Comments on: Comic Science

By: Ted Herlinger

Ted Herlinger — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:53:03 +0000

Let’s not forget the real Nathan Null:
In the summer of 1876, Nathan Null (reputedly Dr. Weaverâ€™s son-in-law) and his friend Irving Void founded “Nathan and Irving, Incorporated.â€ In 1879, they changed their last names to Nulle and Voyd to minimize any ethnic stigma and founded Nulle & Voyd Enterprises. They had just obtained the first U.S. Patent on the eyes in needles. (Later, they designed and produced the holes in scissors handles.)

http://www.drweavers.com/Nulle&Voyd/nulle&voyd.html

By: ahmand

ahmand — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 21:59:00 +0000

Ha, this was pretty funny. Some of the things the current administration does is so idiotic that political satire is almost irrelevant nowadays — almost.

By: Gary Ansorge

Gary Ansorge — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:21:54 +0000

SF Writer:
Perhaps we need the Lords of the Instrumentality to guide humanity to its destiny. On the other hand, I’ve yet to meet a human who was capable of not abusing such power. I guess we’re stuck with our age old method of reconciliation of our opposing ideas, ie, politics. It’s clumsy, but it does, eventually, get the job done. It just takes so bloody long to wend our way to equitable solutions. First we move left, then right. What a zig zag course into the future. ( tired shaking of shaggy, gray mane should be noted here). Still, I maintain hope,,,

Gary 7

By: Greg

Greg — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 21:12:37 +0000

See also Wiley Miller’s strip, “Non-Sequiter,” from last week. He’s been paroding the “ID” idiots, too. Very funny. The main character’s dad calls his daughter’s school to complain about non-evolutionary religious beliefs being taught in science class. One of the employees who took the phone call turns to another and says, “What corner of the Earth is THAT guy from?”

By: Julian

Julian — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 20:09:07 +0000

Great Blog !! i Love this Place !!

_ _ _ -

http://www.doc-u-host.com

By: Blake Stacey

Blake Stacey — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 19:09:22 +0000

And on the charge of people a century ago being "clueless". . . . There's a great story in Sagan's Demon-Haunted World about a scientist getting called up before the House Unamerican Activities Committee, during the Red Scare of the 1950s. This scientist, Dr. Edward Condon, was one of the most prominent Americans working in the field of quantum mechanics. The chief inquisitor of the Committee said to Condon, "you have been at the forefront of a revolutionary movement in physics called" â€” pause to check notes and read carefully â€” "quan-tum mech-an-ics. It strikes this hearing that if you could be at the forefront of one revolutionary movement...you could be at the forefront of another." Condon then proclaimed that he was most definitely not a revolutionary. "I believe in Archimedes' Principle, formulated in the third century B.C. I believe in Kepler's laws of planetary motion, discovered in the seventeenth century. I believe in Newton's laws...." And so on, listing a dozen more scientists whose work, though centuries old, was still highly esteemed. The Committee didn't appreciate his joking around, but even they couldn't make charges of Communist conspiracy stick. Sometimes, scientists in the past drew conclusions which were just wrong. (Aristotle, for example: heavy objects fall faster than light ones? Children inherit characteristics only from their fathers? Ari, Ari, what were you thinking? More importantly, why weren't you looking?) In many important cases, however, it's better to say they were right, just not as right as we are today. Good job on those Laws, Kepler. And Archimedes -- that method for finding areas under curves is pretty darn cool.

By: Mark Martin

Mark Martin — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 19:08:54 +0000

“A truly clever student would swap the professorâ€™s cylinder with one whose dimensions matched the original claim.”

Yes. But of course, the prof would then figure out that the student had an imposter cylinder. The game was rigged from the start.

But at any rate, this is possible to do with a small, sample cylinder. One cannot swap the Universe for another, less controversial one. If one wants to know the character of the observable Universe, one must observe the Universe.