If a ton of feathers landed on your head...

[Gemmill 34447]

That's more to do with force than speed though surely.  We're still only doing 70mph.

 

Besides, I'd walk away unscathed.

133358[/snapback]

 

No, relative to a standing position you're both doing 70, relative to a passenger in the car, the other car is doing 140, assuming you're both travelling exactly towards or away from each other. I think.

133360[/snapback]

 

I wouldn't bother Gemmill about such matters. His complete failure to comprehend what an autonym is reveals his true level of intelligence.

133363[/snapback]

 

Fluffy is an autonym. FACT!

[adios 717]

You see, this is what I mean. I may as well believe in Adam and Eve.

133361[/snapback]

 

I always found it interesting that Hawking believes in God, I think Einstein did too. Once you get into the realm of theoretical physics, some of the details are so sketchy and contradictory it's sometimes hard to see the difference (joke)!

[Renton 17767]

So how many 5 year olds could you "take"?

 

I reckon about 230.

[Gemmill 34447]

So how many 5 year olds could you "take"?

 

I reckon about 230.

133368[/snapback]

 

Am I still in my car?

[Renton 17767]

You see, this is what I mean. I may as well believe in Adam and Eve.

133361[/snapback]

 

I always found it interesting that Hawking believes in God, I think Einstein did too. Once you get into the realm of theoretical physics, some of the details are so sketchy and contradictory it's sometimes hard to see the difference (joke)!

133367[/snapback]

 

I thought Hawkins was pretty much an atheist actually. I've read a biography on him and don't remember him believing in God, except as some vague physics equation.

 

But yes, many physicists are christians etc.

[adios 717]

Relative yes, but our actual speed is only 70mph.

 

Have you drawn a picture this time, or are you using matchbox cars?

133364[/snapback]

 

But the only thing not relative is light, so you can only talk relative to something else. Anyway, leave me alone, I'm too busy conducting experiments on me scalextric to discuss this.

[Renton 17767]

So how many 5 year olds could you "take"?

 

I reckon about 230.

133368[/snapback]

 

Am I still in my car?

133371[/snapback]

 

No. Unarmed combat, to the death.

[Gemmill 34447]

Relative yes, but our actual speed is only 70mph.

 

Have you drawn a picture this time, or are you using matchbox cars?

133364[/snapback]

 

But the only thing not relative is light, so you can only talk relative to something else. Anyway, leave me alone, I'm too busy conducting experiments on me scalextric to discuss this.

133376[/snapback]

 

I used to come pretty close to the speed of light on my scalextric figure of 8 standard issue track.

[Gemmill 34447]

So how many 5 year olds could you "take"?

 

I reckon about 230.

133368[/snapback]

 

Am I still in my car?

133371[/snapback]

 

No. Unarmed combat, to the death.

133378[/snapback]

 

230 all at once? They'd swarm you man. You'd be dead in minutes. I reckon anything above 20 and it could start to become unmanageable.

[adios 717]

I thought Hawkins was pretty much an atheist actually. I've read a biography on him and don't remember him believing in God, except as some vague physics equation.

 

But yes, many physicists are christians etc.

133374[/snapback]

 

I'm sure he mentions God as a distinct possibility in Brief History of Time, he's definitely not a Christian, though, maybe an agnostic or an open-minded athiest.

[rikko 20]

So how many 5 year olds could you "take"?

 

I reckon about 230.

133368[/snapback]

 

Am I still in my car?

133371[/snapback]

 

No. Unarmed combat, to the death.

133378[/snapback]

 

230 all at once? They'd swarm you man. You'd be dead in minutes. I reckon anything above 20 and it could start to become unmanageable.

133381[/snapback]

 

Theres a point is this all at once or like in the fight scenes in movies. Would the 5 year olds attack one or two at a time while the others dance around menancingly until its their turn to attack you or would they do the real life all attack at once.

[Renton 17767]

So how many 5 year olds could you "take"?

 

I reckon about 230.

133368[/snapback]

 

Am I still in my car?

133371[/snapback]

 

No. Unarmed combat, to the death.

133378[/snapback]

 

230 all at once? They'd swarm you man. You'd be dead in minutes. I reckon anything above 20 and it could start to become unmanageable.

133381[/snapback]

 

This was the topic of a superb thread I read once - it went on for 100s of pages.

 

I would use one of them as a weapon, and run a lot. Eventually you'd succumb to exhaustion though.

[adios 717]

230 all at once?  They'd swarm you man.  You'd be dead in minutes.  I reckon anything above 20 and it could start to become unmanageable.

133381[/snapback]

 

And they've had a days training from combat specialists on how to act as a group to take you down.

 

What effect does it have on the number if we tell Gemmill one of them has chocolate?

[Kid Dynamite 5906]

any more than 2 against 1 in a hand to hand combat situation is unmanageable. FACT! ask andy mcnab.

[adios 717]

any more than 2 against 1 in a hand to hand combat situation is unmanageable. FACT! ask andy mcnab.

133391[/snapback]

 

What if they're squirrels?

[Happy Face 29]

So how many 5 year olds could you "take"?

 

I reckon about 230.

133368[/snapback]

 

Could you keep it hard that long?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm Sorry, so very sorry.

[Kid Dynamite 5906]

any more than 2 against 1 in a hand to hand combat situation is unmanageable. FACT! ask andy mcnab.

133391[/snapback]

 

What if they're squirrels?

133393[/snapback]

 

squirrels dont have hands. FACT!

[Renton 17767]

There's always one, isn't there? Here we are having a nice cnversation about how many 5 year olds you could murder in combat, and you have to lower the tone.

[Gemmill 34447]

230 all at once?  They'd swarm you man.  You'd be dead in minutes.  I reckon anything above 20 and it could start to become unmanageable.

133381[/snapback]

 

And they've had a days training from combat specialists on how to act as a group to take you down.

 

What effect does it have on the number if we tell Gemmill one of them has chocolate?

133390[/snapback]

 

I'd snack on it whilst I fended them off tbh.

 

I like Renton's idea of using one as a weapon like. Pick one up and spin him round, using his head to club his counterparts. Put me down for 25 to start off with, but you can keep some more behind a gate and let them out when I've got this lot down to single figures.

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

The feathers question is also reliant on how compact the feathers are, obviously.

133307[/snapback]

For the purpose of this arguement, the feathers are loosly packed in a lightweight net.

[Happy Face 29]

The feathers question is also reliant on how compact the feathers are, obviously.

133307[/snapback]

For the purpose of this arguement, the feathers are loosly packed in a lightweight net.

133399[/snapback]

 

You'll want a stong net to hold a ton.

[adios 717]

You'll want a stong net to hold a ton.

133402[/snapback]

Tangent-tastic

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

A light but immensly strong net

[Gemmill 34447]

I reckon you'd be alright with the feathers. If you fell off a building onto them, they would cushion your fall, so would it not work in reverse too?

[adios 717]

I reckon you'd be alright with the feathers.  If you fell off a building onto them, they would cushion your fall, so would it not work in reverse too?

133410[/snapback]

 

If a building fell off you? I think you're just being silly now, like.