SMBC Comics Forum

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db ... 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.

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.

Klip wrote:the other approximately 1^120 angels

1^120 is approximately 1.

star mass wrote:
1^120 is approximately 1.

COMEDY GOLD

Our profits will triple!!

No, Mr. smartypants.

Angels are bosonic.

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

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.

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...

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

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

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

This; angels can't dance.

And this is precisely why we don't let engineers anywhere near real physics.

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?

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.