OT: Baseball anyone?

I found this highly amusing, especially the last line... :-)

http://whatif.xkcd.com/1/

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

On 7/11/2012 8:06 AM, Pete Dashwood wrote:
> I found this highly amusing, especially the last line... :-)
>
> http://whatif.xkcd.com/1/
>
> Pete.
>

LMAO

I have a book (somewhere) about the physics of baseball... must dig it
out soon and have another look!

If you like xkcd (as many tech people seem to), you may also enjoy the
web comic:

http://abstrusegoose.com/

I find xkcd almost always quite funny; the goose, not quite as good a
"batting average" in that regard, but some funny stuff all the same.

cheers

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:13:23 -0400, Kerry Liles
<kerry.liles@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/11/2012 8:06 AM, Pete Dashwood wrote:
>> I found this highly amusing, especially the last line... :-)
>>
>> http://whatif.xkcd.com/1/
>>
>> Pete.
>>
>
>LMAO
>
>I have a book (somewhere) about the physics of baseball... must dig it
>out soon and have another look!
>
>If you like xkcd (as many tech people seem to), you may also enjoy the
>web comic:
>
>http://abstrusegoose.com/
>
>I find xkcd almost always quite funny; the goose, not quite as good a
>"batting average" in that regard, but some funny stuff all the same.
>
>cheers
>

I would have to quetion the author's surmmation that a baseball
traveling at 600 million miles an hour would cause fusion or gamma
rays and thus an explosion. I think the ball would just travel
through the air as normal but since it only has to travel 60 feet 6
inches, it would take it only 68.75 nanoseconds for the ball to cross
the plate.

The batter would be unaware and the catcher (if there was one) would
probably have a baseball sized hole in his glove, chest protector and
chest and no one would have seen it happen.

Regards,
--

////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions
and have a tremendous impact on history."
-- Dan Quayle
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 1:06:04 PM UTC+1, Pete Dashwood wrote:
> I found this highly amusing, especially the last line... :-)
>
> http://whatif.xkcd.com/1/
>
> Pete.
> --
> &quot;I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything.&quot;

musing. I think that the originator of the article neglects the fact that air is not a dense medium and the notion that the gamma ray burst preceedingthe ball would result in a crater, etc., is a trifle far fetched. However,if you peel sellotape (the sticky adhesive tape and not the brand of condoms) off of a surface in a vacuum it does generate X-rays.

Alistair Maclean <alistair.j.l.maclean@gmail.com> wrote in
news:cb605b25-c539-4e80-a6ea-6126089257f0@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 1:06:04 PM UTC+1, Pete Dashwood
> wrote:
>> I found this highly amusing, especially the last line... :-)
>>
>> http://whatif.xkcd.com/1/
>>
>> Pete.
>> --
>> &quot;I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything.&quot;
>
> musing. I think that the originator of the article neglects the
> fact that air is not a dense medium

I think you neglect the fact that *any* material medium is "dense" from the perspective of an
object moving at 0.90 c.

> and the notion that the
> gamma ray burst preceeding the ball would result in a crater,
> etc., is a trifle far fetched.

I don't agree. The energy involved is unimaginable.

> However, if you peel sellotape
> (the sticky adhesive tape and not the brand of condoms) off of a
> surface in a vacuum it does generate X-rays.

X-rays? Really? Got a reference for that?

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:19:50 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
<doug_at_milmac_dot_com@example.com> wrote:

>Alistair Maclean <alistair.j.l.maclean@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:cb605b25-c539-4e80-a6ea-6126089257f0@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 1:06:04 PM UTC+1, Pete Dashwood
>> wrote:
>>> I found this highly amusing, especially the last line... :-)
>>>
>>> http://whatif.xkcd.com/1/
>>>
>>> Pete.
>>> --
>>> &quot;I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything.&quot;
>>
>> musing. I think that the originator of the article neglects the
>> fact that air is not a dense medium
>
>I think you neglect the fact that *any* material medium is "dense" from the perspective of an
>object moving at 0.90 c.
>
>> and the notion that the
>> gamma ray burst preceeding the ball would result in a crater,
>> etc., is a trifle far fetched.
>
>I don't agree. The energy involved is unimaginable.
>
>> However, if you peel sellotape
>> (the sticky adhesive tape and not the brand of condoms) off of a
>> surface in a vacuum it does generate X-rays.
>
>X-rays? Really? Got a reference for that?


Believe it or not:

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/0123...2008.1185.html

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:19:50 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
<doug_at_milmac_dot_com@example.com> wrote:

>Alistair Maclean <alistair.j.l.maclean@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:cb605b25-c539-4e80-a6ea-6126089257f0@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 1:06:04 PM UTC+1, Pete Dashwood
>> wrote:
>>> I found this highly amusing, especially the last line... :-)
>>>
>>> http://whatif.xkcd.com/1/
>>>
>>> Pete.
>>> --
>>> &quot;I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything.&quot;
>>
>> musing. I think that the originator of the article neglects the
>> fact that air is not a dense medium
>
>I think you neglect the fact that *any* material medium is "dense" from the perspective of an
>object moving at 0.90 c.
>
>> and the notion that the
>> gamma ray burst preceeding the ball would result in a crater,
>> etc., is a trifle far fetched.
>
>I don't agree. The energy involved is unimaginable.


Not really unimaginable, but really a lot. A 145g baseball at .9C
would, in Newtonian terms, have about 5300tJ of kinetic energy, or
about 1.3 megatons TNT equivalent. Of course at .9C you have to
consider relativistic mass effects, so the actual numbers are going to
be about 2.9 times higher (15300tJ and 3.7 megatons).

On 7/11/2012 8:06 AM, Pete Dashwood wrote:
> I found this highly amusing, especially the last line... :-)
>
> http://whatif.xkcd.com/1/
>
> Pete.
>

FWIW, I had this site bookmarked under my "Baseball" folder:

http://webusers.npl.illinois.edu/~a-nathan/pob/

"Physics of Baseball"

Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:ej9uv7den7bk65q6p5etl3dkeb7ahim91h@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:19:50 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
> <doug_at_milmac_dot_com@example.com> wrote:
>
>>Alistair Maclean <alistair.j.l.maclean@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:cb605b25-c539-4e80-a6ea-6126089257f0@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 1:06:04 PM UTC+1, Pete Dashwood
>>> wrote:
>>>> I found this highly amusing, especially the last line... :-)
>>>>
>>>> http://whatif.xkcd.com/1/
>>>>
>>>> Pete.
>>>> --
>>>> &quot;I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything.&quot;
>>>
>>> musing. I think that the originator of the article neglects
>>> the fact that air is not a dense medium
>>
>>I think you neglect the fact that *any* material medium is
>>"dense" from the perspective of an object moving at 0.90 c.
>>
>>> and the notion that the
>>> gamma ray burst preceeding the ball would result in a crater,
>>> etc., is a trifle far fetched.
>>
>>I don't agree. The energy involved is unimaginable.
>>
>>> However, if you peel sellotape
>>> (the sticky adhesive tape and not the brand of condoms) off of
>>> a surface in a vacuum it does generate X-rays.
>>
>>X-rays? Really? Got a reference for that?
>
>
> Believe it or not:
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/2008/0123...2008.1185.html
>
I'll be darned. That's fascinating.
>

Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:30auv7lode0lvtqrgsopegd6q9b9ql70tf@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:19:50 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
> <doug_at_milmac_dot_com@example.com> wrote:

>>> and the notion that the
>>> gamma ray burst preceeding the ball would result in a crater,
>>> etc., is a trifle far fetched.
>>
>>I don't agree. The energy involved is unimaginable.
>
>
> Not really unimaginable, but really a lot. A 145g baseball at .9C
> would, in Newtonian terms, have about 5300tJ of kinetic energy, or
> about 1.3 megatons TNT equivalent. Of course at .9C you have to
> consider relativistic mass effects, so the actual numbers are going to
> be about 2.9 times higher (15300tJ and 3.7 megatons).

I said it was unimaginable, not incalulable. :-)

Robert Wessel wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:19:50 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
> <doug_at_milmac_dot_com@example.com> wrote:
>
>> Alistair Maclean <alistair.j.l.maclean@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:cb605b25-c539-4e80-a6ea-6126089257f0@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 1:06:04 PM UTC+1, Pete Dashwood
>>> wrote:
>>>> I found this highly amusing, especially the last line... :-)
>>>>
>>>> http://whatif.xkcd.com/1/
>>>>
>>>> Pete.
>>>> --
>>>> &quot;I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything.&quot;
>>>
>>> musing. I think that the originator of the article neglects the
>>> fact that air is not a dense medium
>>
>> I think you neglect the fact that *any* material medium is "dense"
>> from the perspective of an object moving at 0.90 c.
>>
>>> and the notion that the
>>> gamma ray burst preceeding the ball would result in a crater,
>>> etc., is a trifle far fetched.
>>
>> I don't agree. The energy involved is unimaginable.
>>
>>> However, if you peel sellotape
>>> (the sticky adhesive tape and not the brand of condoms) off of a
>>> surface in a vacuum it does generate X-rays.
>>
>> X-rays? Really? Got a reference for that?
>
>
> Believe it or not:
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/2008/0123...2008.1185.html

Astonishing.

I wonder why it only happens in a vacuum?

Maybe the X-rays are always produced but the effect is disbursed or
smothered by other particles, if they are present?

'Tis a wondrous world we live in. :-)

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 8:34:33 PM UTC+1, robert...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:19:50 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
> &lt;doug_at_milmac_dot_com@example.com&gt; wrote:
>
> &gt;Alistair Maclean &lt;alistair.j.l.maclean@gmail.com&gt; wrote in
> &gt;news:cb605b25-c539-4e80-a6ea-6126089257f0@googlegroups.com:
> &gt;
> &gt;&gt; On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 1:06:04 PM UTC+1, Pete Dashwood
> &gt;&gt; wrote:
> &gt;&gt;&gt; I found this highly amusing, especially the last line... :-)
> &gt;&gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt;&gt; http://whatif.xkcd.com/1/
> &gt;&gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt;&gt; Pete.
> &gt;&gt;&gt; --
> &gt;&gt;&gt; &amp;quot;I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything.&amp;quot;
> &gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt; musing. I think that the originator of the article neglects the
> &gt;&gt; fact that air is not a dense medium
> &gt;
> &gt;I think you neglect the fact that *any* material medium is &quot;dense&quot; from the perspective of an
> &gt;object moving at 0.90 c.
> &gt;
> &gt;&gt; and the notion that the
> &gt;&gt; gamma ray burst preceeding the ball would result in a crater,
> &gt;&gt; etc., is a trifle far fetched.
> &gt;
> &gt;I don't agree. The energy involved is unimaginable.
> &gt;
> &gt;&gt; However, if you peel sellotape
> &gt;&gt; (the sticky adhesive tape and not the brand of condoms) off of a
> &gt;&gt; surface in a vacuum it does generate X-rays.
> &gt;
> &gt;X-rays? Really? Got a reference for that?
>
>
> Believe it or not:
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/2008/0123...2008.1185.html

Thanks Robert.

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:43:58 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:

>Robert Wessel wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:19:50 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>> <doug_at_milmac_dot_com@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Alistair Maclean <alistair.j.l.maclean@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:cb605b25-c539-4e80-a6ea-6126089257f0@googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 1:06:04 PM UTC+1, Pete Dashwood
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I found this highly amusing, especially the last line... :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> http://whatif.xkcd.com/1/
>>>>>
>>>>> Pete.
>>>>> --
>>>>> &quot;I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything.&quot;
>>>>
>>>> musing. I think that the originator of the article neglects the
>>>> fact that air is not a dense medium
>>>
>>> I think you neglect the fact that *any* material medium is "dense"
>>> from the perspective of an object moving at 0.90 c.
>>>
>>>> and the notion that the
>>>> gamma ray burst preceeding the ball would result in a crater,
>>>> etc., is a trifle far fetched.
>>>
>>> I don't agree. The energy involved is unimaginable.
>>>
>>>> However, if you peel sellotape
>>>> (the sticky adhesive tape and not the brand of condoms) off of a
>>>> surface in a vacuum it does generate X-rays.
>>>
>>> X-rays? Really? Got a reference for that?
>>
>>
>> Believe it or not:
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/news/2008/0123...2008.1185.html
>
>Astonishing.
>
>I wonder why it only happens in a vacuum?
>
>Maybe the X-rays are always produced but the effect is disbursed or
>smothered by other particles, if they are present?


That seems somewhat unlikely - gamma shielding is mainly a mass
effect, so an inch of lead four inches of aluminum or glass* or a foot
of water all cause the same attenuation. A little air close to where
the gammas are generated wouldn't do much. So I'd guess something
interferes with the production of the gammas.


*typical glasses - glasses exist with SGs of 2.0 to 8.0

Robert Wessel wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:43:58 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Robert Wessel wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:19:50 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>> <doug_at_milmac_dot_com@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alistair Maclean <alistair.j.l.maclean@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:cb605b25-c539-4e80-a6ea-6126089257f0@googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 1:06:04 PM UTC+1, Pete Dashwood
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I found this highly amusing, especially the last line... :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://whatif.xkcd.com/1/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pete.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> &quot;I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything.&quot;
>>>>>
>>>>> musing. I think that the originator of the article neglects the
>>>>> fact that air is not a dense medium
>>>>
>>>> I think you neglect the fact that *any* material medium is "dense"
>>>> from the perspective of an object moving at 0.90 c.
>>>>
>>>>> and the notion that the
>>>>> gamma ray burst preceeding the ball would result in a crater,
>>>>> etc., is a trifle far fetched.
>>>>
>>>> I don't agree. The energy involved is unimaginable.
>>>>
>>>>> However, if you peel sellotape
>>>>> (the sticky adhesive tape and not the brand of condoms) off of a
>>>>> surface in a vacuum it does generate X-rays.
>>>>
>>>> X-rays? Really? Got a reference for that?
>>>
>>>
>>> Believe it or not:
>>>
>>> http://www.nature.com/news/2008/0123...2008.1185.html
>>
>> Astonishing.
>>
>> I wonder why it only happens in a vacuum?
>>
>> Maybe the X-rays are always produced but the effect is disbursed or
>> smothered by other particles, if they are present?
>
>
> That seems somewhat unlikely - gamma shielding is mainly a mass
> effect, so an inch of lead four inches of aluminum or glass* or a foot
> of water all cause the same attenuation. A little air close to where
> the gammas are generated wouldn't do much. So I'd guess something
> interferes with the production of the gammas.
>
So that means that (some?) particles in vacuums behave differently from the
same particles in air... And yet the gravity is the same (so the Higgs field
must be the same :-)) and the molecules of air are widely scattered at that
scale.

What is different?

Perhaps there is yet another field at work here... "The undiscovered country
from whose bourn no traveller returns..." :-)

How would the tearing of the adhesive differ in a vacuum from what it does
in air?

So many questions; so little time...

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 22:24:46 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:

>Robert Wessel wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:43:58 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
>> <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Wessel wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:19:50 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>> <doug_at_milmac_dot_com@example.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Alistair Maclean <alistair.j.l.maclean@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:cb605b25-c539-4e80-a6ea-6126089257f0@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 1:06:04 PM UTC+1, Pete Dashwood
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I found this highly amusing, especially the last line... :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://whatif.xkcd.com/1/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pete.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> &quot;I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything.&quot;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> musing. I think that the originator of the article neglects the
>>>>>> fact that air is not a dense medium
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you neglect the fact that *any* material medium is "dense"
>>>>> from the perspective of an object moving at 0.90 c.
>>>>>
>>>>>> and the notion that the
>>>>>> gamma ray burst preceeding the ball would result in a crater,
>>>>>> etc., is a trifle far fetched.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't agree. The energy involved is unimaginable.
>>>>>
>>>>>> However, if you peel sellotape
>>>>>> (the sticky adhesive tape and not the brand of condoms) off of a
>>>>>> surface in a vacuum it does generate X-rays.
>>>>>
>>>>> X-rays? Really? Got a reference for that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Believe it or not:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nature.com/news/2008/0123...2008.1185.html
>>>
>>> Astonishing.
>>>
>>> I wonder why it only happens in a vacuum?
>>>
>>> Maybe the X-rays are always produced but the effect is disbursed or
>>> smothered by other particles, if they are present?
>>
>>
>> That seems somewhat unlikely - gamma shielding is mainly a mass
>> effect, so an inch of lead four inches of aluminum or glass* or a foot
>> of water all cause the same attenuation. A little air close to where
>> the gammas are generated wouldn't do much. So I'd guess something
>> interferes with the production of the gammas.
>>
>So that means that (some?) particles in vacuums behave differently from the
>same particles in air... And yet the gravity is the same (so the Higgs field
>must be the same :-)) and the molecules of air are widely scattered at that
>scale.
>
>What is different?
>
>Perhaps there is yet another field at work here... "The undiscovered country
>from whose bourn no traveller returns..." :-)
>
>How would the tearing of the adhesive differ in a vacuum from what it does
>in air?


It appears that this is a two step process, the unrolling of that tape
produces some fairly energetic free electrons (10+keV), which if they
hit certain substances, cause a high energy photon (aka a x-ray) to be
emitted. Electrons, unlike gammas, are hugely impacted by passing
through a bit of gas, so when there's not a vacuum, the energetic
electrons never make it to the actual site where the x-rays would be
generated.

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/brea...f-scotch-tape/

Learn something new every day…