From mjhaisma@eos.ncsu.eduTue May 2 19:55:23 1995 Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 13:09:05 -0400 From: WB To: frc@nvg.unit.no Subject: Round 34 Final Summary Round 34 Final Summary ------------- Congratulations go to Stein, who wins, and is Wizard Judge next round. Final standings are: Total Who(Valid/Invalid) Style -------------------------- Andre (1/1) +1 Dave (1/1) +2 Doug Steen (0/1) +1 Vanyel (2/0) +1 Stein K. (2/0) +3.5 -------------------------- Total Total Style: +5.5 Valid/Invalid: 5/3 Avg. Style: +0.6875 Judgements: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34:1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgement: VALID (-1 STYLE POINTS) On Apr 12, 5:55pm, Don Blaheta wrote: > Subject: 34:1 > >>>>> > MEMO > > TO: F.R. Committee > FROM: Donald Blaheta, B.N. > RE: Physical Laws > > It has come to our attention that certain groups seem not to obey > various physical laws. As these laws have been very carefully > researched, this comes as a great shock to us all. Thus all ongoing > projects undertaken by this committee must hereby be suspended, and > all members are to participate in the research effort on this surprising > topic. > Each of you must now go out and find instances of this odd > behaviour; we have found, fortunately, that these anomalies occur > entirely within the realm of cartoons. So as not to waste paper or > time, all memoranda posted here must be directly relevant and contain > observed evidence of a physical, natural law which has been broken. We > of the F.R.C. are not so naive to think that these "cartoons" follow no > laws at all; thus each observation of evidence must be accompanied by an > explanation of which law has been broken and in what way; it may be > assumed, then, that this revised law will behave in the same way in all > cartoon-based cases. > To give you all a place to begin looking, attached is a synopsis of > the initial observation. > > Donald Blaheta > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > SYNOPSIS OF OBSERVATION > > In my initial observations, I found a certain cartoon which > displayed a rather scrawny coyote which ran off a ledge. To my > immediate surprise, it did not fall! It appeared to be standing over > thin air. After some additional research, I noted that this occurs > rather often, but the character does not actually fall until it happens > to notice its plight (that of standing over thin air, with no support). > Thus, I have concluded that in cartoons characters are not subject > to the laws of gravity as we know them; in fact, they are only subject > to gravitational force when they observe that they should be falling. > > Donald Blaheta > >>>>> >-- End of excerpt from Don Blaheta I will accept "not subject to the laws of gravity as we know them" as an acceptable explanation of which law has been broken, although if you had said "law of gravity/gravitation" it would have been an easier decision. Style: I've seen this style of rule before in round 25. Also, not much restriction in the rule. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34:2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgement: INVALID (1 STYLE POINT) On Apr 12, 5:02pm, Douglas R. Steen wrote: > Subject: 34:2 > Dear Dr. Blaheta, et al. > > I am gratified that some of my earlier work is finally being recognized by > the FRC professional community. If you recall, I published "On the > uniqueness of physical anomalies in the cartoon system" over three years > ago, and yet it made hardly a splash in the trade press. In that monograph, > I showed that all cartoon physics is unique: that is to say, given the same > initial conditions, two physical trials will turn out to be completely > different. In the non-cartoon world, if one is holding a piece of lit > dynamite, there is only one possible outcome. In the cartoon world, you > might dislodge the anvil above your head or possibly end up with blackface > and the top blown off of your top hat -- it's impossible to tell. I have > also noticed that the cartoon world has outcomes which are much more stylish > and interesting than in the non-cartoon world. > Of course, I must insist that we researchers adopt the methodology of the > cartoon world for our study of it. First, we must be sure that each of our > reports is unique. That is to say, each must present a unique cartoon > phsyical phenomena. Also, we must be as creative as the cartoons > themselves. All future memos to each other (the so-called 'rules') must be > awarded a positive number of style points. Zero or (heavens forbid!) > negative style points shall cause any future rule to be invalid. > Yours in collegiality, > Dr. Dug Thteen. > >-- End of excerpt from Douglas R. Steen The observations in the rule are not accompanied by explanations of which law is broken, hence this rule violates 34:1. I probably would have ruled invalid anyway, however, because it is in a very dark gray area with respect to regular ordinances 6 and 7, and I would tend to discourage invalidating a rule based on the style. The style point is for exposing some of the weak points of 34:1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34:3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgement: VALID (+1 STYLE POINT) On Apr 13, 12:16am, Susan Devine wrote: > Subject: 34:3 > Dear Dr. Blaheta: > > I would like to take this opportunity, before getting down to actual > research on the phenomena in question, to clarify the format for > submitting our reports. To this end, I therefore propose that all future > observations be submitted in the following format (using the observations > noted in item 33:1 for demonstration purposes only): > > --------------------- > > OBSERVATIONAL REPORT > > EXPECTED PHYSICAL LAW: Newton's Law of Gravitational Attraction > > OBSERVATION: A certain coyote, walking off a cliff, does not immediately > fall into the canyon below as expected. Instead he remains suspended in > the air until such time as his violation of Newton's Law is pointed out > to him. > > DEDUCTION: Certain physical objects in the cartoon world, including but > not limited to "living beings", are not subject to the Laws of Gravity > until and unless they are made aware of said Laws while in actual > violation of them. > > NEW PHYSICAL LAW: Schroedinger's Cartoon Corollary to Newton's Law > --------------------- > > Please note that the dashed lines above are included for the purposes of > this memo only, and are not required in future Observational Reports. > Any future reports not meeting the format requirements shall be judged as > "Incomplete Research", and therefore INVALID. Memos to the Committee > and/or the Judge regarding any topic other than an actual Observational > Report (for example, this memo) may still be formatted as a regular memo, > unless future rules otherwise dictate. > > Yours in science, > Dave Honsinger > Acme University > Department of Improbability > >-- End of excerpt from Susan Devine This memo skates close to violating 34:1, but I will accept "before getting down to actual research" to imply that you are already working on the project, and will discuss it at a later time. Style Comments: The format makes the job of judging observations easier, hence the style point. "Department of Improbablity" sounds a little bit like the _Hitchiker's Guide_, though. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34:4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgement: VALID (+2 STYLE POINTS) On Apr 13, 6:47pm, csg419@wing.rug.nl wrote: > Subject: 34:4 > OBSERVATIONAL REPORT > > EXPECTED PHYSICAL LAW: Newton's first law > > OBSERVATION: A man, hunting rabbits, standing on the corner of a building, has > fabricated his gun in such a way as to form a quarter circle. He shoots a > bullet with this gun. This bullet is expected to go in a straight line, as > after it has been shot there is no force (other than gravitation) acting on it. > What happens, however, is that the bullet goes around the house, hitting the > shooter himself. > > DEDUCTION: If a body is making a curve, it apparently can keep this curve > without a force working on it. > > NEW PHYSICAL LAW: The law of continued curvation: > If an object is forced to move in a circle for at least 90 degrees, it will > tend to keep moving in this circle except when a force works upon it. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Note: > > To avoid too much litter going through our mailing list, all future postings > to be valid need to include a report. Furthermore this report should contain > a NEW observation, which can be explained by neither the 'normal' physical laws > nor by laws found by other researchers in this area. > > To make sure we are really constructing a science, each deduction should lead > to a new physical law, which is STATED EXACTLY. I mean, Susan Devine made a > nice report, but "Certain physical objects" is much too vague. She should have > given an exact description of which objects keep to that law. Of course such a > law is only a guess, but it's better to guess wrong than not to guess at all. > > Yours Sincerely, > > Andre, > University of Agora, > Department of Nomic. > > >-- End of excerpt from csg419@wing.rug.nl Comments: I will regard the absence of spacing before "OBSERVATIONAL REPORT" as irrelevant, since horizontal spacing can vary from mailer to mailer anyway. Also, I will allow the references to "Susan Devine" and "she", but FROM NOW ON players should be aware that "Susan Devine", unless a rule changes this, should be referred to as "Dave Honsinger", as was at the end of 34:3. Style Comments: It has several things I have been looking for to solidify the current rules. Also I very much enjoyed "it's better to guess wrong than to not guess at all." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34:5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgement: VALID (+0.5 STYLE) On Apr 18, 10:50am, Stein.Kulseth@TF.telenor.no wrote: > Subject: Proposed rule 34:5 (?) > >>>>> > MEMO TO: FRC > >FROM: Stein Kulseth, research scientist > RE: Violence attractors > > ### > > OBSERVATIONAL REPORT > > EXPECTED PHYSICAL LAW: Conservation of momentum > > OBSERVATION: A duck, estimated weight less than 20 kg, after finding out > he is in a state of violating Newton's Law of Gravitational Attraction > falls down into the ground. The impact makes the earth shake visibly. > The fall takes less than one second, the duck is subsequently seriously > bruised. > > DEDUCTION: Within the observed fall time, the duck could not possibly > have aquired enough momentum to move the earth by any significant > amount, > even when we do not consider air resistance. Thus we deduce that the law > of conservation of momentum does not apply and formulate our revised > version: > > NEW PHYSICAL LAW: Whenever an impact will cause significant hurt or > injury > moving objects may transfer more momentum to the environment than they > actually have. > > ### > > Comment: > > This is also a prime example of violence attractors at work! (I take it > that you all are familiar with the so-called "violence attractors" > that is the source of all cartoon deviation from normal physical laws. > You will all want to look forward to the next valid rule in this FRC > round > which will give more detail about these violence attractors.) > > Yours sincerely, > Stein K. > >>>>> >-- End of excerpt from Stein.Kulseth@TF.telenor.no Comments: Looks ok to me. Style: I'm interested to learn more about "violence attractors", as it looks like the "new physical law(s)" are beginning to resemble quantum theory. =) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34:6 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgement: INVALID (-1 STYLE POINTS) On Apr 19, 10:03am, Andre Engels wrote: > Subject: Rule 34:6 > memo to: FRC > in reply to: Stein Kulseth; Violent Attractors > > I don't like this kind of talk at all. Violence Attractors are grossly > overrated in our field. They explain only part of the deviations from normal > physical law in our field. By the way, there might be some people reading this > who do not know what violence attractors are. It's just the discovery of Stein > Kulseth's (and one of the main developments in our field), that in moments of > violent action (like collisions) Cartoon Physics will cause a way of acting > with a greater energy transfer, sometimes with energy production, and a greater > entropy growth than in the 'normal' physics. However, as I have said, I do not > agree with Stein Kulseth who seems to think ALL deviations stem from this > principle. However, the following does: > > OBSERVATIONAL REPORT > > EXPECTED PHYSICAL LAW: Additivity of mass and force > > OBSERVATION: A quite heavy body, for example a man or other animal (mass > 40-100 kg) is supported by a branch of a tree. While this body is still > sitting, a butterfly (mass probably not more than 10 grammes) places itself, > without high velocity, on the same branch. The branch apparently can't support > the added weight, and breaks. Of course this is not impossible according to > physical laws, but while in daily life this is improbable enough to, as far as > I know, never have happened, in cartoons it happens quite frequently. > > DEDUCTION: The mass of 2 bodies, taken together, may be higher than their > respective masses added together. > > NEW PHYSICAL LAW: Weight adjustment law: If 2 bodies of different weight are > supported by the same body, their added mass is higher than the sum of their > masses. The difference is greater if the difference between the masses. > > ### > > Comment: I think this is the violence attractors at work. The placing of the > butterfly on the branch causes a creation of energy, which is made effective > by increasing the mass working on the branch. Unfortunately nobody has yet > resolved the question whether this is a real gain of mass of any of the three > bodies, or the engergy gained on impact is lost when the branch breaks loose. > > Would other scientists please also add whether they think if violence > attractors are involved in their observation, and if not, if they see any other > general principle, like the Natural Delay-principle, at work? > > Andre Engels, > University of Agora. > > P.S.: I just realize some of the readers may not know the Natural Delay- > principle. I am running out of time (Tom & Jerry starts in 10 minutes, and > might yeald some interesting observation), so would the next writer please > explain it? > >-- End of excerpt from Andre Engels Comments: This violates 34:4 in that the observation can be explained by normal physical laws. Style Comments: The restriction at the end bears a striking resemblance to Stein's last rule. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34:7 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgement: INVALID (+1 STYLE POINT) On Apr 19, 11:00am, Susan Devine (a.k.a Dave Honsinger) wrote: > Subject: Rule 34:7 > To: FRC > Re: Violence Attractors > > My Dear Colleagues: > > I find this discussion of Violence Attractors most intriguing. I note > that the principle is similar to that displayed in the laws of physics > demonstrated in the world-subset "Hollywood films", most particularly in > the objects commonly referred to as "bad-guy bullets" and "good-guy > bullets". You are, of course, familiar with the phenomenon, wherein the > hero of the movie is more likely to hit a given target despite obstacles, > yet the enemy of the hero is proportionately LESS likely to hit a similar > target despite a LACK of obstacles. > > Indeed, one wonders whether the principle of Violence Attractors is at > work in the situation described in Rule 34:5. Also, experience with the > currently known laws of physics leads one to expect, in the presence of a > certain particle, that there exists an "anti-particle", counter in some > way to the known particle. Perhaps a "Violence Repulsor" is at work in > the following example: > > OBSERVATIONAL REPORT > > EXPECTED PHYSICAL LAW: Newton's Laws of Gravitation; also, Schroedinger's > Corollary thereto (see rule 34:3) > > OBSERVATION: A rabbit, hero of the cartoon in question, is aboard an > airplane which is plunging out of control toward a certain crash. The > rabbit is unable to leave the aircraft by parachute. Upon entering the > cockpit of said aircraft, the rabbit notices a large button (or > perhaps a lever) labeled "Air Brakes", which he activates. The aircraft > stops in midair mere inches from the ground; the crash is averted and the > rabbit is saved. The rabbit is certainly aware of his violation of > Newton's Laws, and thus one would expect Schroedinger's Corollary to > apply; however, it appears that since the rabbit is the hero, he is able > to thwart that law as well. > > DEDUCTION: Physical laws in the cartoon world are not universal, but > depend upon whether the object in question is an instrument of the "hero" > of the cartoon or the "antagonist". > > NEW PHYSICAL LAW: Meta-Law of Ethical Relativity > ------- > Comment: I have termed this a "Meta-Law" because it is a law that > affects the other laws, rather than applying directly to physical objects > themselves. I look forward to reading of further Meta-Laws in future > memos on this subject. > > Yours in Science, > Dave Honsinger > Acme University > Department of Improbability > > > >-- End of excerpt from Susan Devine Comments: The "NEW PHYSICAL LAW", IMHO, is not stated exactly, so this violates 34:4. Style Comments: I liked the idea of a "violence repulsor," and it _is_ a good counter-example to the proposed "Schroedinger's Cartoon Corollary". (Ed. Note) This rule has had a proposal to overturn the decsision (see end of judgements) and was found to be still invalid based upon reasons other than indicated in my original judgement. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34:8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgement: VALID (+2 STYLE) On Apr 19, 5:33pm, Don Blaheta wrote: > Subject: 34:8 > > MEMO > TO: F.R. Committee > FROM: Donald Blaheta, B.N. > RE: Natural Delay Principle > > It is interesting to note that certain time frames change in the realms > of Cartoon Physics. Certain delays which are to be expected do not > occur, or delays which were not expected do. This occasionally may be > attributed to Violence Attractors, but not in all cases. After some > frustrating research I believe I have found a method to the seemingly > random play with Natural Delays. > > OBSERVATIONAL REPORT > > EXPECTED PHYSICAL LAW: Law of Thermal Transfer; also, Law of Violence > Attractors > > OBSERVATION: As he is being chased through the snow, a rabbit grabs a > bucket of water and throws it in a perfect arc, where it immediately > freezes. While this is theoretically possible, the conditions would be > such that no life, certainly not such as that of a rabbit, could be > sustained in such conditions without the influence of Cartoon Physics. > Similar instances occur when a beagle throws a bucket of water over a > rather large rooster, where it immediately freezes into a solid block. > In yet another occurrence, two mice have frozen an ice rink on a floor; > when they release a bottle of seltzer water it extrudes a ramp of ice. > > DEDUCTION: When in an environment below 0 degrees Celsius, water > freezes instantly. The Natural Delay in this case which would normally > obtain between release of the water and its eventual freezing is > entirely impeded. > > NEW PHYSICAL LAW: The Law of Instantaneous Solidification of Water > > An interesting law, to be sure. I suspect that it is part of a greater > law, however, which I cannot currently divine. I therefore charge the > next poster of a Valid memorandum (aka rule) with investigating into a > Grand Unified Theory of Cartoon Physics. E needn't present the Theory > in its entirety (as it will, no doubt, be well over 100 lines long), but > merely a segment, between 10 and 20 lines, of it. > > Scientifically yours, > > Donald Blaheta, B.N. > >-- End of excerpt from Don Blaheta Comments: After examining Stein's argument against 34:7, I have decided that there is in fact no stipulation saying the new physical law must be present in the deduction. It just barely seems to satisfy 34:5 by attributing some delays to violence attractors, thus giving more detail. I have another idea as to what could account for the instantaneous solidification of water (besides "Natural Delay"), but I will have to keep my big mouth shut for now. =) Style: Good idea to get *someone else* to come up with a grand unified theory. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34:9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgement: VALID (+3 STYLE POINTS) On Apr 24, 10:21pm, Stein.Kulseth@TF.telenor.no wrote: > Subject: Rule 34:9 > >>>> > MEMO > > to: FRC > authored by: Stein Kulseth, research scientist > RE: The Kulseth bicertainty principle and the > Grand Unified Theory of Cartoon Physics (GUTCP) (excerpt) > > The Heisenberg uncertainity principle says that the more exact > you know the position of a particle the less certain is its energy > (or velocity), and vice versa. This does *not* apply to cartoon > physics and before presenting the GUTCP we will show how we deduce > this fact. > > - - - > > OBSERVATIONAL REPORT > > EXPECTED PHYSICAL LAW: The Heisenberg uncertainty principle > > OBSERVATION: I studied a series of cartoons closely and found > that in all of them characters and objects moved through a > series of separate still-life positions at a rate of 24 a second, > most often repeating every stance twice. > > DEDUCTION: From this I deduce the following law: > In cartoon physics there are instants (24 a second) where both > position and energy are exactly defined, however in-between these > instants *both* positon and energy is *completely arbitrary* > > NEW PHYSICAL LAW: The Kulseth bicertainty principle > > - - - > > With this in mind there should now be no surprise that the cartoon > physics deviate from ordinary physics. And with the possibly great > influx of unbounded energy in the in-between random void, the > inherent violence attraction in cartoons seem not only natural > but even unavoidable. > > And now with this foundation we might expect to gain insight into > the GUTCP, of which I am able to give this short overview, as > presented to me by my old ducktor professor: > > QUACK > > quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack > quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack > quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack > quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack > quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack > quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack > quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack > quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack > quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack > quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack > quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack > quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack > quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack > quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack > > [sic] > > However, I don't speak duckese very well, and must therefore > take the liberty to require that the next memo translate this > into English. > > >>>> Comments: Looks ok as far as validity. Style Comments: Good way to turn the challenge around. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition to the rules above, there was a proposal to change the ruling of 34:7 from VALID to INVALID. The voting was 2 to 1 AGAINST the proposal. Mike -- mjhaisma@eos.ncsu.edu +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ |"If they ever come up with a swashbuckling School, I think one of the| |courses should be Laughing, Then Jumping Off Something."--Jack Handey| +---------------------------------------------------------------------+