sad, but, TRUE... awww, man!!!!!!! i was going to try to be a ninja. well, that options out now. and why does everyone look at me as if im crazy now? answer that, and i wont have to hug u unless u want me to. retorical qwestion. if however u DO answer just use a pm. most appreciated.
I love doing these demonstrations. Another good one is debunking Pokémon physics. Squirtle can shoot high pressure water? Charizard's wings provide enough lift? If you need any help with these, I love setting them up.
Sam & Max Ep 305-Sam: One recipie to rule them all and one egg to bind it!
No problem, and like I said, I really enjoyed reading your article. It took me back to my college days (which were a lot longer ago than Batou's). I hope to see more of these. Maybe the next one will deal with Seta Sōjirō and his ability to run as fast as a horse, on the ceiling, etc... Now that one should be fun to debunk. :-)
I absolutely loved this! Not only was it greatly amusing, it was also very intriguing. Would you consider collaborating? I could write a comic in combination with your writing/math.
--Thief
LOLZ, you sound like a Physics T.A throughout this entire thing! Good stuff, and yes, that kinda power is impossiple for humans, although I wouldn't doubt there's an animal in the world that could produce such power (Gorillas have 5x our strength, I think). Nice FMA reference to Newton's second law.
Hmmmm...interesting stuff. I guess I should’ve done my research into that area of the article. I was really just more concerned with the math Physics side of it.
But at the same time, reading over those links, they are much more detailed and complicated (in terms of the physics as well as the math) than I wanted to get into, mainly due to the target audience. That was the reason for all of the massive oversimplifications (such as considering Kenshin as a point mass, and not really worrying about how the upward force was coming from him). This wasn't meant to be a paper; more of a joke with some factual physics behind it. I just sat down and wrote this from my head.
Though if I was off by that much, then it's obvious that I simplified it to too great of a degree.
Thanks for the comment, this is exactly the type of feedback I was hoping for, since I was not too sure how this article would be received. I'll keep your comment in mind if I do another of these.
Last edited by Kastom at 3:53:01 PM EDT on March 24, 2009.
Japan Bureau (Podcasters) | Posted 03/24/09 | Reply
This is an article that does all the right math to reach the wrong conclusion.
The world record for the standing vertical jump is around 61" (155cm). But I'm doubting Kenshin didn't take at least one or two steps prior to jumping.
Athletic science articles have been written that show that 80kg high/long jumpers at the Olympic level can generate an approximate 3000N of force with each leg. Now the weight difference is about 60% more than your estimate 50kg, and since f=ma is a directly proportional relationship, 80/50 = 3000/1980 converts to 1.6 = 1.5. That's pretty close, meaning that if Kenshin is a bit more badass than your Olympic jumper, he should be able to generate the force necessary in order to make that jump, given a couple steps to generate the eccentric conditions in the leg muscles.
Here are a couple articles discussing the forces able to be produced and how they are measured using the Newtonian model.
Now, I'm not saying that it's not impossible for Kenshin to make the jump. But the math that you went through, while a good exercise, doesn't have enough context with real forces that humans can generate. Still a fun read though :-)
I LOVE what you did here. I'm a total math-science person and adored physics when I took it in high school, so I understood everything you said (even the metrics! =D). Concerning the metrics, I don't think it's too much to worry about (seriously, Americans--myself included--need to learn the metrics anyway). Personally, I'd do all the work in metrics and then just convert the givens and the answers that you get along the way (i.e. 50 kg, 3 m, 7.92 m/s) into American customary units for comparison. I rather like your analogies as to exactly how fast 7.92 m/s; those work well in my opinion. They're amusing as well ^^
As for more anime physics-related ideas, totally agree with schultzie on the "swords-as-big-as-the-wielders" idea, as well as "swords-sharp-enough-and-force-large-enough-to-cut-through-buildings". I'd suggest blood loss, but there's no real way to measure exactly how much blood Kurosaki Ichigo loses at one time. You might also want to explain momentum (i.e. getting knocked through pillars, falling off buildings), the fact that pointy things always propel characters upwards into the air, and also the fact that people can often hear things going on three zillion kilometers away.
Great job! I look forward to more physics from you. =)
The Hero of Time (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 03/23/09 | Reply
Awesome. I'm surprised there wasn't a hole in the ground where kenshin "pushed those four elephants."
Crazy stuff, but now I understand why I took physics! Great article I loved all the handy references you made to running and elephants and canada, etc.
INSTANT FAV
Go kenshin!
~Wall-iE
Wow Kastom, great article! I did read every word, though my puny little brain couldn't understand every word when it came to the actual calculations (though it's not because I'm a U.S American!). I thought the example you used was great, and you did a brilliant job in transcribing something as simple as jumping into a very scientific analysis that's 100% No-BS. I especially liked the elephant conclusion, that was clever. Absoluetly, you should make more of these. Just dip into any anime and you'll find plenty of examples (*cough*Cloud with big sword*cough*)
I would love to learn how to understand and even make forumulas for things like this, but my time is taken by the arts. However, I did stumble across a really cool video of Clifford Stoll, who is a very eccentric physician/astrologer/programmer. This is his speech during TED. If you like this, you'd probably like the rest of the TED program. All really really cool.
Thanks for writing such a cool article!
-Ryu
"My main problem is that I've been in Physics and Math too long, so I seriously (and I am trying my best not to sound arrogant here..."
I have been out of high school for 7 years, out of college for 5(two year technical school, gotta love it).
I dont think you sounded arrogant when explaining your knowledge of math and physics. But Im not easily offended when someone knows more about a certain subject matter more than I do.
I always had a knack for understanding math, and chemistry, and basic physics equations. And as far as the metric/"Standard" debate goes, Id stick with what I know if I were you. If I absolutely needed to see equivalents, I would convert them myself. (Google is a wonderful thing). I do not mean to condescend to anyone else, but I dont enjoy being catered to in that matter, it furthers the stereotype that Americans need this in order to deal with the scope of what they are being shown/researching. I am actually a proponent of trying to use more metric measurements in everyday life in the US. It would be one less thing that the rest of the world can snipe on us about.
Its a fascinating read Kastom, keep it up bro. (I will be calling you bro so you can get used to the Kamina Cosplay)
And actually, people will probably see the 7 and mentally lower the perceived value, so there's even that.
Ah yeah, very good point.
I believe the phrase "close enough for jazz" is appropriate here.
That has got to be one of the best lines I've heard on theO in a long time.
Heck, man, all you really need is presentation cleanup and it'd be killer.
Thanks! But yeah, that was more or less this whole article: a test. I really like the idea, but I just wasn't particularly sure as to how I should write it all out.
My main problem is that I've been in Physics and Math too long, so I seriously (and I am trying my best not to sound arrogant here, sorry if I come off that way, lol) cannot remember what it is like to not have more basic stuff like the Math and Physics I used for this as second nature. To me, the Physics I used here is among the most basic, and most...obvious (I guess that's the word I can use) I know. So I found it hard to decide how low I should write this, just because I wasn't sure what level the average person is at. I just didn't know.
Man, I totally sounded like an ass saying that, didn't I? lol. Eh, what can you do?
Hahahahaha...
But really, I truly appreciate your comments. If I do another of these, your feedback will definitely be helping me write it in a manner more suited for the average user here.
I just hope not TOO many people are overwhelmed by what I wrote for this one and just ignore it...
The whole problem with the "accessibility" of this is simply the fact that people on this site are from all over the world, and as such, use different forms of measurements.
And I assume that whenever you say "people" and "common person" you mean "Americans", right?
Yeah. (I did include a clarifier about being Stateside, I think.) We conceptualise weight with pounds and distance and height with feet and miles usually, and tend to understand those concepts faster.
And I hate to say "We're Americans, cater to us!", but unfortunately we're as whole rather un-diverse in our education. (Mostly monolingual, too. And mostly poor at even that much.)
As for preciseness, you could show it in a few cases here and there to indicate you're doing hard calculations behind the scenes, but no one is really going to care whether you say you were going 7.92 m/s or 8 m/s, ultimately. And actually, people will probably see the 7 and mentally lower the perceived value, so there's even that.
Most physicists and other guys who know what's going on will more than likely understand if you don't adhere exactly to sig-figs for the sake of presentation. On the other hand, most laypeople will probably see lots of decimal places and freak. =P I believe the phrase "close enough for jazz" is appropriate here.
In fact, you could even say that you used a couple of kinetics equations and one of this and two of that and a thingummy, and all parties would still be satisfied. Being thorough (in which, again, I have loads of experience) is all well and good for hard proofs when you absolutely need to prove, but most of that is going to sail right over the heads of people (by their own choice, actually), and they'll latch onto the things they can grasp quickly and conceptualise.
Heck, man, all you really need is presentation cleanup and it'd be killer.
Glad I could help, and didn't come across as overly critical. (^_^)
Last edited by Allamorph at 4:44:10 PM EDT on March 20, 2009.
The whole problem with the "accessibility" of this is simply the fact that people on this site are from all over the world, and as such, use different forms of measurements.
And I assume that whenever you say "people" and "common person" you mean "Americans", right? Because personally, I have very little idea what a mile is, being from a metric country (as is most of the world). Daily life is metric (SI), not just for Physics.
But you are right, I should have converted all of my measurements, as a very large portion of the people on the site are American.
And as for things like rounding to make them more accessible, such as your example of 17.7 mph being written as 18-20 mph, that is something I was thinking about. How well will people understand if I use decimals? Will people get mad if I don't follow significant figures? Does anyone on the site even KNOW what significant figures are? Should I round things to even numbers so that less-mathematically inclined people won't be overwhelmed? I just really wasn't sure to what degree I should write this, since I didn't want to write it too dumbed down, and have a bunch of people tell me I made calculation errors, or that it was not detailed enough, but at the same time I knew that most people on the site either: don't like math, physics, etc., or are too young to have done enough to understand. I just decided on the level of complexity I used, and hoped for the best.
With regards to the relation examples, I know exactly what you mean. Having read many pop science books, I think I have a moderately good grasp on the whole "taking a hard concept, and putting into something that anyone will understand", but I'll definitely work on it if you think that my sprint and elephant examples were not good enough. I knew that relating examples was definitely going to be some of the key points, so I tried, lol.
Thanks for the feedback, what you have said is EXACTLY what I was hoping to hear back (especially on the note of the rounding). I'll definitely keep your thoughts in mind if I do another one of these.
Last edited by Kastom at 4:35:30 PM EDT on March 20, 2009.
The only problem I see with this exposé, while I like it and encourage more forays into such things, is that not many people in the States have a decent mental concept of what the metric system actually means in a hands-on sense. So while meters is fine but a little fuzzy, concepts like Newtons and meters per second are a little harder to think about.
It's loads easier to do Physics in the metric system. This my soul knoweth right well. However, once you get some figures you want your audience to appreciate, consider converting them to something more recognisable, like pounds and miles per hour instead. Harder to use with calculations, of course, but easier for people to understand at the end.
I did see one instance where you converted back to miles per hour. I liked that. It was accessible. (It was also a tad misleading, because ten seconds of constant 39.6 meters per second per second acceleration is one hell of a lot of thrust. It's also not so much fast [velocity] as it is powerful [acceleration].) But for stuff like, say, his speed of 7.92 m/s, that's more easily understood if you show it as 17.7 mph (which is really about 18-20 mph, rounding for accessibility even though I know about significant figures).
Then you can make an analogy to how hard he'd have to push to generate that much force and relate that to something tangible as well. The hundred-meter sprint was cool, but I have no idea how long 100 meters is. =P (Or how fast I could finish it.)
In short, I suppose, make it more accessible to the common person, keep in mind what concepts they will remember and what they won't, and use relation examples that they will more readily grasp.
But yeah, great idea to run with.
Last edited by Allamorph at 4:00:21 PM EDT on March 20, 2009.
I like seeing people apply their knowledge in such a way that whatever it is they're examining, they make it sound interesting. (Stephen Hawking is a master at this.) When some people do physics, it tends to come across as dry to the average person. For various reasons, they just can't make the numbers and theorems speak outside of physics or mathematics. Its seems as if they never bother finding the proper framework to carry it out. However, I admire your effort in trying to do that. Instead of the usual dusty logic (which some of us, however, love!) you decided to see how our theories fair in the world of anime. Actually, it's more like: "What do we learn about so-and-so when we use our theories in those worlds?" And we see some pretty impressive numbers occurring in those worlds.
I take it that this wasn't intended to 'prove anime wrong'. Of course not! I see this as a case of seeing what those anime worlds amount to--that is, how they work, as compared to our own. It's interesting to see how things hold between this world and those possible worlds.
You know what? This is giving me thoughts concerning those sorts of relations, especially what makes these relations possible. But my thoughts are cloudy, so I'll leave it at that. In any event, I like this scientific-mathematic analysis of yours. It's good to see some numbers here and there, without being overwhelmed by them. The numbers 'move', as it were.
AkatsukiLuver67
Otakuite+ | Posted 08/05/09 | Reply
sad, but, TRUE...
awww, man!!!!!!! i was going to try to be a ninja. well, that options out now. and why does everyone look at me as if im crazy now? answer that, and i wont have to hug u unless u want me to. retorical qwestion. if however u DO answer just use a pm. most appreciated.
-Saki Akasuna
MewMew
Master of Kittehs (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 06/25/09 | Reply
i was reading alla's comment... i miss sig figs actually.. like wtf o_o;
but dang ... physics ._. woahz
divisionten
Otakuite++ | Posted 05/05/09 | Reply
I love doing these demonstrations. Another good one is debunking Pokémon physics. Squirtle can shoot high pressure water? Charizard's wings provide enough lift? If you need any help with these, I love setting them up.
Sam & Max Ep 305-Sam: One recipie to rule them all and one egg to bind it!
otaku le fae
Otakuite++ | Posted 03/26/09 | Reply
heheheh, wow. this was fun. You definetly need to make more of these......O.O like the FMA equation.
AP Ichigo
Japan Bureau (Podcasters) | Posted 03/26/09 | Reply
@Kastom:
No problem, and like I said, I really enjoyed reading your article. It took me back to my college days (which were a lot longer ago than Batou's). I hope to see more of these. Maybe the next one will deal with Seta Sōjirō and his ability to run as fast as a horse, on the ceiling, etc... Now that one should be fun to debunk. :-)
Thanks,
Ichigo
The Thief Kuronue
Otaku Eternal | Posted 03/25/09 | Reply
I absolutely loved this! Not only was it greatly amusing, it was also very intriguing. Would you consider collaborating? I could write a comic in combination with your writing/math.
--Thief
Inphinity
Hopeless Romantic (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 03/24/09 | Reply
LOLZ, you sound like a Physics T.A throughout this entire thing! Good stuff, and yes, that kinda power is impossiple for humans, although I wouldn't doubt there's an animal in the world that could produce such power (Gorillas have 5x our strength, I think). Nice FMA reference to Newton's second law.
Kastom
Otaku Princess | Posted 03/24/09 | Reply
@AP Ichigo:
Hmmmm...interesting stuff. I guess I should’ve done my research into that area of the article. I was really just more concerned with the math Physics side of it.
But at the same time, reading over those links, they are much more detailed and complicated (in terms of the physics as well as the math) than I wanted to get into, mainly due to the target audience. That was the reason for all of the massive oversimplifications (such as considering Kenshin as a point mass, and not really worrying about how the upward force was coming from him). This wasn't meant to be a paper; more of a joke with some factual physics behind it. I just sat down and wrote this from my head.
Though if I was off by that much, then it's obvious that I simplified it to too great of a degree.
Thanks for the comment, this is exactly the type of feedback I was hoping for, since I was not too sure how this article would be received. I'll keep your comment in mind if I do another of these.
Last edited by Kastom at 3:53:01 PM EDT on March 24, 2009.
I'd rather see in shades of gray.
AP Ichigo
Japan Bureau (Podcasters) | Posted 03/24/09 | Reply
This is an article that does all the right math to reach the wrong conclusion.
The world record for the standing vertical jump is around 61" (155cm). But I'm doubting Kenshin didn't take at least one or two steps prior to jumping.
Athletic science articles have been written that show that 80kg high/long jumpers at the Olympic level can generate an approximate 3000N of force with each leg. Now the weight difference is about 60% more than your estimate 50kg, and since f=ma is a directly proportional relationship, 80/50 = 3000/1980 converts to 1.6 = 1.5. That's pretty close, meaning that if Kenshin is a bit more badass than your Olympic jumper, he should be able to generate the force necessary in order to make that jump, given a couple steps to generate the eccentric conditions in the leg muscles.
Here are a couple articles discussing the forces able to be produced and how they are measured using the Newtonian model.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0506/0506205v1.pdf
http://www.elitetrack.com/articles/read/4042/
http://www.indiana.edu/~sportbm/p391-lectures/high-jump.pdf
Now, I'm not saying that it's not impossible for Kenshin to make the jump. But the math that you went through, while a good exercise, doesn't have enough context with real forces that humans can generate. Still a fun read though :-)
Thanks,
Ichigo
SomeGuy
Canadian Liaison (Team) | Posted 03/24/09 | Reply
Yo, buddy. In case you needed more feedback, I linked you to the Anime Evolution forums. They're liking you too:
http://animeevolution.net/index.php?topic=10138.0
I'll give you my full response later. But I will say that this was freakin' hilarious. Love it.
Handarra
Otakuite++ | Posted 03/23/09 | Reply
I LOVE what you did here. I'm a total math-science person and adored physics when I took it in high school, so I understood everything you said (even the metrics! =D). Concerning the metrics, I don't think it's too much to worry about (seriously, Americans--myself included--need to learn the metrics anyway). Personally, I'd do all the work in metrics and then just convert the givens and the answers that you get along the way (i.e. 50 kg, 3 m, 7.92 m/s) into American customary units for comparison. I rather like your analogies as to exactly how fast 7.92 m/s; those work well in my opinion. They're amusing as well ^^
As for more anime physics-related ideas, totally agree with schultzie on the "swords-as-big-as-the-wielders" idea, as well as "swords-sharp-enough-and-force-large-enough-to-cut-through-buildings". I'd suggest blood loss, but there's no real way to measure exactly how much blood Kurosaki Ichigo loses at one time. You might also want to explain momentum (i.e. getting knocked through pillars, falling off buildings), the fact that pointy things always propel characters upwards into the air, and also the fact that people can often hear things going on three zillion kilometers away.
Great job! I look forward to more physics from you. =)
wallpaperotaku
The Hero of Time (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 03/23/09 | Reply
Awesome. I'm surprised there wasn't a hole in the ground where kenshin "pushed those four elephants."
Crazy stuff, but now I understand why I took physics! Great article I loved all the handy references you made to running and elephants and canada, etc.
INSTANT FAV
Go kenshin!
~Wall-iE
Ryu
Otaku Legend | Posted 03/23/09 | Reply
Wow Kastom, great article! I did read every word, though my puny little brain couldn't understand every word when it came to the actual calculations (though it's not because I'm a U.S American!). I thought the example you used was great, and you did a brilliant job in transcribing something as simple as jumping into a very scientific analysis that's 100% No-BS. I especially liked the elephant conclusion, that was clever. Absoluetly, you should make more of these. Just dip into any anime and you'll find plenty of examples (*cough*Cloud with big sword*cough*)
I would love to learn how to understand and even make forumulas for things like this, but my time is taken by the arts. However, I did stumble across a really cool video of Clifford Stoll, who is a very eccentric physician/astrologer/programmer. This is his speech during TED. If you like this, you'd probably like the rest of the TED program. All really really cool.
Thanks for writing such a cool article!
-Ryu
Kaerlyn
Tea pixie (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 03/21/09 | Reply
*applauds* Good stuff. I like your diagrams ^^ I thought that was understandable considering physics really isn't my thing.
...African or Indian elephants?
Schultzie
Getaway Driver (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 03/20/09 | Reply
@Kastom:
"My main problem is that I've been in Physics and Math too long, so I seriously (and I am trying my best not to sound arrogant here..."
I have been out of high school for 7 years, out of college for 5(two year technical school, gotta love it).
I dont think you sounded arrogant when explaining your knowledge of math and physics. But Im not easily offended when someone knows more about a certain subject matter more than I do.
I always had a knack for understanding math, and chemistry, and basic physics equations. And as far as the metric/"Standard" debate goes, Id stick with what I know if I were you. If I absolutely needed to see equivalents, I would convert them myself. (Google is a wonderful thing). I do not mean to condescend to anyone else, but I dont enjoy being catered to in that matter, it furthers the stereotype that Americans need this in order to deal with the scope of what they are being shown/researching. I am actually a proponent of trying to use more metric measurements in everyday life in the US. It would be one less thing that the rest of the world can snipe on us about.
Its a fascinating read Kastom, keep it up bro. (I will be calling you bro so you can get used to the Kamina Cosplay)
Schultzie
Getaway Driver (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 03/20/09 | Reply
I have an idea as to what you could write about. And they involve swords!
Anime/game characters one handed wielding swords that are as big as they are. (Cloud, Ichigo, etc...)
Using a sword and cutting through steel.
Damn, I had one more, but forgot it. Ill get back to you on that one.
Kastom
Otaku Princess | Posted 03/20/09 | Reply
@Allamorph:
And I hate to say "We're Americans, cater to us!"
Hahahahahah...that's awesome man...lol.
And actually, people will probably see the 7 and mentally lower the perceived value, so there's even that.
Ah yeah, very good point.
I believe the phrase "close enough for jazz" is appropriate here.
That has got to be one of the best lines I've heard on theO in a long time.
Heck, man, all you really need is presentation cleanup and it'd be killer.
Thanks! But yeah, that was more or less this whole article: a test. I really like the idea, but I just wasn't particularly sure as to how I should write it all out.
My main problem is that I've been in Physics and Math too long, so I seriously (and I am trying my best not to sound arrogant here, sorry if I come off that way, lol) cannot remember what it is like to not have more basic stuff like the Math and Physics I used for this as second nature. To me, the Physics I used here is among the most basic, and most...obvious (I guess that's the word I can use) I know. So I found it hard to decide how low I should write this, just because I wasn't sure what level the average person is at. I just didn't know.
Man, I totally sounded like an ass saying that, didn't I? lol. Eh, what can you do?
Hahahahaha...
But really, I truly appreciate your comments. If I do another of these, your feedback will definitely be helping me write it in a manner more suited for the average user here.
I just hope not TOO many people are overwhelmed by what I wrote for this one and just ignore it...
I'd rather see in shades of gray.
Allamorph
Spiritus Memorae (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 03/20/09 | Reply
@Kastom:
The whole problem with the "accessibility" of this is simply the fact that people on this site are from all over the world, and as such, use different forms of measurements.
And I assume that whenever you say "people" and "common person" you mean "Americans", right?
Yeah. (I did include a clarifier about being Stateside, I think.) We conceptualise weight with pounds and distance and height with feet and miles usually, and tend to understand those concepts faster.
And I hate to say "We're Americans, cater to us!", but unfortunately we're as whole rather un-diverse in our education. (Mostly monolingual, too. And mostly poor at even that much.)
As for preciseness, you could show it in a few cases here and there to indicate you're doing hard calculations behind the scenes, but no one is really going to care whether you say you were going 7.92 m/s or 8 m/s, ultimately. And actually, people will probably see the 7 and mentally lower the perceived value, so there's even that.
Most physicists and other guys who know what's going on will more than likely understand if you don't adhere exactly to sig-figs for the sake of presentation. On the other hand, most laypeople will probably see lots of decimal places and freak. =P I believe the phrase "close enough for jazz" is appropriate here.
In fact, you could even say that you used a couple of kinetics equations and one of this and two of that and a thingummy, and all parties would still be satisfied. Being thorough (in which, again, I have loads of experience) is all well and good for hard proofs when you absolutely need to prove, but most of that is going to sail right over the heads of people (by their own choice, actually), and they'll latch onto the things they can grasp quickly and conceptualise.
Heck, man, all you really need is presentation cleanup and it'd be killer.
Glad I could help, and didn't come across as overly critical. (^_^)
Last edited by Allamorph at 4:44:10 PM EDT on March 20, 2009.
Kastom
Otaku Princess | Posted 03/20/09 | Reply
@Allamorph:
The whole problem with the "accessibility" of this is simply the fact that people on this site are from all over the world, and as such, use different forms of measurements.
And I assume that whenever you say "people" and "common person" you mean "Americans", right? Because personally, I have very little idea what a mile is, being from a metric country (as is most of the world). Daily life is metric (SI), not just for Physics.
But you are right, I should have converted all of my measurements, as a very large portion of the people on the site are American.
And as for things like rounding to make them more accessible, such as your example of 17.7 mph being written as 18-20 mph, that is something I was thinking about. How well will people understand if I use decimals? Will people get mad if I don't follow significant figures? Does anyone on the site even KNOW what significant figures are? Should I round things to even numbers so that less-mathematically inclined people won't be overwhelmed? I just really wasn't sure to what degree I should write this, since I didn't want to write it too dumbed down, and have a bunch of people tell me I made calculation errors, or that it was not detailed enough, but at the same time I knew that most people on the site either: don't like math, physics, etc., or are too young to have done enough to understand. I just decided on the level of complexity I used, and hoped for the best.
With regards to the relation examples, I know exactly what you mean. Having read many pop science books, I think I have a moderately good grasp on the whole "taking a hard concept, and putting into something that anyone will understand", but I'll definitely work on it if you think that my sprint and elephant examples were not good enough. I knew that relating examples was definitely going to be some of the key points, so I tried, lol.
Thanks for the feedback, what you have said is EXACTLY what I was hoping to hear back (especially on the note of the rounding). I'll definitely keep your thoughts in mind if I do another one of these.
Last edited by Kastom at 4:35:30 PM EDT on March 20, 2009.
I'd rather see in shades of gray.
Allamorph
Spiritus Memorae (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 03/20/09 | Reply
The only problem I see with this exposé, while I like it and encourage more forays into such things, is that not many people in the States have a decent mental concept of what the metric system actually means in a hands-on sense. So while meters is fine but a little fuzzy, concepts like Newtons and meters per second are a little harder to think about.
It's loads easier to do Physics in the metric system. This my soul knoweth right well. However, once you get some figures you want your audience to appreciate, consider converting them to something more recognisable, like pounds and miles per hour instead. Harder to use with calculations, of course, but easier for people to understand at the end.
I did see one instance where you converted back to miles per hour. I liked that. It was accessible. (It was also a tad misleading, because ten seconds of constant 39.6 meters per second per second acceleration is one hell of a lot of thrust. It's also not so much fast [velocity] as it is powerful [acceleration].) But for stuff like, say, his speed of 7.92 m/s, that's more easily understood if you show it as 17.7 mph (which is really about 18-20 mph, rounding for accessibility even though I know about significant figures).
Then you can make an analogy to how hard he'd have to push to generate that much force and relate that to something tangible as well. The hundred-meter sprint was cool, but I have no idea how long 100 meters is. =P (Or how fast I could finish it.)
In short, I suppose, make it more accessible to the common person, keep in mind what concepts they will remember and what they won't, and use relation examples that they will more readily grasp.
But yeah, great idea to run with.
Last edited by Allamorph at 4:00:21 PM EDT on March 20, 2009.
Kastom
Otaku Princess | Posted 03/20/09 | Reply
@Japan:
Yeah, I actually want to write more of these, I just need ideas. Thanks for the suggestion!
I'd rather see in shades of gray.
Felxie
Otakuite+ | Posted 03/20/09 | Reply
Pff, show-off. ;)
Pleiades Rising
Otaku Idol (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 03/20/09 | Reply
I like seeing people apply their knowledge in such a way that whatever it is they're examining, they make it sound interesting. (Stephen Hawking is a master at this.) When some people do physics, it tends to come across as dry to the average person. For various reasons, they just can't make the numbers and theorems speak outside of physics or mathematics. Its seems as if they never bother finding the proper framework to carry it out. However, I admire your effort in trying to do that. Instead of the usual dusty logic (which some of us, however, love!) you decided to see how our theories fair in the world of anime. Actually, it's more like: "What do we learn about so-and-so when we use our theories in those worlds?" And we see some pretty impressive numbers occurring in those worlds.
I take it that this wasn't intended to 'prove anime wrong'. Of course not! I see this as a case of seeing what those anime worlds amount to--that is, how they work, as compared to our own. It's interesting to see how things hold between this world and those possible worlds.
You know what? This is giving me thoughts concerning those sorts of relations, especially what makes these relations possible. But my thoughts are cloudy, so I'll leave it at that. In any event, I like this scientific-mathematic analysis of yours. It's good to see some numbers here and there, without being overwhelmed by them. The numbers 'move', as it were.
Japan
Bagel Gurl | Posted 03/20/09 | Reply
My mind just boggled because I suck at math. (Probably why I am getting a 2.0 in Physics 100) Your Math looks right soo ^___^; Yeah
Interesting read! Try to explain shirt ripping force of the girl from Ikki Tousen next time? That would be a fun read!
Six-year-olds and nuclear weapons: a combination that just can't be beat.