[2012-Apr-10] Plancking
- ChaoticBrain
- [ASK] me about supple pony flanks
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:26 am
- Location: 404 - Sanity Not Found
[2012-Apr-10] Plancking
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.
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.
- Klip
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:10 pm
Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking
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.
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.
Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking
1^120 is approximately 1.Klip wrote:the other approximately 1^120 angels
- Sahan
- "I promise you no penis jokes."
- Posts: 4361
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:20 am
- Location: Perth, Australia
- Contact:
Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking
COMEDY GOLDstar mass wrote:
1^120 is approximately 1.
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?
- DonRetrasado
- los más retrasadadados
- Posts: 2845
- Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:27 am
- Location: ¡Canadia!
Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking
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.
- Oldrac the Chitinous
- Chicken O' the Sea
- Posts: 3476
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:41 pm
- Location: The Perfect Stillness of the Deep
- Contact:
Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking
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.
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:19 am
Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking
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.
- Kaharz
- This Intentionally Left Blank
- Posts: 1571
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:17 pm
Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking
And they will just round it to 3x10^-70 anyway...Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:It's gonna be a loooong time before engineering and the Planck scale have anything to do with each other.
Kaharz wrote:I don't need a title. I have no avatar or tagline either. I am unique in my lack of personal identifiers.
Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking
How has no one mentioned that 0 is a perfectly valid answer as well?
- Sprinkles
- [Insert Here]
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:51 pm
Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking
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
It's like that, but instead of radioactive particles, pricks on the internet
Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking
This; angels can't dance.ThatGuy wrote:How has no one mentioned that 0 is a perfectly valid answer as well?
- K^2
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:30 pm
Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking
And this is precisely why we don't let engineers anywhere near real physics.
- Sprinkles
- [Insert Here]
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:51 pm
Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking
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?
- Lethal Interjection
- Death by Elocution
- Posts: 8048
- Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:17 pm
- Location: Behind your ear. It's magic!
- Contact:
Re: [2012-Apr-10] Plancking
Applesauce.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?