[2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Blame Quintushalls for this.

Moderators: NeatNit, Kimra

[2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Postby ChaoticBrain » Tue Apr 10, 2012 4:20 am

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2576#comic

In case people want to know what Zach is even talking about.

Of course, what the engineer failed to take into account is that string theory indicates that objects can be smaller than the Planck length, and those that are can basically defy the laws of physics as we can identify them on the human scale, making them, for all intents and purposes, incorporeal. And since the philosophical implication of this question is that angels are incorporeal... well, simply put, this bozo managed to make engineering look like a less legitimate field of study than philosophy.
User avatar
ChaoticBrain
[ASK] me about supple pony flanks
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:26 am
Location: 404 - Sanity Not Found

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Postby Klip » Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:54 am

Also, (and I've never really heard of that frase being debated, but after a quick wikipedia search), isn't the typical answer that that angels could take the same space at the same time, just like bosons can have same quantum states at the same time? Limiting a single angel to a plank area seems too much of a constraint.

Also, I would appreciate it if it would be previously noted that short scale notation is being used for numbers, as I was terribly confused as to where the other approximately 1^120 angels were coming from.
User avatar
Klip
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:10 pm

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Postby star mass » Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:02 am

Klip wrote:the other approximately 1^120 angels


1^120 is approximately 1.
star mass
 

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Postby Sahan » Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:53 am

star mass wrote:
1^120 is approximately 1.


COMEDY GOLD
Destructicus wrote:Alt text:
"I wonder if chemists feel bad that they're always left out of these sorts of jokes."

Since when is chemistry not a science?
User avatar
Sahan
"I promise you no penis jokes."
 
Posts: 4367
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:20 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Postby DonRetrasado » Tue Apr 10, 2012 9:04 am

Our profits will triple!!
Astrogirl wrote:Lethal, nobody wants to know about your herpes.

Lethal Interjection wrote:That's good to know. I can avoid a few awkward phone calls now.
User avatar
DonRetrasado
los más retrasadadados
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:27 am
Location: ¡Canada!

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Postby cgseife » Tue Apr 10, 2012 10:30 am

No, Mr. smartypants.

Angels are bosonic.
cgseife
 

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Postby Oldrac the Chitinous » Tue Apr 10, 2012 11:17 am

It's gonna be a loooong time before engineering and the Planck scale have anything to do with each other.
Police said they spent some time working out if they could charge the man with being armed with a weapon, as technically he was armed with part of a fish.
User avatar
Oldrac the Chitinous
Chicken O' the Sea
 
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:41 pm
Location: The Perfect Stillness of the Deep

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Postby Spaceguy5 » Tue Apr 10, 2012 11:36 am

Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:It's gonna be a loooong time before engineering and the Planck scale have anything to do with each other.


Tell that to jeeeeesus.
Spaceguy5
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:19 am

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Postby Kaharz » Tue Apr 10, 2012 1:48 pm

Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:It's gonna be a loooong time before engineering and the Planck scale have anything to do with each other.


And they will just round it to 3x10^-70 anyway...
Kaharz wrote:I don't need a title. I have no avatar or tagline either. I am unique in my lack of personal identifiers.
User avatar
Kaharz
This Intentionally Left Blank
 
Posts: 1572
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:17 pm

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Postby ThatGuy » Tue Apr 10, 2012 4:33 pm

How has no one mentioned that 0 is a perfectly valid answer as well?
ThatGuy
 

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Postby Sprinkles » Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:02 pm

It's like how with big enough numbers you can predict how a group of radioactive particles will behave, but you cannot at a smaller scale.

It's like that, but instead of radioactive particles, pricks on the internet
User avatar
Sprinkles
[Insert Here]
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:51 pm

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Postby GLKilowog » Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:53 pm

ThatGuy wrote:How has no one mentioned that 0 is a perfectly valid answer as well?
This; angels can't dance.
GLKilowog
 

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Postby K^2 » Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:14 pm

And this is precisely why we don't let engineers anywhere near real physics.
User avatar
K^2
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:30 pm

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Postby Sprinkles » Tue Apr 10, 2012 9:32 pm

Hey everybody, we're in the presence of the representative of all physicists. Oh wise master, what say you on the border between physics and chemistry?
User avatar
Sprinkles
[Insert Here]
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:51 pm

Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking

Postby Lethal Interjection » Tue Apr 10, 2012 9:51 pm

Sprinkles wrote:Hey everybody, we're in the presence of the representative of all physicists. Oh wise master, what say you on the border between physics and chemistry?

Applesauce.
User avatar
Lethal Interjection
Death by Elocution
 
Posts: 8059
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:17 pm
Location: Behind your ear. It's magic!

Next

Return to Latest Comic Discussion 3: Revenge of the Son of Latest Comic Discussion 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 3 guests

cron