> But because our mosquito is oh-so-light, the raindrop moves on, unimpeded, and hardly any force is transferred. All that happens is that our mosquito is suddenly scooped up by the raindrop and finds itself hurtling toward the ground at a velocity of roughly nine meters per second, an acceleration which can’t be very comfortable, because it puts enormous pressure on the insect’s body, up to 300 gravities worth, says professor Hu.
Interesting article, but in the span of one paragraph here we have confused velocity, acceleration, and pressure - and there are similar errors in the following one. For an article about physics, I would expect this to at least be proofread.
It is pretty sloppy, but if you assume that `pressure' is just meant as a synonym for `strain', which it is in normal English, it does make some sense. And velocity and acceleration aren't confused under a very charitable interpretation: they describe that the velocity changes `suddenly'. That's an acceleration.
The real problem is here:
> But because our mosquito is oh-so-light, the raindrop moves on, unimpeded, and hardly any force is transferred.
We have a transfer of momentum (force times time), but no dissipation of energy (force times path).
> We have a transfer of momentum (force times time), but no dissipation of energy (force times path).
Even the transfer of momentum is much less than it would be if the mosquito were heavier though. The droplet maintains most of its original momentum. That seems to be the point they're trying to make.
Yes. Though for the mosquito it doesn't matter: transferring momentum doesn't damage you.
An interesting human scale contrast is the following:
You have (a) a heavy metal box or (b) a light wooden box and you throw (1) a bouncy rubber ball or (2) an equally heavy piece of clay at it. What happens in all four combinations?
One observation: the rubber ball transfers more momentum, but almost no energy.
> In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
Which is of course intriguing, since cat-v.org hosts frothing-at-the-mouth vitriol about topics like women in tech and gay marriage in the always trustworthy and well reasoned medium of reposted reddit and slashdot comments. And presumably I'm supposed to click over to the technical stuff with a straight face.
It's telling that you'd apply a derogatory label and attack the source medium rather than say anything of substance about the content that offended you.
cat-v is chock-full of food for thought. You don't have to agree with any of it and in fact disagreement is a large part of the site.
"Other than total and complete world domination, the overriding goal is to encourage and stimulate critical and independent thinking."
Interesting article, but in the span of one paragraph here we have confused velocity, acceleration, and pressure - and there are similar errors in the following one. For an article about physics, I would expect this to at least be proofread.
The Gell-Mann Amnesia effect: http://harmful.cat-v.org/journalism/