed by the poster. It's only the later interpretation of the reader that is relative and thus subject to debate.

[cedwin]

SOON can mean both right now, and some point in the future at the same time, depending on whether or not the cat in the box is calico.

[Sapience]

SOON can mean both right now, and some point in the future at the same time, depending on whether or not the cat in the box is calico.

Actually if the cat in the box is a Calico, then Soon always means 'right now' because Calicos don't like waiting. Ever.

[Jesterofthedead]

This Is Known As Smith's "how Soon Is Now?" Law.

"when You Say It's Gonna Happen Now What Exactly Do You Mean?
See, I've Already Waited Too Long And All My Hope Is Gone."

Hahahaha...huzzah...!

[Schirf]

Actually if the cat in the box is a Calico, then Soon always means 'right now' because Calicos don't like waiting. Ever.

How does this relate to Antigravity and The Feline Butterology Theory?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Captured from the Usenet Oracle, 19930625

This question was posed to the Usenet Oracle:

If you drop a buttered piece of bread, it will fall on the floor butter-side down. If a cat is dropped from a window or other high and towering place, it will land on its feet. But what if you attach a buttered piece of bread, butter-side up to a cat's back and toss them both out the window? Will the cat land on its feet? Or will the butter splat on the ground?

And in response, thus spoke the Oracle:

Even if you are too lazy to do the experiment yourself you should be able to deduce the obvious result. The laws of butterology demand that the butter must hit the ground, and the equally strict laws of feline aerodynamics demand that the cat can not smash its furry back. If the combined construct were to land, nature would have no way to resolve this paradox. Therefore it simply does not fall.

That's right, you clever mortal (well, as clever as a mortal can get), you have discovered the secret of antigravity! A buttered cat will, when released, quickly move to a height where the forces of cat-twisting and butter repulsion are in equilibrium. This equilibrium point can be modified by scraping off some of the butter, providing lift, or removing some of the cat's limbs, allowing descent.

Most of the civilized species of the Universe already use this principle to drive their ships while within a planetary system. The loud humming heard by most sighters of UFOs is, in fact, the purring of several hundred tabbies.

The one obvious danger is, of course, if the cats manage to eat the bread off their backs they will instantly plummet. Of course the cats will land on their feet, but this usually doesn't do them much good, since right after they make their graceful landing several tons of red-hot starship and pissed-off aliens crash on top of them.

[Sapience]

How does this relate to Antigravity and The Feline Butterology Theory?

You would die. Attempting to butter a Calico is suicide. There would be little left to ID you with either. Though I'm sure they'd make a good attempt at it.

[Berephon]

You would die. Attempting to butter a Calico is suicide. There would be little left to ID you with either. Though I'm sure they'd make a good attempt at it.

Naw, DNA would work fine...be plenty of that left.

[cedwin]

Naw, DNA would work fine...be plenty of that left.

There is a small bullet in the NDA which denies the use of DNA when related to any sort of calico violence.

[dimmerswitch]

however, what starts to happen when the poster actually anticipates that their post won't be read immediately?

Sapience could say "Soon" in the knowledge (especially as a community manager and having great insight into such matters) that people won't read what he is writing until some point in the future, and start to hedge his "Soon"s so that they will actually represent the status at the time the average reader reads the post. That way a "Soon" would take on even greater subjectiveness depending if it was in a high traffic area, was a post that hit the dev tracker list, or was made at a peak time

[Schirf]

however, what starts to happen when the poster actually anticipates that their post won't be read immediately?

Sapience could say "Soon" in the knowledge (especially as a community manager and having great insight into such matters) that people won't read what he is writing until some point in the future, and start to hedge his "Soon"s so that they will actually represent the status at the time the average reader reads the post. That way a "Soon" would take on even greater subjectiveness depending if it was in a high traffic area, was a post that hit the dev tracker list, or was made at a peak time

Regardless of the SOON that the writer uses, the concept of SOON will always be different from Reader B's perspective. Also, Reader B will still change his/her view of SOON has time passes.

Also, many people are surprised that there are no formulas to get an exact distance between two points on earth. The same is true in the time-space of SOON. Just like Thaddeus Vincenty's formula, SOON is written with two points in mind but you really can't get an exact measure of the distance between the points... you can only get "In the Vincenty", hence the expression!

[Thane9]

Therefore it simply does not fall.

.

The construct WOULD fall...it just wouldn't land. You see, buttered bread can fall bread side down, just as a cat can fall backside down. It's the landing that is stipulated in each case.

Therefore if the buttered-bread topped cat were dropped from a sufficient height the sudden deceleration upon "pre-impact" would likely kill the cat, thereby rendering that piece of the paradox moot and the bread would land butter down.

Butter down, WITH a dead cat attached. Not the makings of decent toast. Even if the five second rule were promptly applied.

[dimmerswitch]

Regardless of the SOON that the writer uses, the concept of SOON will always be different from Reader B's perspective.

Oh, definitely agree. I was just pointing out that people seemed to assuming that Soon actually meant Soon from Sapience's perspective at the point in time he writes it, whereas Sapience could mean - "Soon for Sapience's expectation of the average reader of this post, at the point in time they first read it." Without us having any knowledge of where we personally sit in respect to an average reader of a post, that makes it even HARDER to attach any kind of ability to measure a Soon, of any spelling or condition.

On another note, as often remarked, one of the trends in society is a seeming need for instant gratification, which translates, with the help usually of technology, to a shortening of timeframes to acquisition. In the "Soon" system, I'm wondering how this works - ie does a "Soon" trend to zero over time (and has this started to happen already), or would the measure remain the same, and an event would need historical recalibration as our expectations changed - eg from a VerySoon to a Soon.

[Schirf]

Therefore if the buttered-bread topped cat were dropped from a sufficient height the sudden deceleration upon "pre-impact" would likely kill the cat, thereby rendering that piece of the paradox moot and the bread would land butter down.

Butter down, WITH a dead cat attached. Not the makings of decent toast. Even if the five second rule were promptly applied.

The "Special Lives of Cats" constant invalidates this 8 out of 9 times. Thus, while your spacecraft may have some dead weight from the fact that .11111111111111111% of your cats become deceased from very sudden acceleration ("deceleration" is an illusion) shortly after being introduced to the system, the remaining cats are saved.

I should mention that there is a disagreement on the whole theory anyway... The following was found on the 'net...

----------------------------------------------------------------

Flaws In the Flying Cat Theory: A Response

Special to the Coastal Beacon
A logical analysis of the BFAD (Buttered Feline Antigravity Drive) propulsion theory clearly demonstrates the impossibility of such a system.

Let us begin with a simple analysis. 1) Buttered bread must fall butter side down. 2) A cat always lands on its feet.

While both theorems are indisputable, the oracle offers no proof of the construct. The oracle implies that anyone who 'would' test this construct would immediately find the secret of BFAD.

This is clearly nonsense.

Let us assume a normal Einsteinian universe (although a Euclidean universe would serve our purposes just as well, the Einsteinian is both cheaper and drinks are readily available.)

To test BFAD, one must procure:


Bread
Butter (margarine, for some reason, will not work)
A cat
A strapping device.
Let us assume that all of these are readily available.
Attach the strapping device to the cat.

See?

No cat.

What has happened? We have run up against an a priori universal law. By a priori, we mean that it takes priority over either the Buttered Bread Principle or the Law of Feline Landings.

What happens is that the instant a strapping device and a cat occupy the same four dimensional space, the cat disappears. Now, this can easily be tested, and has been repeatedly. There are two schools of thought about this phenomenon.

The first holds that a cat and a strapping device are constituted out of different fundamental building blocks. According to this theory, a cat is constituted primarily of superquarks, (called meows by current theorists.) These superquarks demonstrate qualities that are both atomic (constituted as they are of groupings of normal quark particles) and feline (because these quarks exhibit characteristic of "charmed" or "lucky" particles.) Again, according to this theory, strapping materials are fashioned out of non-charmed particles. Bringing the two together causes one or the other to cancel out. One aspect of this theory that has not been sufficiently explained to date is the fact that it is always the cat, not the strapping device, that disappears.

The second school of thought, and it is one that appears to be gaining ground in academic circles today, holds that cats are, in fact, super-intelligent pan-dimensional beings who exist in our four dimensional universe only because there is plenty of good food and a lot of creatures stupid enough to provide the food, along with plenty of attention.

Whenever a strapping device appears, the cat simply opens a door to a different series of dimensions, and goes on an extended tour.

According to this theory, purring is a cat's way of maintaining a constant balance cycling across multiple dimensions. This school holds that antigravity is impossible, but that theoretically, a REALLY good grip on a cat, while reaching for a strapping device, could result in our ability to cross dimensions with ease (barring scratches, that is.) Pessimists argue that if there were anything really interesting in those other dimensions, cats wouldn't spend so much time here, so why ask for a good scratching?

[Reillan]

Schrif's posts are pretty good. All measurements are accurate but also entirely relativistic. So as Schrif points out, the Soon statement is accurate at the time it is made, but may not reference the same period of time understood by a later reading. Because Soon started (and ends) at a time relative to the poster's view, not the reader's.

So it is entirely possible that Soon may be either sooner or later than the reader's understanding of Soon. However, the original reference point is always very specific as viewed by the poster. It's only the later interpretation of the reader that is relative and thus subject to debate.

and suddenly I have a topic for my masters or rhetoric thesis...

[Schirf]

and suddenly I have a topic for my masters or rhetoric thesis...

Be careful what you publish!

To me the Coastal Beacon response misses one point that, when examined closely, shows that anti-gravity is actual unethical. The wreckage recovered and located at Area 51 includes a strapping device made of… hold your breath… cat! With this knowledge it becomes evident that the vile expression “there is more than one way to skin a cat” was coined by anti-gravity researchers before the rise of animal protection groups. Conspiracy theories that these groups are being funded by aliens [The remainder of this message has been deleted]

[Khuldar]

Flaws In the Flying Cat Theory: A Response
<snip a lot of good stuff>

Duct tape can be used to hold ANYTHING together (another universal law). Most advanced species use it to attach the toast to the cat.

You can also get a much higher level of performance out of the antigrav drive by having brand new carpet on all the surfaces of the drive chamber. You need to use a color opposite that of your cats. If you use black cats, white carpet, and a smear of grape jelly on your toast, you get the best results.

With the inclusion of "Soon!" into the mix, we may be able to break both time and space via cats. And from a LoTRO standpoint, it means that LMs will get flying mounts (3 in fact) utilizing their pets (the cosmetic cat, lynx, and sabertooth) and will get them moresoonereventualy (I'm guessing around book Pi.e)

[Griffy]

Actually if the cat in the box is a Calico, then Soon always means 'right now' because Calicos don't like waiting. Ever.

You would die. Attempting to butter a Calico is suicide. There would be little left to ID you with either. Though I'm sure they'd make a good attempt at it.

I get the idea that a Calico rules yer roost too. <3 ♥

Duct tape can be used to hold ANYTHING together (another universal law).

Red Green show... thank you Canadia!

And Forums for not disappointing on some good giggles today.