Comments on: Time Trauma Truth and Other Matters

By: Lepton T.

Lepton T. — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 20:16:31 +0000

Funny thing how “constants” are so inconstant. Were I to hop into my time machine and go forward a couple years or backwards (I get them confused) my mass in kilograms will fluctuate because some bright folks decided they didn’t like the color of the old unit. And I live on Jupiter (with summer cottages on the Jovian moons; guess which one 😀 ), so a year is sort of meaningless without context. And it gets doubly difficult when I engage the hyper-light drives and come back scant Planck times later and my pet giant lizard made way to these hairless (well, mainly) bi-pedal things.

By: Nick

Nick — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:53:37 +0000

“Electrons might be small, but they take up more space than the nuclei of atoms.”

But the question was: “Electrons are smaller than atoms?” which is surely true?

By: CherryBombSim

CherryBombSim — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 05:01:20 +0000

The question about television transmissions reminded me of something that happened when fax machines were new and wonderful innovations:

One of the girls who worked in our office sending her very first fax fed the document in the top, and watched as it was scanned, and was absolutely crushed when it came back out the bottom of the machine. “Awww, it must not have gone through.”

By: rob

rob — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:21:48 +0000

stonehenge? bah.

carhenge!!!!!!

http://www.carhenge.com/

By: DuWayne

DuWayne — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 20:53:55 +0000

Thanks Greg – both for the book and the mention! I am rather excited, though not nearly as excited as Cay about the chemistry. We also got Naked Eggs and Flying Potatoes. Of course I am now stuck with a child who wants to mix up a couple hundred pounds of starch with water, so as to dance upon it.

I got off by promising I would email his teacher about it – it is possible we could get away with it there and without me actually having to buy the starch.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:53:24 +0000

The definition of “year” is the time it takes for the Earth to complete one revolution around the sun.

“The” definition? Do you realize you are speaking to an anthropologist here? I’ve got a calendar on my wall that says one year = 365 days!

And what about Stonehenge!!!

By: TheBrummell

TheBrummell — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:51:59 +0000

The Earth does not go around the sun in one year. It takes longer (thus leap year and the occasionally leap second).

The definition of “year” is the time it takes for the Earth to complete one revolution around the sun. So, it’s impossible for the Earth to take any longer or any less to get around the Sun; by definition, however long it takes is exactly one year. Yes, this is a boring and annoying Pedant’s answer.

By: Edward

Edward — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:35:25 +0000

Thanks Greg.

By: rob

rob — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:04:44 +0000

except the nucleus of an atom is not the atom. you have to include electrons bound in shells around the nucleus. so the comparison should be between an electron and the whole atom(protons, neutrons and electrons) and not just the nucleus and an electron.

anyway, sub-atomic particles are not really particles with size anyway. they are excitations of quantum fields, so comparing “size” is kinda murky.

as for the earth/year question: an African year or European year?

By: MikeMa

MikeMa — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:51:50 +0000

Harrruuummpphh. Cheap trick on the time for earth’s revolution, etc. You didn’t note the precision you were looking for but rather set the expectation that the answer you wee seeking was general. Point taken though in that most science questions and answers require caveats and thought and an appropriate audience.

The male economist fail you noted also has an alternative possible mechanism for failure. The women asked were smart enough to know that they were expected to fail regardless of their actual knowledge and they played their part.