EPTXKCD Explains Physics - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
b0mBerMan
Japan271 Posts
| ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
| ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6214 Posts
On August 21 2012 12:50 Aerisky wrote: Hey, this is actually pretty cool  I gained significantly more respect for that guy after I learned about what he did for a profession. I thought he was just a random guy with too much time on his hands, but turns out he's a boss who has a lot of experience in these these and also happens to have a pretty good sense of humor  Have you actually read the comic itself? There's a huge amount of maths/engineering/computer science stuff in there, most of it dead on. He hasn't got a Nobel Prize, but I'd have thought it pretty much impossible to conclude he's just a random guy. If you haven't read the comic, you should. If you're a science nerd, xkcd is very high on the list of most awesome things on the internets. | ||
|
Aerisky
United States12128 Posts
On August 21 2012 14:06 Belisarius wrote: Have you actually read the comic itself? There's a huge amount of maths/engineering/computer science stuff in there, most of it dead on. He hasn't got a Nobel Prize, but I'd have thought it pretty much impossible to conclude he's just a random guy. If you haven't read the comic, you should. If you're a science nerd, xkcd is very high on the list of most awesome things on the internets. I don't read regularly, but I have seen quite a few. Eh obviously he's not a random guy, but I just thought he was a random nerd who knew a lot about math/science I guess haha, since it's not like his comics are too esoteric to understand or anything. An intelligent high schooler would probably understand all of it. No indication whether it was written by an intelligent guy or an absolute boss, but yeah, I suppose maintaining that consistent level of quality must represent his general amazingness though haha. I wouldn't say that it's one of my favorite things, but he does have a multitude of fantastic ones though for sure Also, random comment, but the SAT guessing article is actually, technically speaking, wrong. The question is "how many perfect scores". The SAT is graded on a bell curve, so whichever tests have raw scores that are in the 99.97% percentile or thereabouts will have a perfect SAT score. They call it "equating" but it's curved for all intents and purposes. In terms of raw score though, yeah statistically nobody will score a perfect. | ||
|
Sanctimonius
United Kingdom861 Posts
Well, kinda. Says the bat is hit first by the 'splosion, but unless the batter was standing with his bat already forward, swung before the ball was thrown or was moving at a similar speed to the ball, it would be held behind his head, so it would be hit after the batter. These nerds don't know nuthin' about sports. :D nb: XKCD is awesome, and these are ever awesomer. | ||
|
Kleinmuuhg
Vanuatu4091 Posts
On July 11 2012 04:55 Noam wrote: The 2nd one was VERY disappointing though. Stuff that every person that learned probability in highschool should know how to calculate. Yeah, thats something we used to calculate when I was in school. | ||
|
Khul Sadukar
Australia1735 Posts
| ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
On August 21 2012 14:31 Sanctimonius wrote: The baseball one is wrong!!!!!! Well, kinda. Says the bat is hit first by the 'splosion, but unless the batter was standing with his bat already forward, swung before the ball was thrown or was moving at a similar speed to the ball, it would be held behind his head, so it would be hit after the batter. These nerds don't know nuthin' about sports. :D nb: XKCD is awesome, and these are ever awesomer. It is actually right because it is assuming you are trying to hit the ball with the bat. XKCD is already making the assumption that you are throwing the ball near the speed of light, it is not a huge stretch to say that the batter has his bat already out waiting for the ball to contact it. | ||
|
Aerisky
United States12128 Posts
On August 21 2012 17:08 TheRabidDeer wrote: It is actually right because it is assuming you are trying to hit the ball with the bat. XKCD is already making the assumption that you are throwing the ball near the speed of light, it is not a huge stretch to say that the batter has his bat already out waiting for the ball to contact it. Well...actually if you watch baseball you don't hold the bat out before the pitcher throws the ball. Even if you want to bunt it usually you don't have your bat out in front of you entirely before the ball even leaves the pitcher's hand. Usually the batters can take a fraction second to try to get a read. Anyway, if you're swinging a bat in one fluid motion, if the bat is in front of you before the ball even leaves the pitcher's hand, you're going to miss entirely because the ball has to travel 60 ft 6 inches while the bat doesn't have to travel very far (not to mention you swing it very quickly). For reference, I searched slowmo bat swings on youtube + Show Spoiler + http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrpyBrbu8cop | ||
|
Nytefish
United Kingdom4282 Posts
On August 22 2012 14:27 Aerisky wrote: Well...actually if you watch baseball you don't hold the bat out before the pitcher throws the ball. Even if you want to bunt it usually you don't have your bat out in front of you entirely before the ball even leaves the pitcher's hand. Usually the batters can take a fraction second to try to get a read. Anyway, if you're swinging a bat in one fluid motion, if the bat is in front of you before the ball even leaves the pitcher's hand, you're going to miss entirely because the ball has to travel 60 ft 6 inches while the bat doesn't have to travel very far (not to mention you swing it very quickly). For reference, I searched slowmo bat swings on youtube + Show Spoiler + http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrpyBrbu8cop Seems like you missed the point, it's not that people don't know how baseball is usually played, it's just you can't have a worthwhile thought experiment without making many assumptions. Anyway this is a very minor and insignificant thing to be discussing haha don't know why I even got involved. | ||
|
Ruscour
5233 Posts
| ||
|
Mobius_1
United Kingdom2763 Posts
What if he became President of the USA? | ||
|
Vorenius
Denmark1979 Posts
On August 21 2012 15:38 Khul Sadukar wrote: I really liked the glass half empty one. Quite interesting. I still think that ½*0 is 0, and so a half empty glass is still empty. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
| ||
|
Aerisky
United States12128 Posts
On August 22 2012 19:13 Nytefish wrote: Seems like you missed the point, it's not that people don't know how baseball is usually played, it's just you can't have a worthwhile thought experiment without making many assumptions. Anyway this is a very minor and insignificant thing to be discussing haha don't know why I even got involved. No of course I appreciate it for what it is...the guy just said something that was absolutely correct in terms of how baseball really works, someone else told him that realistically the bat would be in front of the guy, and he was pretty clearly wrong so I just felt like supporting the first guy. | ||
|
Drunken.Jedi
Germany446 Posts
On August 22 2012 21:16 Vorenius wrote: I still think that ½*0 is 0, and so a half empty glass is still empty. "Half" can be both an adjective and an adverb. If it's an adjective, then "half empty glass" would indeed mean "half of an empty glass". If it's an adverb then it means "a glass, half of which is empty". Since the former makes little sense in most contexts, we should assume the latter meaning. | ||
|
Vorenius
Denmark1979 Posts
On August 23 2012 07:26 Drunken.Jedi wrote: "Half" can be both an adjective and an adverb. If it's an adjective, then "half empty glass" would indeed mean "half of an empty glass". If it's an adverb then it means "a glass, half of which is empty". Since the former makes little sense in most contexts, we should assume the latter meaning. Assuming is for chumps | ||
|
Mattes
Germany1116 Posts
Thoroughly enjoyed reading to the existing 8 article for now. I know what i'll be doing tuesdays from now on | ||
| ||
