PvM posted Entry 2044 on February 22, 2006 12:30 AM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2039

A little known secret is quickly growing into a worldwide scandal of unimaginable size and intensity: scientists do not know why ice is slippery. I am sure that many among you remember the textbook explanation that the pressure of the ice skate melts the ice and the skate slides on the water which then freezes. But now, the dedicated reporters of the New York Times have uncovered the scandal which is growing into what some claim to be the Waterloo for the Melting Ice Theory (MIT).

A public outrage is spreading across continents over how science books have misrepresented why ice is slippery while scientists knew that the explanation was erroneous. What motives are guiding the ‘MIT’ lobby to surpress the truth about why ice is slippery?

In a hard hitting article in the New York Times Kenneth Chang is showing how the scandal is slowly unraveling and how the ivory tower of science has been dealing with it.

Some scientists, despite facing the inevitable backlash from their colleagues are no longer staying quiet. Although persistent rumors of scientists having lost their funding for spring break ski trips are spreading, the veracity of these rumors has yet to be determined.

Ice, said Robert M. Rosenberg, an emeritus professor of chemistry at Lawrence University in Appleton, Wis., and a visiting scholar at Northwestern University, “is a very mysterious solid.”

Dr. Rosenberg wrote an article looking at the slipperiness of ice in the December issue of Physics Today, because he kept coming across the wrong explanation for it, one that dates back more than a century.

For more than a century, scientist and science textbooks have been promoting the slippery slope explanation while dogmatically surpressing those who tried to assail the leading theory of ‘slippery ice’. Who is trying to hide this mystery from science and worse from public scrutiny?

According to the frequently cited — if incorrect — explanation of why ice is slippery under an ice skate, the pressure exerted along the blade lowers the melting temperature of the top layer of ice, the ice melts and the blade glides on a thin layer of water that refreezes to ice as soon as the blade passes.

“People will still say that when you ask them,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “Textbooks are full of it.”

But the explanation fails, he said, because the pressure-melting effect is small. A 150-pound person standing on ice wearing a pair of ice skates exerts a pressure of only 50 pounds per square inch on the ice. (A typical blade edge, which is not razor sharp, is about one-eighth of an inch wide and about 12 inches long, yielding a surface area of 1.5 square inches each or 3 square inches for two blades.) That amount of pressure lowers the melting temperature only a small amount, from 32 degrees to 31.97 degrees. Yet ice skaters can easily slip and fall at temperatures much colder.

While alternative explanation have been proposed, they have so far failed to present the details necessary for such theories to be accepted. Some critics of the MIT theory have assailed these explanations as ‘just so stories’ and ‘pathetically lacking in detail. They argue the existence of a specified and complex process shows that it is time for science to accept that the slippery of ice may be best explained by Intelligent Design.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #81415

Posted by blipey on February 22, 2006 2:22 AM (e)

I don’t get it…what does this have to do with biology?

No, wait; my bad. I meant, “What does ID have to do with biology?”

Really nice article, but I don’t think the ID crowd will get it.

Comment #81421

Posted by Renier on February 22, 2006 2:58 AM (e)

Could I have some of the ice in my brandy please…

Now, please help me out here. I slipped and fell on the steps the other day? Is there a “Melting Steps Theory (MST)” somewhere, or did the Intelligent Designer trip me? Or just the less friction, the more slippery?

Comment #81422

Posted by Sir_Toejam on February 22, 2006 3:15 AM (e)

and what about ice brushing in curling?

it must be magic, cause the idea that the brushes create friction that melts the ice and changes the trajectory of the stone can’t be right!

Comment #81424

Posted by normdoering on February 22, 2006 3:57 AM (e)

I propose a new theory, the theory of “Intelligent Slipping” or slippery intelligences…

Comment #81428

Posted by Faidon on February 22, 2006 5:33 AM (e)

I’m sure the reason tongues stick to ice is the Intelligent Tripper’s way of punishing those filthy methodologicalnaturalists who don’t find the Slippery Word enough and just want to try everything…

Comment #81434

Posted by Renier on February 22, 2006 6:08 AM (e)

ROFLMAO

Comment #81436

Posted by Thinking Freely on February 22, 2006 6:18 AM (e)

PvM wrote:

While alternative explanation have been proposed, they have so far failed to present the details necessary for such theories to be accepted.

Maybe not in the scientific community, but I’ll bet if we organize enough Abramson money and slippery characters in one place, we can write a few cdesign proponentsists scientists to be “Dissenters from Skate-Pressure-Melts-Ice-ism” like so:

Dissenting wrote:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of pressure from an ice skate to account for the slipperiness of ice. Careful examination of the evidence for skate-pressure-melts-ice-and-that-is-why-it’s-slippery theory should be encouraged.

And if we can only get some Steves on our list, unlike the paltry four that appear on the Disco Institute’s:
Stephen Cheeseman (Geophysics)
Stephen Crouse (Kinesiology)
Steven Gollmer (Atmospheric Science)
Stephen Sewell (Medicine)

…of course, inviting anyone with a doctoral degree to “dissent”, and not just physicists and chemists, sure would help us, too.

Comment #81437

Posted by Renier on February 22, 2006 6:35 AM (e)

The idea of slipping is Irreducibly Complex(IC). If you take away the ice, or you take away the ice skater (slipping person), then there could be no slipping, thus, the whole thing is IC. Anyway, we all know the ice skater was front-loaded (pushed backwards), therefore he slipped, and could never have slipped without being front-loaded.

The Slipping Institute demands that we teach kids that the Melting Ice Theory (MIT) is a theory in crisis, and that the Intelligent Slipping Theory (IST - thanks norm) should be taught instead, since the MIT leads to immoral worldviews and are a cold atheistic conspiracy. This is the reason kids are always trying to be “cool” and wear strange clothes.

Dr. Slipsky did some maths and proved that a person can only slip when pushed, thus random or unguided slipping is a devil doctrine. Furthermore, Dr Slipsky proved with his maths that if we analyze the patterns made by the slipper’s bum prints on the ice, we can conclude that an Intelligent Slipping Agent is behind everything, including global warming, frostbite and bad maths.

DaveCrotch, from Uncommon Slipping blog is banning people who dares ask what exactly the Intelligent Slipping Theory (IST) is, whilst grooming John. A Slippedandfellonmyheadson…

More ice for my brandy please…

Comment #81447

Posted by Jaime Headden on February 22, 2006 7:47 AM (e)

God favors iceskaters!!!

Comment #81448

Posted by Julie Stahlhut on February 22, 2006 7:57 AM (e)

I don’t think we should be teaching these things to impressionable children. Ice kills. Remember Dr. Atkins.

Comment #81450

Posted by David Heddle on February 22, 2006 8:07 AM (e)

It has been known for a very long time that the textbook explanation for why people can iceskate is incorrect–my undergrad thermo teacher made us read a russian paper from the 70’s that had an alternate explanation–although I cannot recall the details.

It’s not that ice is slippery that we IDers admire–it’s that fact that it floats, and that water in general has high latent heat, high specific heat, low thermal conductivity, low viscosity, high melting and boiling points, and high surface tension. Those properties are all very “fortunate” as far as life is concerned.

Comment #81452

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on February 22, 2006 8:20 AM (e)

Those properties are all very “fortunate” as far as life is concerned.

The space aliens who made us thought so, too, Davey.

Just ask Behe.

Comment #81454

Posted by hessal on February 22, 2006 8:22 AM (e)

So the battlelines are being drawn. How soon before we go to court to keep the scourge of ISTism out of the classroom? Clearly this is another dogma put forth by the ISTists, and I for one will be first to the school board, before my kid is exposed to the dogma of Freud’s first slip…

Comment #81455

Posted by Renier on February 22, 2006 8:23 AM (e)

*snort*

Humor is lost on some people… like fundies… and IDiots…

Floater Heddle once again reminds us that water is different, because the Intelligent Slipper designed it to support ice skaters. Floater Heddle would like to remind is about his version of the Intelligent Slipping Theory (IST). A better theory thus is the Intelligent Floating Theory (IFT), stating there is an Intelligent Floater, and he lets ice skaters “float” on the ice, thus there is no such thing as slipping. This same entity, the Intelligent Floater is also responsible for the physics of the floaters you find in the toilet(Loo,John,Sh*thouse).

Comment #81456

Posted by KL on February 22, 2006 8:26 AM (e)

Intelligent Floating??!?

I might as well flush all that stuff I covered on Density at the beginning of the year. Bummer.

Comment #81465

Posted by Rick @ shrimp and grits on February 22, 2006 8:57 AM (e)

It’s not that ice is slippery that we IDers admire—it’s that fact that it floats, and that water in general has high latent heat, high specific heat, low thermal conductivity, low viscosity, high melting and boiling points, and high surface tension. Those properties are all very “fortunate” as far as life is concerned.

I am reminded of a textbook I have in my office called Elements of Chemistry, which says:

The effects of temperature upon liquid water is distinguished by a peculiarity of a very striking kind, and exhibits a departure from the general laws of nature, for a purpose so wise and beneficient, as to afford one of the strongest and most impressive of those endless proofs of design and onniscience in the frame of creation, which it is the most exalted pleasure of the chemist, no less than of the naturalist, to trace and admire.

The book was published in 1845. The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?

Comment #81469

Posted by Chiefley on February 22, 2006 9:46 AM (e)

The crying shame is that all this time, the melting-icists have dogmatically shut out all legitimate criticism from mainstream science. Obviously, our only choice, as proponents of Intelligent Slipping, is to take this right to the local school boards and Rick Santorum, where it can be resolved with the highest degree of objecivity in the full light of high school students and Republican Senators.

Skaters-melting-icism is a theory in crisis. There are a lot of gaps in this theory and it should finally subject to critical analysis. Its time for all of us to demand the free exchange of ideas!

Teach the Controversy!

By the way, I invite you all to purchase my books, Icons of Melting, and Pandas and Ice Skaters, coming to a bookstore near you.

Comment #81472

Posted by AD on February 22, 2006 9:58 AM (e)

Ah, nothing like a good parody.

I wonder how the FSM would address the MIT controversy. Perhaps we should start pushing to “teach the controversy” at youth hockey camps and figure skating lessons?

Comment #81478

Posted by steve s on February 22, 2006 10:41 AM (e)

Anyway, ID Melting is obviously correct, because of how sensitive to temperature ice is. Temperatures in the universe range from nearly 0K to 100 million K. On this scale, if you change the temperature of 32º ice even just a *hair*, less than a millionth of a percent, to say 40º, ice skating would be impossible.

What more proof do you need?

Comment #81479

Posted by FastEddie on February 22, 2006 10:43 AM (e)

In related news, toilet water is cleaner than fast-food ice – according to an article on the ABC news web site.

Comment #81485

Posted by Roadtripper on February 22, 2006 11:07 AM (e)

Did you know that the bond angle in ice crystals had to be fine-tuned to within twenty orders of magnitude, or the ice wouldn’t be slippery at all? This proves that the universe was intelligently designed for ice skating.

Comment #81486

Posted by Mr Christopher on February 22, 2006 11:12 AM (e)

I notice you are all conveniently ignoring *snow* in this discussion. I am sick of these ice theories (and it is a theory) being shoved down our children’s throats as if it were a fact.

I’m not saying the ice theory is the cause for teen pregnancy and teen drug use, but the number of teens in trouble today is staggering. Our youths could use a frozen water theory that is uplifting and empowering.

I for one plan to write my local school board and demand our children be taught an alternative to the ice theory, mainly the snow theory.

I am sick of the dogmatism surrounding ice theories. I say teach the controversy and let kids decide. Let’s give our children some credit and teach them both theories.

Mark my words, the ice theory is a theory in crisis.

Comment #81490

Posted by nitpicker on February 22, 2006 11:21 AM (e)

Well, now it’s time to teach the controversy in physics! http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060220/full/0602…. “Physicists are searching for violations to the theory of relativity.” Obviously, the science community has other dogmas it is attempting to promulgate on an unsuspecting public.

Comment #81494

Posted by Steverino on February 22, 2006 11:38 AM (e)

It’s slippery becuase it was “designed” that way. I can see the hand of G…….mmmm….The Designer in the design of ice. Thus, proving once and for all….(drum roll)…God did it…and, it goes really good with Capt’n and Coke!

Comment #81500

Posted by Tracy P. Hamilton on February 22, 2006 12:03 PM (e)

“In related news, toilet water is cleaner than fast-food ice — according to an article on the ABC news web site.”

My theory is that bacteria in the ice are pushing
people along, using their intelligently designed butt-propellors.

Maybe we can return the favor at a music concert,
pushing ice (Vanilla Ice) along when he stage dives.

Sorry, I misspoke when I said the word “music”.

Comment #81506

Posted by steve s on February 22, 2006 12:20 PM (e)

thanks to the admin for fixing the botched comment I complained about. Here’s to hoping someone shows the KwikXML team the meaning of the term “fail gently”.

Comment #81510

Posted by James Slade on February 22, 2006 12:39 PM (e)

Obviously, the melting by pressure concept is refuted by a simple thought experiment. I know that I am very good at slipping and falling with my skates. I keep hoping that if I stand still, the water supposedly melted by my blades will freeze me to the ice and I will finally be able to stand up. Guess what? Never happens! Maybe as I am standing, the ice continually melts under the pressure? However, water is a fluid, and if the melting by pressure concept were true, then all I would need to do is stand still long enough and I would eventually melt through to a sufficient depth for the water on the sides of my blades to freeze to support me. Again, this never happens.

James Slade
Red River College

Comment #81516

Posted by Lynn on February 22, 2006 12:50 PM (e)

Posted by FastEddie on February 22, 2006 10:43 AM (e)

“In related news, toilet water is cleaner than fast-food ice — according to an article on the ABC news web site.”

Hey! That’s true! I sent my botany students out with sterile cotton swabs and nutrient agar plates to collect samples, and the sample from inside the ice dispenser in the cafeteria was amazing! Much more entertaining than anything we collected from the rest rooms ;^)

Comment #81526

Posted by Rich on February 22, 2006 1:34 PM (e)

I’m amazed that no-one has commented on the obvious fallacy in MIT theory.

It violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!

Once the ice melts (becomes less associated), there is no way that it can regain information return to it’s solid form.

An outside agency is obviously needed to explain things.

Comment #81540

Posted by Sean Foley on February 22, 2006 2:40 PM (e)

Ice was not slippery before the Fall (obviously). The current slipperiness of ice is best explained by remnants of the Vapor Canopy that once encircled the earth clinging to the blades of skates and the surface of ice thereby facilitating skating.

Interested readers are referred to Henry Morris and John Witcomb’s seminal book The Genesis Zamboni.

Comment #81548

Posted by AC on February 22, 2006 3:16 PM (e)

David Heddle wrote:

It’s not that ice is slippery that we IDers admire—it’s that fact that it floats, and that water in general has high latent heat, high specific heat, low thermal conductivity, low viscosity, high melting and boiling points, and high surface tension. Those properties are all very “fortunate” as far as life is concerned.

It just never gets old, does it?

Rick's 1845 chemistry book wrote:

The effects of temperature upon liquid water is distinguished by a peculiarity of a very striking kind, and exhibits a departure from the general laws of nature, for a purpose so wise and beneficient, as to afford one of the strongest and most impressive of those endless proofs of design and onniscience in the frame of creation, which it is the most exalted pleasure of the chemist, no less than of the naturalist, to trace and admire.

Wait…this conceit is obviously immortal, so it must be divine!

Comment #81563

Posted by wamba on February 22, 2006 4:29 PM (e)

We must teach all sides - including my Freezing Sleet Monster theory.

Comment #81564

Posted by BWE on February 22, 2006 4:33 PM (e)

Wait til you get a load of this controversy!

Our moon is GEOLOGICALLY ACTIVE!!!

This absolutely blows the lid off everything. It rips down the curtain that the little diabolical scientists hide behind while they pull the silent strings of the liberal (read that Satanic) media. Evolution is proved false. Plate techtonics and redshift, the other two pillars of modern materialist scientists will fall like dominoes. I like to call this the “Dominoe Theory” (in deference to Dan Quail- Cheney hunts quail, others Duck or Grouse).

Hmpf. Put that in your pipe and smoke it you liberal, atheist, commie, pinko, homo, perrier drinking, volvo driving, educated segment of the population.

Comment #81566

Posted by Sir_Toejam on February 22, 2006 4:43 PM (e)

*ahem*

perrier is so “yesterday”…

Comment #81568

Posted by not-BWE on February 22, 2006 4:48 PM (e)

Yeah! Take that. Now we drink water.

Comment #81569

Posted by Rob Knop on February 22, 2006 4:51 PM (e)

I wonder how the FSM would address the MIT controversy. Perhaps we should start pushing to “teach the controversy” at youth hockey camps and figure skating lessons?

Allow me to point out that a big mess of spilled spaghetti source is slipperly….

I think everything is now clear.

-Rob

Comment #81570

Posted by BWE on February 22, 2006 4:53 PM (e)

pardon, that should have read:
not-BWE;)

Comment #81571

Posted by Chiefley on February 22, 2006 4:56 PM (e)

I for one am a Young Ice Creationist, or YIC. We believe that all ice is “Young Ice” and it is only 4000 years old, being water from the original Great Flood.

Using the latest calculations from Flood Hydraulics, we have determined that Young Ice hasn’t been around long enough to get bumpy. Therefore it is slippery simply because it is young.

By default, if the Melting Ice theory is wrong, the only explanation can be Young Ice. We can prove this through the time honored application of GebrauchVonFalscherDichotomie.

Comment #81574

Posted by Paul Flocken on February 22, 2006 5:03 PM (e)

Hmpf. Put that in your pipe and smoke it you liberal, atheist, commie, pinko, homo, perrier drinking, volvo driving, educated segment of the population.

Hey BWE, you forgot Berkenstock wearing. :^)

Comment #81578

Posted by BWE on February 22, 2006 5:11 PM (e)

Darn. Birkenstock wearing, organic milk drinking, godless, casual sex having, evolution believing, pansies!

Comment #81580

Posted by Bruce Thompson GQ on February 22, 2006 5:25 PM (e)

There is currently paleontological evidence of Pandas from the ice age found in China. So Pandas could have developed ice skating as a method to move from habitat to habitat. There is ample modern photographic evidence of Panda’s interacting with
Snow
and ice and they seem to have a preference for these substances when they are available.

As argued previously, the Darwinian Pressure Group is a measure of the pressure applied by the Pandas thumb to bamboo for stripping leaves, but this does not address the original selective pressures that may have lead to the development of the additional digit.

I suggest that the additional digit arose in response to balancing as Pandas tried to reduce surface contact with the ice, reducing friction as they ice skated across frozen bodies of water during the ice age. Pandas without the additional digit were subject to falling flat on their face while skating across frozen ponds forcing them to travel around frozen bodies of water expending additional energy in the search for food resources and mates. While those with the additional digit could balance each paw in a tripod fashion with each claw acting as a blade while pushing with each hind paw moving rapidly across frozen lakes. This adaptation would allow these Pandas more rapid access to resources in addition to providing a mechanism for stripping bamboo leaves. Also substituting bone for cartilage in the modified sesamoid bone would decrease the probability of tendon damage during ice skating, as observed in modern ice skaters.

This suggests that Panda skeletal remains should exist without the additional digit from pre/early ice age sediments followed by skeletal remains with “thumbs” of varying lengths. Pandas from post ice age sediments should show a decrease in “thumb” size as the ice skating selective pressure was removed and only the bamboo selective pressure remained.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Comment #81582

Posted by Anton Mates on February 22, 2006 5:34 PM (e)

David Heddle wrote:

It’s not that ice is slippery that we IDers admire—it’s that fact that it floats, and that water in general has high latent heat, high specific heat, low thermal conductivity, low viscosity, high melting and boiling points, and high surface tension. Those properties are all very “fortunate” as far as life is concerned.

Indeed! Whereas molecular hydrogen and helium aren’t very much use at all to our sort of life. Therefore Satan created Jupiter.

AD wrote:

I wonder how the FSM would address the MIT controversy.

It wouldn’t. Cold pasta’s terrible.

Comment #81585

Posted by BWE on February 22, 2006 5:39 PM (e)

I’m telling you. GIve em an inch and they take a mile.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20060220/ev…

Comment #81590

Posted by Jason on February 22, 2006 6:12 PM (e)

BWE wrote:

Wait til you get a load of this controversy!

Our moon is GEOLOGICALLY ACTIVE!!!

OMG, that link is hilarious. None other than Jack Chick!

“Io is quite small, yet it has the most active volcanoes we know of,” writes Vance Ferrell in The Evolution Cruncher. The usual evolutionary model claims that all the planets and moons were molten 5 billion years ago. Then they cooled for a billion years as volcano activity decreased. Yet, Io contradicts this theory. It is obviously quite young since its internal heat has not had time to cool.

Whoo! who buys this crap?

Comment #81591

Posted by Jason on February 22, 2006 6:15 PM (e)

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1024/1024_01…

Just check out Chick’s latest tract.

It’s pretty sick.

Comment #81592

Posted by Mike Z on February 22, 2006 6:20 PM (e)

If it’s pistols at dawn over a little thing like why ice is slippery, what chance do we have with something really complicated like evolution?

Another controversy that doesn’t really seem to be settled is whether the Bernoulli effect is the principal cause of lift in airplane wings.

On the other hand, bees still fly, skaters skate, and planes do fly with the appropriate camber.

Comment #81595

Posted by KiwiInOz on February 22, 2006 6:39 PM (e)

I wonder if the koalas ice skated from Mt Ararat to Australia?

Comment #81605

Posted by Sean on February 22, 2006 8:12 PM (e)

BWE wrote:

Cheney hunts quail,

Funny. I thought he hunted lawyers.

There is no mystery why ice is slippery. Its ice!

Comment #81607

Posted by Sir_Toejam on February 22, 2006 8:13 PM (e)

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20060220/ev…

That article is just terrible.

Research on toads, frogs, salamanders, fish, lizards, squirrels and plants are all showing evidence that some species are attempting to adapt to new conditions in a time frame of decades, not eons, say biologists.

*sigh*

You’d expect at least a little better from something put on by an entertainment channel that at least purports to be about science.

Comment #81620

Posted by normdoering on February 22, 2006 9:14 PM (e)

Sir_Toejam, your link didn’t work.

Comment #81626

Posted by Sir_Toejam on February 22, 2006 9:42 PM (e)

i copied it from BWE’s post (81585) above.

it works there.

Comment #81630

Posted by Bruce Thompson GQ on February 22, 2006 10:25 PM (e)

KiwiInOz asks:
I wonder if the koalas ice skated from Mt Ararat to Australia?

I think the question we should be asking is do Koalas or marsupials in general have any specializations that would allow them to ice skate. I’m unaware of any morphological specializations that would aid Koalas in ice skating. Although a consideration of biogeography of marsupials might shed some light on the possibility of ice skating in this group of animals. A comparison of new world marsupials (opossums) with those in Australia might point to some unrecognized morphological or behavioral specialization relating to ice skating.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Comment #81635

Posted by Karen on February 22, 2006 10:42 PM (e)

Are the mainstream scientists shivering because the ice is cold? Or is it really because they are scared to death of Melting Ice Theory (MIT)?

Comment #81637

Posted by Sir_Toejam on February 22, 2006 11:13 PM (e)

I’m unaware of any morphological specializations that would aid Koalas in ice skating

hmm. how bout padded feet, thick fur, a short tail, and sharp claws on their toes?

I’m absolutely sure those things have NOTHING to do with climbing trees, and everything to do with ice skating.

I’ve hear the preposterous notion that these things have to do with climbing trees, but even if we WERE to see koalas climbing trees, the best we would be able to conclude is that these traits that clearly evolved for ice-skating have been co-opted to climbing trees.

Comment #81640

Posted by Bruce Thompson GQ on February 22, 2006 11:37 PM (e)

Sir_Toejam claims: I’m absolutely sure those things have NOTHING to do with climbing trees, and everything to do with ice skating.

All the traits you reference are not specializations and found in many animals. But if the primary selective pressure leading to the development of padded feet, thick fur, and sharp claws were ice skating then these traits should not be present in these animals before the advent if ice rinks or other skating opportunities. In addition, animals with these traits should cluster near paleo ice rinks in the fossil record.

I’m not clear how a short tail enhances ice skating?

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Comment #81656

Posted by Sir_Toejam on February 23, 2006 1:05 AM (e)

and sharp claws were ice skating then these traits should not be present in these animals before the advent if ice rinks or other skating opportunities. In addition, animals with these traits should cluster near paleo ice rinks in the fossil record.

but you are clearly forgetting that early pleistocene ice-covered lakes were quite common.

the point of the short tail is it wouldn’t drag on the ice, like a long tail would, thereby reducing drag coefficients.

Comment #81664

Posted by Popper's Ghost on February 23, 2006 1:32 AM (e)

it must be magic, cause the idea that the brushes create friction that melts the ice and changes the trajectory of the stone can’t be right!

By your reasoning (yes, I can read your mind), the idea that a blowtorch melts ice can’t be right, either.

Comment #81665

Posted by Sir_Toejam on February 23, 2006 1:39 AM (e)

the idea that a blowtorch melts ice can’t be right, either.

at last, someone who clearly has just as good a handle on this issue as i do.

Comment #81666

Posted by Popper's Ghost on February 23, 2006 1:40 AM (e)

i copied it from BWE’s post (81585) above.

No, you copied the text associated with the link. You need to right-click the link and then click “Copy link location” (or your browser’s equivalent) in the pulldown menu.

Comment #81667

Posted by Popper's Ghost on February 23, 2006 1:43 AM (e)

What’s curling?

(One of tonight’s Jeapardy! “answers”.)

Comment #81668

Posted by Popper's Ghost on February 23, 2006 1:46 AM (e)

There is no mystery why ice is slippery. Its ice!

Uh, like how there is no mystery how God created life – he’s God!

Comment #81669

Posted by Sir_Toejam on February 23, 2006 1:48 AM (e)

What is a sport played by at least 3 participants where people chuck a rock down an ice covered lane similar in length and width to a bowling lane, and adjust the path of the rock by sweeping the ice with short bristled brooms in order to try to score points by keeping their rock in one of 3 concentric circles, while denying your opponent the same opportunity?

I’ll take silly olympic sports for 300, Alex.

Comment #81672

Posted by Popper's Ghost on February 23, 2006 2:05 AM (e)

It was a $2000 question – er, answer – so there weren’t quite so many details. It was reminiscent of the old puzzle: “Joe wants to go home, but he can’t go home because the man in the mask is waiting for him.”

Comment #81679

Posted by Sir_Toejam on February 23, 2006 2:55 AM (e)

sorry, were you really asking what curling is?

I knocked it, but actually it’s kind of an interesting sport.

lot of strategy and skill involved.

http://www.usacurl.org/

now if i could only find a 95’ long ice covered lane in the desert to play it…

Comment #81682

Posted by djmullen on February 23, 2006 3:18 AM (e)

Humpf! Slippery Ice is clearly caused by the Intelligent Lubricator! It’s time we got The Intelligent Lubricator Theory into our nation’s high schools and barber colleges.

Comment #81712

Posted by Paul Flocken on February 23, 2006 6:28 AM (e)

Comment #81578 Posted by BWE on February 22, 2006 05:11 PM

Darn. Birkenstock wearing, organic milk drinking, godless, casual sex having, evolution believing, pansies!

Cripes a’mighty, I can’t even spell bloody Birkenstock right. Thanks BWE

Comment #81721

Posted by Renier on February 23, 2006 7:41 AM (e)

Intelligent Lubricator Theory

eh… foreplay?

Comment #81755

Posted by Bruce Thompson GQ on February 23, 2006 11:13 AM (e)

Sir_Toejam writes: the point of the short tail is it wouldn’t drag on the ice, like a long tail would, thereby reducing drag coefficients.

It could as easily be argued that a long tail could be used as a steering mechanism, similar to a rudder.

To quote mine: “Tails are used by a wide variety of animals for diverse purposes such as countercurrent heat exchange, grasping, propulsion, communication, and balance”(Italics mine). “Balance is particularly important in mammals that move fast or change direction rapidly…”(Italics mine).

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Comment #81787

Posted by Don on February 23, 2006 1:14 PM (e)

I think if we look hard enough we’d realize that between the skater’s blade and the ice are billions of bacteria that are actually little teeny weeny, irreducibly complex, fully functioning Zamboni Machines.

Comment #81792

Posted by Bruce Thompson GQ on February 23, 2006 1:25 PM (e)

Perfect, you win the prize….

The little nano machines the UD IDers love to talk about. No evolution required. Now, I think some people here have a few questions.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Comment #81861

Posted by Alan Grey on February 23, 2006 6:44 PM (e)

The controversy is out of the bag. Evolutionists are at loggerheads with each other over what mechanism was the primary driver for the evolution of this post.

Richard Dorkins, a prominent evolutionary zoologist, has been very vocal in the news paper claiming that the post was “unambiguously the work of natural selection selecting for the beneficial instants of many Glob-S&R mutations.” Glob-S&R mutations are a mutation where one letter or word throughout the posts code is replaced for a different letter or word. Dorkins also loudly proclaimed that anyone who disagreed with him must be a “poopy-head who had no idea how smart or British he was”

Kenny Milker, a biologist and farmer, has also weighed in. Apparently wanting to milk the issue for all it is worth, Kenny has been speaking to reporters and tv crews all over America pushing his idea that “this post obviously came about via neutral selection of a Plage mutation, where one species of post steals code from another post.”

Eugene Scott from the Nation Center for Strawmen Eviseration (NCSE) has come forward to claim that sections of the post seem to have evolved from many of NCSE’s common news releases. Eugene said “The similarities are amazing. Clearly this post has evolved from at least one of the common species of post we are responsible for here at the NCSE. It has obviously evolved through natural selection acting on two types of mutational mechanisms, the Plage mutation and the Globl-S&R mutation. I really can’t understand how anyone could dispute this.”

Evolutionary biologist brothers Tom and Jerry Coin disagree completely stating that “This post simply evolved from an ancient ancestor via random letter substitution over millions of years. There is no need to invoke S&R or Plage Mutations here. To put it simply, just because we have large gaps between the codes in posts does not mean we have to invoke some hopeful blogster type mutations. The simple explanation that our records of various posts is incomplete can explain these gaps and so removes any need to invoke these inventive solutions”.

Philosopher of Science, R Michael has claimed that it is all a Ruse saying “Clearly this is all a sham where evolutionists have once again let their religious beliefs influence their scientific pronouncements. Clearly, as many evolutionists disagree on the mechanism, the facts do not speak for themselves, but are instead interpreted in light of the pet theory of each evolutionist.”

Answers in Gnocchi spokesman Ken Bacon disagrees with the evolutionists however. When asked about the post Ken said “Plainly, this post must have been caused by someone with at least a modicum of intelligence. The information content we see in the post, whilst quite low, is still high enough to clearly rule out evolutionary mechanisms and even though we have never observed an evolutionist create an intelligent post before, I believe we can safely conclude that intelligence was responsible for the creation of this post”

William D Behe, from the Disk-recovery Institute (DI), surprisingly agrees with the evolutionists, saying “It is very clear to me and all of us at the DI that there was no Intelligent Design involved in the creation of this post.”

Comment #81863

Posted by Sir_Toejam on February 23, 2006 6:55 PM (e)

Answers in Gnocchi …

not bad. I’d just like to point out to the lurkers that
this is a minority sect of Flying Sphaghetti Monsterism, and does not represent the consesus view of FSM.

Comment #81920

Posted by Gary Hurd on February 24, 2006 12:47 AM (e)

I am reminded of a textbook I have in my office called Elements of Chemistry, …

Dang. Wow! I am so jelous. I have a Third Edition (1904) Chemical Technology and Analysis of Oils Fats and Waxes, and a Fifth edition of Scotts Standard Methods of Chemicaal Analysis. The Oils Fats and Waxes has actually been useful. Once I had a 1920s edition of what became the CRC Handbook. IIRC, it was a skinny little thing (compared to the latter editions) called the “Labratory Handbook Recipes and Constants.”

Comment #81922

Posted by Sir_Toejam on February 24, 2006 12:53 AM (e)

Hey Gary!

how ya been?

Comment #81928

Posted by Gary Hurd on February 24, 2006 2:23 AM (e)

Hi, SirTJ. Good here. The hummor on this thread is great. I wish I could “do” funny.

There were these two guys who buried their victim in a thick stand of poison oak. That was funny. There was this woman who was being raped by the apartment complex handiman. She got a screwdriver from his tool belt and started stabing him in the head. It was a philips head screwdriver so it left all these little “X” marks in his skull until she finally punched through and killed him. We thought that was kinda funny. (I plan on using that one in my next paper “Specified Complexity: Hammered and Screwed”).

Heddle is funny. Curling is funny. Ice in brandy is an offense aginst nature. I have never been so disgusted! The horror, sir, the horror.

Comment #81934

Posted by Renier on February 24, 2006 3:42 AM (e)

Ice in brandy is an offense against nature. I have never been so disgusted! The horror, sir, the horror.

You discriminating against ice? Stop being such an Ice-ist and try it… I know you want to… deep down in your dark side, you can hear the ice calling you… oh, and put some Coke in that glass too!

You can leave the ice out of the Cognac (Konjak). Such a thing is an abomination before the IceLord, same way that warm beer is an abomination to the whole of humanity, and the Americans too. :-p

Comment #81973

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on February 24, 2006 8:01 AM (e)

same way that warm beer is an abomination to the whole of humanity, and the Americans too. :-p

Oh, come on — not *all* Americans are an abomination to the whole of humanity. Just the current administration.

;)

Comment #81979

Posted by Renier on February 24, 2006 8:46 AM (e)

Ok, let me restate my comment.

You can leave the ice out of the Cognac (Konjak). Such a thing is an abomination before the IceLord, same way that warm beer is an abomination to the whole of humanity and Americans.

What was the book? Good Omens! “Note to all people and Americans”

Comment #82001

Posted by Torbjorn Larsson on February 24, 2006 11:22 AM (e)

But if water puddles on ice is from melting, how can we still have icicles?

Comment #82130

Posted by TJ, Esq. on February 25, 2006 1:40 AM (e)

for all those that think slippery slope theory has no real world applications, you haven’t been watching the olympics:

http://www.physorg.com/news11186.html

Comment #82141

Posted by orrg1 on February 25, 2006 9:46 AM (e)

Jason wrote:

“Io is quite small, yet it has the most active volcanoes we know of,” writes Vance Ferrell in The Evolution Cruncher. The usual evolutionary model claims that all the planets and moons were molten 5 billion years ago. Then they cooled for a billion years as volcano activity decreased. Yet, Io contradicts this theory. It is obviously quite young since its internal heat has not had time to cool.

Who can dispute this young Io theory? Atheistic scientists blame tidal forces, but there isn’t even any water on Io! Anyway, what do tides have to do with volcanoes, LOL? Io is an indisputable proof of intelligent design. Please joint us Intelligent Design Io Theorists (ID Io ts) in our quest to spread the Truth and vanquish the evilutionists!

Comment #82159

Posted by Pat Silver on February 25, 2006 1:46 PM (e)

There is an error in the statement that a skate blade is 1/8” wide. It is not, a skate blade is ground to give 2 sharp edges with a concave section between the two edges. You can see this quite clearly if you look at clean ice over which a skater has passed, there are two parallel lines. Any skater will tell you that the edges need to be genuinely sharp or you skid all over the ice.

Comment #82164

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on February 25, 2006 2:04 PM (e)

There is an error in the statement that a skate blade is 1/8” wide. It is not, a skate blade is ground to give 2 sharp edges with a concave section between the two edges. You can see this quite clearly if you look at clean ice over which a skater has passed, there are two parallel lines. Any skater will tell you that the edges need to be genuinely sharp or you skid all over the ice.

Aren’t the blades on hockey skates different from those on figure skates ….?

Comment #82623

Posted by Popper's Ghost on February 28, 2006 2:15 AM (e)

sorry, were you really asking what curling is?

No, I was reporting a timely and apropos Jeopardy! “answer”, and was quite familiar with the sport.

But thanks for asking. :-)

Gary Hurd, good to see you back! Your GBCW post saddened me, as I had greatly enjoyed your contributions.

Comment #82625

Posted by Popper's Ghost on February 28, 2006 2:24 AM (e)

It has revealed to me that Ice works in mysterious ways.

Comment #82627

Posted by Popper's Ghost on February 28, 2006 2:26 AM (e)

As a good (but dead) Popperian, I must offer my revised findings:

It has been revealed to me that Ice works in mysterious ways.

Comment #82703

Posted by Henry J on February 28, 2006 12:04 PM (e)

“The ice was here, the ice was there…”

Comment #83270

Posted by Catmoves on March 2, 2006 2:06 PM (e)

I would like to propose a substantial increase in personal taxes (at least in the billions) for a complete federal investigation of: 1.) the scientists expounding the erroneous theory of why ice is slippery, and 2.) whether or not this violates the principle of lies and government (much like the principle of separation of church and government). Think of the out of work ITs we could help.

Comment #89996

Posted by Jim on March 28, 2006 9:19 AM (e)

Since scientists obviously cannot agree on why ice is slippery, they obviously have no idea what ice is. Obviously if they do not know what ice is, they obviously do not understand the nature of matter, crystal formation, phase transitions, thermodynamics, energy, covalent bonding, molecular (and atomic) structure, or anything else for that matter. Obviously then, if even scientists cannot agree on the nature of such purportedly “basic” chemical and physical properties, we must assume that the entire fields of Chemistry and Physics are nothing but shams. Quite obvioulsy, science as a whole does not explain a darn thing. Therefore, the logical, unbiased, and obvious alternative is that the Designer (Ice or otherwise) designed things to work as they do. End of story. Obviously.

Comment #89997

Posted by Jim on March 28, 2006 9:20 AM (e)

Since scientists obviously cannot agree on why ice is slippery, they obviously have no idea what ice is. Obviously if they do not know what ice is, they obviously do not understand the nature of matter, crystal formation, phase transitions, thermodynamics, energy, covalent bonding, molecular (and atomic) structure, or anything else for that matter. Obviously then, if even scientists cannot agree on the nature of such purportedly “basic” chemical and physical properties, we must assume that the entire fields of Chemistry and Physics are nothing but shams. Quite obvioulsy, science as a whole does not explain a darn thing. Therefore, the logical, unbiased, and obvious alternative is that the Designer (Ice or otherwise) designed things to work as they do. End of story. Obviously.

Comment #101928

Posted by Betsy Markum on May 23, 2006 4:52 PM (e)

I can’t believe it, my co-worker just bought a car for $37732. Isn’t that crazy!