Comments on: A call for more scientific truth in product warning labels

By: Ewan Marshall

Ewan Marshall — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:53:40 +0000

surely number 11 should read “The manufacturer may technically be entitled to claim that this product is ten-dimensional. However, the consumer is reminded that this confers no legal rights above and beyond those applicable to three-dimensional objects in four-dimensional space, since the six new dimensions are rolled up into such a small region that they cannot be detected.

Else time doesn’t exist?

By: robb

robb — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:49:38 +0000

LOL this is funny.
should’ve mention more scientific terms just for the sake of coolness.

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 03:35:08 +0000

I think #3 has the wrong value:

“The maximum theoretical energy from total conversion of matter to energy when 1 kilogram of antimatter annihilates with 1 kilogram of matter the reaction is 1.8 × 1017 J, which is equal to 42.96 Mt. This is given by the equation E = mc2.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent

By: links for 2009-09-07 « To Dwell in Tents of Kedar

links for 2009-09-07 « To Dwell in Tents of Kedar — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:42:43 +0000

[...] Let ε < 0. » A call for more scientific truth in product warning labels (tags: funny science) [...]

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 15:15:35 +0000

In regard to the two talking about the inversely proportional vs the same and squared: can anything truly be inversely proportional anyway, given that everything is going to eventually get squished into a big crunch? If it can happen, its already happened in another quantum universe, so, in balance, nothing can truly be inversely related to anything when one sums the squared errors of the infinitely varying realities between quantum universes.

By: If physicists wrote warning labels: A call for more scientific truth in product labeling « Netcrema – creme de la social news via digg + delicious + stumpleupon + reddit

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 23:00:20 +0000

[...] If physicists wrote warning labels: A call for more scientific truth in product labelingkomplexify.com [...]

By: Bogo

Bogo — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:07:03 +0000

The third warning could be this: “The mass of this TNT contains the energy equivalent of 85 million tons of TNT per net ounce of TNT.”

By: db48x

db48x — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:24:26 +0000

Anything that is inversely proportional to the square of the distance can also be said to be inversely proportional to the distance with no loss of accuracy, only precision. It’s certainly not _linearly_ proportional to the inverse of the distance, but the warning didn’t say that.

Anyway, these are always good for a laugh any time I see them :)

By: MII

MII — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:01:18 +0000

warning #2 should read “inversely proportional to the square of the distance…” otherwise good work illustrating the strange nature of this place we call reality…

By: Lars

Lars — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:18:38 +0000

Nice.
But why do you and Weird Al Yankovic in his great song “Pancreas” keep on talking about a force inversely proportional to the distance? The gravitational force is inversely proportional to the _square_ of the distance.