The “losing weight” trend is one of the better outcomes of reality TV, and it encourages people to take charge of their lives and live a healthier life.

But there’s one thing that bugs me about this trend: The terminology.

Folks, you lose weight every time you go down a fast elevator. What you actually want is to lose mass. Since your weight is affected by your mass, it will mean that your body will weigh less on the scales the less massive it is, but the goal is not your weight, the goal is your mass.

“Burning fat” and getting rid of excess calories along with training in the gym will make you leaner, thinner, and less massive.

The force that a leaner body exerts on the floor is less than the force a big body exerts on the floor, but what you work on when you want to “lose weight” is, in fact, shaping your body’s mass: losing the mass of fat and/or gaining the mass of muscle.

I can lose weight without touching my mass by simulating a “weightlessness” situation, or by getting close to it.

For example, try riding up and down an elevator while standing on a scale.

When the elevator accelerates downwards, it is moving away from your feet and your body is, essentially, in a condition of “falling”. That decreases the force it exerts on the floor, and you experience a state of semi-weightlessness, depending how strong the elevator’s acceleration is.

When the elevator accelerates upwards, the force your body exerts on the floor is now increassed, because the floor goes up faster than your body can chase it, and your feet are pushed down towards the floor.

Congratulations, you just gained and lost weight in a few minutes.

If you want to be lighter, jump off a plane (with a parachute, please). The state of a ‘free fall‘ your body will be in for the first moments will simulate weightlessness. In these situations your weight is zero, but your mass -- the particles that make you “you” didn’t go anywhere.

And though you just lost weight, that does not make you thin.

The term “Weight Loss” is so engrained in our society, that it will be futile of me to try and get you to stop using it. That does not mean, however, that you can’t understand the physics behind those terms.

So, remember: If your goal is to lose weight, ride down an elevator or jump off a plane with a parachute.  If your goal is to be leaner, excercise and eat right, and get rid of that mass of fat that surrounds your muscles.

Alternatively, you can go live on the International Space Station, where weight is not an issue.

Resources and References

• Weightlessness in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightlessness
• “The Biggest Loser” show: http://www.nbc.com/The_Biggest_Loser/

Credits

• Music from http://www.freeplaymusic.com
• “Houston” Mission Control voice: Daniel

Picture Credits (used in the video)

• I heart Nerds T Shirt http://www.flickr.com/photos/elvissa/880588709/
• (Featured photo) Scale http://www.flickr.com/photos/restlessglobetrotter/2929270640/
• Hamburger http://www.flickr.com/photos/jesswebb/2633566137/
• Obese dog http://www.flickr.com/photos/34428760@N03/3202436425/
• Lean dog http://www.flickr.com/photos/draplin/912213752/
• Pyramid http://www.flickr.com/photos/swamibu/2223726960/
• Sky scraper http://www.flickr.com/photos/nogood/220232524/
• Jumping off the roof http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulbence/93988862/
• Elevator free fall http://www.flickr.com/photos/bass_nroll/2215862793/
• Rollercoaster http://www.flickr.com/photos/mprinke/1139986131/
• Gym http://www.flickr.com/photos/abraj/181196330/
• Veggies http://www.flickr.com/photos/valjk/634696442/
• Obesity http://www.flickr.com/photos/combinedmedia/3067501298/
• Iron man http://www.flickr.com/photos/sscusp/242103879/
• Big man with coke http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatmandy/165144643/
• Weight loss http://www.flickr.com/photos/vernonwhite/3327754571/
• Baby cringe http://www.flickr.com/photos/craigforsyth/2384364393/
• Skydiving http://www.flickr.com/photos/gogap/423485388/
• Leaner http://www.flickr.com/photos/christinielsen/97438813/
• Exercise http://www.flickr.com/photos/n8kowald/1467191600/

Related posts

• How could Ilan Ramon’s Diary Survive the Fall from Space? (12)
• Top 10 Ways to Know the Earth is Not Flat (14)
• Goofing around with Non-Newtonian [Goo] Fluid (3)
• A Physics Party Trick that Sucks… Liquid (8)
• A Party Trick for the Watery Dense.. (7)

A little while ago, the Israeli Museum in Jerusalem opened an exhibit featuring some of the torn, slightly burned pages of Col. Ilan Ramon’s personal diary from the shuttle Columbia. Ramon was the payload specialist onboard STS-107 (the spaceshuttle “Columbia”) that disintegrated during re-entry from space, killing all 7 crewmembers onboard. The diary survived the re-entry and subsequent crash, and was found in a field next to Palestine, TX.

Ramon’s personal diary fell close to 37 miles (almost 60 km) through the extreme conditions of re-entry. Unlike its human owner, it has survived the process and is now being restored and presented to the public in the Israeli Museum in Jerusalem.

During the weeks and months after the Columbia disaster, pieces of the debris were still being collected from wide areas in Texas. small pieces of insulation that detached from the outer parts of the shuttle to pieces of the Astronauts’ space suits. In an article covering the subject on “Universe Today”, The Israeli Museum curator is quoted as saying that “There is no rational explanation for how it was recovered when most of the shuttle was not.” It is no wonder, then, that many are awe-struck at such an apparent miracle.

But is there, really, no rational explanation for the survival of the diary? None at all? I doubt that. And when I doubt, I check it out, which is exactly what I am about to do.

A thought (or two) about Hypotheses

The information about the Columbia disaster is available in many online and offline sources, but it is still very limited. We can guesstimate what happened to certain parts of the shuttle based on facts on the ground and what we already know from previous manned missions to space using the Columbia shuttle.

The general investigation I am about to embark on in this post is based on the material I have found online and my own personal knowledge, strengthened by facts from other missions and physical concepts. It is by no means complete, and I had no time (or resources, sadly) to do a full blown investigation into the full train of events that Col. Ramon’s diary went through. If you have any thoughts on the matter, or if you hold any factual data that will help hypothesize what it “went through” in the moments before hitting the ground, please share them in the comment section. I am very much willing to update and upgrade this hypothesis in light of new information or ideas (just make sure you base those on valid data, of course).

I try to support my guesstimates with valid data when I can, and use ‘extremes’ to get us a rough idea of how this discovery (and this ’survival’ of such an item) is possible.

The Space Shuttle – Crew Quarters

The space shuttle is built to sustain its crew for days (and sometimes weeks) in space. It has sleeping bunks, restroom and shower, all located in the crew area in the “Mid Deck” (picture is taken from Space Shuttle News Reference (NASA), p 5-5):

According to ex-astronaut R. Mike Mullane, the mid deck also holds the crew personal lockers (“Do Your Ears Pop in Space”, R.  Mike Mullane, pg 135). We will remember this fact when we consider the process in which the Columbia disintegrated (keep reading).

Where was the Diary Located?

No one can know for sure (at least not from the published data that I’ve read) where the diary was located before the Columbia’s disastrous descent. However, there are a few facts we can be sure of:

• The crew was about to come home; their personal items were, most likely, locked away in their personal lockers, that are located in the Mid Deck.
• According to astronauts who were active in previous missions, a diary is sometimes put in the lower pocket of the flight suit. If the diary wasn’t locked away in Ramon’s personal locker, it is logical it was safely tucked into his flight suit pocket.  Flight suits are very durable and tolerate extreme heat and cold conditions.

Either way, it seems logical to assume that the diary was placed somewhere that kept it safe from the initial processes of re-entry and descent.

Temperature Variation

Unlike common belief, the intense heat on the wings and body of a space shuttle as it descends from Space is not caused by friction, but rather by ‘compression’. The big body of the shuttle compresses air molecules downwards so strongly that the air around the shuttle becomes dense and packed like plasma. At this point, the wing-edge temperature naturally rise, and can reach a temperature of about 1,400° Celcius (2,500° Fahrenheit).

After the initial temperature rises, the Columbia initiated a roll to the right, a maneuver that decreases its speed and the heat on its body. This maneuver was successfully performed, and following it were 10 minutes where the heat on the body of the shuttle reached its peak. From there, it started to cool down.

The temperature at these heights is extremely low, and the heat from the shuttle can dissipate relatively quickly.

Explosion vs. Disintegration

About 15 minutes after the Columbia entered the Earth’s atmosphere, pieces of debris were visibly shedding out of its body. But the Columbia did not explode, it disintegrated, and this difference is very important to understand what happened to the parts inside the shuttle.

Explosion and Disintegration are two very different processes.

• Explosion (from Merriam Webster Dictionary):a large-scale, rapid, or spectacular expansion or bursting out or forth.
• Disintegration (from Merriam Webster Dictionary): 1 : to break or separate into constituent elements or parts 2 : to lose unity or integrity by or as if by breaking into parts.

Explosion is quick and “dirty”, resulting in a lot of damage to the individual parts. Disintegration is the breaking apart of the whole into individual, smaller, parts. It is usually slower, and gradual. The Columbia’s disintegration began about 10 minutes after re-entry and lasted until the massive body crashed on the surface. The various parts and debris were scattered over an enormous area, from eastern Texas to Western Louisiana.

The fact that the Columbia disintegrated, rather than exploded, has two main meanings for our investigation:

1. The Columbia did not ‘explode’ all at once; it took time for the various parts to separate away from the main body while the shuttle was cooling down in descent.
2. In an explosion, the parts heat up due to the exerted energy. When a body disintegrates, the parts separate away from the body without experiencing any sort of extra heat. If a piece was deep inside the shuttle, it wasn’t subjected for the intense heat from the plasma (during re entry). It would take it longer to be thrown-away and out of the body of the shuttle. It would, therefore, “spend” less time free-falling.

The objects inside the Columbia slowly broke apart and began a gradual free-fall to the ground, from varying heights, the largest of which is approximately 60 km above the surface of the Earth.

Disintegration = Change in Shape

The shuttle is designed and built for aerodynamic movement. From the nose, to the wings and tail, the purpose is to make sure its movement in the air is smooth and with as little drag as possible. This is meant to decrease drag and allow the pilot better control over the movement of the shuttle once it’s back inside the atmosphere.

Aerodynamic objects move very quickly through the air because of their shape. But Columbia began disintegrating about 40 minutes after initiating the ‘de-orbiting’ maneuver. Parts tore off its body, probably starting with the wings and tail (that ’stick out’ of the body and are subjected to more heat and pressures). Once those pieces – and pieces of the outer hull – tore off, the Columbia lost its aerodynamic shape. From this point on, it will slow down dramatically.

Terminal Velocity of an Object

In reality, when an object falls from a certain height down to the ground, its velocity increases because of the pull of gravity. Air resistance, however, exerts a force upwards – “fighting” the downward acceleration. When both forces are equal, they both negate one another, and the object falls in a constant speed (without the effect of any acceleration). That speed is called ‘terminal velocity‘.

For example, a sky diver falling from 12,000 feet would stop accelerating (hence, would move at a constant speed) at about 200 kph (124 mph). If his parachute didn’t open, he would hit the ground at the same force that a motorcyclist going at 200kph would hit a cement wall in case of a head-on collision (don’t try this at home). The height, in the case of the speeding diary, is not a very good indicator as to the force it hit the ground with.

Terminal Velocity and the Falling Diary

Assuming the diary was protected during the initial stages of the disastrous descent (as I’ve already explained), it shouldn’t have fallen as fast as it may sound like. When we hear the height “60 km above ground”, it sounds as if the falling object would hit the ground at enormous speed (and force). That, however, isn’t the case, because of the terminal velocity.

It is very much possible that the diary was packed or partially protected during parts of the fall, stopped accelerating at the terminal velocity. The pieces continued to disintegrate as they fell, and at some point whatever ‘protected’ the diary disintegrated and exposed it to the full force of the fall. But by that time the conditions that existed at the beginning of the fall were considerably lessened.

Conclusion

• Based on past missions and the structure of the Space Shuttle, we can safely assume the diary was encapsulated inside an item that protected it, either a closed locker or a sealed space suit pocket.
• Air resistance (and the laws of physics) makes the speed of falling objects limited.
• The diary was found in a damp field covered with soft leafs (provided a relatively soft landing).
• Other pieces of debris survived the long extreme fall to Earth (see next section).

Based on all the above, it is a bit easier to see a logical trail of events that could lead to the survival of a paper diary. This isn’t a miracle; it’s a surviving piece of history in light of a horrible, disastrous space mission.

A bit of Realism (Other objects made it, too..)

So we’ve examined the situation, and saw that it’s not as unlikely as we might have first thought for such an item to survive the Columbia disaster. A lot of other debris have survived, including ’sensitive’ materials such as CPU boards and pieces of cloth from the astronauts’ uniforms and rest area. But we also need to take into account the condition in which the diary was found.

According to the State of Israel Ministry of Public Security, which was responsible for the reconstruction and preservation of these pages, the diary was very hard to decipher. It was found wet, torn and crumpled in a muddy field (see picture). The efforts involved a lot of digitized reconstruction along with some measure of guesswork. Some of the text on the pages was simply incomprehensible.

That said, it is also important to remember that this is not the most “surprising” piece of debris that “survived” re-entry. If you want surprise, it is reported that a few worms survived re-entry and the fall to Earth. Yes, alive. A piece of crumpled, wet, torn paper, as emotional and touching as it may be (and I agree that it is), is hardly any competition to life forms surviving the fall to Earth.

This is no miracle.

Many thanks to Capn_Refsmmat for (again!) being the brevity King, and for asking questions that needed to be answered.

References and Resources

• The Physics of Space Shuttle Re-Entry: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A6381038
• Report of Columbia Accident Investigation Board, Volume I: http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/home/CAIB_Vol1.html
• Space Shuttle Orbiter Specifications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_orbiter#Specifications
• Columbia Accident Investigation Board (Official Site): http://caib.nasa.gov/
• STS107 Reentry Timeline:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster#Destruction_during_re-entry
• Space Shuttle Blueprints: http://www.militaryfactory.com/blueprints/spaceshuttle.asp
• Space Shuttle Operational Book: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/sodb/
• Columbia debris adds to re-entry research: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5333706/
• Columbia Breaks Up During Reentry; NASA Fears Crew Lost: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=722
• Israeli Ministry of Public Security: http://www.mops.gov.il/nr/exeres/BD8C3AB6-6D05-462F-91B3-AA98E3986B24.htm

Related articles by Zemanta

• ‘Columbia’ Astronaut’s Diary Goes on Display
• Diary Survives 37-Mile Fall To Earth
• Israel astronaut diary on display
• Hard drive recovered from shuttle Columbia used to complete experiment

Related posts

• Olympic Controversy: How does the “Space-Age Swimsuit” Work? (4)
• Top 10 Ways to Know the Earth is Not Flat (14)
• Losing Weight? Losing Mass! (5)
• Duckies and the Doppler Effect (9)
• A Party Trick for the Watery Dense.. (7)

Humanity has known the Earth to be round for a few millenia and I’ve been meaning to refine that video and show more of these methods of how we figured out the world is not flat. I’ve had a few ideas on how to do that, but recently got an interesting incentive, when Phil Plait (The Bad Astronomer) wrote about a recently published BBC article about “The Flat Earth” society. Phil claims it’s ridiculous to even bother rebutting the flat earth society – and I tend to agree. But the history of our species’ intellectual pursuit is important and interesting, and it’s very much well worth writing about. You don’t need to denounce all science and knowledge and believe in a kooky conspiracy theory to enjoy some historical factoids about humanity’s quest for space.

Though I have researched this subject, I am quite certain there will be much more to be said about it – feel free to add more in the comments. If all goes well, this might actually be a good post to refer to whenever anyone wants to discuss a bit of ancient science and the source of cosmological thought.

On we go to the top 10 ways to know the Earth is unequivocally, absolutely, positively, 100% not flat:

(1) The Moon

Now that humanity knows quite positively that the Moon is not a piece of cheese or a playful god, the phenomena that accompany it (from its monthly cycles to lunar eclipses) are well-explained. It was quite a mystery to the ancient Greeks, though, and in their quest for knowledge, they came up with a few insightful observations that helped humanity figure out the shape of our planet.

Aristotle (who made quite a lot of observations about the spherical nature of the Earth) noticed that during lunar eclipses (when the Earth’s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon, creating a shadow in the process), the shadow on the Moon’s surface is round. This shadow is the Earth’s, and it’s a great clue on the spherical shape of the Earth.

Since the earth is rotating (see the “Foucault Pendulum” experiment for a definite proof, if you are doubtful), the consistent oval-shadow it produces in each and every lunar eclipse proves that the earth is not only round but spherical – absolutely, utterly, beyond a shadow of a doubt not flat.

Refer to the following image from Wikipedia for more details on what happens during a lunar eclipse:

Click for the Original

(2) Ships and the Horizon

If you’ve been next to a port lately, or just strolled down a beach and stared off vacantly into the horizon, you might have, perhaps, noticed a very interesting phenomenon: approaching ships do not just “appear” out of the horizon (like they should have if the world was flat), but rather emerge from beneath the sea.

But – you say – ships do not submerge and rise up again as they approach our view (except in “Pirates of the Caribbean”, but we are hereby assuming that was a fictitious movie). The reason ships appear as if they “emerge from the waves” is because the world is not flat: it’s round.

Imagine an ant walking along the surface of an orange, into your field of view. If you look at the orange “head on”, you will see the ant’s body slowly rising up from the “horizon”, because of the curvature of the Orange. If you would do that experiment with a long road, the effect would have changed: The ant would have slowly ‘materialized’ into view, depending on how sharp your vision is.

(3) Varying Star Constellations

This observation was originally made by Aristotle (384-322 BCE), who declared the Earth was round judging from the different constellations one sees while moving away from the equator.

After returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that “there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” This phenomenon can only be explained with a round surface, and Aristotle continued and claimed that the sphere of the Earth is “of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent.” (De caelo, 298a2-10)

The farther you go from the equator, the farther the ‘known’ constellations go towards the horizon, and are replaced by different stars. This would not have happened if the world was flat:

(4) Shadows and Sticks

If you stick a stick in the [sticky] ground, it will produce a shadow. The shadow moves as time passes (which is the principle for ancient Shadow Clocks). If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow:

But they don’t. This is because the earth is round, and not flat:

Eratosthenes (276-194 BCE) used this principle to calculate the circumference of the Earth quite accurately. To see this demonstrated, refer to my experiment video about Eratosthenes and the circumference of the earth – “The Earth’s curvature is tasty!“.

(5) Seeing Farther from Higher

Standing in a flat plateau, you look ahead of you towards the horizon. You strain your eyes, then take out your favorite binoculars and stare through them, as far as your eyes (with the help of the binocular lenses) can see.

Then, you climb up the closest tree – the higher the better, just be careful not to drop those binoculars and break their lenses. You then look again, strain your eyes, stare through the binoculars out to the horizon.

The higher up you are the farther you will see. Usually, we tend to relate this to Earthly obstacles, like the fact we have houses or other trees obstructing our vision on the ground, and climbing upwards we have a clear view, but that’s not the true reason. Even if you would have a completely clear plateau with no obstacles between you and the horizon, you would see much farther from greater height than you would on the ground.

This phenomena is caused by the curvature of the Earth as well, and would not happen if the Earth was flat:

(6) Ride a Plane

If you’ve ever taken a trip out of the country, specifically long-destination trips, you could notice two interesting facts about planes and the Earth:

• Planes can travel in a relatively straight line a very long time and not fall off any edges. They can also, theoretically (and some do, though with stops along the way), circle the earth.
  Correction (Courtesy of Klaynos, from scienceforums.net): Apparently, planes can circle the Earth without stopping!
• If you look out the window on a trans-Atlantic flight, you can, most of the times, see the curvature of the earth in the horizon. The best view of the curvature used to be on the Concorde, but that plane’s long gone. I can’t wait seeing the pictures from the new plane by “Virgin Galactic” – the horizon should look absolutely curved, as it actually is from a distance.

(A picture of the curved horizon from a Concorde plane can be seen here).

(7) Look at Other Planets

The Earth is different from other planets, that much is true. After all, we have life, and we haven’t found any other planets with life (yet). However, there are certain characteristics all planets have, and it will be quite logical to assume that if all planets behave a certain way, or show certain characteristics – specifically if those planets are in different places or were created under different circumstances – our planet is the same.

In other words: If so many planets that were created in different locations and under different circumstances show the same property, it’s likely that our own planet has the same property as well. All of our observations show planets are spherical (and since we know how they’re created, it’s also obvious why they are taking this shape). Unless we have a very good reason to think otherwise (which we don’t), our planet is very likely the same.

In 1610, Galileo Galilei observed the moons of Jupiter rotating around it (click here to see a beautiful video reconstruction of his observations). He described them as small planets orbiting a larger planet – a description (and observation) that was very difficult for the church to accept as it followed a geocentric model where everything was supposed to revolve around the Earth. This observation also showed that the planets (Jupiter, Neptune, and later Venus was observed too) are all spherical, and all orbit the sun.

A flat planet (ours or any other planet) would be such an incredible observation that it would pretty much go against everything we know about how planets form and behave. It would not only change everything we know about planet formation, but also about star formation (as our sun would have to behave quite differently to accustom a “flat earth” theory), what we know of speeds and movements in space (like planets orbits, and the effects of gravity, etc). In short, we don’t just suspect that our planet is spherical. We know it.

(8) The Existence of Timezones

The time in New York, at the moment these words are written, is 12:00pm. The sun is in the middle of the sky (though it’s hard to see with the current cloud coverage). In Beijing, where Michael Phelps is likely getting ready for yet another gold medal, it’s 12:00am, midnight, and the sun is nowhere to be found.

In Adelaide, Australia, it is 1:30am. More than 13 hours ahead. There, the sunset is long gone – so much so, that it’s soon going to rise up again in the beginning of a new day. Here’s a list showing what time it is around the world when it is 12:00pm in New York city.

This can only be explained if the world is round, and rotating around its own axis. At a certain point when the sun is shining on one part of the Earth, the opposite side is dark, and vise versa. That allows for time differences and timezones, specifically ones that are larger than 12 hours.

Another point concerning timezones, the sun and flat/spherical Earth: If the sun was a “spotlight” (very directionally located so that light only shines on a specific location) and the world was flat, we would have seen the sun even if it didn’t shine on top of us (as you can see in the drawing below). The same way you can see the light coming out of a spotlight on a stage in the theater, even though you – the crowd – are in the dark. The only way to create two distinctly separate timezones, where there is complete darkness in one while there’s light in the other, is if the world is spherical.

(9) The Center of Gravity

There’s an interesting fact about mass: it attracts things to it. The force of attraction (gravity) between two objects depends on their mass and the distance between them. Simply said, gravity will pull toward the center of mass of the objects. To find the center of mass, you have to examine the object.

Consider a sphere. Since a sphere has a consistent shape, no matter where on it you stand, you have exactly the same amount of sphere under you. Imagine an ant (perhaps the same one from the previous point) walking around on a crystal ball. Assuming the crystal ball is polished, the ant’s only indication of movement would be the fact it’s moving its feet. The scenery (and shape of the surface) would not change at all.

Consider a flat plane. The center of mass of a flat plane is in its center (more or less – if you want to be more accurate, feel free to do the entire [shriek] integration [shriek] process), and the force of gravity will pull a person toward the middle of the plain. That means that if you stand on the edge of the plane, gravity will be pulling you toward the middle, not straight down like you usually experience.

I am quite positive that even for Australians an apple falls downwards, but if you have your doubts, I urge you to try it out – just make sure it’s nothing that can break or hurt you. Just in case gravity is consistent after all.

Further reading about the center of mass and about distribution of mass can be found here. And if you are brave enough to handle some equations (not involving integration), you can learn some more about Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.

(10) Images from Space

In the past 60 years of the space exploration era of humanity’s history, we’ve launched satellites, probes and people to space. Some of them got back, some of them still float through the solar system (and almost beyond it) and transmit amazing images over to our receivers on Earth.

Here’s a list of some of the pictures we’ve seen from space throughout the years:

October 24, 1946: A group of scientists in the New Mexico desert saw the first grainy photo of the Earth. The photograph was taken from a height of 65 miles (104.6 kilometers) by a 35-millimeter motion picture camera riding on a V-2 missile.

August 14, 1959: First crude photo of the Earth from the Explorer VI satellite. The photo showed a sun-lit area of the Pacific ocean and cloud coverage. It was taken from about 17,000 miles (27,350 kilometers) above the surface.

(Image Courtesy of the NASA GRIN Website)

June 5, 1966: Astronaut Eugene Cernan took this amazing picture of Gemini 9 and the Earth during his EVA (Extravehicular Activity). The spacecraft itself and Cernan’s “umbilical” (the cord that keeps him connected to the spacecraft’s systems) are visible on top of a beautiful background of the Earth.
(Image Courtesy of the NASA GRIN Website)

August 23, 1966: First view of Earth from the Moon. This picture was taken by Lunar Orbiter I when the spacecraft was on its 16th orbit and was just about to pass behind the Moon. (Image Courtesy of the NASA GRIN Website)

December 29, 1966: A spectacular view of the rising Earth from the Moon, taken by the crew of Apollo 8 after coming out from the other side of the Moon, approximately 239,000 miles (384,000 kilometers) from Earth.

(Image Courtesy of the NASA GRIN Website)

December 1, 1968: Photo of Earth from Apollo 8. This photograph was taken by an 80-mm lense, at a point very close to the Moon.

(Image Courtesy of the NASA GRIN Website)

More pictures from the NASA Missions throughout the years can be found at NASA GRIN Website: http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/index.html

Brief List of Manned Missions to Space

In the past 60 years humanity’s quest for Space has produced hundreds of pictures, videos and audio records from more than just the United States. Some of these countries used to be enemies. Some still are. The amount of proofs, from opposing countries and ’sides’, for the non-flatness of the Earth, if nothing else, should cast serious doubt on any possibility for the existance of “Global Conspiracy”. Here is an abbreviated list of some of the first missions to space:

• April 12, 1961 (USSR; Vostok-1): Yuri Gagarin, becomes first man in space.
• May 5, 1961 (USA; Mercury-3): Alan Shepard becomes first American in space.
• July 21, 1961 (USA; Mercury-4): Gus Grissom performs the second sub-orbital flight at an altitude of 126 miles (203 kilometers).
• August 6, 1961 (USSR; Vostok-2): Gherman Titov becomes the first man to spend an entire day in space.
• February 20, 1962 (USA; Mercury-6): John Glenn orbits the Earth at a distance of 100-162 miles (161-261 kilometers).
• May 24, 1962 (USA; Mercury-7): Scott Carpenter orbits the Earth three times.
• August 11, 1962 (USSR; Vostok-3): Andrian Nikolayev leads the first four-day flight, and first “group” flight with Vostok-4.
• August 12, 1962 (USSR; Vostok-4): Pavel Popovich mans the other half of the “group” flight with Vostok-4.
• October 3, 1962 (USA; Mercury-8): Walter Schirra orbits the Earth six times.
• May 15, 1963 (USA; Mercury-9): Gordon Cooper pilots the longest (and last) Mercury mission, lasting 34 hours in space.
• June 14, 1963 (USSR; Vostok-5): Valery Bykovsky is the first to stay 5 days in space.
• June 16, 1963 (USSR, Vostok-6): Valentina Tereshkova becomes the first woman in space, spending three days in orbit.

You can find a full list of the chronology of manned space missions at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

More Methods Throughout History

• Abu Rayhan Biruni (sometimes known as “The Father of Geodesy“), has managed to calculate the circumference of the Earth using complex triangulation equations. I couldn’t find the actual calculation, or the method, so I can’t judge it this as a relatively easy “DIY” way to do it, but it’s still worth mentioning. If anyone has any more information about the method used, do post in the comments.
• Bedford Level Experiment: At the Bedford river in Norfolk, England. The experiments were done initially in order to prove that the Earth is flat. Though the first results of this experiment seemed to agree with the flat-earth contention, later attempts to repeat this experiment agreed with the fact that the Earth is, in fact, spherical.
• A Bit of History: Neil Armstrong narrating this video of the Earth as viewed from the Apollo 11 Command Module on its way to the Moon.

Extra Credits and Thanks

This is a very long post, but it was fun to write (and learn about!). There is some credit due to other people, and I am not one to hold out the cheers:

• Klaynos, from scienceforums, for his Physics mastery late at night.
• insane_alien from scienceforums, for directing me on the path of a good #9.
• Cap’n Refsmmat from scienceforums, for clarity issues, physics help, and saving you (the reader) some of my ramblings.
• Keren, for her editorial help and general (good) advice.
• Daniel and KerenG, for their mental and grammatical support.

Extra Resources

• Who figured out the Earth is round?
  http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question54.html
• Earth from Space (from NASA)
  http://earth.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/efs/
• First Photo from Space 1946: http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/FEATURE-FirstPhoto.html
• History Channel’s “History of Space Exploration” interactive website (with Videos):
• http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=51655&display_order=5&mini_id=1438
• Non stop flight around the world: http://www.didyouknow.cd/aroundtheworld/flight.htm
• Foucault Pendulum (in Wikipedia)
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
• Galileo Galilei (in Wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
• Galileo’s Observations and Inventions: http://www.2020site.org/galileo/observations.html
• Spherical Earth (in Wikipedia)
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth
• The Flat Earth: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flateart.htm
• Lunar Eclipse (in Wikipedia)
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_eclipse
• History of Geodesy (in Wikipedia)
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy

Related posts

• How could Ilan Ramon’s Diary Survive the Fall from Space? (12)
• The earth’s curvature is tasty (4)
• The Amazing Meeting 6! (0)
• Losing Weight? Losing Mass! (5)
• An otherwise straight beam of light… (5)

Many sites out there reiterate the controversy, but few actually explain what and why it is. In other words: What, really, is the effect of a swimsuit on a swimmer? Why would it give an “unfair advantage”? Can a “Space-Age” swimsuit help Michael Phelps reach his 8-medal dream?

Speedo LZR Racer Swimsuit Official Webpage

Since this subject raises some controversy and doubt, I decided I should check it out. I went to Speedo’s official website and read through all their specifications for the Speedo LZR RACER swimsuit (the source of the controversy, and the one Michael Phelps is wearing) and examined each feature.

But First: Physics in a Nutshell

When looking at moving objects (like balls, or planes, or rockets, or swimmers), there are forces at work. The swimmer exerts force forward and spends energy “fighting” whatever other forces that might be applied in the opposite way.

In physics, in order to predict the speed or acceleration of a certain object, we can draw a rough schematic of the known forces that apply on the object. The sum of all the forces (forward, backward, up, down, diagonal, etc) is the final force.

For more on what a Force is, click here.

About Friction and Drag

In general, every moving object (unless it is in a vacuum, which is very hard to achieve) is affected by friction. The amount of friction depends on the material that the movement is performed on. Ice has a relatively low friction, while cement has a relatively high friction.

Drag is very similar to friction; it is a mechanical force (see above figure) that is exerted on a solid object moving through liquid. The interaction between the moving object and the liquid that it moves through creates a “backwards” force that slows that object down. That force is drag.

Drag depends on the shape of the object and its aerodynamic form. Bulky objects will “suffer” more drag and will be slowed down quicker. Slick objects will have less drag.

That’s why the dog (furry and bulky) can’t swim as fast as the shark (slick and aerodynamic). Poor, poor dog.

The Speedo LZR RACER’s Features, Explained

LZR Pulse:

The official website claims that the suit is made of “ultra lightweight, powerful and water-repellent” material, and that it reduces “muscle oscillation and skin vibration”, which in turn leads to “low skin friction drag”.

The LZR Pulse swimsuit claims to shape the swimmer’s body, forcing his (or her) muscles and skin into a bullet-shape aerodynamic structure that reduces the drag – and allows the swimmer to move faster while expending less energy.

The water-repellent feature of the swimsuit essentially causes it to have less interaction with the water. Since drag is caused by the interaction of the swimmer and the water, this feature will reduce the drag (and friction) even more.

Finally, as you could see in the video (embedded at the end of this post, produced by Speedo), the swimmers’ muscles oscillate — move back and forth quickly — while water is flowing at them.

This muscle-oscillation causes the muscles to change shape, which causes the aurodynamic property of the swimmer’s body to change also. In order to maintain the ideal aerodynamic shape, the swimsuit holds the muscles tightly and produces a slick, stable surface that reduces surface tension, increases the velocity of the water flow next to the body, and eases the movement of the swimmer.

LZR Panels

Speedo’s official website claims that the swimsuit has “ultra thin, ultra powerful, ultra low drag” panels that are embedded “at strategic points on the swimmer’s body”, which are meant to “deliver optimum streamlined shape and drag reduction”.

The Shape is one of the most important factors in drag reduction and the creation of an aerodynamic structure. As we said before, bulky objects are subjected to more drag (and more friction), and streamlined objects (like the shark) are subjected to less drag.

The main reason for this is the flows that are created from the movement of the object inside the liquid. Something very similar happens within winds (in case of a plane) or water (in case of Michael Phelps). The liquid flows either slow the swimmer down or make him (or her!) move more easily.

Aerodymanic flows on an airplane wing. Source: http://www.classicairshows.com/

The above depends on the shape, and that’s what the suit claims to produce: A better aerodynamic shape for the swimmer’s body, depending on key areas that might usually produce more of a problem for such structure.

Core Stabilizer

The “internal Core Stabilizer” is, according to Speedo, like a corset; it “helps [the swimmers] maintain the best body position in the water for longer”.

The human body is not exactly aerodynamic in nature, and part of a swimmer’s training is to learn how to hold himself in the water so his body takes the best aerodynamic shape possible. Maintaining this position – specifically in the water – also takes energy from the swimmer. If, indeed, the swimsuit “holds the swimmer in a corset-like grip”, it can assist him (or her) in the effort to hold their bodies in the proper position, and help them spend that energy on gaining speed instead.

Bonded Seams

The LZR Racer claims to be the “first fully bonded swimsuit.” The problem with seams, usually, is that they have stitches. Stitches are adding mass and weight to the fabric (not only the string itself, but also the fact that stitches require folding the fabric, hence increasing the amount of fabric in that location), and they are also bulkier. Eliminating the stitches will make the suit lighter and without unnecessary ‘bulks’, thereby improving the aerodynamics.

Speedo claims that the LZR Racer has “Ultrasonic welded” seams. The seams are not ’sewn’ but welded, which means that no string is used, and no folds are needed. Ultrasonic welding is a technique that uses high-frequency vibrations on a material under pressure to seamlessly bond two pieces together. The main feature of such technique is that no soldering material or any sort of glue is needed – hence no extra weight, folds or bulks are produced and the suit remains seamless and homogenous.

Ultra Low Profile Zip

This is nothing new; the zipper is “bonded into the suit”, which is common in all swimming suits to make sure that the bulky shape of a zipper doesn’t stand out of the overall shape of the swimmer’s body, and interrupts the water flows.

Unique 3D Three Piece Pattern

The claim on this feature is that the suit is “Dynamically engineered to optimise the shape of the swimmer” (all ye Americans – they mean ‘optimize’). This seems to be mostly a sales pitch; it’s not much different that their “Unique Core Stabiliser” (again, the British spelling).

Summary

Additional Side Note: In order to claim that the suit makes the records rather than the swimmer, or that there is a truly ‘unfair advantage’ for the swimmers who wear this suit, it’s not enough to just see the claims Speedo is making. What needs to be done is have Michael Phelps try out his world-record-breaking with this suit, and with a different suit; if there is an overwhelming difference in the results, perhaps there’s a cause for complaint from other swimmers. Seeing, however, the amount of records (and the overall achievements) in Michael Phelps’ athletic history, claiming that it’s the suit that makes the record might be doing some serious injustice to this obviously-talented swimmer.

All in all, the Speedo RZR Racer swimsuit looks absolutely beautiful, and its claims do fit with reality and physics. As to whether or not it is giving the swimmer an “unfair advantage”, I can’t judge, since I haven’t compared it to any other – perhaps similar – swimsuit in the market.

What I can say quite confidently, however, is that regardless of its features, the person wearing the suit needs to know what he (or she!) is doing. In other words, I could wear this suit ’till my face turns blue (which will probably happen pretty fast, judging from the ‘corset-like grip’) and I’d still never have gotten anywhere close to Michael Phelps’ (or any of the other Olympic swimmers) speed.

That said, I can also summarize this analysis by concluding quite confidently that this suit is, most definitely, better than the one originally worn by Olympic swimmers. They, by the way, used to swim nude.

YouTube Promotional Video

Extra Resources:

• Speedo LZR Racer Official Website: http://www.speedo80.com/lzr-racer/
• What is a Force? http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/Class/newtlaws/u2l2a.html
• What is drag? (NASA Website): http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/drag1.html
• Ultrasonic Welding (from Wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasonic_welding

Related posts

• How could Ilan Ramon’s Diary Survive the Fall from Space? (12)
• A Physics Party Trick that Sucks… Liquid (8)
• Goofing around with Non-Newtonian [Goo] Fluid (3)
• Duckies and the Doppler Effect (9)
• Bending Water with a Plastic Comb (12)

Image via Wikipedia

Awesome news came out yesterday about the JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation, that is responsible for The Amazing Meeting, among other things): Phil Plait (”The Bad Astronomer“) is the new President of the JREF! How awesome is that?

Check out the announcement on the Bad Astronomy blog!

Okay, beyond the fact that I have met Phil in TAM6 and he truly is a great guy, he is also an Astronomer, which means that the odds of having a TAM on the moon just increased… Okay, maybe not. But that won’t keep me from hoping.

So lots of luck and “Mazl Tov”, Phil Plait, for the new position! And if I am allowed a moment of pure selfishness: I hope this new (probably time-consuming) position decrease the amount of the quality posts in the Bad Astronomy blog so that I – and the other fans – can keep having quality Astronomy to read. It’s all about me, of course.

So head on the the Bad Astronomy blog and send Phil your congratulations!

Related posts

• The Amazing Meeting 6! (0)
• Top 10 Ways to Know the Earth is Not Flat (14)
• Richard Saunders in 3D (and 2D) (2)
• How could Ilan Ramon’s Diary Survive the Fall from Space? (12)

CNN "Moost Unusual" Screenshot

“Montauk Monster” Discovered
Leathery Beast Washed Ashore

Ignoring the claim for a ‘discovery’ (Nobel prize, anyone?) of a Montauk Monster (is ‘monster’ the species and ‘montauk’ the subspecies?) I had one big issue here that jumped to my mind and wouldn’t let go:

What in the name of all that is science’y, is a “leathery beast?” I couldn’t find an explanation or definition for “Leathery Beast,” so I decided I should do what the editors should have done, and research. After all, when in doubt, try it out – or in this case, when in doubt, check it out.

So, some quick google-searches revealed interesting correlation between these similar terms:

• Furry Animal = Covered with fur.
• Scaly Animal = Covered with scales.
• Feathery Animal = Covered with feathers.

The common thread here is obvious, and can only lead to one conclusion: A Leathery animal is an animal that is covered with leather. Like this one.

But unlike fur, scales and feathers, animals do not naturally have leather. They have skin. Animal skin (or ‘hide’) can be stripped and processed to produce leather. It isn’t something an animal wants to have, I’d gather, seeing as it needs to die and be skinned to produce it.

There is no such thing as a leathery animal, just like there is no such thing as a carpet’y animal.

So, CNN, and all ye other mega-news-agencies out there – please try and remember to check your definitions, if not your proper facts. A semi-decomposed corpse of an unidentified animal (note: unidentified does not mean unidentifiable) washes out to shore and someone takes a picture of it. That is — really — the entire story. Maybe if you confuse your viewers enough with weird, incomprehensible and alarming titles like “Montauk Monster!” and “Leathery Beast Washed Ashore!”, they will forget that this story isn’t actually very interesting.

As far as rational thinking in the fear-driven media is concerned, I think we will all do best to remember that when in doubt, we should first check it out.

And as for the “leathery corpse,” well, I wouldn’t expect any experiment videos about it anytime soon.

The CNN Article: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/07/31/moos.montauk.monster.cnn

Related posts

• No related posts.

This was an awesome experiment in an already awesome convention. Don’t forget to check out the JREF website for the DVDs and extras from TAM6. Richard Saunders’ many projects can be checked out through the Australian Skeptics website and the Tank Podcast.

What’s Going On?

When you convert a 3-dimensional object (a face, for example) into a 2-dimentional surface (a page, for example), your end result is stretched and distorted. The reason lies in the curvature of the 3-d object you are trying to copy: The curvatures that give your face the shape it has (your nose, your mouth, your ears), will appear longer when stretched to a flat surface.

What is the Shroud of Turin?

The shroud of Turin is a piece of linen that seems to bear an image of a man lying with his hands in his lap. Some religious groups claim that the image is, in fact, the image of Jesus after his crucifixion.

Whether or not this shroud is real (Scientific examination of the fabric and impressions on it show it is dated much after it is supposed to exist to be authentic), the image that is transcribed on it is interesting. Missing the impression of the face on it is quite hard, and explaining it away with ’simple’ paraedolia doesn’t seem to do it justice.

But if we take our experiment to mind, this image seems to get a different perspective – literally. Take a look at the above drawing, for example, (by Giulio Clovio), depicting Jesus being wrapped in a shroud after his crucifixion. If, truly, this cloth covered the face and body of a man (any man, for that matter), then the impression should not have appeared as a face at all, it should have appeared distorted. A relatively simple test – print out the image, then fold it in half along the nose line – casts some doubt by itself on the existence of a human model for this image.

How are flat maps made?

The creation of a flat map is similar, but not exactly the same as what you have seen in the video. Since distorted maps are quite useless, the drawing of a flat map uses a technique called “Map Projection”. Essentially, the glove is divided into equal squares which are also drawn on a flat surface map. Each square is copied in exact details to the corresponding square in the flat map.

There are several types of such projections, depending on the type of map you need.

An “Equidistant” projection creates a map that has equal distances from the center (equator). A “Zenithal” projection is one that maintains accurate directions.

In general, a flat map is not the accurate depiction of the way our planet looks. It can’t be, because our planet is spherical. But a map projection, at least, makes the conversion slightly more accurate, and easier for our brain to calculate distances and shapes.

More information about the creation of flat maps out of the curvature of our planet can be found in this website (also on the ‘extra resources’ section at the bottom of this page).

Thanks (Original Idea Credit)

Thanks to Edtharan from ScienceForums.net for this idea!

Extra Resources

• JREF Website (James Randi Educational Foundation): http://www.randi.org/
• Australian Skeptics: http://www.skeptics.com.au/
• The Tank Vodcast: http://tankvodcast.wordpress.com/
• The Shroud of Turin: http://www.shroud.com/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
• How maps are formed (3D to 2D): http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/mapping/a_projections.html

Related posts

• The Amazing Meeting 6! (0)
• Interview at The Tank Vodcast! (0)
• A Physics Party Trick that Sucks… Liquid (8)
• Top 10 Ways to Know the Earth is Not Flat (14)
• The earth’s curvature is tasty (4)

I hope this will give the project a bit more exposure, and give me another method of updating you about new and exciiiiting things that are about to happen to the website, as well as new experiment videos!

Fan me: http://www.facebook.com/pages/SmarterThanThatcom/30731268952

And spread the word!

Related posts

• The Amazing Meeting 6! (0)
• Interview at The Tank Vodcast! (0)
• Finally, the Final Finals (1)

Now, though, you too have something to do with your extra nickels and pennies you keep safe for future plans: You can do science with them! Yay!

So, this experiment is very simple and fun, and I wanted to do it a bit different than what you probably already know (and what I ended up doing eventually in the video). When I was roaming around the internet looking for more ideas and information, I saw this picture and decided I should try it out (even though I had no doubt, in this case).

Okay, so maybe I went a bit too far with my love for fun: after all, who knew those ice boxes fight back. I didn’t.

But we can learn a lot from this experiment, as well as this experience. We will start with the scientific principles. Then, we’ll go on to my flying metal clips. Pooooiiing.

What you need?

• Pennies.
• Nickels.
• Salt water (just mix water with about 2 table spoons of salt)
• Tissue paper.
• Voltmeter or LED or small light bulb – anything that will prove to you that there is voltage in this spare change tower.
• Depending on your tower-building skills, you may need copper wires.

What do you do?

To create a difference in potentials (which will lead to the existence of voltage and ‘power up’ your lightbulb/LED/voltmeter) you need to create a small tower, alternating a penny, a tissue paper soaked with saltwater and a nickel.

Penny -> saltwater -> Nickel -> saltwater -> Penny -> saltwater -> Nickel … and so on.

Easy!

Note: Make sure you have access to the bottom of the pile. By the time I finished building my little spare-change tower I found out I can’t reach the bottom of the pile to check for voltage, and had to squeeze in another bit of copper wire. If you need one, get it, but if you “play” it right (like, put the first penny sticking out a little) you can do it without any wires at all.

What’s going on?

When we put table salt in water we create a mixture that is electrically conductive. The saltwater mixture is an electrolyte. An electrolyte is a substance that has free ions and conducts electricity.

The electrolyte reacts with different metals, allowing for an exchange of electrons from the metal to the solution. But different metals react differently. A Nickel is made of approximately 75% Copper and 25% Nickel. A Penny has about 97% Zinc and 3% Copper. The difference between the metals causes a difference in reactions to the electrolyte.

This difference creates a difference in electrical potential, which is voltage. And it can light up your lightbulb, your LED or show the difference on a voltmeter.

A bit of History

This experiment, or something very close to it, was done by Alessandro Volta, who created the first cell battery.

In his experiment, he alternated plates of Zinc with plates of Copper, with an electrolyte substance between them (He used either saltwater or sulfuric acid), and created the first cell battery.

This type of battery, however, is short-lived. The voltage stops when the chemical reaction creates hydrogen bubbles that (initially help the procedure, but) later form a sort of ‘barrier’ to one of the metal electrodes. It is also not very safe (and not necessarily due to what you’ve wittnessed in the video) because sulfuric acid is quite dangerous, even when diluted.

But it was certainly the start for the batteries we have today, that operate on the exact same principle!

What happened in my first try?

Okay, so you’ve seen the video and you’re laughing. Great. Glad I could brighten your day with my mishaps. But now what? Does that mean you can’t do it? Probably not. The method of connecting the “electrodes” (spare change) to the walls of the ice box should work just fine, as long as you have enough time to mess with it. I was fighting against the clock, as the sun was setting and the lighting in my apartment is quite poor when dark.

But take your time, try this method out, and let me know if you got it, it seems like fun!

About Experimental Errors

We’re talked before about experimental errors, but I think this experiment (and the “blooper” that accompanied it) is a good chance to state one, very important, issue about science and experimentation:

Mistakes are very important.

We learn from our mistakes. It sounds so repetitive, I know, you’ve heard it from your kindergarden teacher a billion times, but it’s true, and it’s even truer for science. Experimental errors should be examined and analyzed. It may be the equipment, it may be the settings, it may be that it’s not an error at all but a brand new discovery you are going to win the Nobel prize for.

Mistakes happen. The important thing is to understand why they happen.

This is also why true scientists (in true labs) never settle for a single experiment. The experiments are always repeated, over and over, but multiple people. Then, they are analyzed – mistakes and all – and summarized. Then, other scientists from other labs look at the experiment and result and try to repeat them too. If the experiment can be repeated with similar (or same) results, then it is probably actually indicative. If other scientists cannot repeat the experiment, there is a big problem with the suggested conclusion.

This is part of the scientific method.

In my videos I am showing you simple demonstrations of scientific phenomena. This is, by no means, a replacement for actual scientific experiments in labs. I will probably never be able to get actual significat results that affect the scientific community (or the way we live and think) by recording a once-performed experiment at my house. But that’s also not my intended purpose.

I don’t mean to give you “new” radical answers, I mean to give a taste of waht science is about, and how you can check these principles and prove them for yourselves at your own home without going to a fancy lab, or spending lots of time for a PhD. Not that PhDs aren’t important..

Take these videos as examples of what and how things are done, and what the scientific method is all about. Other than being fun (and sometimes funny), these experiments can show you that if you can reach a relatively accurate conclusion at your own home, then true laboratories doing the same (or similar) experiments with much better and more accurate equipment can get much better and more accurate results. But at least now you know how they do it.

More References

• The Amazing Meeting 6: http://www.randi.org/joom/component/option,com_registrationpro/Itemid,33/func,details/did,1/
• James Randi Educational Foundation: http://www.randi.org/

• Alessandro Volta: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandro_Volta
• A Cent (Penny): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cent_(United_States_coin)
• A Nickel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_(United_States_coin)
• How batteries work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_%28electricity%29#How_batteries_work
• This experiment at the US Mint (Dept of Treasury) site: http://www.usmint.gov/kids/teachers/lessonPlans/viewLP.cfm?lessonPlanId=138
• This experiment in “Make Magazine”: http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2006/11/pennypowered_le.html

Related posts

• Bending Water with a Plastic Comb (12)
• Goofing around with Non-Newtonian [Goo] Fluid (3)
• DNA Madness: Extracting your Own DNA in your Kitchen! (11)
• An otherwise straight beam of light… (5)
• A Physics Party Trick that Sucks… Liquid (8)

I uploaded the new SmarterThanThat experiment video, but the quality was SOOOOO bad, I had to take it down. I am re-rendering the video now and it will be up as soon as YouTube allows for it.

Apologies  – but I promise it’s worth the wait!

~moo

Related posts

• No related posts.