People with zero science.
Tony Wallis
> During the publicity prior to the 1979 solar eclipse, a woman called
> a radio talk show in my locality and asked this question: "If we can't
> watch it, why are they even having it?"
A short while ago I finally got a friend (a lady with a Master's in a
humanistic discipline from a Toronto university) to watch an episode of
Star Trek with me. I had been telling her of my enthusiasm for the show
for several years. She heard and saw the "Space .. the final frontier .."
/pictures-of-planets/the-Enterprise-going-"whoosh" opening schtick for the
very first time. I explained to her that it was set in the 24th
century, that the man with the white face was a robot, that the man
with the funny head was an alien, that the woman with the, er, unusual
uniform was the token "feeler" on a ship full of (and a show designed
for) "thinkers", etc. etc. Twenty minutes into the show, she turns to
me and says :
"I don't get it - are they on some sort of AIRSHIP ?"
--
to...@nexus.yorku.ca = Tony Wallis, York University, Toronto, Canada
Mark Luce
Some truly frightening anecdotes. Here's a few more. A few years ago,
I was talking with a 16-17 year old girl at a barbeque. It was early in the
evening, and a full moon had come out. We were both looking at the moon
when she casually remarked, "Wouldn't it be neat if people could go to the
moon some day?" I am sure I was looking at her a bit funny when I replied,
"Surely you realize that we've already been there?" She said "Noooooo..."
She refused to believe me even after I got several other people to confirm
my 'version of history'. She would have been an infant when the last moon
landings were going on, and had simply never heard of them. We've all
heard the horror stories about high school students who think that Julius
Caesar was a leader of the Nazis, or who think that Columbus discovered
America in 1776. These stories all raise the alarming question: What *ARE*
they teaching our kids in school these days??
Another story: I worked one summer in Rocky Mountain National Park,
at a tourist trap at the top of the Trail Ridge Road. We had a tourist
who asked us: "Who mows the tundra?" He wasn't joking either...
Jim Kasprzak
much of the science behind it. (She's not unintelligent by any means,
just doesn't know as much science as your average net.person.) This
usually isn't much of a problem if you're willing to suspend your
disbelief and stay away from the "hard" SF. Well, once I was talking to
her about colonizing the Universe, and we had a conversation that went
something like this:
Me: Our best bet is to get some spaceships moving at relativistic speeds
so that it only takes a few months or days of ship-time to get to
the nearest stars.
Her: How do you do that? And why would it only take a few days?
Me: Well, nobody's sure exactly how yet. But once we can get something
going really close to the speed of light, time slows down for the
moving ship compared to the planet. So if we went to, say, Alpha
Centauri at 99 percent of the speed of light, it'd take a little
more than four years to get there, but the people on the ship would
only age by, umm, a few weeks I think.
Her: Wait, you mean this _really works_?
Me: Sure! You must have read some books where people traveled between
the stars that way.
Her: Yeah, but I always thought it was just another plot device like
transporters or warp drive!
------------------------------------------------------------------
__ Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
___/ | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
/____ *| Disclaimer: RPI pays me to work, not to think.
\_| "A spirit with a vision is a dream with a mission" -Rush
==== e-mail: jim...@rpi.edu or kasp...@mts.rpi.edu
Cathi A Cook
[anecdotes of science ignorance]
>heard the horror stories about high school students who think that Julius
>Caesar was a leader of the Nazis, or who think that Columbus discovered
>America in 1776. These stories all raise the alarming question: What *ARE*
>they teaching our kids in school these days??
This happened to me a week or so ago. I was in the mall and picked up a
small rubber ball with the continents painted on it. I showed it to my
daughter, and explained "This is Europe, this is Asia, this is Australia..."
The clerk looked at me wide-eyed and said "Are you a teacher or something?"
I hesitated and said "No, I AM a student...Why do you ask?" She giggled
and said "I'm not even sure of the _names_ of the continents, much less
which one's which!"
The postscript to this story is that I was in a science-oriented toy store
today when my 2.2 year old daughter came across a satellite-photo poster
of the Earth. She jabbed her finger at the Sahara and gleefully screamed
"AFER'KA!" (Bystanders were also stunned when I asked her "What are the
lights we've been looking at in the sky?" "Beenis" "What else?" "Jooper"
"how do we look at them?" "'nocalurs!")
Since I'm pretty far off the subject of space here, I'll close with one
point. When talking to the children you meet or know, try to turn the
conversation to science in any way you can. Point out how it relates to
them ("Do you know why the car slows down after you push it? It's called
friction. It's what happens when two things touch..."). Mention it anywhere
and everywhere. You never know when a single casual comment of yours may
spark a child's imagination for life. And most children are very interested
in WHY.
<soapbox off>
ObSpace: How can we expect people to have the slightest understanding of
the importance of space exploration when they don't even know anything
about Earth?
-rocker
Bill Wyatt
This is a little off the thread, but it's so horrifying...
Last year I went to the local deli to get roast beef. I asked
for `eight tenths of a pound'. [don't ask - I had my reasons.]
The guy behind the counter, a teenager either just out of high
school or nearly so, started slicing the meat and piling it up
on the scale. After a while he stopped when the digital readout
read `0.81', and I expected him to ring it up and proceed.
But no. He turns to the other kid manning the cash register and
asks: `Hey, Sam. How do I read eight tenths on this thing?'
Clearly he had no idea about what the decimal readout meant
in terms of fractions!
--
Bill Wyatt, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (Cambridge, MA, USA)
UUCP : {husc6,cmcl2,mit-eddie}!harvard!cfa!wyatt
Internet: wy...@cfa.harvard.edu
SPAN: cfa::wyatt BITNET: wyatt@cfa
Rick Colombo - Fermilab
It's alway hard to tell when someone is *just kidding* on the net (I didn't
see any :-) in your post), so if you are then kindly disregard this post,
but if you're NOT...
>
> Me: Our best bet is to get some spaceships moving at relativistic speeds
> so that it only takes a few months or days of ship-time to get to
> the nearest stars.
>
> Her: How do you do that? And why would it only take a few days?
>
> Me: Well, nobody's sure exactly how yet. But once we can get something
> going really close to the speed of light, time slows down for the
> moving ship compared to the planet. So if we went to, say, Alpha
> Centauri at 99 percent of the speed of light, it'd take a little
> more than four years to get there, but the people on the ship would
> only age by, umm, a few weeks I think.
You neglected to mention that your mass will approach infinity and length
(in the direction of travel) will approach zero. Surely a human being could
*NOT* survive such relativistic travel.
>
> Her: Wait, you mean this _really works_?
Only in your dreams.
>
> Me: Sure! You must have read some books where people traveled between
> the stars that way.
*Traveled*? Past tense? I *watched* the moon landing, but I missed this one.
The books are easy to find, their in the SF section of the public library.
>
> Her: Yeah, but I always thought it was just another plot device like
> transporters or warp drive!
E X A C T A M U N D O !!!
--
****************************************************************
* from the e-net desk of: Rick Colombo *
* Fermilab *
* (no Flamn' flames please) 708-840-8225 *
* col...@fnal.fnal.gov *
****************************************************************
William K Glunt
>Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
>
>It's alway hard to tell when someone is *just kidding* on the net (I didn't
>see any :-) in your post), so if you are then kindly disregard this post,
>but if you're NOT...
>
>>
>> Me: Our best bet is to get some spaceships moving at relativistic speeds
>> so that it only takes a few months or days of ship-time to get to
>> the nearest stars.
>>
>> Her: How do you do that? And why would it only take a few days?
>>
>> Me: Well, nobody's sure exactly how yet. But once we can get something
>> going really close to the speed of light, time slows down for the
>> moving ship compared to the planet. So if we went to, say, Alpha
>> Centauri at 99 percent of the speed of light, it'd take a little
>> more than four years to get there, but the people on the ship would
>> only age by, umm, a few weeks I think.
>
>You neglected to mention that your mass will approach infinity and length
>(in the direction of travel) will approach zero. Surely a human being could
>*NOT* survive such relativistic travel.
>
Well, I didn't see any smilies in this either.. ;-)
To a person on such a ship, masses will appear unchanged and
meter sticks will still seem a meter long. Otherwise the guy
in the ship could close all his windows and still be able to
tell he was moving.
--
Dr. William K Glunt | Are you ABNORMAL?
postdoctoral loonie | Then you are probably better than most people!
U of Kentucky math dept | Are alien space monsters bringing a STARTLING NEW
home phone 606 258 8864 | WORLD? from _The book of the SubGenius_
Conrad.J...@cs.cmu.edu
>length (in the direction of travel) will approach zero. Surely a human
>being could *NOT* survive such relativistic travel.
Perhaps I'm one of those people with zero science, but it seems to me
that YOU neglected to mention that, from the reference frame of the
spaceship, the mass of the earth will approach infinity and its length
(in the direction of travel) will approach zero. Surely human beings
could *NOT* survive such relativistic travel. So I hope no one attempts
such travel, or the earth is doomed!
--Conrad
Eolid enthusiast
>
>It's alway hard to tell when someone is *just kidding* on the net (I didn't
>see any :-) in your post), so if you are then kindly disregard this post,
>but if you're NOT...
>
>>
>> Me: Our best bet is to get some spaceships moving at relativistic speeds
>> so that it only takes a few months or days of ship-time to get to
>> the nearest stars.
>>
>> Her: How do you do that? And why would it only take a few days?
>>
>> Me: Well, nobody's sure exactly how yet. But once we can get something
>> going really close to the speed of light, time slows down for the
>> moving ship compared to the planet. So if we went to, say, Alpha
>> Centauri at 99 percent of the speed of light, it'd take a little
>> more than four years to get there, but the people on the ship would
>> only age by, umm, a few weeks I think.
>
>You neglected to mention that your mass will approach infinity and length
>(in the direction of travel) will approach zero. Surely a human being could
>*NOT* survive such relativistic travel.
From the point of view of an outside observer at "rest", yes...but not from
the point of view of the traveler.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only drawback with morning is that it | Chasing nebulae till 3 am
comes at such an inconvenient time of day. | may explain it, though.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd L. Masco
> see any :-) in your post), so if you are then kindly disregard this post,
> but if you're NOT...
Hmmmm. Ditto, with regard to:
col...@bronco.fnal.gov (Rick Colombo - Fermilab) writes:
> You neglected to mention that your mass will approach infinity and length
> (in the direction of travel) will approach zero. Surely a human being could
> *NOT* survive such relativistic travel.
This shows such a fundamental lack of understanding of relativity
that... well, it's got to be a joke. Right? Please?
--
Todd Masco | tm...@andrew.cmu.edu | "Free speech is the right to shout
CMU Physics | tm...@andrew.BITNet | 'theatre' in a crowded fire."
Michael Tobis
"Who discovered the rings of Saturn?"
Encouraging the questionee, I prompted, "Oh, it's not as hard as it sounds,
just name a famous scientist."
"Ummm, Asimov?"
===============
as for subtraction and multiplication, these are Lost Arts, and need not
even be mentioned in this thread.
mt
H. Peter White
>Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
>
>>
>> so that it only takes a few months or days of ship-time to get to
>> the nearest stars.
>>
>> Her: How do you do that? And why would it only take a few days?
>>
>> Me: Well, nobody's sure exactly how yet. But once we can get something
>> going really close to the speed of light, time slows down for the
>> moving ship compared to the planet. So if we went to, say, Alpha
>> Centauri at 99 percent of the speed of light, it'd take a little
>> more than four years to get there, but the people on the ship would
>> only age by, umm, a few weeks I think.
>
>You neglected to mention that your mass will approach infinity and length
>(in the direction of travel) will approach zero. Surely a human being could
>*NOT* survive such relativistic travel.
>
Doesn't it just appear to us on Earth that the ship approaches infinite mass
and zero length? And wouldn't it appear to those on the ship that the Earth
would be approaching infinite mass and zero length, since everything is
relative to the observer's inertia frame of reference? Based on this though,
wouldn't that mean that relativity is just a prediction of the equivalent of an
optical illusion?
H. Peter White, Baron d'Amagat, Inquisitor of the Jovian Stratospheres,
High Seer of the Ultraviolet Realm,
Disciple of Rayleigh, The Master of Scattering.
Frank Crary
>> going really close to the speed of light, time slows down for the
>> moving ship compared to the planet. So if we went to, say, Alpha
>> Centauri at 99 percent of the speed of light, it'd take a little
>> more than four years to get there, but the people on the ship would
>> only age by, umm, a few weeks I think.
>
>You neglected to mention that your mass will approach infinity and length
>(in the direction of travel) will approach zero. Surely a human being could
>*NOT* survive such relativistic travel.
>
observer. To the person moving at 0.99c, everything is totally normal. The
"mass" going to infinity is not exactly true, more correctly, the kinetic
energy and momentum go to infinity. I do not believe that the gravational
attraction goes to infinity (correct me if I am wrong... I have only studied
special not general reletivity.) Again, the mass effect applies ONLY to
stationary observery.
>> Me: Sure! You must have read some books where people traveled between
>> the stars that way.
>
>*Traveled*? Past tense? I *watched* the moon landing, but I missed this one.
>The books are easy to find, their in the SF section of the public library.
>
The poster WAS refering to science fiction...
Frank Crary
John E. Weglian
In article <1991Jul23...@bronco.fnal.gov>, col...@bronco.fnal.gov
(Rick Colombo - Fermilab) writes:
|>Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
|>
|>It's alway hard to tell when someone is *just kidding* on the net (I didn't
|>see any :-) in your post), so if you are then kindly disregard this post,
|>but if you're NOT...
|>
|>>
|>> Me: Our best bet is to get some spaceships moving at relativistic speeds
|>> so that it only takes a few months or days of ship-time to get to
|>> the nearest stars.
|>>
|>> Her: How do you do that? And why would it only take a few days?
|>>
|>> Me: Well, nobody's sure exactly how yet. But once we can get something
|>> going really close to the speed of light, time slows down for the
|>> moving ship compared to the planet. So if we went to, say, Alpha
|>> Centauri at 99 percent of the speed of light, it'd take a little
|>> more than four years to get there, but the people on the ship would
|>> only age by, umm, a few weeks I think.
|>
|>You neglected to mention that your mass will approach infinity and length
|>(in the direction of travel) will approach zero. Surely a human being could
|>*NOT* survive such relativistic travel.
The whole idea of relativity is that there are NO prefered reference
frames! If I look at your ship while it is going 99% the speed of light
relative to me, I will think it is shorter and more massive. BUT you on the
ship would think it was just as it always was. It hasn't shrunk to you,
and it's not more massive, either. If it was, you could tell how fast you
were going...and this implies a prefered reference frame.
I used to think the reason a space ship couldn't go faster than light
was that its mass would go to infinity. It'd take more energy to push it
a little faster, until it takes an infinite amount to get to the speed of
light. That's WRONG! That would be the case IF the ship were being
pushed by an outside force that isn't moving with it...much like accelerating
particles with electromagnets or whatever they use.
But from the perspective of a spaceship that provides its own thrust,
the ship's mass never changes. (Except, possibly, by decreasing if matter
is ejected) Why can't they go faster than light? Because the time frame
of the rest of the universe speeds up compared to them. No matter how
far they are going, they will get there before they reach light speed.
The only reason that I can think of to make high spped travel deadly
is an increase in radiation flux and particle collisions.
The time dialation may be a plot device, but it is accurate based on
the current theories of relativity.
|>--
|> ****************************************************************
|> * from the e-net desk of: Rick Colombo *
|> * Fermilab *
|> * (no Flamn' flames please) 708-840-8225 *
|> * col...@fnal.fnal.gov *
|> ****************************************************************
John E. Weglian
weglian%planc...@acsu.buffalo.edu
Fraering Philip G
the upper atmosphere at relativistic speeds have a longer observed
lifetime than muons created in the lab at non-relativistic speeds.
Phil
dlbr...@pc.usl.edu -or- pgf...@bss.usl.edu
Justin Smith
One way to think of this is as follows:
The statement that time is a dimension implies that it is a
geometric entity. This means that when one moves, one's 4-dimensional
perspective is rotated by an angle. The time dilation results of
special relativity are a consequence of the fact that time (and
space), viewed from a rotated frame of reference are subject to the
laws of perspective (when stick is viewed along an axis that is not
perpendicular to it, it appears to be shorter).
There is the slight subtlety that the geometry in question is
hyperbolic rather than Euclidean. Hyperbolic geometries
effectively have "maximal angles" that one can measure -- this is
why the speed of light is invariant and the equations of the
Lorentz transformation have factors like 1/sqrt(1-v**2/c**2) (where
c is the speed of light).
Even if the geometry was Euclidean (4-dimensional), and there was no
maximal speed that one could travel, there would be time dilations and
contractions in spatial dimensiona for a moving object observed from
a fixed object -- IF TIME WAS A 4TH DIMENSION.
--
Bruce Watson
--> My favorite story is from a game of Trivial Pursuits. The question was
--> "Who discovered the rings of Saturn?"
-->
--> Encouraging the questionee, I prompted, "Oh, it's not as hard as it sounds,
--> just name a famous scientist."
-->
--> "Ummm, Asimov?"
-->
--> ===============
-->
--> as for subtraction and multiplication, these are Lost Arts, and need not
--> even be mentioned in this thread.
-->
--> mt
If you were expecting Galileo as the answer, that's not correct.
His telescope was too weak in 1610 to make out the true nature of the rings.
He thought Saturn was a triple planet with attendents on either side.
As the years went by it appeared that the attendents got smaller. It took
Christiaan Huygen's improved telescope in 1655 to reveal the true nature of
the rings and the variable appearance.
Richard S. Brice
> >> Me: Our best bet is to get some spaceships moving at relativistic speeds
> >> so that it only takes a few months or days of ship-time to get to
> >> the nearest stars.
>
Is anyone aware of experimental results which confirm that the human body
will continue to function well under g-loades greater than 1-g for very
long periods of time? (I've seen at least one work of science fiction
which suggests otherwise).
If not, and your spaceship is restricted to an accelleration around 1-g,
then my (back of the envelope) doodling says that it takes around
one year to get up to a speed that is relativistically significant,
another year to decelerate on the other end, and that much again on
the return trip. This gives a minimum travel time of (around) four years
no matter how far you travel at 99% of C.
Did I drop a few orders of magnitude in a crack somewhere?
Richard Brice
MCC corp
P.S. sorry if I kept the wrong attribution signature line.
James Davis Nicoll
Well, one year at 1 gee dosn't get you to C, because
there are relativistic effects that have to taken into account.
You'd get up to roughly .8 C in one year, as measured by the ship.
At .8 C, one year on the ship would appear to terrestrial observers
to take about 20 months. To put it slightly differently, the ship
would cover one light year every 9 months, and would take two
years to get to and decelerate from .8 C, covering about 1.2 ly.
Some travel times to some local stars would be as per Transit Time 1:
Star Name Distance Transit Time 1 Transit Time 2
(ly) (years)
Alpha Centauri 4.3 4.3 3.5
Epsilon Eridani 10.8 9.2 4.9
Epsilon Indi 11.2 9.5 5.0
Tau Ceti 11.8 10.0 5.1
CD-39o14192 12.5 10.5 5.2
Quite a bit longer than the 1 year to C calculation would
seem to suggest. If they accelerated a 1 g for half the trip, and
decelerated a 1 g for half the trip, they'd get much closer to C
at peak velocity, and so experience more time dilation, and trip
times would be as per Transit Time 2, assuming I haven't screwed
up my math, which is a real possibility.
This isn't to say long trips at a constant 1 g are possible,
but just that if they were, time dilation could play a major role
in keeping transit time, as measured by the ship, low.
James Nicoll
Ron Carter
>see any :-) in your post), so if you are then kindly disregard this post,
>but if you're NOT...
Indeed. And, despite the Fermilab posting address, the lack of
smilies here prompts me to respond.
>You neglected to mention that your mass will approach infinity and length
>(in the direction of travel) will approach zero. Surely a human being could
>*NOT* survive such relativistic travel.
To an observer on a cosmic-ray muon or a proton whizzing around the
ring, YOU have a mass of thousands of kilograms and a thickness of
micrometers.
Of course, that's just in the muon's/proton's reference frame, not
yours. The fact that you are relativistically compressed and massified
in someones else's reference frame doesn't affect you a bit. That's
why they call it (drum roll) RELATIVITY.
>> Her: Wait, you mean this _really works_?
>
>Only in your dreams.
You work at Fermilab, right?
You do just fine looking awfully funny in other reference frames
most of your working day. I'd say it works fine in real life.
The only thing we haven't done is made someone look that funny
compared to one of their original reference frames, but we're
looking at ways to do it.
>> Her: Yeah, but I always thought it was just another plot device like
>> transporters or warp drive!
>
> E X A C T A M U N D O !!!
How someone can work in a place in which most of the people must
know all about relativistic time-stretching of cosmic-ray muon
lifespans and half the stuff which comes out of the beam collisions,
and spout this kind of stuff, I don't know.
I really hope he left off the smilies.
--
Ron Carter wr...@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com [and nowhere else]
* There is someone else in this organization with my name. He ain't me. *
If you want to be sure I see it, better e-mail me a copy.
Michael Tobis
>In article <1991Jul23....@meteor.wisc.edu-->, to...@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>--> My favorite story is from a game of Trivial Pursuits. The question was
>--> "Who discovered the rings of Saturn?"
>-->
>--> Encouraging the questionee, I prompted, "Oh, it's not as hard as it sounds,
>--> just name a famous scientist."
>-->
>--> "Ummm, Asimov?"
>
>His telescope was too weak in 1610 to make out the true nature of the rings.
>He thought Saturn was a triple planet with attendents on either side.
>As the years went by it appeared that the attendents got smaller. It took
>Christiaan Huygen's improved telescope in 1655 to reveal the true nature of
>the rings and the variable appearance.
Obviously, you haven't played the game for a while. The object of the game
is to guess what's on the card, which is a better approximation of popular
wisdom than of the latest academic knowledge. (Although in this case, it
appears to me that there is a case to be made for Galileo's claim.) I was
looking at the card at the time. Huygens or not, you would lose your turn.
The point of my story, though, is that it is impossible to underestimate
many people's scientific knowledge. (For those from other planets, Isaac
Asimov, also known as a science fiction writer, has a Ph.D. in biology,
and was the Carl Sagan of the 1960's, writing much pop. science, which I
believe he still does, but with more competition.)
mt
Andrew Marchant-Shapiro
The point of my story, though, is that it is impossible to underestimate
many people's scientific knowledge. (For those from other planets, Isaac
Asimov, also known as a science fiction writer, has a Ph.D. in biology,
and was the Carl Sagan of the 1960's, writing much pop. science, which I
believe he still does, but with more competition.)
Point the first -- I believe that Asimov has his degree in
MATHEMATICS. At least, that is what I have seen him to write books
about, but I may be wrong.
Point the second -- Asimov has always seemed to me to be a 'sci-fi'
writer -- in the same class with Arthur C. Clarke. (Now I'm gonna get
flamed, but who cares) About right if you want a book to put you to
sleep, not so hot if you want good stuff. After all, Asimov had his
(quoting a friend) "greasy paw prints" all over Star Trek I. Remember
Star Trek I? I rather thought not... :-)
Richard S. Brice
> In article <33...@ptolemy.ACA.MCC.COM> r...@ptolemy.ACA.MCC.COM (Richard S. Brice) writes:
> >then my (back of the envelope) doodling says that it takes around
> >one year to get up to a speed that is relativistically significant,
> Well, one year at 1 gee dosn't get you to C, because
> there are relativistic effects that have to taken into account.
Thanks for the table which provides the actual estimated transit times
under different assumptions.
Also note that I didn't say that 1-g for a year gets you to C, only to
relativistically significant speeds.
R. Brice
Henry Spencer
> Asimov, also known as a science fiction writer, has a Ph.D. in biology,
>
Nope. Professionally, originally, he was a biochemist, and his degrees
say "chemistry". In fact he is still professor of biochemistry at Boston
University, although this has been basically an honorary position for many
years.
>Point the second -- Asimov has always seemed to me to be a 'sci-fi'
>writer -- in the same class with Arthur C. Clarke.
Both of them write good but elementary popular science; neither has worked
in his original profession for a long time. Note, though, that their
professional qualifications may be rusty but they are substantial. Asimov
was never much as a researcher but his degrees are legitimate. Clarke is
the inventor of the geostationary communications satellite -- he has
expressed occasional regrets that he thought of it too early to patent
it -- and worked on ground-controlled-approach radar systems in WW2.
If you know *nothing* about some scientific subject, and don't want a
full-blown textbook, something by either one of them is hard to beat.
>.... After all, Asimov had his
>(quoting a friend) "greasy paw prints" all over Star Trek I...
Ho ho ho. Your friend has no idea how Hollywood works. Influence, and
the ability to apply greasy paw prints, varies directly with the
amount of money you get paid. Writers and science advisers do not get
paid very much.
--
Lightweight protocols? TCP/IP *is* | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
lightweight already; just look at OSI. | he...@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
James Davis Nicoll
>
>Also note that I didn't say that 1-g for a year gets you to C, only to
>relativistically significant speeds.
Sorry about that. I'm used to people going
(3x10**8 m/s)/(10 m/s**2) = 3x10**7 s (Just 18 days short of a year)
and figuring 1 year @ 1g = .999 C, since we can't get to C. I
read 'relativistically significant' as time dilation on the order of
ten or a hundred fold contraction, rather than one quarter. My error.
James Nicoll
house ron
>My favorite story is from a game of Trivial Pursuits. The question was
>"Who discovered the rings of Saturn?"
>Encouraging the questionee, I prompted, "Oh, it's not as hard as it sounds,
>just name a famous scientist."
>"Ummm, Asimov?"
Not so bad. Asimov _is_ in fact a qualified scientist, and also famous!
--
Regards,
Ron House. (s64...@zeus.usq.edu.au)
(By post: Info Tech, U.C.S.Q. Toowoomba. Australia. 4350)
Marvin Minsky
>In article <1991Jul26....@unvax.union.edu> marc...@unvax.union.edu (Andrew Marchant-Shapiro) writes:
>>.... After all, Asimov had his
>>(quoting a friend) "greasy paw prints" all over Star Trek I...
>
>Ho ho ho. Your friend has no idea how Hollywood works. Influence, and
>the ability to apply greasy paw prints, varies directly with the
>amount of money you get paid. Writers and science advisers do not get
>paid very much.
As an unpaid advisor, I have to confirm Henry's view. Gene
Roddenberry is a very old friend of mine, and one of my public heroes
because of being one of the very few people to succeed in presenting
thoughtful technological issues to the "masses". Occansionally,
however I was moved to complain about the inattention to "real"
science. "Say, Gene, while you've got their attention, how about a
policy to sneak into each episode, just one little fragment of correct
science." He thought about it for a moment. "Umm, it's a nice idea
but I think its just too risky."
On the other side, David Gerrold (author of "When Harlie was One" and
"The trouble with Tribbles," had a job at Universal writing the TV
series Buck Rogers. He hated it because the science was unbelievably
bad, but the money was good. One day the producer insisted on having
them land on a planet located between Mars and Earth. Despite the
money, he blew up and quit.
At the absolute other extreme, I was (as usual, unpaid) advising
Kubrick about 2001. Stanley was keeping the character HAL under his
hat, but he showed me the computer mockup and asked, "will computers
be like this in 2001?" "That's beautiful," I gasped, overcome with
admiration of the gorgeously colored and labelled modules of various
forms. "I know that," he stated, "but I want your honest opinion, is
that what they're likely to look like?" "I'm afraid not. More likely
they'll be little blocks or something, maybe without any labels at
all, because the computer will be able to tell what they are by
sending signals into them." "That's what I was afraid of," he said,
and went over to the art department. The next I saw of it was the
plain black boxes that appear in the movie. He must have scrapped
quite a few thousand pounds of art work in order to get as much as
possible to be technologically plausibly.
For all that, I'm afraid I have to opine that Gene Roddenberry has
done the most for expanding the public interest in space, science, and
even AI. His health isn't too good these days, and it would be nice
for a few scientists to send him a note of appreciation. Paramount
studios in L.A.
Frank Crary
>writer -- in the same class with Arthur C. Clarke. (Now I'm gonna get
>flamed, but who cares) About right if you want a book to put you to
>sleep, not so hot if you want good stuff. After all, Asimov had his
>(quoting a friend) "greasy paw prints" all over Star Trek I. Remember
>Star Trek I? I rather thought not... :-)
While this is NOT a flame, I do have to disagree with you is regard to the
value of science fiction. When I was studying freshman physics, and later
special reletivity, the professor frequently made remarks about inertia
(e.g. moving objects continuing to move) or reletivistic time changes,
beign very counterintuitive and hard to visualize. I did not understand
this at all: they seemed quite clear and unsupprising to me. However, many
people in my classes DID have trouble with them. As far as I can tell, the
difference was that I read alot of science fiction (especially those stories
that keept fairly close to physical reality). As a result, having read
many times about spaceships needing to fire rockets to slow down, or about
crewmen returning home to find thier children older than themselves, I
was not supprised to learn that these things could occur. This made learning
the equations much easier.
I think, as a introduction to science and astronomy, science fiction CAN
be very helpfull. Of coures, the "wrong" kind of science fiction (e.g.
stories that do not limit themselves to ANY reflection of reality) do not
have such an effect.
Frank Crary
Brian Holtz
>One day the producer insisted on having
>them land on a planet located between Mars and Earth. Despite the
>money, he blew up and quit.
You might have to wait awhile for them to line up, but it's quite
possible for _two_ planets _and_ a _star_ to be located directly between
Mars and Earth. ;)
--
Brian Holtz
Marvin Minsky
Golly. Do you mean, without changing the orbital radii? By placing
them at some libration-like point? But what would happen to the rest
of the solar system with the extra star? Now that you mention this,
it seems to be a porrly defined concept in the first place -- that of
having a planet between Earth and Mars. If we don';t constrain the
definition, then we could just rename everything. Call Jupiter "Mars"
and then Mars would be the new planet. But I don't think David Gerrold
would have accepted that solution.
Marvin Minsky
>In article <17...@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> ho...@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) writes:
>>You might have to wait awhile for them to line up, but it's quite
>>possible for _two_ planets _and_ a _star_ to be located directly between
>>Mars and Earth. ;)
>
>Golly. Do you mean, without changing the orbital radii? By placing
>them at some libration-like point? But what would happen to the rest
>of the solar system with the extra star? [etc.]
Marvin Minsky
point of Brian Holtz's message and cluttering up the net with a
foolish reply. And then I let the *** unix send my message without a
terminating blank line. I've trained myself to terminate properly
most of the time, but not when I've just switched mailers. Does
anyone have a patch to "rn" that would automatically terminate
correctly?
I mean, it reminds me of the struggle in Project Mac in 1963 to get
the system to respond to characters instead of waiting for an EOL (end
of line). I presume that UNIX uses more modern conventions, like
1969, say?
. (for good measure)
.
Andrew Marchant-Shapiro
>value of science fiction. When I was studying freshman physics, and later
motivated as the hardware! Hence, I find IA and AC a little lacking...
Eugene N. Miya
Scientists with no science.
When I was working at "The Lab" (JPL) on imaging radar, I tried to
get people interesting in simulating missions. I'd take
people across the street to Jim Blinn's graphics lab (part of an
organization I would later join). I took one scientist whose name will not
be mentioned. Jim was generating his early flyby films. We were in
the middle of the of the Voyager encouters. Afterward, the scientist said,
"Image. We don't have to fly to the outer planets anymore,
we only have to simulate going to them."
Yes, simulation is truly a dangerous tool. Computers: dangerous things,
they put the wrong ideas into people's heads.
--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eug...@orville.nas.nasa.gov
Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
{uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Frank Crary
What is Mars and the Earth were exactly on opposite sides of the Sun. What
is both Venus and Merucry were also along this line. Then the alignment,
looking down from the Sun's north pole would be:
Mars Venus Mercury Sun Earth
In this case, Venus, Mercury AND the Sun would be "between the Earth and Mars."
Frank Crary
Steinn Sigurdsson
He got you there I'm afraid! Consider an Earth-Mars opposition
with Mercury and/or Venus aligned! That technically gives you
Mercury, Venus and the Sun "between" Mars and the Earth...
...that's two planets and a star, no change of orbital radii
or relabelling needed.
Moral: think twice before responding when you see a smiley!
| Steinn Sigurdsson |I saw two shooting stars last night |
| Physics, Caltech |I wished on them but they were only satellites |
| ste...@tapir.Caltech |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? |
| "standard disclaimer" |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983 |
Mr. Doug
>I mean, it reminds me of the struggle in Project Mac in 1963 to get
>the system to respond to characters instead of waiting for an EOL (end
>of line). I presume that UNIX uses more modern conventions, like
>1969, say?
>
>. (for good measure)
>.
Don't worry, I understand they're still having problems with the computer
vision thing too :-)
Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs
-- > SYS...@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < --
Kenneth C. Jenks [GM2] 483-4368
>>> [anecdotes of science ignorance]
>
>Scientists with no science.
>
While working at the Air Force Weapons Lab with my Master's Thesis
advisor, a full professor of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering
at a major midwestern university, I had a long argument with the man.
We were working on a way to control the oscillation of large, flexible
space structures with small vibrators. (No jokes, please.) It took me
the better part of a day to convince him that no matter how much force
these vibrators put out, F=MA would *not* cause the spacecraft to shift
in its orbit. Center of mass, you know.
>
>--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eug...@orville.nas.nasa.gov
> Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
> {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
(Howdy, Gene, remember me? I met you via Internet and and an interview
at JPL with you three years ago. Glad to see that you're back [still?]
on the net. Drop me a line.)
-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
kje...@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (713) 483-4368
"It is mankind's manifest destiny to bring our humanity into space,
to colonize this galaxy. And as a nation, we have the power to
determine whether America will lead or will follow.
I say that America must lead." -- Ronald Reagan
Stupendous Man
>>
>>Scientists with no science.
>>
the radio brightness-temperatures of the planets a few years ago, I went
down to JPL to talk to some scientists there. At one point in the meeting,
the topic of "how to calculate the temperature of a body in space" came up.
One of the participants, a young post-doc who shall remain nameless,
had just gotten his doctorate from CalTech; his thesis was based on
calculations of the temperature of Mars at a number of wavelengths,
from about one to twenty centimeters, as a function of
heliocentric distance, distance on the planet from the sub-solar point,
etc. I had been very impressed when I read his paper.
I'll paraphrase the discussion:
"What we need," said one guy, "is a way to calculate the temperature of
the Earth's moon, as seen by radio telescopes."
"I've got just the method for that," said the post-doc. "I can modify
my programs a little bit, and they'll work just as well for the Moon as
for Mars. Of course, the eclipses will complicate it."
I looked at him curiously and asked, "How?"
"Well, they cut off all the solar radiation for a few hours each month,
so the moon will tend to cool off a short time; but I should be able to
compensate for that."
Among all six or seven people at the table, only the group leader
and I looked surprised. "Every month?" I asked, incredulously.
"Yeah," he said, "you know. The Moon goes behind the Earth once a month
in its orbit, so there's an eclipse."
It was hard not to laugh, but I managed somehow. Hee hee hee. Hey,
Irwin, do they still teach their graduate students this well at CalTech?
-- Michael Richmond
"This is the heart that broke my finger." rich...@bkyast.berkeley.edu
Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth
>(tremendously embarrassingly story deleted...:-)
> It was hard not to laugh, but I managed somehow. Hee hee hee. Hey,
>Irwin, do they still teach their graduate students this well at CalTech?
>-- Michael Richmond
>"This is the heart that broke my finger." rich...@bkyast.berkeley.edu
causing only occasional eclipses way back in grade school. Perhaps you
might inquire of your advisor as to whether or not this monthly eclipse of
the moon is common knowledge around Caltech? :-)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Horowitz |"Suppose they went nowhere?"-McCoy
Astronomy Department |"Then this will be your big chance
California Institute of Technology | to get away from it all!"-Kirk
ir...@romeo.caltech.edu | from STII:TWOK
i...@deimos.caltech.edu |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin James Mayville
>so the moon will tend to cool off a short time; but I should be able to
>compensate for that."
>
> Among all six or seven people at the table, only the group leader
>and I looked surprised. "Every month?" I asked, incredulously.
>
> "Yeah," he said, "you know. The Moon goes behind the Earth once a month
>in its orbit, so there's an eclipse."
>
> It was hard not to laugh, but I managed somehow. Hee hee hee. Hey,
>Irwin, do they still teach their graduate students this well at CalTech?
What's so funny?? It's called a new moon. He didn't say Solar Eclipse.
Frank Crary
>> "Well, they cut off all the solar radiation for a few hours each month,
>>so the moon will tend to cool off a short time; but I should be able to
>>compensate for that."
>>
>> Among all six or seven people at the table, only the group leader
>>and I looked surprised. "Every month?" I asked, incredulously.
>>
>> "Yeah," he said, "you know. The Moon goes behind the Earth once a month
>>in its orbit, so there's an eclipse."
>>
The man said eclipse and he ment eclipse: A LUNAR Eclipse. This is the only
such event that occurs when "the Moon goes behind the Earth." In the case
of a new moon, the Earth is behind the Moon. Unfortunatly, lunar eclipses
only occur rarely NOT every month.
Frank Crary
Bill Bochnik (Info Systems)
>>In article <1991Jul27.0...@news.media.mit.edu> min...@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>>
>>>One day the producer insisted on having
>>>them land on a planet located between Mars and Earth. Despite the
>>>money, he blew up and quit.
>>
>>You might have to wait awhile for them to line up, but it's quite
>>possible for _two_ planets _and_ a _star_ to be located directly between
>>Mars and Earth. ;)
>
>Golly. Do you mean, without changing the orbital radii? By placing
>them at some libration-like point? But what would happen to the rest
>of the solar system with the extra star? Now that you mention this,
. o . . .
| | | | |
mars sun mercury venus earth
(not to scale but enough to get the idea)
Bill Bochnik | It's hard to be a James Bond in an Abbott
Senior Programmer Analyst | and Costello world.
Ciba-Geigy Corporation |
Hawthorne, New York | It's worse than that, he's dead Jim.
914-785-2255 |
philabs!crpmks!billb or | Signed and sealed, they deliver oblivion.
billb%crp...@uunet.UU.NET |
--
Bill Bochnik | It's hard to be a James Bond in an Abbott
Senior Programmer Analyst | and Costello world.
Ciba-Geigy Corporation |
Steinn Sigurdsson
You might want to think about what was said for a few minutes!
Edmund C. Greene, Information Processing Support, Boston College
Mars is essentially in the same orbit... somewhat the same
distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have
seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water.
If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen,
that means we can breathe.
-- Vice President Dan Quayle
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
/ Edmund C. Greene | _ \
/ Information Processing Support | / \ Space.... \
| Boston College | / | \ The Final Frontier |
| [ ED @ BCVMS.BITNET ] | / * \ These are the voyages |
| [ ed @ bcvms.bc.edu ] | / ,/-\\ of the starship |
\ | / ,/' \\ Enterprise /
\ | //' \\ /
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Moore
This is a joke, right? Now we ahve someone from Caltech who doesn't
know the difference between a full moon, a new moon, and solar and lunar
eclipses.
Hey Kevin, unless something has really changed, you get a new moon when
the moon is between the earth and the sun.
Besides, what would occur if the earth was in front of the moon, is a
lunar eclipse, not a solar one.
<------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Carpe Diem Greg_d...@mts.rpi.edu
Greg_d...@acm.rpi.edu
"All that is gold does not glitter." Strider_of_...@mts.rpi.edu
Brett Kottmann
>...
> many people's scientific knowledge. (For those from other planets, Isaac
> believe he still does, but with more competition.)
>
He also has degrees in chemistry and math, among others. Not a bad
answer for most people, for whom 1941 is too far back in history to worry
about. Asimov is probably the best "man on the street" answer in this scenario.
(Besides the one on the card :).
Trivial Pursuit is laced with errors. The authors lamely proclaimed it
was to make catching rip-off's of TP easier. :\
Brett
=============================OFFICIAL=DISCLAIMER================================
The opinions and views expressed here are strictly my own and do not
necessarily reflect the official position of either the U.S. Air Force
or its contractors.
=====================DO=NOT=REMOVE=TAG=UNDER=PENALTY=OF=LAW===:)================
Philip Walden
How plain ordinary common sense science?
The house-"person" that fills a pot full of water to boil a potato and
leaves the lid off to boot show little understanding of even basic principles
of specific heat, phase transistions, and evaporation. People that can't
use simple tools don't know about simple machines like levers, wedges, wheels
and screws.
Allen W. Sherzer
Sagan aparently gave a speech saying children should "get into the
galaxy" (rough paraphrase). He went on to bemoan the lack of science
education.
It's a pity he opposes what has shown to be the strongest motivator of
interest in science in children.
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer | DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten. |
| a...@iti.org | |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Bill Newman
What motivator do you have in mind? Dinosaurs? or maybe fire? :-)
Bill Newman
new...@theory.tc.cornell.edu
Dave Tiller N2KAU
-/ hpfcso:sci.space / to...@nexus.yorku.ca (Tony Wallis) / 4:00 pm Jul 18, 1991 /
-From rec.humor.(I wish it were)funny :
-> During the publicity prior to the 1979 solar eclipse, a woman called
-> a radio talk show in my locality and asked this question: "If we can't
-> watch it, why are they even having it?"
-
That reminds me of one I heard at a tractor pull, of all things. We were
watching a jet truck do it's thing (75 ft of _lethal_ flame!!!) when
someone behind me exclaimed, "Jeezus, that thing must have a _HUGE_ clutch!"
I didn't want to tell him that in the direct thrust configuration there is
no clutch...
--
David E. Tiller da...@tsdiag.ccur.com | Concurrent Computer Corp.
FAX: 908-870-5952 Ph: (908) 870-4119 (w) | 2 Crescent Place, M/S 117
I'm movin' to Richmond, VA - any jobs there? | Oceanport NJ, 07757
ICBM: 40 16' 52" N 73 59' 00" W | N2KAU @ NN2Z
Mike Hoffmann
>>You neglected to mention that your mass will approach infinity and
>>length (in the direction of travel) will approach zero. Surely a human
>>being could *NOT* survive such relativistic travel.
>Perhaps I'm one of those people with zero science, but it seems to me
>that YOU neglected to mention that, from the reference frame of the
>spaceship, the mass of the earth will approach infinity and its length
>(in the direction of travel) will approach zero. Surely human beings
>could *NOT* survive such relativistic travel. So I hope no one attempts
>such travel, or the earth is doomed!
AND(!) from the viewpoint of the spaceship Earth will become red-shifted!
Communism's late victory at last, comrade!
(well, painting Coca-Cola on the landmass of the Soviet Union should
take care of that :-)
Mike
--
Mike Hoffmann, Siemens-Nixdorf AG, SNI AP 712
UUCP: mi...@ap542.uucp | INTERNET: mike%ap...@ztivax.siemens.com
Our Battle will be the Mother of All Battles - S. Hussein on a lost war
Our Network is the Mother of All Networks - Me after the 5th NW crash in 30mins
Dani Eder
>Is anyone aware of experimental results which confirm that the human body
>will continue to function well under g-loades greater than 1-g for very
>long periods of time? (I've seen at least one work of science fiction
>which suggests otherwise).
>
A quotation from "Great Mambo Chicken & the Transhuman Experience" by
Ed Regis (Addison Wesley, 1990):
[pp 54-55]
. . . For that matter, humans could also have survived at even HIGHER
levels (italics in original are uppercase here), as has been demonstrated
repeatedly by experimental tests.
There was the hyper-G work done on chickens, for example, by
Arthur Hamilton ("Milt") Smith in the 1970s. Milt Smith was a gravity
specialist at the University of California at Davis who wanted to find
out what would happen to humans if they lived in greater-than-normal
G-forces. Naturally, he experimented on animals, and he decided that
the animal that most closely resembled man for this specific purpose
was the chicken. Chickens, after all, had a posture similar to man's:
they walked upright on two legs, they had two non-load-bearing limbs
(the wings), and so on. Anyway, Milt Smith and his assistants took a
flock of chickens -- hundreds of them, in fact -- and put them into
the two eighteen-foot-long centrifuges in the university's Chronic
Acceleration Research Laboratory, as the place was called.
They spun those chickens up to two-and-a-half Gs and let them
stay there for a good while. In fact, they left them spinning like
that day and night, for three to six months or more at a time. The
hens went around and around, they clucked and they cackled and they
laid their eggs, and as far as those chikens were concerned that was
what ordinary life was like: a steady pull of two-and-a-half Gs. Some
of those chickens spent the larger portion of their lifetimes in that
goddamn accelerator.
Well, it was easy to predict what would happen. Their bones
would get stronger and their muscles would get bigger--because they
had all that extra gravity to work against. A total of twenty-three
generations of hens was spun around like this and the same thing
happened every time. When the accelerator was turned off, out walked
. . .GREAT MAMBO CHICKEN!
These chronically accelerated fowl were paragons of brute
strength and endurance. They'd lost excess body fat, their hearts
were pumping out greater-than-normal volumes of blood, and their
extensor muscles were bigger than ever. In consequence of all this,
the high-G chickens had developed a three-fold increase in their
ability to do work, as measured by wingbeating exercises and
treadmill tests
[end quote]
References:
Smith, A. H. "Physiological Changes Associated with Long-Term
Increases in Acceleration." In "Life Sciences and Space
Research XIV", edited by P.H.A. Sneath. Berlin:Akademie-Verlag, 1976.
Smith, A. H., and C. F. Kelly. "Biological Effects of Chronic
Acceleration." NAVAL RESEARCH REVIEWS 18 (1965): 1.
_____. "Influence of Chronic Acceleration upon Growth and Body
Composition" ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 110
(1963): 410.
--
Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Civil Space/(205)464-2697(w)/461-7801(h)/#905, 1075
Dockside Dr.,Huntsville,AL35824/Member: Space Studies Institute
Physical Location: 34deg 37' N 86deg 43' W +100m alt.
***THE ABOVE IS NOT THE OPINION OF THE BOEING COMPANY OR ITS MANAGEMENT.***
Daniel Delvalle
> In article <33...@ptolemy.ACA.MCC.COM> r...@ptolemy.ACA.MCC.COM (Richard S. Bri
> They spun those chickens up to two-and-a-half Gs and let them
> stay there for a good while. In fact, they left them spinning like
> that day and night, for three to six months or more at a time. The
> hens went around and around, they clucked and they cackled and they
> laid their eggs, and as far as those chikens were concerned that was
> what ordinary life was like: a steady pull of two-and-a-half Gs. Some
> of those chickens spent the larger portion of their lifetimes in that
> goddamn accelerator.
>
--------
They laid normal Eggs? Not flattened or Deformed at all?
Kiz.
-------
> These chronically accelerated fowl were paragons of brute
> strength and endurance. They'd lost excess body fat, their hearts
> were pumping out greater-than-normal volumes of blood, and their
> extensor muscles were bigger than ever. In consequence of all this,
> the high-G chickens had developed a three-fold increase in their
> ability to do work, as measured by wingbeating exercises and
> treadmill tests
> [end quote]
------
Hmm I wonder if Frank Perdue is aware of all this? :>
"""""
". ."
l
Kizn. (-)
Charles Carey (SVER)
>I got the tail end of a news report on my way in to work today. Carl
>Sagan aparently gave a speech saying children should "get into the
>galaxy" (rough paraphrase). He went on to bemoan the lack of science
>education.
>
>It's a pity he opposes what has shown to be the strongest motivator of
>interest in science in children.
>
>|Allen W. Sherzer | DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten. |
>| a...@iti.org | |
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
I'm interested; what is it that has been shown to be the strongest
motivator to learn science? What has that got to do with science
education?
Dick King
The advantage of doing this is that you can then leave the heater set to a
medium setting without fear either of a boil-over or the water boiling away.
Here the inefficiency is an advantage to the people doing this -- for perhaps
two cents worth of gas, the cost of running the burner on medium rather than
low for twenty minutes, they only have to go to the stove twice thirty minutes
apart rather than three times, one after five minutes and once again 25 minutes
later.
They may not reason it out, but they know that a covered pot will boil over but
an uncovered one won't.
By the way, if the material is spaghetti rather than potatos this actually
makes sense, because the excessive vigor with which the water boils is put to
use. It keeps the spaghetti stirred -- otherwise it tends to stick together in
clumps of parallel strands. I, being the energy conservation weenie i am, stir
manually and cook with the pot covered.
-dk
Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth
>In article <1991Jul31....@iti.org>, a...@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>>I got the tail end of a news report on my way in to work today. Carl
>>Sagan aparently gave a speech saying children should "get into the
>>galaxy" (rough paraphrase). He went on to bemoan the lack of science
>>education.
>>
>>It's a pity he opposes what has shown to be the strongest motivator of
>>interest in science in children.
>>
>
>motivator to learn science? What has that got to do with science
>education?
combination of the Apollo program (I was 5 in '69) and Star Trek. From
my .sig, you can see where that motivation has gotten me.
Edward C. Otto III
>Besides which, the directions on the spaghetti say 'boil uncovered...'
>It has suddenly struck me that this has strayed from sci.space, so:
>How would one go abou cooking some spaghetti in space?
>Would one use a 'robocook' centrifuge to keep the water in the pot?
I'd use a vessel that I could evacuate most of the atmosphere from for a
period of time, and fill it with solar-heated live steam under pressure
for about 60-90 seconds. Presto! Pasta al dente!
(Then pump the chamber down to recover the water, filter it, and it's
drinkable, too...)
--
Email flames to: edo...@uipsuxb.ps.uiuc.edu or call 217/333-9422 to talk
Ed Otto : University of Illinois : Printing Services Office
54A E. Gregory Drive : Champaign, IL : 61820
/std/disclaimer | more >/dev/null
Fraering Philip G
It has suddenly struck me that this has strayed from sci.space, so:
How would one go abou cooking some spaghetti in space?
Would one use a 'robocook' centrifuge to keep the water in the pot?
Phil
Frank Crary
>How would one go abou cooking some spaghetti in space?
Boiling water in zero gravity is a mess (literally). There is no tendency
for air bubbles, produced by the boiling to rise. As a result, they would
stay in the center untill they had heated, and built up pressure. Then they
would force their way out (against the surface tension). When they broke the
surface, a fair amount of energy would be released, causing (near boiling)
water to splash...
I think a centrofuge would be needed, unless you know how to microwave
spaghetti...
Frank Crary
Richard S. Brice
> Don't know about you, but I've been motivated since my childhood by the
> combination of the Apollo program (I was 5 in '69) and Star Trek. From
Anyone out there interested in an informal survey on the question
"What motivated you to become involved in science?"
If the group can agree on a way(s) to evaluate the answers, I'll volunteer
to tally up any email responses (but I won't guarantee to collect responses
posted directly to this or other subnets).
Rich Brice
r...@mcc.com
James Davis Nicoll
>pgwr...@suze.usl.edu (Fraering Philip G) writes:
>
>>Besides which, the directions on the spaghetti say 'boil uncovered...'
>>It has suddenly struck me that this has strayed from sci.space, so:
>
>>How would one go abou cooking some spaghetti in space?
>
>>Would one use a 'robocook' centrifuge to keep the water in the pot?
>
>I'd use a vessel that I could evacuate most of the atmosphere from for a
>period of time, and fill it with solar-heated live steam under pressure
>for about 60-90 seconds. Presto! Pasta al dente!
>
>(Then pump the chamber down to recover the water, filter it, and it's
>drinkable, too...)
You can't pressure-cook spaghetti. What you end up with if you do
is pasta soup. Trust me on this; I have extensive experimental evidence
for it.
Mind you, that wasn't low preesure steam. I don't know how spaghetti
would react to low pressure, low temperature water steam.
James Nicoll
Matthew DeLuca
> Mind you, that wasn't low preesure steam. I don't know how spaghetti
>would react to low pressure, low temperature water steam.
Probably about like how spaghetti reacts when you leave it outside overnight
in the fog; you get limp, tasteless pasta.
(I'm of Italian descent...trust me... :)
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Office of Information Technology P.O. box." - Zebadiah Carter,
Internet: cco...@prism.gatech.edu _The Number of the Beast_
Richard MASON
>
>Point the first -- I believe that Asimov has his degree in
>MATHEMATICS. At least, that is what I have seen him to write books
>about, but I may be wrong.
>
At one time Asimov was on the biology or biochemistry faculty at Boston
University. From this I surmise that his PhD is in biology or biochemistry.
Also I remember reading once that he found college math courses challenging
(after breezing through math in high school). Again, not a clinching
argument, but it doesn't suggest that his doctorate is in math.
Asimov has written a quantity of books on mathematics, but he has also written
shelves of books on physics, history, the Bible... it would be difficult to
find a subject that he had NOT written something about.
>Point the second -- Asimov has always seemed to me to be a 'sci-fi'
>writer -- in the same class with Arthur C. Clarke.
Well... perhaps. I would class him more with Stephen King... "He may have
lost it nowadays, but you should read the early stuff..."
Richard Mason t-rm...@microsoft.com
All opinions are my own.
Joshua Bell
>In article <1991Jul26....@unvax.union.edu> marc...@unvax.union.edu (Andrew Marchant-Shapiro) writes:
>>
>>Point the first -- I believe that Asimov has his degree in
>>MATHEMATICS. At least, that is what I have seen him to write books
>>about, but I may be wrong.
>>
>
>At one time Asimov was on the biology or biochemistry faculty at Boston
>University. From this I surmise that his PhD is in biology or biochemistry.
His PhD is in Biochemistry, probably one of the reasons that I'm going into
that field (If I survive the next 3 years of undergrad classes!).
[sutuff excized]
>>Point the second -- Asimov has always seemed to me to be a 'sci-fi'
>>writer -- in the same class with Arthur C. Clarke.
>
>Well... perhaps. I would class him more with Stephen King... "He may have
>lost it nowadays, but you should read the early stuff..."
>
Yeah... Sigh. Clarke himself isn't doing much- his Venus Prime, which I haven't
got around to reading, is by another author.
TTFN/TTYL... Joshua B-)
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "This _should_ be manual override." - Lt.Cmdr. Data |
| |
| JoB...@uncamult.bitnet Bitnet Academic Computing Services |
| jsb...@acs.ucalgary.ca Internet University of Calgary, Canada |
| |
| "That was NOT manual override." - Lt.Cmdr. Data |
brook mantia
I may not be very bright, but isn't there a difference between a "Lunar
Eclipse" and a "New Moon"? Duh!! I am sooooo ssuuurrrre! This IS getting
embarassing...
Brook
Then we can plan a trip to the Sun--but we'll go a NIGHT when it's not so HOT!
nyuk nyuk nyuk