What, No Killer Tomatoes?
September 29, 2006 11:13 PM Subscribe
God, I love this stuff -thank you for posting this.
posted by squidfartz at 3:42 AM on September 30, 2006
posted by squidfartz at 3:42 AM on September 30, 2006
Good stuff. Reminds me of this site . Ahhhh physics, she doesn't care for much does she?
posted by Serial Killer Slumber Party at 6:26 AM on September 30, 2006
posted by Serial Killer Slumber Party at 6:26 AM on September 30, 2006
Fucking hell, Session 2 is about a shrinking human, not a B-Movie Monster.
Pablum for stupid masses, this.
posted by Citizen Premier at 6:33 AM on September 30, 2006
Pablum for stupid masses, this.
posted by Citizen Premier at 6:33 AM on September 30, 2006
Now I finally know where to aim when the giant ants attack. Thanks for this one - lots of fun.
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 6:59 AM on September 30, 2006
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 6:59 AM on September 30, 2006
Indeed, sufficiently small animals cannot be hurt in a fall from any height: A monkey is too big, a squirrel is on the edge, but a mouse is completely safe
Is this true? I think in order to fully test this assertion I'm going to need a cargo plane, a couple of hundred monkeys, squirrels, and mice, and a big flat hard surface.
It may seem cruel, but know this; I do what I do for Science.
posted by quin at 9:12 AM on September 30, 2006
Is this true? I think in order to fully test this assertion I'm going to need a cargo plane, a couple of hundred monkeys, squirrels, and mice, and a big flat hard surface.
It may seem cruel, but know this; I do what I do for Science.
posted by quin at 9:12 AM on September 30, 2006
Oh, well. I did search on "B-Movie Monsters" from day one and got no hits. Sorry for the dupe!
posted by owhydididoit at 9:26 AM on September 30, 2006
posted by owhydididoit at 9:26 AM on September 30, 2006
that other post is awesome!
posted by owhydididoit at 9:30 AM on September 30, 2006
posted by owhydididoit at 9:30 AM on September 30, 2006
Well, I'm just glad I got to see the link either way.
Dupe or not -nice post.
posted by squidfartz at 10:59 AM on September 30, 2006
Dupe or not -nice post.
posted by squidfartz at 10:59 AM on September 30, 2006
yay
this is interesting as hell
great for saturday when i have to work
damn
posted by MNDZ at 11:08 AM on September 30, 2006
this is interesting as hell
great for saturday when i have to work
damn
posted by MNDZ at 11:08 AM on September 30, 2006
The movie monster stuff is good, but when he starts blabbing about dinosaurs, he loses me.
I never bought the idea that Apatosari would pass out from lifting their heads, or that T-Rex couldn't breath well enough to run. Giraffes seem to manage, though darn if I know how.
posted by ®@ at 11:35 AM on September 30, 2006
I never bought the idea that Apatosari would pass out from lifting their heads, or that T-Rex couldn't breath well enough to run. Giraffes seem to manage, though darn if I know how.
posted by ®@ at 11:35 AM on September 30, 2006
The man vs. spider thing I've always wondered about, as spiders are fast, but then if the man was "bouncing around like a mouse on amphetamines" I can see how you'd be put on equal footing. Except trying to fight something with eight legs which is trying to cover you in webs which'd be roughly the equivalent of thin steel cables. And, personally, I'd probably soil myself/regress to a cowering infant if I saw a six-foot-tall spider running at me, so there's that to concider.
posted by Zack_Replica at 1:39 PM on September 30, 2006
posted by Zack_Replica at 1:39 PM on September 30, 2006
Oh, and drinking. Now Mr. Shrinky is still shrinking, so at a certain point he won't actually be able to break the surface tension of the water, and if he does, there's the distinct possibility that it would pull him into the water, and he'd drown. If you can't break the surface tension from the outside, you can't break it from the inside, either. Can't remember where I read this but it's similar to water striders who skate on the surface tension, but if the tension's broken by one of their legs, they can't free themselves.
posted by Zack_Replica at 1:46 PM on September 30, 2006
posted by Zack_Replica at 1:46 PM on September 30, 2006
From a physics point of view the main concept here is that the universe has scale.
One thing physicists are interested in is what operations you can apply to an event and have that event be invariant. For example, you can take a physical event and:
Rotate it. And in our universe that event (e.g. a nuclear reaction) will proceed the same. This is also tied in with conservation laws - in this case Conservation of Angular Momentum.
Translate it back or forth in Space. Tied in with Conservation of Momentum.
Translate it back and forth in Time. Tied in with Conservation of Energy.
But you can't take the paremeters of an event and, say, multiply all distances by 2. The event is changed. Our Universe is not scale-invariant even though some aspects of it (e.g. massless field theories) can be scale invariant.
posted by vacapinta at 3:15 PM on September 30, 2006
One thing physicists are interested in is what operations you can apply to an event and have that event be invariant. For example, you can take a physical event and:
Rotate it. And in our universe that event (e.g. a nuclear reaction) will proceed the same. This is also tied in with conservation laws - in this case Conservation of Angular Momentum.
Translate it back or forth in Space. Tied in with Conservation of Momentum.
Translate it back and forth in Time. Tied in with Conservation of Energy.
But you can't take the paremeters of an event and, say, multiply all distances by 2. The event is changed. Our Universe is not scale-invariant even though some aspects of it (e.g. massless field theories) can be scale invariant.
posted by vacapinta at 3:15 PM on September 30, 2006
« Older This really isn't all that "funny" anymore >:| | Dot-comservative party? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 11:31 PM on September 29, 2006