Pritt Sticks to Mars

Some time ago I was at Chichester Skeptics in the Pub to see James Ward talk about his book Adventures in Stationary. The talk was fantastic, and whilst I haven't gotten around to reading the book yet, it's on my list of books to read (that list grows faster than the time available to read them). During the talk, James referenced a press release from Pritt Stick's makers celebrating their 40th anniversary, saying that the 2.5 billion Pritt sticks sold in their 40 year was history was "Enough to leave a line of adhesive extending from the Earth, past our satellite the Moon, on to Mars and then all the way back again"

James Ward was unsure how they came about with such a statistic. I don't know how they did it either, but here's how I would do it:

Firstly, what are we using for the distance? At it's maximum the Earth could be on one side of the Solar System, and Mars on the other, we would be as far from each other as possible. Or, the Sun, Earth and Mars could be in a perfectly straight line in that order, as close as we can be to each other currently. The ranges for these distances are:

Smallest: 56 million km or 34 million miles.
Furthest: 401 million km or 249 million miles.

To see where on this range the current distance is, see here. Consequently, we'll calculate two values, one for Mars at its closest, the other Mars at it's furthest.

The next thing to consider is what is meant by a Pritt Stick, for they are not a standard unit. Pritt Sticks come in a range of sizes. Let's just go for the medium size, which has a stick of glue in it with a diameter of 2.0cm and a height of 5.1cm. This gives a volume of 16.02cm³

The diameter of the Pritt Stick gives us the width of our glue trail to Mars - we'll assume it's smeared across our hypothetical surface that extends to Mars evenly. Volume = length x width x height, so some simple rearranging is need to get our height of Pritt stick smear, also remembering this smear is there and back.

One medium Pritt stick would be able to leave a trail of glue to Mars and back, so long as it was only 7.2fm to 1fm thick. This is not possible, given that our largest estimate is smaller than the radius of a gold atom's nucleus, and our smallest is not much bigger than a proton. Pritt stick cannot get this small without splitting the atom.

However, we're dealing with 2.5 billion Pritt sticks. This leaves us with a smear of Pritt stick some 17.9μm to 2.5μm thick. This seems more realistic, though my experience of Pritt stick is a smear thicker than this. For comparison a single skin cell is about 35μm across.

Let's be more charitable and go for 2.5 billion large Pritt sticks. These have a diameter of 2.5cm and a height of 6.6cm, giving a volume of 32.4cm³

Using the same mathematics as above, this gives us a smear that ranges from 28.9μm to 4.03μm which still seems pretty thin.

So, after all this, I'm with James here in not understanding how Pritt stick came up with their statistic either. If only they'd shown their working in a press release.

Either way, we've been dealing with some very different units: femtometres, micrometres, centimetres and kilometres. That's quite a range - one kilometre is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 femtometres. Here's a lovely website to help you appreciate the scale of the universe, from the very big to the very small: The Scale of the Universe.

How many Ferrero Rocher do you need to build the Pyramids at Giza?

My wife and I went to see Richard Harring's new show "Happy Now?" last night, and it was very funny. During the first half hour of the show though, Richard did a reprise of some of the highlights of his previous shows, as during August and September he performed them all again over 6 weeks.

This included his rather romantic gesture for the first Valentine's Day he and his now wife shared. She had on her bucket list "Build a pyramid of Ferrero Rocher like that on the Ambassador's Reception advert". So he bought her a single Ferrero Rocher, with a view to getting enough over the years to fulfill her lifetime ambition. The next Valentine's Day he bought her two, and on the third Valentine's Day he failed to realise the power of exponential growth and bought her 4. This year he bought her 128 Ferrero Rocher. He went on to joke about the implications of this, including how it wouldn't be long before there would be enough to build the Great Pyramid at Giza.

Leaving the show, as well as the funny memories and ponderings on the nature of happiness, I wondered just how many Ferrero Rocher would be needed to build the Great Pyramids at Giza. As it's half term, I have found out.

The average size of a Ferrero Rocher (sample size = 16) is 3.2cm x 3.2cm x 3.2cm. They are not a uniform shape, but we'll assume they are for this back of the envelope calculation. We'll also approximate them to perfect cubes*.

Here are the results (click to enlarge):

Fortunately, we have 23 years left before Richard Herring's romantic gesture is about the same as the current annual output of Ferrero Rocher.

However, we can breath a sigh of relief, because the adverts pyramids range in size from 8 to 12 tiers, so fewer than 1,000 Ferrero Rocher chocolates will be needed. Of course it does mean that a new romantic gesture needs to be found in 3 Valentine's Days time...

*If you've read this far and have the wit, by all means take into account that they don't tessellate, and there will be gaps in between,  and that those Ferrero Rocher on the layer above will sit in these gaps. Also, I do not know how much weight a Ferrero Rocher can take, but it isn't more than 73.9 kg (sample size one). So something else that needs considering before filing for planning permission, as the actual number may be higher than those above.

Sample size of one

UPDATE: Well, Richard Herring retweeted me, which was unexpected. Hello Richard Herring fans! You might also like this in relation to the "Give me head till I'm dead" t shirt skit: Traffic light food label for semen.

Does the Star Trek Odd/Even rule hold up to scrutiny?

It's all well and good being a skeptic and going after homeopathy, conspiracy theories and religion. But what about the important stuff in life? Skeptics must question everything. This includes Star Trek. Does the oft cited Odd/Even rule hold up to scrutiny?

Yes. Generally, an odd numbered Star Trek film is not as good as an even numbered Star Trek film. Out of 12 Star Trek films, only two fail to meet this rule.

I used IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to get the ratings for each film. All are in a similar format, being a rating out of 10, a percentage or a mark out of 100. As I started with IMDB I converted all to the same format.

The average score for a Star Trek film is 6.7. Above avergae films are therefore "Good", average films are, well, "Average" (though none exist yet) and below  average films are "Bad".

I have included the recent re-boot, but the rule may need to be modified to just include the "original" run of films, as the two new ones rank 1 and 3 using this survey's methods.

You can see the results below:

Data accurate as of 02/11/2014

Cats are still better than dogs

A while back Jerry Coyne sought some input to help with a debate on Cats vs Dogs, which I duly helped with. Jerry unfortunately reported that the debate was won by the dog lovers.

Of course, cats are better than dogs, so how to explain this outcome? Well quite clearly, there were no Sophisticated Theologians (TM) present:

1.By definition, cats winning in the cats vs dogs debate is a result than which none greater can be imagined.

2.A result that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a result that does not necessarily exist.

3.Thus, by definition, if a cats winning the debate result exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than us simply imagining that cats won.

4.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than cats winning the debate.

5.Thus, if cats winning the debate exists in the mind as an idea, then cats winning the debate necessarily exists in reality.

6. Cats winning the debate exists in the mind as an idea.

7.Therefore, cats winning the debate necessarily exists in reality.

So, cats won the NY Times "Cats vs Dogs" debate!

Pareidolia: This week's blog stats or Mordor?

Traffic light label for semen

So Caitlin Moran retweeted Jezebel's article "A complete breakdown of the nutritional content of semen", which was interesting. But not in line with UK food labelling. Worry not UK readers, here you go:

There isn't much salt, it's true. However, it's amber as semen is, per 100ml, in the amber category.

For further info, do go check out Jezebel's article, or dive straight into the paper that was their main source:
Owen, D. H. and Katz, D. F. (2005), A Review of the Physical and Chemical Properties of Human Semen and the Formulation of a Semen Simulant. Journal of Andrology, 26: 459–469. doi: 10.2164/jandrol.04104

Thoughtful LOLZ

Saw this outside a church:

My first thought was "God".

Though it does highlight a problem for the Church in this country.

Church attendances are dropping year on year (the latest stats released this year from the C of E for example show a 2% drop on the previous year), which is unsurprising, given the increasingly secular proportions of the UK.

Of course, as Neil deGrasse Tyson has pointed out: "...religiosity drops with education, especially with science education, but does not drop to zero, not even for members of the National Academy? I think that’s an amazing statistic, which tells us something about the human mind that is not yet understood." It may seem like a losing battle for the Church, and religion in general, but the truth seems to be that religion is probably here to stay for quite some time. So long as we can end up with a secular state (which is the fairest way for all religions), I'm ok with that.

But not until then.

I dare you not to smile at this

SITP LOLCAT

Whilst you're here, you should check out the intelligent and funny Iszi Lawrence on the Sunday Supplement, and also get yourself some of the finest skeptical apparel available from Neil Davies (talented illustrator of many things, including Skeptic Trumps)

If I was God...

http://thebloodandthunderclub.blogspot.com/2011/06/if-i-was-god.html

Hox genes - all you need to know

What's the worst that can happen?

Discovered this, thanks to Laughing in Purgatory:



Before anyone denounces this as a Pascal's Wager in relation to climate change, hold fire.

We're not discussing the *possible* existence of something. We're talking about an actual, real thing.

Climate change is either happening, or it isn't. We're not talking some possibility about when we die, we're talking hear, and now.

The scientific consensus indicates that human's are causing climate change, and that we're in for a bumpy ride, but if that's not enough to persuade you to take action now, then I do hope the above video will.

UPDATE:

This video's better:

In which I disagree with Bishop Nick Baines

I'm super busy, but was in a queue so started catching up on blogs I've not had a chance to read. I also wanted to remind everyone about the Census Campaign from the BHA, and saw this criticism of it: Poor stupid people who need to be told what to think. So here's a super quick reply...

It appears the critics haven't quite grasped the campaign. Firstly, the Census Campaign isn't, as the Bishop says "against the ‘religion’ question", but it is actually for the religious question, by encouraging the accurate answering of the question. No one is telling any one what to think, just to answer the question honestly. If you're not religious, for God's sake say so.

Christianity is on the decline in the UK, despite what previous census data has said. However, as Johan Hari has pointed out: Which two nations still reserve places in their parliaments for unelected religious clerics, who then get an automatic say in writing the laws the country's citizens must obey? The answer is Iran... and Britain.

It's no wonder Bishop Baines is critical. It's also a pity he doesn't link to the campaign himself, only via the two posts he links too. I always think it's better to link directly to what you're commenting on, so people can make their own minds up. Kinda funny, given his title...

So, remember, you're not a Jedi, when it comes to the Census, if you're not religious, then say so.

Also, I don't know Nick Baines' opinion on homosexuality, but he seems to come a bit close to defending some bigots. We need a secualr society because if we indulge every religious whim it's every man for himself, given the mutually contradictory nature of the various religions out there. Just because you're religious doesn't mean you get to have a free card to be racist, sexist, homophobic etc etc. Nick Baines writes:

So, if you ‘believe’ that living according to the precepts of Jesus Christ is good or essential, you are supposed to keep your ‘belief’ in the realms of opinion. But, if you ‘believe’ that no negative  judgement should ever be made about any other practice or lifestyle, that is a ‘belief’ that can be given free rein. Is that not weird?

No, it's not weird, and I don't think any one is saying that "no negative  judgement should ever be made about any other practice or lifestyle". People are welcome to their beliefs, but not to be openly bigoted.

An ontological argument I can agree with

Survival of the fittest

Yes, I know when people say survival of the fittest, it's not necessarily those that can run the furthest, but in this case it is. if you're on Nike+ you might want to stick up for whichever scientific discipline you most identify with and take part in this challenge:

I know biology's best, but surely there must be some chemists that like running? Would be good to have a bit more competition there!

Yes, you could argue that those that are running are spending less time actually doing anything scientific, but that's not the point : P

The difference

Social Media Anthem!

The Drybrook Male Voice choir, parody Engelbert Humperdinck's "Please Release Me".

Marvelous!

Vaccinate your kids

Found this at Acid Fairy (thanks!)

Don't be a douche

This always makes me smile

Not got much time to write anything, so I thought I'd share this vid. It always makes me smile. I had to watch it after getting angry at the subject of one PZ's recent posts. Other people agreed, so I thought I let you all see it, if you haven't already (it's been out a while, and has had 32,200,819 views at time of writing).

Where the hell is Matt? (Do watch with sound. You know what I mean. Synesthetes are excused).