Monday Afternoon ArLOL

Cidu Bill on Dec 3rd 2012

20121128.gif

Filed in Arlo Page, Comics That Made Us Laugh Out Loud, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, Zach Weiner, comic strips, comics, humor, lol | 21 responses so far

21 Responses to “Monday Afternoon ArLOL”

  1. Chakolate Dec 3rd 2012 at 01:00 pm 1

    I’ve got to learn to scroll down *before* I solve for the variable.

  2. fj Dec 3rd 2012 at 01:36 pm 2

    Only if his initial velocity was 0, or in the direction exactly 180 degrees opposed to the direction of the 5ml fluid.

  3. Dan W Dec 3rd 2012 at 02:11 pm 3

    @fj - Not true. He will gain this speed regardless of initial velocity. He makes no mention of the final NET velocity of the man, simply the amount imparted to him by the expulsion of ejaculate.

  4. AMC Dec 3rd 2012 at 02:31 pm 4

    So it’s cum to this.

    The problem is, when it hits his space suit, there is an equal and opposite application of force.

    So, V will equal 0.

    And if there is no suit, no matter how fast his internet porn connection may be, he’s dead before his space shot.

  5. minorannoyance Dec 3rd 2012 at 02:38 pm 5

    One of the Roger Moore Bonds ended with M saying, “I think he’s attempting re-entry.”

  6. Rasheed Dec 3rd 2012 at 04:58 pm 6

    Only 5 ml?

  7. Mark in Boston Dec 3rd 2012 at 07:18 pm 7

    Stop bragging, Rasheed.

  8. Larry Dec 3rd 2012 at 10:45 pm 8

    AMC # 4 has my vote. Although everyone came through with a good comment!

  9. Jeff S. Dec 3rd 2012 at 10:57 pm 9

    The conclusion in the comic is wrong. The given equation solves for velocity. His conclusion says …speed… . Velocity is NOT the same thing as speed. Velocity involves both speed and DIRECTION. Velocity can have a positive value (i.e. moving forward) or a negative value (moving backward). Speed is always a positive amount. It is the absolute value of the velocity. Direction IS important, because he won’t gain SPEED if he is moving forward and ejaculates forward. That causes a negative change in velocity. His velocity is reduced, therefore his speed is reduced as well.

    However, since there isn’t a direction mentioned in the equation, it actually solves for speed (m/s). So he either wrote the equation wrong or used the wrong word in the conclusion.

  10. fj Dec 4th 2012 at 12:32 am 10

    @Jeff S
    This is a momemtum problem. p (momentum) = m (mass) * v (velocity). The momentum has the same direction as the velocity, so there is no reason to directly mention the direction. So no, it does not solve for speed. (Why does “p” stand for momentum? Because Newton used the term “impetus” which comes from the Latin “petere.)

    However, I agree with what you are saying about speed being nonnegative and directionless, and the absolute value of the magnitude of the velocity. And this leads me to…

    @Dan W
    I’d agree with you if the cartoonist had said “change in velocity.” But he didn’t. He said “gain in speed.” Doesn’t the phrase “gain in speed” require a positive net change in speed? There is no gain unless something is increasing. Futhermore, since speed is directionless and non-negative, the only way the above math can represent the “gain in speed” is if the initial observed velocity and the incremental velocity have exactly the same direction (which must be exactly opposed to the velocity of the ejected mass), or if the original velocity is zero.

  11. Harold Dec 4th 2012 at 12:59 am 11

    Smart folks.

  12. James Pollock Dec 4th 2012 at 01:28 am 12

    Smart folks if you ignore the last 100 years of physics, and stick with the mechanistic model. Where’s the adjustment for relativistic effects?

  13. mitch4 Dec 4th 2012 at 08:11 am 13

    #6, #7 — There was the rumor in the 60s that the band “10 cc” was named for the supposed average volume.

  14. Dave in Asheville Dec 4th 2012 at 08:24 am 14

    AMC, maybe we can assume that our man is in a space station (and alone… and therefore likely has an internet connection).

    Building on fj’s observations, Weiner (heh-heh) also assumes that the whole of the 5 mL (which I assume is the average net load) comes in one whole ejecta (no pun intended), or that the several, diminishing discreet elements of that 5 mL also all have the same vector. Preposterous!

  15. Kilby Dec 4th 2012 at 09:24 am 15

    For those who may not have an intuitive feel for the metric units discussed above, 5 ml is virtually identical to a standard measuring teaspoon (which is, of course, 1/48th of a standard “cup”).

  16. fj Dec 4th 2012 at 09:30 am 16

    @James Pollock

    I left out relativistic effects out of consideration for our intrepid explorer. If the speeds are significant enough that we need to consider relativity, I wanted to spare him the embarassment of relativistic length contraction.

    Building on Dave in Asheville’s observation, I cannot help but ponder the fact that to an outside observer, the man is penned in a steel enclosure. Suppose we construct a video system that produces a certain type of stimulus designed to be highly arrousing to such an individual (trapped as he is, all alone, in a sealed container), coupled to a trigger that is operated by a radiation detector accompanied by an amount of radioactive material small enough that there is an equal probability that decay will or will not occur over the next hour. After one hour, can we the assume that the man is simulaneously in both aroused and non-aroused states?

  17. Ian Osmond Dec 4th 2012 at 10:25 am 17

    Dave in Asheville: if he’s in an atmosphere, then you’ve got atmospheric resistance. Also, a rather disturbing clean-up issue preferably before it gets to the air circulation.

  18. Dave in Asheville Dec 4th 2012 at 11:03 am 18

    @fj

    Not after an entire hour. He’d certainly be in a non-aroused state after one hour, and probably had a snack by then too, observational effects notwithstanding. 5 minutes maybe.

  19. fj Dec 4th 2012 at 01:40 pm 19

    The possibility still remains that decay could occur near enough to the 1 hour boundary for the subject to still be in the in the aroused state at the one hour mark. So, if unobserved, he could still be considered simultaneously in both states: it is just that the aroused state is less probable. (There also a possibility of the video being triggered multiple times).

  20. James Pollock Dec 4th 2012 at 05:21 pm 20

    Dave (18) has also neglected to consider the possible pharmaceutical inputs to the equation. “If you experience a state of simultaneous arousal/non-arousal that lasts for four hours or more, contact a doctor immediately…”

  21. fj Dec 5th 2012 at 12:11 am 21

    James Pollock (20): That has a literal LOL for me.

    But you don’t have to contact a doctor: as soon as you make an observation, the simultaenous states collapse…

    That adds a whole new meaning to Quantum ED.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply