1248: "Sphere"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Locoluis
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:30 pm UTC
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby Locoluis » Wed Aug 07, 2013 11:04 pm UTC

Bah to small talk.

If you have nothing to say, it's better to shut up than to spew out BS.
Sueños del Sur - A webcomic about four siblings, their family, friends, adventures and dreams.
http://sds.lgm.cl/

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10271
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby addams » Thu Aug 08, 2013 2:11 am UTC

Wnderer wrote:
keithl wrote:Astronomer Fritz Zwicky referred to his colleagues at Mount Wilson Observatory as spherical bastards, ...


Bob Dylan advised us to 'gather round people'. Maybe that's who he was talking about.

So, funny.
Bastards from all directions.
Scientists have poetry in their souls.

It only comes out when they are fighting for Equipment?
Fighting over equipment. tisk. tisk.
Human! We are each and everyone, human.

rhomboidal wrote:Junior-high geometry did not sufficiently prepare me for night-school astronomy.

So, funny.
Night school astronomy.
Such a Great Class!

I could not do the Math.
I was allowed to Hang Out, anyway.
I would have Never qualified to be there.

I thank The Gods people were not as Rigid and Security Minded then as people are Today.
Those guys knew what they were doing. Nice equipment.
I knew enough to keep my hands behind my back or in my pockets.



Spoiler:
Pfhorrest wrote:We're not just "trapped on the surface of a sphere". That's the understatement of a lifetime.

We are a thin film of life growing in the wet grooves on the surface of a rock.

Which is in turn a thin crust cooled on the surface of a ball of hot magma.

And we're blanketed from cold hard vacuum by only a thin wisp of gasses.

And all of that is a tiny mote of dust floating in the void of space.

Around a gigantic, billions-of-years-old ongoing thermonuclear fireball.

At just barely the right distance to neither burn to a crisp nor freeze solid.

And that fireball is a tiny speck in one thin wisp of a swirl of billions more like it.

And that swirl is only one grain in a tiny clump of sand in an infinite desert.

"Trapped on the surface of a sphere." Hah.

[EDIT: Typo.]

Yes, Pfhorrest.
You seem to understand our place.
Darned Insignificant.

Do you wonder how a stubbed toe can be such a big thing?
Earth, Moon and Sun=Tiny and Unimportant.
Stubbed Toe=Big Damn Deal.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Wooloomooloo
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:05 am UTC

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby Wooloomooloo » Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:19 am UTC

Draco18s wrote:
Wooloomooloo wrote:Darn it, xkcd should carry some sort of warning (yeah okay it sort of does - I swear I'm not a liberal arts major!) about potential deleterious side effects to one's IQ - I distinctly feel a whole lot dumber after somehow ending up on the wikipedia page about Lagrange points and utterly failing to grasp why L4 and L5 are considered stable in spite of them being high points in the gravity potential chart of the area (the TL;DR answer is "because we say so; also, Coriolis - you know, that thing you might have heard mentioned in school but never understood and never applied it anywhere ever again; also, they're not stable in the sense you expect - the disturbed object doesn't actually tend to return to the exact L point")...


L4 and L5 are stable, because they're just off the peak of those high points. L4 and L5 are "rolling down hill" but the hill is rushing along after them, like a surfer.

L4 and L5 are also very volatile, small changes in velocity can send one rapidly sliding down off the stable point, requiring a lot more energy to remain there, unlike L1, L2, and L3.

No, that's exactly the point - L4 and L5 are rather counterintuitivelty not volatile at all: the disturbed object remains on an orbit around them, and does not drift away. The whole point is that while avoiding to ultimately drift off L1/2/3 would require an engine and course corrections in the long term, even an inert object will stay around L4 and L5 without any energy input of its own. The difficulty in accepting that comes from the fact that the gravity potential surface alone would result in the exact opposite effect - but factoring in the Coriolis force as one should in a rotating frame of reference, the trajectory of any object slowly drifting around L4 or L5 gets bent around into a (quite intricate and non-circular) local orbit. Good luck getting someone to intuitively grasp that... :D

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3080
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby orthogon » Thu Aug 08, 2013 12:21 pm UTC

Wooloomooloo wrote:The difficulty in accepting that comes from the fact that the gravity potential surface alone would result in the exact opposite effect - but factoring in the Coriolis force as one should in a rotating frame of reference, the trajectory of any object slowly drifting around L4 or L5 gets bent around into a (quite intricate and non-circular) local orbit. Good luck getting someone to intuitively grasp that... :D

I was about to say that it looked analogous to the reason why high- and low-pressure systems in the atmosphere are stable. Then I realised that I can't explain the high-pressure one either. In the low pressure case, the inward pressure gradient can provide the centripetal force needed to keep the air particles in a circular "orbit" around the Low. For a High, that force should be outwards, like the situation at L4 and L5. Does the Coriolis force overcome the pressure gradient and provide the centripetal force on top? Or does it require a constant inflow of air from above to compensate for the net outflow near the ground? (The diagrams I found seemed to indicate that there is such an airflow, but is it essential?)
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Wooloomooloo
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:05 am UTC

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby Wooloomooloo » Thu Aug 08, 2013 1:57 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:I was about to say that it looked analogous to the reason why high- and low-pressure systems in the atmosphere are stable. Then I realised that I can't explain the high-pressure one either. In the low pressure case, the inward pressure gradient can provide the centripetal force needed to keep the air particles in a circular "orbit" around the Low. For a High, that force should be outwards, like the situation at L4 and L5. Does the Coriolis force overcome the pressure gradient and provide the centripetal force on top? Or does it require a constant inflow of air from above to compensate for the net outflow near the ground? (The diagrams I found seemed to indicate that there is such an airflow, but is it essential?)

Apparently, yeah, something like that - at least according to Wikipedia, since I admittedly understand way too little about either meteorology and rotating things; basically, they say that "High pressure systems rotate in a direction such that the Coriolis force will be directed radially inwards, and nearly balanced by the outwardly radial pressure gradient". That, coupled with the quote about pressure systems having low Rossby numbers (which is supposed to be the lower the more relative importance the Coriolis force has in a system in motion) seem to imply you're pretty much right...

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Thu Aug 08, 2013 2:43 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:* - but not a football (at least the American kind)

I don't think he meant the North American kind, but the Europe/South America/Africa/Australia/parts of Oceania and Asia kind (really the most of the rest of the world kind). Furthermore, I don't think an American football is a ball...

davidstarlingm wrote:"Come now, 0.3% is a startling deviation! At bowling-ball size, we're talking about more than half a millimetre (676.8 whole micrometers, to be exact) of variation!"


Bowling balls usually have three gaping holes in them that extend almost halfway through the ball... Maybe it's more comparable to a golf ball? Besides, tennis, basket and footballs also have depressions in them, the curves on tennis and basket balls and the seam and patch pattern of a football.

EDIT: which sport is more prevalent in central America? Maybe it's the US/(Canada?) kind vs what I mentioned earlier with parts of North America added...

User avatar
WibblyWobbly
Can't Get No
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby WibblyWobbly » Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:03 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:We're not just "trapped on the surface of a sphere". That's the understatement of a lifetime.

We are a thin film of life growing in the wet grooves on the surface of a rock.

Which is in turn a thin crust cooled on the surface of a ball of hot magma.

And we're blanketed from cold hard vacuum by only a thin wisp of gasses.

And all of that is a tiny mote of dust floating in the void of space.

Around a gigantic, billions-of-years-old ongoing thermonuclear fireball.

At just barely the right distance to neither burn to a crisp nor freeze solid.

And that fireball is a tiny speck in one thin wisp of a swirl of billions more like it.

And that swirl is only one grain in a tiny clump of sand in an infinite desert.

"Trapped on the surface of a sphere." Hah.

[EDIT: Typo.]


Damn, perspective is a bitch.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby Klear » Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:10 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
mathmannix wrote:* - but not a football (at least the American kind)

I don't think he meant the North American kind, but the Europe/South America/Africa/Australia/parts of Oceania and Asia kind (really the most of the rest of the world kind). Furthermore, I don't think an American football is a ball...


I think they do. There is an alternative however.

PinkShinyRose wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:"Come now, 0.3% is a startling deviation! At bowling-ball size, we're talking about more than half a millimetre (676.8 whole micrometers, to be exact) of variation!"


Bowling balls usually have three gaping holes in them that extend almost halfway through the ball... Maybe it's more comparable to a golf ball? Besides, tennis, basket and footballs also have depressions in them, the curves on tennis and basket balls and the seam and patch pattern of a football.

EDIT: which sport is more prevalent in central America? Maybe it's the US/(Canada?) kind vs what I mentioned earlier with parts of North America added...


He said "bowling-ball size", not shape. If size mattered, it would be better to say that if Earth was a perfect sphere, it would be a perfect sphere.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby davidstarlingm » Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:51 pm UTC

Klear wrote:He said "bowling-ball size", not shape. If size mattered, it would be better to say that if Earth was a perfect sphere, it would be a perfect sphere.

I see you have also joined the tautology club!

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby Whizbang » Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:59 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
Spoiler:
We're not just "trapped on the surface of a sphere". That's the understatement of a lifetime.

We are a thin film of life growing in the wet grooves on the surface of a rock.

Which is in turn a thin crust cooled on the surface of a ball of hot magma.

And we're blanketed from cold hard vacuum by only a thin wisp of gasses.

And all of that is a tiny mote of dust floating in the void of space.

Around a gigantic, billions-of-years-old ongoing thermonuclear fireball.

At just barely the right distance to neither burn to a crisp nor freeze solid.

And that fireball is a tiny speck in one thin wisp of a swirl of billions more like it.

And that swirl is only one grain in a tiny clump of sand in an infinite desert.

"Trapped on the surface of a sphere." Hah.

[EDIT: Typo.]


This makes me think of this image:
Perspective.png

clonus
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 11:07 pm UTC

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby clonus » Thu Aug 08, 2013 4:37 pm UTC

If the universe is shaped like S3, is this still depressing?

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu Aug 08, 2013 5:19 pm UTC

I think only the Galaxy is shaped like an S3, though this is also a tautology.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

rmsgrey
Posts: 3633
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby rmsgrey » Thu Aug 08, 2013 6:12 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:
Spoiler:
We're not just "trapped on the surface of a sphere". That's the understatement of a lifetime.

We are a thin film of life growing in the wet grooves on the surface of a rock.

Which is in turn a thin crust cooled on the surface of a ball of hot magma.

And we're blanketed from cold hard vacuum by only a thin wisp of gasses.

And all of that is a tiny mote of dust floating in the void of space.

Around a gigantic, billions-of-years-old ongoing thermonuclear fireball.

At just barely the right distance to neither burn to a crisp nor freeze solid.

And that fireball is a tiny speck in one thin wisp of a swirl of billions more like it.

And that swirl is only one grain in a tiny clump of sand in an infinite desert.

"Trapped on the surface of a sphere." Hah.

[EDIT: Typo.]


This makes me think of this image:
Spoiler:
Perspective.png


That image made me thing of this YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRdh8gmVR90

lgw
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:52 pm UTC

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby lgw » Thu Aug 08, 2013 6:13 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:
Klear wrote:He said "bowling-ball size", not shape. If size mattered, it would be better to say that if Earth was a perfect sphere, it would be a perfect sphere.

I see you have also joined the tautology club!


Remember, the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club!
"In no set of physics laws do you get two cats." - doogly

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Thu Aug 08, 2013 6:36 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:
mathmannix wrote:* - but not a football (at least the American kind)

I don't think he meant the North American kind, but the Europe/South America/Africa/Australia/parts of Oceania and Asia kind (really the most of the rest of the world kind). Furthermore, I don't think an American football is a ball...


I think they do. There is an alternative however.


I suppose you know best what you meant, I assumed you meant the less pointy edition because it is common to compare the sizes of similarly shaped objects (probably to limit confusion on whether volume is used, or which dimension to use otherwise); you confuse me with your words.

It reminds me more of a lemon, but handegg also seems suitable. I never really got why it's called American football instead of American rugby anyway, even if you consider the leather lemon a ball, there is still the issue of feet being used rather sparingly... (rugby is the name of a to the casual observer nearly identical sport played mostly in commonwealth countries).

Klear wrote:
Spoiler:
PinkShinyRose wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:"Come now, 0.3% is a startling deviation! At bowling-ball size, we're talking about more than half a millimetre (676.8 whole micrometers, to be exact) of variation!"


Bowling balls usually have three gaping holes in them that extend almost halfway through the ball... Maybe it's more comparable to a golf ball? Besides, tennis, basket and footballs also have depressions in them, the curves on tennis and basket balls and the seam and patch pattern of a football.

EDIT: which sport is more prevalent in central America? Maybe it's the US/(Canada?) kind vs what I mentioned earlier with parts of North America added...
He said "bowling-ball size", not shape. If size mattered, it would be better to say that if Earth was a perfect sphere, it would be a perfect sphere.


You're right, I should have read a little better.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby Klear » Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:18 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
Klear wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:
mathmannix wrote:* - but not a football (at least the American kind)

I don't think he meant the North American kind, but the Europe/South America/Africa/Australia/parts of Oceania and Asia kind (really the most of the rest of the world kind). Furthermore, I don't think an American football is a ball...


I think they do. There is an alternative however.


I suppose you know best what you meant, I assumed you meant the less pointy edition because it is common to compare the sizes of similarly shaped objects (probably to limit confusion on whether volume is used, or which dimension to use otherwise); you confuse me with your words.

It reminds me more of a lemon, but handegg also seems suitable. I never really got why it's called American football instead of American rugby anyway, even if you consider the leather lemon a ball, there is still the issue of feet being used rather sparingly... (rugby is the name of a to the casual observer nearly identical sport played mostly in commonwealth countries).


Oh, I meant football, not american football. You were completely right about that.

BTW, I heard recently something which reconciled me to the fact that Americans call that game football - football is originally the name for the group of games played on foot, as opposed on horseback. I guess it made sense back then. It still doesn't make calling football "soccer" right, though =)

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby Kit. » Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:44 pm UTC

Adam H wrote:
Demki wrote:Am I the only one raging about the fact that the Earth is not a sphere or an oblate spheroid. Randall, please refer to this.

Deep breath everyone. Randall didn't say it's a sphere. His fictional character who recently took an entry-level astronomy course called it a sphere.

And their entry-level astronomy course is just a little outdated. Thanks to our technological progress, they live on a flat surface now.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5448
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Aug 08, 2013 9:15 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:I never really got why it's called American football instead of American rugby anyway, even if you consider the leather lemon a ball, there is still the issue of feet being used rather sparingly... (rugby is the name of a to the casual observer nearly identical sport played mostly in commonwealth countries).

Football (of any variety) isn't called football because you kick the ball with your foot. It's called football because it's a ball game played on foot, as opposed to equestrian ball sports like polo. Rugby is also a form of football, just as much as American football is.

American football does descend from rugby, but also from a common ancestor with Association football (whence "soccer"). All games called "football" are variants on the same family of medieval ball-games-on-foot, and so are equal claimants to the name. The Wikipedia article Football has a fascinating history of it. (And I say this as someone otherwise completely uninterested in team sports).
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Thu Aug 08, 2013 9:53 pm UTC

Klear wrote:BTW, I heard recently something which reconciled me to the fact that Americans call that game football - football is originally the name for the group of games played on foot, as opposed on horseback. I guess it made sense back then. It still doesn't make calling football "soccer" right, though =)


Pfhorrest wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:I never really got why it's called American football instead of American rugby anyway, even if you consider the leather lemon a ball, there is still the issue of feet being used rather sparingly... (rugby is the name of a to the casual observer nearly identical sport played mostly in commonwealth countries).

Football (of any variety) isn't called football because you kick the ball with your foot. It's called football because it's a ball game played on foot, as opposed to equestrian ball sports like polo. Rugby is also a form of football, just as much as American football is.

American football does descend from rugby, but also from a common ancestor with Association football (whence "soccer"). All games called "football" are variants on the same family of medieval ball-games-on-foot, and so are equal claimants to the name. The Wikipedia article Football has a fascinating history of it. (And I say this as someone otherwise completely uninterested in team sports).


Well, that does explain the foot part. I suppose the ball part also comes from it previously being played with an actual ball.

EDIT: I have a better explanation, it is played on a ball, although the OED says a solid or hollow sphere, I assume they mean approaching a sphere (and we are back on topic :D).

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby Whizbang » Thu Aug 08, 2013 10:36 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
Klear wrote:BTW, I heard recently something which reconciled me to the fact that Americans call that game football - football is originally the name for the group of games played on foot, as opposed on horseback. I guess it made sense back then. It still doesn't make calling football "soccer" right, though =)


Pfhorrest wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:I never really got why it's called American football instead of American rugby anyway, even if you consider the leather lemon a ball, there is still the issue of feet being used rather sparingly... (rugby is the name of a to the casual observer nearly identical sport played mostly in commonwealth countries).

Football (of any variety) isn't called football because you kick the ball with your foot. It's called football because it's a ball game played on foot, as opposed to equestrian ball sports like polo. Rugby is also a form of football, just as much as American football is.

American football does descend from rugby, but also from a common ancestor with Association football (whence "soccer"). All games called "football" are variants on the same family of medieval ball-games-on-foot, and so are equal claimants to the name. The Wikipedia article Football has a fascinating history of it. (And I say this as someone otherwise completely uninterested in team sports).


Well, that does explain the foot part. I suppose the ball part also comes from it previously being played with an actual ball.

EDIT: I have a better explanation, it is played on a ball, although the OED says a solid or hollow sphere, I assume they mean approaching a sphere (and we are back on topic :D).


I'm pretty sure you're supposed to play it on the balls of your foot. If your heels touch the ground, you lose points for style.

User avatar
keithl
Posts: 660
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 pm UTC

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby keithl » Thu Aug 08, 2013 11:01 pm UTC

addams wrote:
keithl wrote:Astronomer Fritz Zwicky referred to his colleagues at Mount Wilson Observatory as spherical bastards, ...

Bastards from all directions.
Scientists have poetry in their souls.

It only comes out when they are fighting for Equipment?
Fighting over equipment. tisk. tisk.


Nope. Scientists fight over which inadequate, oversimplified description of All That Is ... is all that is. The more removed from tangible objects the That Is is (i.e., cosmology) the more they fight.

Equipment is just something to impress politicians and donors demanding to see How The Money Was Spent. If scientists mistakenly plug the stuff in and turn it on, it contradicts their descriptions, because they don't know how to operate the equipment or interpret what the blinky lights mean, More likely, contradictions arise because their oversimplified descriptions are completely irrelevant to the world of black boxes and loose connectors.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu Aug 08, 2013 11:37 pm UTC

And yet somehow, a selection process occurs and ensures that the irrelevant descriptions of All That Is become increasingly relevant to observed properties of All That Is, and the blinky lights on the equipment produce observations that are less irrelevant to the properties being observed.

For that matter, some of those people who use money from governments and donors to make machines with blinking (technically, I think it's flashing) lights seem to enjoy when the flashing lights draw pictures that describe things differently than they would have if they hadn't turned the machine on. I suppose that could all be an act, but they're often very convincing.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
keithl
Posts: 660
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 pm UTC

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby keithl » Thu Aug 08, 2013 11:40 pm UTC

Sphericity ...

A recent graduate of a famed agricultural university began a poultry farm. He ordered 1000 chicks, and planted them in rows, six inches deep. When hens did not sprout as expected, he returned to his alma mater (with a shoebox of disinterred chick fragments) for help with this vexing problem.

His agriculture professors were confounded. They had built their careers on the Theory of Six Inch Planting, having vanquished the apostate Theory of 15.24 Centimeter Planting. They could not explain the anomalous result. Clearly, something more fundamental was going on, so they sent the young farmer over to the Botany department.

The botany profs were equally astonished. The chick fragments were turning green and fuzzy; why didn't they sprout? They decided the problem was even more fundamental and sent the man over to the Chemistry department.

The chemistry profs had never seen anything like it. The chick fragments certainly smelled like chemistry was going on, but the particulars eluded them. Clearly, the answer involved the bedrock principles of the universe. Time to bring in the physicists.

The physicists encased the chick fragments in isotopically pure quartz capsules, and subjected them to lasers and X rays and plasmas and neutron beams and high pressure liquid helium. The experimentalists learned nothing publishable and abandoned the quest, leaving only the theoretical physicists to spend week after week consuming bathtubs of coffee and covering whiteboards with every symbol ever used in a written language.

Finally, a breakthrough! The Young Turks called a Colloquium, to reveal their startling new theory of Chicken Mechanics. The room hushed, as the Turkeyest of the Young Turks marched triumphantly to the whiteboard, drew a big circle, and said "Consider a spherical chicken ... "
Last edited by keithl on Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:30 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5448
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Aug 08, 2013 11:49 pm UTC

How to Manage Your TAs - A Guide for Physics Professors

First, assume frictionless spherical graduate students of a uniform density...
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

ijuin
Posts: 1111
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby ijuin » Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:55 am UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:Well, that does explain the foot part. I suppose the ball part also comes from it previously being played with an actual ball.

EDIT: I have a better explanation, it is played on a ball, although the OED says a solid or hollow sphere, I assume they mean approaching a sphere (and we are back on topic :D).


I think the reason for the rugby ball's shape is to make it easier to throw overhand one-handed, since the standard method of doing so involves spinning it about its long axis for spin-stabilization (as opposed to the top spin that would be given to a thrown baseball or softball).

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3080
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby orthogon » Fri Aug 09, 2013 8:03 am UTC

ijuin wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:Well, that does explain the foot part. I suppose the ball part also comes from it previously being played with an actual ball.

EDIT: I have a better explanation, it is played on a ball, although the OED says a solid or hollow sphere, I assume they mean approaching a sphere (and we are back on topic :D).


I think the reason for the rugby ball's shape is to make it easier to throw overhand one-handed, since the standard method of doing so involves spinning it about its long axis for spin-stabilization (as opposed to the top spin that would be given to a thrown baseball or softball).

Probably it does directly encourage throwing; perhaps even more importantly it also encourages it indirectly since the unpredictable way in which the ball bounces acts as a disincentive to kick the ball and risk losing possession owing to an unlucky bounce.
Spoiler:
Hence players kick generally when (1) they are well in their own half and are happy to lose possession in exchange for some territory (and the chance of a mistake); (2) they or one of their team-mates is expected to catch it before it bounces; (3) they spot enough space that the chance of a successful pick-up is high whichever way it bounces; (4) they're going for a drop goal, or (5) they feel lucky, have no other options.
Rugby is more or less a superset of Association Football: most passages of play in football would be legal in rugby. The shape of the ball is one of the factors that makes it a very different (and for my money, more interesting) game.

EDIT: Counting to five fail (in the spoiler)
Last edited by orthogon on Fri Aug 09, 2013 8:38 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby Klear » Fri Aug 09, 2013 8:09 am UTC

orthogon wrote:Rugby is more or less a superset of Association Football: most passages of play in football would be legal in rugby. The shape of the ball is one of the factors that makes it a very different (and for my money, more interesting) game.


No kidding. I once watched rugby for about an hour and I could not tell what was happening at all during the whole time. And then there's Australian Football...

Hmm.. I wonder if Australians call the game soccer or football...

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5448
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Aug 09, 2013 9:43 am UTC

Klear wrote:Hmm.. I wonder if Australians call the game soccer or football...

Australians have their own "football" which is more distantly related than even rugby and soccer, so I expect they probably call soccer "soccer" and mean their local game by "football".
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3713
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby PM 2Ring » Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:13 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
Klear wrote:Hmm.. I wonder if Australians call the game soccer or football...

Australians have their own "football" which is more distantly related than even rugby and soccer, so I expect they probably call soccer "soccer" and mean their local game by "football".

Yes, we tend to call soccer "soccer" here, although I suppose some recent immigrants might call it "football" until they learn that that just confuses the locals. :) Soccer is becoming more popular here, especially at school, but Rugby League and Australian Rules are still the dominant "commercial" games, i.e., what gets the local TV & radio coverage. Rugby Union is also popular here (traditionally, it was the primary form of rugby played at private schools & universities), but it doesn't get anywhere near the level of media coverage of the two dominant football codes.

The exact code that someone is actually referring to when they use the word "football" generally depends on where they live.

Australian Rules is related to both Rugby and Gaelic football; it is generally played on an oval rather than on a rectangular field. It's not so popular in New South Wales or Queensland, although that is changing, and in recent times a NSW team has won the AFL grand final; similarly, a Victorian team has won the Rugby League grand final.

Disclaimer: Like Pfhorrest, I'm not a sports person.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby Flumble » Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:32 pm UTC

keithl wrote:Sphericity ...

A recent graduate of a famed agricultural university began a poultry farm. He ordered 1000 chicks, and planted them in rows, six inches deep. When hens did not sprout as expected, he returned to his alma mater (with a shoebox of disinterred chick fragments) for help with this vexing problem.
...

How on Earth this sphere do you come up with such nonsense? I admire your skills. :o

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3080
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby orthogon » Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:41 pm UTC

PM 2Ring wrote:... in recent times ... a Victorian team has won the Rugby League grand final.

Presumably, until 1901 all the teams were Victorian. ;-) (or possibly Republican).
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
runetrantor
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:03 pm UTC

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby runetrantor » Fri Aug 09, 2013 5:49 pm UTC

Where do I join this Astronomer's Society? Not in vain my personal quote is "Get me off this rock!" XD

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10271
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby addams » Sat Aug 10, 2013 3:49 am UTC

Klear wrote:
orthogon wrote:Rugby is more or less a superset of Association Football: most passages of play in football would be legal in rugby. The shape of the ball is one of the factors that makes it a very different (and for my money, more interesting) game.


No kidding. I once watched rugby for about an hour and I could not tell what was happening at all during the whole time. And then there's Australian Football...

Hmm.. I wonder if Australians call the game soccer or football...

I watched a Rugby game for an hour or so one night.
I was awakened. It was 3 a.m. A live Rugby game was on TV.
I have no idea where it was coming from. I don't like football.

I liked That game. It was Amazing.
I Know for a Fact more was going on than goes on in American football.

American football consists of 30 seconds of Action and half an hour of Nothing.
The players look like Transformers. It's stupid.
Rich Bastards at the edge of the fields looking serious. (idiots)

That night/early morning was different. I learned to Respect those players.
Yes. They were goofy. A bunch of grown men Team Sporting with a ball.

They were Team Sporting with some style and class and it was exciting!
No Helmets! I could see their faces and hair.
No Transformer outfit. I could see the muscles in their legs and arms.

It was Fun! One man had long dark hair. His hair was interesting.
I had been awakened in the night. He was running with the ball.

I expected the 30 seconds of play and I would go back to sleep sitting up.
But; No! They don't stop! Those guys keep going!

Very edge of the seat kind of game.
At one point the men that were chasing the man with dark hair, caught him.
The Narator said, "Dog Pile." He said other stuff. He had an accent.

A small blonde man trotted up to the Dog Pile. It was a lot of men up on top if one another.
I have no idea what they were doing. The small blonde man was trotting around the Dog Pile, looking at it.

He rocked back on one foot like a Zen Master. He used his whole body. He rocked forward and reached into the Dog Pile, took out The Ball and That Man Took Off!

It was funny and exciting.
The Dog Pile came apart and they were all after the little blonde guy.
He was Running! So were they. He must have been able to hear them Breathing.

Remember; No helmets and wearing shorts.
The muscles in that mans legs were interesting.
He must have practiced sprinting. He could Move!

He was at a full Run. He pulled his right arm back and Threw the Ball.
That ball went Far. Someone on His Team had been running up field with him.

Not really with him; Over there, far. But parallel.
The other guy caught the ball and it went into the basket or over the dugout or something.

ok. Those guys win. If that is football, maybe it has something to offer.
I sat there in awe. It was Sunny at 3 am, somewhere.

It was not 3 am, somewhere.
Global communication and Technology was getting off the ground.

Spoiler:
I came from a time and place that had the intellectual idea of, "It is not daylight everywhere at the same time".
The idea did not bother me. Not all all. When we began to get Global Live Feeds; That made it different, somehow.

I knew about Global Live Feeds. Not for Football.
It was being used for football. It made the men happy.

Yawn....We want happy men....(snore)
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

PJMiller
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:39 am UTC

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby PJMiller » Sat Aug 10, 2013 10:09 am UTC

My geography teacher told us[citation needed] that the earth was not a sphere but really an oblate spheroid. He said it was because the earth was spinning and so things on the equator were thrown outwards which caused the equator to bulge and the poles to flatten as an effect of the spin.

He was clearly wrong, I could see that the flattening of the poles was obviously an effect of the pressure from the wing nuts holding the globe he had at the front of the classroom!

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3713
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby PM 2Ring » Sat Aug 10, 2013 11:26 am UTC

Some YouTube links for those who've never seen Australian Rules football before.

This is Australian Rules Football
Hawthorn v Geelong - Final 2 minutes (Round 19, 2012) - AFL

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby Jackpot777 » Thu Aug 15, 2013 8:42 pm UTC

Jorpho wrote:Trapped in a pillar of decaying flesh.


What d'you mean, "they're made of meat"?

User avatar
Jorpho
Posts: 6279
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:31 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby Jorpho » Fri Aug 16, 2013 3:27 am UTC


User avatar
bmonk
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:14 pm UTC
Location: Schitzoed in the OTT between the 2100s and the late 900s. Hoping for singularity.

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby bmonk » Fri Aug 16, 2013 10:35 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:I suppose a superheavy non-rotating black hole's Schwartzchild radius is a pretty good sphere.

Perhaps, but it's not really an object either. It's just the set of points at which the escape velocity from the mass in question reaches the speed of light.

In fact, it does depend on the speed you are going at that point. Head in toward the black hole, and you will effectively reach it sooner than you would if heading perpendicularly.

Perhaps a better near sphere would be the light sphere from a point source of light?
Having become a Wizard on n.p. 2183, the Yellow Piggy retroactively appointed his honorable self a Temporal Wizardly Piggy on n.p.1488, not to be effective until n.p. 2183, thereby avoiding a partial temporal paradox. Since he couldn't afford two philosophical PhDs to rule on the title.

User avatar
styrofoam
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 3:28 am UTC

Re: 1248: "Sphere"

Postby styrofoam » Sat Aug 17, 2013 3:14 pm UTC

bmonk wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:I suppose a superheavy non-rotating black hole's Schwartzchild radius is a pretty good sphere.

Perhaps, but it's not really an object either. It's just the set of points at which the escape velocity from the mass in question reaches the speed of light.

In fact, it does depend on the speed you are going at that point. Head in toward the black hole, and you will effectively reach it sooner than you would if heading perpendicularly.

Perhaps a better near sphere would be the light sphere from a point source of light?


Any real-world point sources of light?

Looking at other places, how about the electromagnetic field of an H+ ion?
aadams wrote:I am a very nice whatever it is I am.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests