Proof that camaros are boats

[ryanman]

No photoshop. This is real.

http://www.watercar.com/images/25large.jpg

[exciv2000]

Does it drive on land and in water? I can't imagine it's very fast, what like 19 second 1/4 mile?

[djet820]

Hrmm...is it a car also? Or does it just have like a camaro body and all that

if it drives on both land and water, that'd be sweet.

[ryanman]

Yeah you can drive it on land. It's the worlds fastest amphibious vehicle. Beleive it or not it uses the Subaru 2.5 turbo motor that puts out 300 hp and a rancho 4 speed tranny and uses a jet drive. It weighs 2775 lbs. Will hit 125 mph on land and 45 mph on water.

www.watercar.com

[djet820]

Originally posted by ryanman
Yeah you can drive it on land. It's the worlds fastest amphibious vehicle. Beleive it or not it uses the Subaru 2.5 turbo motor that puts out 300 hp and a rancho 4 speed tranny and uses a jet drive. It weighs 2775 lbs. Will hit 125 mph on land and 45 mph on water.

www.watercar.com

that is awesome. And the thing is lighter then my car:(


but what's a jet drive?

[ryanman]

Jet drive is what a jet ski has. No propellers.

[djet820]

oh sweetness.


And first I thought they took a camaro and just started putting different things in it. But from what it looks like, they only took the body. or did I read it wrong?

[ryanman]

go to www.watercar.com and read it. right click anywhere on the screen and there little menu will pop up and you can choose different things to see about the car.

[djet820]

Yeah, I already read it and all that. I was jsut seeing if there was something I missed. too bad california has all the cool stuff.

[cherrybombcivic]

thats not true, you guys have.....


um......


youre right we do have all the cool stuff.

[DrJones]

Proof that all cats have nine tails:

No cat has 8 tails, all cats have one more tail than no cat, thus all cats have 9 tails.

[DrJones]

Proof that the normal distrobution is a distrobution (By showing the area under the curve is equal to 1):

[DrJones]

Proof that sqrt(2) is irrational:

Let x = k1/2 and assume that x is rational but not integer. Then there exists a minimal positive integer n such that xn is an integer. Consider m = n(x - [x]). Since the fractional part of x, 0x - [x] < 1, 0m < n. Note that m is an integer for m = nx - n[x] which is an integer. Furtheromore, mx = nx2 - (nx)[x] = nk - (nx)[x] which also is an integer. Due to the minimality of n, m = 0. In other words, x = [x] and is ,thus, an integer in contradiction to our assumption.

Richard's argument can be modified to invoke an infinite regression which is impossible for positive integers. Assuming x to be rational, there exists an integer n such that nx is also an integer. As before, we can find an integer m less than n with the same property. mx = 0 gives an immediate contradiction. Otherwise, applying the same reasoning to m and so on, we potentially have an infinite set of integers with no minimal element which is impossible. This is akin to the following geometric proof [Barbin, Gardner].


If x = 21/2 were rational, there would exist a quantity s commensurable both with 1 and x: 1 = sn and x = sm. (It's the same as assuming that x = m/n and taking s = 1/n.) The same will be true of their difference x -1, which is smaller than x. And the process could continue indefinitely in contradiction with the existence of a minimal element.


Aren't proofs fun?

[2genCRX]

^wow that post has nothing to do w/ the thread^

[DrJones]

Originally posted by 2genCRX
^wow that post has nothing to do w/ the thread^

He was sharing the "Proof that camaros are boats" I was sharing some of my favorite proofs..... it's more on topic than a lot of other posts.

[exciv2000]

Originally posted by DrJones
He was sharing the "Proof that camaros are boats" I was sharing some of my favorite proofs..... it's more on topic than a lot of other posts.

Go to bed ya tired cranky ass. don't you have homework to do or something?

[djet820]

Proof that 4=5

-20=20

16-36= 25-45

4^2 - 9*4 = 5^2 - 9*5

4^2 - 9*4 + 81/4 = 5^2 - 9*5 + 81/4

(4 - 9/2)^2 = (5 - 9/2)^2

4 - 9/2 = 5 - 9/2

4 = 5


Now I know in the beginning, the laws of math already broke it...but it's still fun

[DrJones]

Originally posted by djet820
Proof that 4=5

-20=20

16-36= 25-45

4^2 - 9*4 = 5^2 - 9*5

4^2 - 9*4 + 81/4 = 5^2 - 9*5 + 81/4

(4 - 9/2)^2 = (5 - 9/2)^2

4 - 9/2 = 5 - 9/2

4 = 5


Now I know in the beginning, the laws of math already broke it...but it's still fun

Close... I think the first line is a typo, and you mean -20=-20.

All of those are true statements, but the logical progression from one to the next is wrong. Simplify

4^2 - 9*4 + 81/4 = 5^2 - 9*5 + 81/4

and you get 1/4=1/4

(4 - 9/2)^2 = (5 - 9/2)^2 gives you (-1/4)^2=(1/4)^2, which is true, but has no relation to the previous step. Not in the sense of a proof at least.

Usually when you do proofs you modify one side of the equation at once, to hold that relationship. If you do both then your not necessarily keeping the correctness.

[ryanman]

WTF?

[GimPin]

Originally posted by ryanman
WTF?

:werd:

[djet820]

Originally posted by DrJones
Close... I think the first line is a typo, and you mean -20=-20.

All of those are true statements, but the logical progression from one to the next is wrong. Simplify

4^2 - 9*4 + 81/4 = 5^2 - 9*5 + 81/4

and you get 1/4=1/4

(4 - 9/2)^2 = (5 - 9/2)^2 gives you (-1/4)^2=(1/4)^2, which is true, but has no relation to the previous step. Not in the sense of a proof at least.

Usually when you do proofs you modify one side of the equation at once, to hold that relationship. If you do both then your not necessarily keeping the correctness.

yeah but at the same time, it kind of follows the laws of math. Where you do somethign to one side, you must do to the other (algebra). But yeah, proofwise it has no relations..