From time to time, my husband pronounces deep and meaningful statements worthy of posting on the refrigerator. The most famous of these occurred many years ago when, at a dinner table discussion, Dan stated, "An equation is merely man's abstraction of a natural phenomenon, and it is true within a certain domain." Another favorite saying, though not so deep, was so well expressed it also made it to the refrigerator, (and it is frequently referenced and reiterated): "I am capable of producing pancakes at a prodigious rate."
I would challenge any family ANYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE to have the quality of meal time discussions that we have at dinner table. Even now, with only one child left at home, we peruse such topics the Doppler effect's impact on wave frequency. (Usually these conversations end up as Dan and Steven's futile attempts to explain scientific principles to me.) When Danny was home for Christmas, he and Steven got into an intense converstion about (your guess is as good as mine here). That night when I went to bed, Danny was still up, pacing around. "Why don't you go to bed? It's late," I said in sweet motherly tones. "I'm still trying to figure something out," Danny replied. The next morning, at the breakfast table, I saw the following handwritten note:
"Steven you are CORRECT. Physics within a system that is in free-fall in a uniform gravitational field is in all respects equivalent to physics in an inertial frame. All of physics will be the same--they are indistinguishable. This is completely equivalent to Einstein's assertion that physics in a non-inertial accelerated frame (straight line) is the same as physics in a uniform gravitational field. I was thinking that the two statements were in conflict, because one deals with equivalence to a constant velocity frame, while the other deals with equivalence to a constant acceleration frame. But in fact, the two statements are actually the same, and I can prove their equivalence to myself with a simple thought experiment...and, of course, all of general relativity follows from this (light bends in a gravitational field, and time flows at different rates depending on strength of gravity)."
Steven's written response on the page: "Ha ha!"
A day or two ago at dinner, Dan and Steven were discussing time travel. The conclusion, which I actually sort of understood, was that time travel would, by definition, also have to include space travel....since, of course, the earth would be in a different position at different times. Dan concluded the discussion with the simple, yet eloquent, statement: "Those threads of time link space." I thought that was just lovely, and went to the refrigerator to write it on a notepad, at which point Dan protested, "Why are you writing THAT? It's not profound. It's obvious."
Indeed.
7 comments:
Yes! I love it! I wonder that these scientific genes didn't pass to me. But, I know that Sam would have joined right in on the conversation. When I showed him Danny's letter to Steven, I could seen him working it out in his head, while I didn't even attempt to!
ah, obvious INDEED. Not! NO matter how many times someone tries to explain the time travel thing to me, I still can't logically put my mind around it because a second is a second...apprarently not though. haha. Those boys are so funny. I will have to make sure to send some of those statements to my co-workers so they can get to know the Farrell family a little better :)
Wow. I feel successful if we make it through a meal without having to hear the word "poop."
We did, however, discuss an article in Popular Science the other day (you know, the science magazine that is dummed down a little for those of us who can't comprehend quantum physics on the first try). It was about a guy who is preparing to sail a boat made of plastic water bottles to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (which, frighteningly, is the size of Canada now). We also feel proud to have watched a PBS special after dinner about the migratory patterns of butterflies.
Other than that, though, we stand in awe at the intellectual content of the Farrell family dinner conversations and LOVED the comments from Dan, both profound AND obvious. Love you guys!
We girls joke and mock, and yet we CANNOT stop the science discussions from flavoring our mealtimes. Remember this dinner opener, "Well, they discovered that ants have lungs" (wasn't that it??? somebody back me up, here).
Okay, Mom, here's the scary thing. I actually MISS the science discussions now that I'm at my own dinner table. I'm gonna have to get my hands on a subscription to Scientific American (or, more likely, Popular Science -- thanks for the suggestion, Jan).
Becca, I think it was, "You know, they just discovered insect lungs."
Someday, when I have family of my own, I will lead them in similar sophisticated conversations.
And FYI, I believe it's "An equation is simply man's abstraction of a NATURAL phenomenon ..." instead of 'physical'.
Joey, THANK YOU so much! I don't know how I made that critical error. It really is a big one. I am going to go back and edit the blog, for posterity's sake, and you can take the credit. It will now read correctly.
Post a Comment