Powered by TypePad

« Now Gates Is Dubious About Afghanistan | Main | No Will And No Wallet »

October 01, 2009



it is not quick enough to slow a clock

Not noticeably, anyway.

I could understand freshman physics getting by a neurosurgeon, but to have it escape a reporter is quite possibly the least surprising thing that has ever happened.

The NY Times continues its series on dementia

Is that what they've been up to all this time?


Clearly a profile of their editorial board, would exhaust the DSM IV,


Actually the neurosurgeon is closer to the real equation than Maguire.

Kinetic energy = mass x velocity squared.

The EInstein equation is based on that also and it's easier to remember.

Momentum = mass x velocity

Force = mass x acceleration

It's generally the kinetic energy that breaks things in collisions.

Ken Mayer

I think what he meant was F=ma

Ken Mayer

And I think what he also meant was read the article to the end before commenting.

Bill Woods

"Maybe we could just go back to Newton and F=ma."

Presumably he was reaching for the integral thereof:
E = 1/2 m v^2.

Charlie (Colorado)

I'll bet you a dollar that the doc said "E=mv²", referring to the equation for kinetic energy, and the reporter substituted the only equation he/she had ever heard of.


Ah, you're no fun anymore.

Dave (in MA)

He invented the nickel package one day when he accidentally wrote on his suit coat.


4.3 forty? That's not brain surgery; that's rocket science.


Yeah the big guys can run faster and hit harder but overall I think the games are less smashmouth today than years gone by. The games seems to be 90% passing these days but one thing still remains the same...Quarterbacks are pussies!


The doc says "Einstein" -- so, the e=mc2 seems to be what he meant (assuming the NYT didn't add the "Einstein").

But what if he did say Einstein AND was misquoted because he actually said "E = 1/2 m v^2"?

It's fun to contemplate a neurosurgeon who thinks that it was Einstein who developed the classical kinetic energy equation...heh.

Well, fun for this geek :-)


OK - question that is definitely OT - I know the JOMers are more than up to the task:

I have always been against abortion, but even more so when folks expect publicly funded abortions. There is no reason that the Feds should fund abortions when the Federal government can tap all those that do support the procedure in the allocation of $X to a fund that will pay for those who can not afford the procedure. I see this as a win-win as no taxpayer dollars go to a procedure that so many disagree with. Why should taxpayers pay for an "elective procedure"? There are seemingly so many private supporters that should be willing to step up to the plate to pay for these procedures.


Dave--You photoshopped Einstein for Belichek in that one, right?


4.3 is quick enough to clean a clock or two....and every now and then we do see the quantum mechanics in the trenches turn the wrench really hard.

Gregory Koster

Dear Flodigarry: What! Liberals paying for something they want out of their own pockets? Get with it! Liberalism is generosity on an expense account. Not the least attraction for including abortion in national health care is the satisfaction of making all those Palin mouth-breathers pay for something they despise. Massachusetts has had a box on its state income tax returns that allows taxpayers to pay at a higher rate if they choose to do so. How much of the Kennedy/Kerry millions has gone to Mass's coffers? Same for abortion.

It also would concede limits on the federal government. Nevernevernever howl the Harvard grads.

You'll sooner get The Once buying a copy of Sarah Palin's book with his own dough than liberals coughing up for the Real Woman operation.

Dave (in MA)

Boat, check it out.

Manuel Transmission

More OT: frau, sorry I missed your note until now. This has been some of the wettest weather up here in quite a while. We have actually become used to dry weather as a matter of course, which I'm sure we will pay dearly for --oops-- for which we will pay!

btw, it is Manuel just for the pun of it.


If it's E = mc2, then the dementia problem is the least of our worries .. we might be facing a nuclear explosion on the field.

Seriously, those 4.3s will have to get into the 0.000001s range or below to become a nuclear factor.


Back in the day, offense were not allowed to use their hands. To block a defender, they had to use shoulder, forearm or cross-body(now illegal, I think) and actually hit the other guy. The game started getting wussified when they allowed offense to use their hands. That said, modern athletes are bigger, stronger, faster and better trained than back in the day.


OT: Letterman---Star has sex with staff. Ho hum. This is not man bites dog.


OT: What will the fashionistas have to talk about after M O wears the last set of White House drapes?


I hope Dr. Bailes is a much better neurosurgeon than metaphor designer. As astute commentors have already pointed out he's bolixed quantum and Newtonian physics, but 300 pounders running 4.3? I think not, I don't think there's ever been even one in the NFL, much less being a league standard. The fact this quote made it through NY Times editing without correction or even comment in the article, well that's the real sad bit.


"Star has sex with staff."

Doesn't this get you in trouble with the NYS Department of Labor, the EEOC, and sexual harassment laws, not to mention your wife?


There are no linemen running 4.3 40's. None. There's a few backs, receivers, and defensive backs...a few.


I was waiting and it took a while, but Donald finally nails the actual cluelessness. There are no 300-pound guys running 4.3s.

Jim Ryan

Okay, so bottom line, a non-existent football player turned all his mass into energy via Einstein and hurt some brains.


You might have a few 300 pounders running 4.9 40s, possibly in the 4.8s. I'm guessing the biggest person to run a 4.3 is 220 or 230 pounds.

Kind of nit-picky, I know, but a frickin doctor for an NFL team should know this kind of stuff. Screwing it up detracts from the point he's trying to make.


Denninger on the September jobs numbers.



Geez Po.
That was bleak.


Doesn't this get you in trouble with the NYS Department of Labor, the EEOC, and sexual harassment laws, not to mention your wife?

Letterman's a liberal, so it doesn't count, because he's not a hypocrite (which is all that matters). If this story had been about Rush, he'd be toast. O'Reilly was sued for sexual harrassment and was ridiculed by the left, even though nothing was ever proved and he settled out of court.

Thomas Collins

Whoopi Goldberg will probably argue that whatever Letterman did, it was not harassing harassment.


"Geez Po.
That was bleak."

Yeah, I'm trying to put it in context with higher prospective home sales(8k rebate?).


That was bleak.

Denninger's a little over the top on this. There's no question this is a bad report, and he's right about the ominous decline in labor force participation. But that -995,000 number is based on a limited survey, which is why it's not taken seriously as a count of employment or jobs. The -263,000 is probably closer to the truth, though the truth is likely a bit worse.

The bottom line, though, is this is bad news for Barry and his so-called stimulus plan, though I'm sure he and his shills in the media will spin it.


The good doctor may not have his physics terms properly aligned, but he is correct that the major difference between now and then is the speed of play.

There is a significant difference between a shove and a punch. Even though both acts may transmit the same amount of energy they do not cause the same results.

Watch old NFL films, there is much more 'shove' going on, as opposed to now, where the hits are harder, faster, and more direct.

No, there are no 300 pounders running 4.3, but they are still moving much faster than before and they are colliding with 200+ pounders who do run 4.3s.

This has two negative effects, first as noted it increased the kinetic energy present, but second, it also leads to more unanticipated hits, where one or both players do not have time to prepare for impact.





How wrong is it to admit that I wanted my country to fail?

And, I'm happy that it did?


Po, if it's wrong, I don't want to be right.


Barry's record is looking kind of spotty ain't it.



I had that thought as well, but it is a relief!


So, how much did the U.S. taxpayer(or Chinese bondholder) pay for this Junket?


How wrong is it to admit that I wanted my country to fail?

Wrong question. Not being saddled with a costly boondoggle like the Olympics (and is there any doubt that federal money would have ended up supporting this) is a victory for our country.


Watch old NFL films, there is much more 'shove' going on, as opposed to now, where the hits are harder, faster, and more direct.

Yes, but the players have better protective gear than they used to have, and better conditioning and medical care as well. The bottom line is the rate of serious injury. I have no idea whether that's gone up or down.

Manuel Transmission


Mrs. M/T says "mmmm, mmmm, mmmm." (Rush is doing that this morning.) I suspect we have a new expression in our lexicon.

The comments to this entry are closed.