Page 1 of 2
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 10:28 pm
Best if they have no holes when wearing sandels...
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 12:33 pm
How do you get your foot in them though?
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:09 am
Kate said only no holes when you're wearing sandals, and since you shouldn't be wearing socks with sandals, that's why they have no holes...I think...
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:17 am
Doesn't that mean that they just have one big hole?
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:29 am
Then they would break the mantra of sock..;
"I stink, Therefore I am"
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:07 pm
I'm all for safe socks in this day and age!!!
You never know who's had them before you!!!
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 4:11 pm
I don't know what the fuss is, you just turn them inside out and wear them again....
Holy Socks, batman
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 4:38 pm
If they don't have any holes, how are you going to turn them inside-out?
*ponders* Can someone knit g23b a pair of moebius socks - with only one side? That'd really confuse 'im <Evil Grin>
Thesis: Dimensional Sock Instability
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:26 pm
The thread concerning socks is currently assuming a 3 dimensional sock. This is sadly erroneous.
No, what you are down to, is in fact a 2 dimensional sock with a hole in it, thus you put your foot through it rather than into it. This is an uncommon state of a sock.
The Singularity Sock - a one dimensional manifestation of socks - occupying a very small, non-zero space in the fabric of the universe and therefore impossible to detect - is the normal state of one or both of any given pair of matching socks outside of a stable maintained Sock Field.
Removing a pair of socks from a stabilised Sock Field(1), automatically induces dimensional instability. Two dimensional socks are in fact very rare. It is more common for a sock to shed 2 dimensions which are then collected by either the matching sock or the tie that Aunt Mabel sent as a gift many years ago.
(1) Such as a High Street clothing store.
5 dimensional socks tend to interact strangely with 3 dimensional space, they will slide through the space time curve to emerge in the middle of the floor in front of a previously unaware observer. The observer will often think "How did that get there?" then commence an ultimately pointless task in attempting to locate the matching sock, which now being a Singularity will be impossible to locate.
Multi-dimensional Ties continue to "soak up" dimensions but don't become any more aesthetically pleasing. For some reason, they are never thrown out even when the Aunt no longer exists in the same time frame.
Another example of Dimensional Instability in clothing is seen in 5 dimensional male/female underwear. This also interacts strangely with 3 dimensional space, emerging through the space time curve in the middle of the floor in front of a previously unaware observer of the sex to which the underwear is intended for, but not the owner thereof. The observer will then think "Who the f*** do they belong to?" then commence to locate their Significant Other and demand an explanation as to the reason for the existence of the said underwear.
It can be said that at this point in particular, there is a lot of scepticism expressed towards the scientifically enlightening theory of Dimensional Instability in Clothing.
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:51 pm
Surely all socks are 2 dimensional topographically speaking?
After all, if they were stretchy enough you could lay them out flat
And there would be no leghole - though there might be darn holes etc.
One of those smilies must be bemused!
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 6:02 pm
Ah, but they'd always have height due to the wool/nylon being 3D, sorry.
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:31 pm
fair cop noel.
But even flat things are 3 dimensional, so I can't agree that they are two dimensional, occupying different continuums of course as we all know you can't have two identical socks occupying the same space at the same time. more like sock and anti-sock. The only time a pair of identical socks will be seen or experienced is on the very first occasion of wear, then after their removal they will then separate ne'r to rejoin.
Similar to coat hangers and stuff.
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:02 am
It has recently been proposed that once removed from a stabilised sock field (SSF), pairs of socks in fact 'share' their dimensions. So where as you previously have 2 3-dimensional socks you in fact can end up with a pair of combinations, providing that they add to 6 in total. This is why you have the 5-dimensional sock and it's virtually impossible to locate 1-dimensional partner. It is only as the pair (or 'pod' as they are known in Space/Time research) approach each other that these effects lesson.
There have obviously been many attempts to replicate SSF in a domestic environment, the most successful failure being the 'sock drawer' a supposedly infallible method of maintaining pod integrity. Lenghty field tests are ongoing but, having participated in several years of of beta tests myself have come to the conclusion that other methods are required.
The 2 greatest aggrivators of pod integrity has been discovered as;
- Laundry basket; and
- Washing machine
The first of these enables any one sock to assume the form of any other sock present, thereby convincing the owner that they have infact obtained a pod.
The second device nullifies this field entirely and, when a pod is present accelerates the rate of diminsional sharing. It is also supposed that the device 'Tumble Dryer' has a greater effect even than this. Prof. J Brzincki of Ohio State University (one of the worlds leading researchers) is quoted as saying on the Tumble Dryer question;
"Don't even go there..!"
As it stands our tax-pounds are being well invested on further research, which I will make available as and when...
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:04 am
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:37 pm
Dickie and I are on the same wavelength.
Those washing machines bah!
The way to counter this is to purchase a number of identical pairs, which even though will never again be truly identical as mentioned above, you will be almost certain to have pairs that match even if only optically.
However having said that some time ago I discovered a small black sock (for I only have black socks) that is too small for me, not my wife's and too big for my daughter. I asked wife whose it was and she thought it was mine, I explained it wasn't she said it must be as it was in my sock drawer.
Subsequent investigation has not revealed another sock like it in the house, but whenever I am fumbling around in the dark or bleary eyed in the morning no matter that I have over ten pairs (or more even) of identical socks I will invariably pick up the small one. Worse still I am sure I have thrown it away at least once.
Does anyone else have similar spooky sock stalker stories?
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:46 pm
You must have the twin to my Miniature Black Sock That Came From Nowhere
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:51 pm
Did you acquire said sock after a visit to the NLHF..?
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:25 pm
Grr. I pressed the New Post button instead of the Reply button. Again.
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:15 pm
Cal, Cat, gregory(hex(571))
What you are discussing is a common misunderstanding between theoretical and applied physics. How can we create a flat sock in a real universe, when in fact we have to have a third dimension (height or thickness) to describe the molecular structure of the wool, cotton or nylon (the latter of which is not authentic for pre-20th century physics).
Well, the straight dope is that we cannot. A two dimensional sock or any other 2D object come to think of it, cannot naturally exist in a real-life three dimensional universe.
It could be said that even a one dimensional object or point cannot exist - this is true in a practical sense. Just making a dot on a page produces - in molecular terms - a huge number of lumps of different chemicals, crashing into and bonding with a vast expanse of carbon atoms all held together with the Gods know what paper manufacturers use these days, and vast numbers of water molecules rushing away at great speed. Particle scientists make out that this is all a very exciting process but then they tend to get excited about very small things which is their problem, not mine.
Therefore, we need to bridge the gap between RealLife™ science and Theoretical science or the sort of science that involves slamming large amounts of chemicals (on a molecular scale) onto paper to describe in abstract terms ideas which are complete nonsense in RealLife™. The gap in this case is a yawning one and believe me, if you are not yawning by now, you should either get out more and get a RealLife™ or become a Particle Scientist .
What we can do is speculate that such a thing as an elementary particle exists. By elementary particle we mean the smallest possible component of matter. Leucippus of Miletus (5th century BC) is first recorded as proposing how atomic theory worked. He did not perceive that objects smaller than an atom could exist and merely reckoned that to describe a toffee apple say, you had sweet atoms, sticky atoms, bitter atoms, atoms which may have been left by a worm, and atoms with no other apparent purpose than to drip down your shirt.
Aristotle attacked this theory as Lucretius, did later on (in his "De rerum natura"), said this was nonsense and that particles, atoms et al. can be broken down further and properties such as sweet, sticky and attracted to shirts (like some I could mention), are in fact properties created from combining smaller objects. He argued this basically to have a go at Plato of course - theoretical science doesn't involve being nice to people you disagree with, you know.
Aristotle demonstrated this in his lectures by stating a rock broken in half, would be two stones, a stone broken in half would be two pebbles, that pebbles could be reduced to sand and then further and further.
Both Leucippus and Aristotle wore sandals but Raphael's fresco "The School of Athens", depicting Aristotle and Plato arguing (naturally), is not proof that they did not wear socks. Actually, we crossed this earlier in the thread but we will move on.
The final logical point, the elementary particle, is the ultimate degree to which this process of breaking down can go. Since scientists have only so far managed to get down to proving the existence of "quarks" which really do have unique properties, Leucippus is currently in with the last laugh here. What quarks are made up out of is the next step onwards.
My personal theory is that the Gods created everything out of elementary particles and that when we finally discover them, they will look like Lego bricks and be in lots of pretty colours and Aristotle can bug ger off.
Having defined an elementary particle, I hope, we can describe a one dimensional sock as an elementary particle with the potential to become a sock (or a infinitesimally small part of one) given that it becomes associated with other elementary particles, which go on to become atomic constructs of sheep, cotton plants, or very small (eventually dead & crushed) sea creatures, and are turned by human processes into wool, cotton and nylon respectively. Which by further processes, become socks.
If Aristotle is correct - any elementary particle has the chance to become either the President of the United States or a Sock. The latter probably looks better on the CV's of most elementary particles but we must move on.
If Leucippus is correct however, the situation changes. Leucippus could not have envisioned the discovery of things smaller than atoms, he got down to atoms without the aid of a microscope, so don't knock the guy. But what if elementary particles themselves have properties? Even if this is at a very basic level and nothing like as complex as smelling of cheese, potential to form holes or to be in very bad taste colours depicting reindeer and forming the words Happy Xmas and being sent along with that wretched tie from Aunt Mabel.
If elementary particles have properties then only certain types will have potential to become a sock. Certain elementary particles may not want to hang out with the elementary particles which go to make up the atoms which hang about with each other making up sheep (or the President of the United States for that matter). These will not have the inherent potential to form wool socks.
It therefore seems practical in a Leucippian model of matter (let's give Leucippus credit where credit is due), that if enough like minded elementary particles hang out together, they will eventually form a sock, given the strength of their mutual association. If enough like minded crazy people with an interest in history hang out in a pub they will eventually form a re-enactment society. It may take them a long time and a lot of committee meetings processing beer but it will happen.
Ditto through many processes, certain elementary particles will form Socks. provided that the conditions exist at a higher level (e.g. humans with cold feet) for the higher processes (of say Wool being knitted into Sock by Aunt Mabel) to complete the process, started by the banding together of like-minded elementary particles.
This means in theoretical terms, an elementary particle has the potential to form higher particles, but only upon moving and meeting (forming association with) other elementary particles which are conducive to this formation process. Which is like saying that if you have enough balls of tasteless coloured wool in one place, in the vicinity of each other and an associative process such as Aunt Mabel, it is highly likely that you will be getting revolting socks in only slightly less or more revolting wrapping paper later in the year.
Having defined the one-dimensional sock in Leucippian terms, I will now demonstrate how this could in turn be applied to a two dimensional sock.
So far we have seen that in a practical sense, even a one dimensional concept will involve an infinitely small, unmeasurable but non-zero length, width and depth to achieve an existence. It's going to be small but it will exist.
A two dimensional object will possess length and width, but it will also need an infinitely small, unmeasurable but non-zero depth in order to exist on an elementary particle level. To achieve a two dimensional sock, I am going to need a whole bunch of elementary particles with the Leucippian potential to form socks. Of course, if Aristotle is on the button this is going to make this rather harder to justify.
Let's assume these elementary particles are marbles instead and the space/time fabric they inhabit is actually a tin tray. All I need to do is stick down a whole bunch of these potential sock elementary particles, and I have a ready to go 2 dimensional proto-sock.
But what if Aristotle was correct? There is no potential in the marbles to form a sock, even a sock load of marbles (because the sock still does not exist). I must form the atomic structures which make up the molecular structure of the wool, cotton or billions of small, unfortunately dead and crushed sea creatures turned into nylon - I mean how can vegetarians justify wearing nylon socks per-lease???
The only way to build the 3 dimensional structures is to cut the tray to which I have stuck the marbles to, into pieces and glue the marbles together - thereby building the atomic structures. Or what I could do is cut the tray into strips and fold them over so the atomic structure was there, but it could be unfolded and the marbles returned to a flat surface. This is the clever bit - between each connecting surface of each marble, I attach a very thin, very stretchy piece of elastic (which is not authentic for pre-20th century physics). As I then unfold the tray and flatten it out again, I have a criss-cross mesh of elastic which defines the (unfolded) structure of the sock.
This is a gross simplification. The tray is the fabric of space/time, and assumes that the elementary particles can be so aligned in a fashion as to create a sock, that an association (the elastic bit) can be created and maintained, that the continuity of space/time can be preserved during the process of association and re-created afterwards, and that the unravelling of the component elementary particles does not release a catastrophic amount of atomic energy, as this would play merry hell with local property values.
The truth of the matter is that to bring about such an association in the first place would require super-massive forces. Our tray would be screwed up and crushed in a very particular manner, rather like the way we deliberately screw-up and crush election pamphlets delivered by parties whose political ambitions disagree radically with our views, and then made to undergo compression in an environment similar to that created just before matter collapses and starts to form a Black Hole.
It follows therefore that any two dimensional sock will be physically unstable in the very least, and probably short lived to the level of only nanoseconds before it collapses. Making certain assumptions about the physical constraints of matter, it would be possible to create a two dimensional sock but it is not the sort of thing you are going to find in your wardrobe, due to the fact you would shortly not have a wardrobe, or in fact a planet to stand on.
At least, you would not have to worry about missing socks anymore...
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:46 pm
(waves white flag) My brain has imploded.
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:55 pm
I think for reasons of personal disclaimer, as the initiator of this thread I should say that any sock related content after my initial post is completely beyond my understanding!
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 8:52 am
I read it all! I think I even understood some of it.
So basically what you're saying is that Brzinki is a fraud..?
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 8:58 am
but Dickie surely that would depend on which dimesion he was in at the time!?!
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:04 am
True, however I'm not sure which one I'm in at the mo' still reeling from that read. Or that could just be me...
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:08 am
i must admit i felt like i'd been pulled through several dimensions by the time i'd finished that post
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:35 am
I think I need another cup of tea..!
See you guys tomorrow night sometime...
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:19 am
The really worrying element to the above mega-post is that only one of the points made was complete and utter bullsh1t.
According to current theory, it would be theoritically possible, in quantum terms to fold the space time fabric to achieve an association of two remote quantum particles, to suggest that complex associations could be created by "overlaying" successive S/T conduits, is complete nonsense.
Sue me, I was trying to justify even simple three-dimensional atomic formation on a two-dimensional plane, in a three-dimensional space, had painted my way into a theoritical corner, and was trying to get out by assuming a door in a solid brick wall. Go ahead, you try figuring it.
As to the rest of it, hard fact provided that a certain bunch of born-again CF scientists are bluffing that they have managed to shoot away Newtonian physics, because if they have, we are all in the soup. It would not be the first time in history, established thought has received a smack in the teeth either, so I'm not counting the chandeliers until the lady has got off the stage.
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:03 am
You have to ask whether Theoretical Sock Science accurately models RealLife Sock Science. If it does not, then the above is purely a load of heavily-excited air particles, and has nothing at all to do with the RealLife Sock phenomena we were discussing earlier.
It all boils down to this bridge-thinggy Hys Gude Grace was talking about. I want to know if this is a RealLife Bridge or a purely Theoretical Bridge. And can you get two cars across it at once? And if it's a Gap Bridge, are the only safe socks to be bought in said shop? That would rather create a monopoly on sock sales, no?...and that brings Horrible Economics into the fray...
Now, whichever bridge it happens to be, once you travel from the TSS side to the RLSS side, your baking tin (the one you put your sock in) goes from being two dimensional to being three dimensional. The contents will also make this transition from two to three dimensions....and then promptly disappear in a puff of logic, having disproved that they are really one-dimensional.
...and talking of heavily excited carbon-dioxide, I'll shut up now...I really don't want to duke this out with Hys Grace :)
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:08 pm
Dickie wrote: Prof. J Brzincki of Ohio State University (one of the worlds leading researchers) is quoted as saying
Either the man is an utter fraud, and you were postulating based on some dubious pseudo-science, or you are confusing Star Trek with real life(1
)(1) Don't be ashamed of this, it happens to a lot of people, especially in California where the incidence of Reality Perception Disorder (R.P.D.) is almost state-wide. Please seek treatment, it is not to late. If you leave the disorder untreated, however, you will become Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Good call, well researched. I am glad you have unmasked Brzincki as the fraud he is.
gregory23b wrote:However having said that some time ago I discovered a small black sock (for I only have black socks) that is too small for me, not my wife's and too big for my daughter. I asked wife whose it was and she thought it was mine, I explained it wasn't she said it must be as it was in my sock drawer.
What you have experienced here is either
- an example of Dimensional Instability in socks, OR
- a very rare and incredibly important example of "Dark Socks". I cannot stress how important this is! Currently, the data about the Universe as we know it suggests that contains a far greater mass than is detectable. That is that we only know about the existence of 10% of Socks in the area bounded by own galaxy. To explain this, scientists have created the theory that the remaining 90% is hither to undetectable "Dark Socks". This could be the breakthrough which science has been waiting for!
There could be a Nobel Prize in this for you…
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:40 pm
I'm afraid that I also am the temporary guardian of a dark sock. Too small to be mine, certainly too small to be Bucket's, but the wrong colour to belong to either of his kids...