1) Law of constant volume: The volume of an object is constant whichever way you bend it. So the statement, “We can’t fit all the clothes if you just stuff them in the bag. We need to fold the clothes properly” is not valid. - I believe the volume of the suitcase doesn't change...but stuffing clothes will change their dimensions a.k.a. change their volume. ... if my physics-feeble mind is not mistaken this will cause a change in number of items that can fir within the fixed volume suitcase
2) The law of uniform heat transference: It will take exactly the same amount of time for the wet towel to dry whether it is on the towel-hanger or on bed. - true... but it well cause the bed to become damp due to transfer of water... and I don't know about all men.... but I believe most will spread out the towel on the girl's side of the bed!!!
3)Law of non-magnetism of hands: Human hands do not act as magnets to bacteria, virus, germs and other vicious microbes. Therefore, washing hands more than twice a day is utter waste of one’s valuable time. - Agreed . . . But if I am not mistaken men have to touch themselves to piss... so i think washing your hands after that is advisable. Or do you piss only twice a day?
4) Newton’s First Law: “Don’t throw the car keys in the sofa, you will lose them” contradicts Newton’s First Law. The keys will continue to stay at rest on the sofa unless some restless force moves them. - Again true... but often that force is the men sitting on the sofa to watch T.V. and shoving the keys under sofa cushions so that they don't poke them!!!
He has a some 4-5 more... all of which i can give common sense replies to...but i m too bored.... so will skip that...
My conclusion... Don't call your sloth and/or lack of common sense/hygiene as incapability of women to grasp physics....
Well tried ! Guess you need to understand that none of his points had any "valid" physics arguments (may be a few) ! that was written purely as a humorous piece and not to stress on the fact that women can't grasp physics. (though it might have been put that way...but I believe that was not the underlying intention)..
ReplyDeletenyway having said that.. I should also mention that your arguments are full of holes as well. nonetheless...nice one...
cheers..