Comments on: Breakdown of Scale Invariance – Hilarity Ensues

By: I, Robot

I, Robot — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:40:16 +0000

While it does exist yet in literal form,

From the Future to the Notebook

signs of new life emerge as images photonically flicker in the new logic forming apparatus

I had a dream….:)

By: Clifford

Clifford — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:17:24 +0000

ThePolynomial: – LOL!! I see there are others as bad as me…..

Oops…. we’re on the wrong thread here….shouldn’t we be on the Bad Physics Jokes thread from a few weeks ago?

-cvj

By: Plato

Plato — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:16:05 +0000

By ones very own nature “fluidity esteemed” might have been dressed according to some “emotive measure,” while recognizing, it is also fully dressed and wrapped in the intellectual one?

Tricky minds here.

By: ThePolynomial

ThePolynomial — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 16:16:19 +0000

If you rescaled Uma, would the process be Thurman-dynamics? And if they think Ms. Becall’s too tall, would that be Lauren’s contraction? God these are stretches (ha, stretches…)

By: Chris W.

Chris W. — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 05:09:26 +0000

Back to scaling: What about the role of gravity? Arbitrary scale-up of buildings and living organisms runs into problems on its account.

Rough summary:

– Scale-down runs up against the atomic structure of matter and its non-classical behavior at that scale.

– scale-up runs up against the ever-mounting effects of gravity and inertia, as compared with the growth of strength of materials. Consider trying to spin a very big flywheel, with the same proportions and composition of a smaller one, at the same angular velocity as the smaller one. A classic consequence of special relativity is that the rigidity of so-called rigid bodies is limited; otherwise some parts of them could be forced to exceed the speed of light relative to other parts. (Recall in this context that the strength of materials originates in the atomic and quantum structure of matter.)

Of course this actually has little to do with the aesthetics of same-scale visual comparisons of Christina Ricci and Uma Thurman (or, say, Charlize Theron or Queen Latifah) in evening gowns.

By: Clifford

Clifford — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 02:43:12 +0000

Maybe she/he gets to be both!

Like being an optician and an optometrist at the same time?

Or maybe better would be someone who has a MD, but is also trained as a medical physicist….. They would be a Physician and a Physicist….

-cvj

By: citrine

citrine — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 02:39:12 +0000

Clifford,

Curiosity provoked me into googling Nina Ricci. The second hit for her is the Nordstrom dept store website. It’s kind of ironic that these names appear in two worlds usually thought as being disparate – GR and in the world of high fashion.

If someone sells Mary Kay to earn support herself while devoting most of her time to Relativistic Astrophysics would she be a Cosmologist and a Cosmetologist? (I used the female pronoun as a convenience; it’s not meant to exclude people of any gender.)

By: Clifford

Clifford — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 02:37:36 +0000

thanks for the roundabout spelling correction!

cheers,

-cvj

By: LambchopofGod

LambchopofGod — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 02:19:54 +0000

Regarding that update….I’m scared to ask what a “cummunity” is……hope Christina won’t get tenser if she reads that.

By: Clifford

Clifford — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 01:33:09 +0000

Hmmm… bit annoyed with myself… I just realized I missed the opportunity to sneak in the pun “Ricci Scaler” into the post. Drat! drat! drat!.

-cvj

(Ok…I can’t resist… a small update…..)