Buy Indexed Schwag

INDEXED shirts =
adventures in turnkey capitalism.

Physics & emotion.

July 27th, 2009 Jessica Hagy Posted in language, perception |


You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

15 Responses to “Physics & emotion.”

  1. DomPrez Says:
    July 27th, 2009 at 10:46 am

    d = doom
    s = sex
    t = teletubies

    try thinking about it…. I DARE YOU!

  2. Maggie Says:
    July 27th, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    This gets dangerously close to “actual math.”

  3. Bret Says:
    July 27th, 2009 at 4:46 pm

    Yeah, I’ll go along with this.

  4. t3knomanser Says:
    July 27th, 2009 at 4:50 pm

    Your math fail depresses me.

    If d=s(t), then dividing both sides by t would simply yield d/t = s(t)/t. Really, the initial terms should be d = s/t^p, where p represents the passage of time’s effect on t.

    I’ll forgive you, this time.

  5. BoB Says:
    July 27th, 2009 at 5:12 pm

    While I ‘d agree that s(t) is problematic, t3 isn’t winning any awards.

    The problem with s(t) is that it shows speed as a function of time. I understand that it is intended to be speed times time, but the parens are unnecessary.

    d = s/t^p makes no sense, passage of time and time are the same thing

    the real math, used in the physics, makes perfect sense

    “How long ’till we get there?”
    “It’s 50 miles and we’re going 100 mph, we’ll be there in 30 minutes.”

  6. Secrets acting as a poison « Scattered pieces… Says:
    July 27th, 2009 at 7:13 pm

    [...] me now, if told?  Jessica Hagy has provided one potential answer in Indexed with her entry about Physics and emotions.  Jessica looked at the relationship between time, distance or pain and the speed or trouble [...]

  7. Mike Says:
    July 27th, 2009 at 9:49 pm

    It was a big risk posting something like this.

  8. David Says:
    July 27th, 2009 at 10:09 pm

    I’m pretty sure the () were to put an implied multiplication, though i did read it as a function the first time too.

  9. David Says:
    July 28th, 2009 at 12:29 am

    Some readings make more sense than others:

    distance = speed * time
    distance = troubled caused * time
    pain = speed * time
    pain = troubled caused * time
    distance/time = speed
    distance/time = trouble caused
    pain/time = speed
    pain/time = trouble caused
    distance/speed = time
    distance/trouble caused = time
    pain/speed = time
    pain/trouble caused = time

  10. Rafi Says:
    July 28th, 2009 at 1:27 am

    This is too “actual” mathematical for me to understand.

  11. Rafi Says:
    July 28th, 2009 at 1:37 am

    Is it meant to be “pain over time” or “pain divided by time”?

  12. middle school math teacher Says:
    July 28th, 2009 at 6:23 am

    oh I sooooo want to show this to my Algebra students!

  13. Mike Says:
    July 31st, 2009 at 3:27 am

    Man, I wish scientist and mathematicians and engineers could all get together and decide on a standard set of variables. All I could think of when I read this was v=ds/dt and I couldn’t find the v in the comic. Enough procrastinating, back to my fluid mechanics so I don’t fail my test tomorrow.

  14. minxette Says:
    August 5th, 2009 at 2:19 am

    this isnt about math or physics at all. its about pain making trouble that is sucking up time you can never retrieve.

  15. foosion Says:
    August 19th, 2009 at 11:43 am

    d=s(t) is not the same as d=s*t, as noted above. Technical accuracy is important. See http://www.xkcd.com, for example.

Leave a Reply

« Big risks.
Scary dairy. »