• The forum software that supports hummy.tv has been upgraded to XenForo 2.3!

    Please bear with us as we continue to tweak things, and feel free to post any questions, issues or suggestions in the upgrade thread.

Assume v. Presume

(S)he would have to breathe in to fit in here! That should be breathe out. Your volume increases if you breathe in.
 
Your mass will increase but your volume may decrease in the appropriate part of the body with judicious use of the diaphragm and a corresponding change of density.
 
The diaphragm moves down, increasing the volume of the lungs and pushing the contents of the abdomen down and outwards. Try squeezing through a tight space, breathing in or out. Out wins.
 
I often look at something I've written (<- like that) and wonder if I've split an infinitive. But to be honest I've never really understood what an infinitive is, or why they should not be dismembered. So as long as what I've written appears to make sense and isn't obviously ambiguous I don't generally worry about it.
Or in other words, I'm with Kirk :)
 
It is pretty near damn impossible to even split a Latin infinitive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I expect to more than double the number of infinitives I split in future.

The Fowlers were never against split infinitives, were they?
 
Seen on the BEEB this morning. A presenter was at what I assume was a boat show, standing in about 4 feet of water (presumably with a life guard as well as the film crew around her) then trying to demonstrate an electric underwater sort of sledge, with the mandatory BBC life jacket on.:laugh: Needless to say the underwater demonstration was less than impressive.:roflmao:
 
Remember when unscrupulous binoculars sellers used to quote area ratios as magnification? 100× really meant 10×
 
Something I was watching recently (can't recall what) said the sun is a million times larger than the Earth. That's only right if you are measuring by volume.
 
Irrelevant - as a star, it's not particularly impressive. However, the point is that, unless otherwise specified, "larger" will naturally be thought to mean linear size, and the example is offered to reinforce Mike's point and extend it to the third dimension.

I remember now: it was on the Sky at Night. To be properly informative, rather than use hyperbole, the presenter in question should have said "100 times larger" or "1 million times the volume".
 
Last edited:
Black Hole said:
However, the point is that, unless otherwise specified, "larger" will naturally be thought to mean linear size
Click to expand...
I disagree. As they are three dimensional objects then it is natural to compare them by volume. If it were two fields then it would be natural to compare them by area. If it were two roads then it would be natural to compare them by length unless you were discussing traffic flow and capacity in which case you would also want to take into account the number of lanes and carriageways etc.

The really interesting one is on what basis do you compare black holes which as singularities have zero dimensions?
 
gomezz said:
The really interesting one is on what basis do you compare black holes which as singularities have zero dimensions?
Click to expand...

Mass. They still have a gravitational field.

Also, viewed from the outside, they never appear as singularities. Nothing ever falls into a black hole, as viewed from outside. Things just appear to slow down and fade from visible to infra-red and into invisibility.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trev said:
How do you know? Have you been close enough to one to observe that?:laugh:
Click to expand...
General relativity. It's an entirely different matter if you fall into one. The infinite time observed from outside takes only a short time if you stray too close. That is called time dilation.

It's even more complex if the black hole is spinning. I guess they all are? There must be zero chance of not spinning, not even a little bit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top