• 1 Post
  • 71 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 4th, 2023

help-circle







  • So, one observer will see those oscillations happen faster than the other?

    Not quite. In each observer’s frame of reference, time appears to pass the same; it’s only when you try to reconcile the between two objects that are not at rest with respect to each other does relativity show up.

    Basically, when you bring someone back to Earth, the observers will find that their watches don’t match up even though both observers experience time passing the same way as normal (because the oberserver is by definition at rest with respect to their own frame of reference).

    TL; DR: Relativity is a pain in the ass and makes no sense in everyday terms.

    edit: disclaimer - I am not a physicist and have not taken physics classes in a decade plus, but I do teach science at a college. I’m going mostly on half-remembered lectures and some random one-off discussions I’ve had with my buddy in the physics department over the past few years.



  • It’s been a long time since I took modern physics, so I’m not positive, but I think you’re right that the moon would have time moving slower, and if your 50ms/day is right (edit: I based this on the moon traveling faster than the earth, but I don’t know anything about gravitational relativity, so that’s probably wrong) then you’d need to do something like skip a second every 20th day on the moon to keep pace with Earth. We could call it an “anti-leap-second”

    Programmers, that seems pretty simple; what’s the big deal? /s


  • No, the moon’s rotation isn’t on a 24-hour cycle. I’m not an astronomer, but I pretty sure since it’s tidally locked to earth and on a 28-day cycle around the earth, a lunar day is actually 28 Earth days, but I’m not actually sure how that would factor into the number of time zones (I’m pretty sure it would be more complicated than just 24 time zones to match 24 time zones on earth, though).

    Plus, I think the speed of the moon relative to the sun is different enough from Earth that you need to take relativity into effect, which is the real headache here.




  • Him being better than some contemporaries isn’t great.

    Yeah, especially since I went back to look at publication dates and his more serious works were published much later than I had thought. Arguing that Tolkien’s racist language was just “a product of his time” is a lot less valid given he was writing Fellowship of the Ring in the 1950’s, not the 30’s like I’d assumed. It seems like even for his time, Tolkien was pretty stodgy and conservative.

    I don’t have any particular issues with Tolkien besides that he wasn’t socially creative enough to see beyond what he knew, but that’s true for most people.

    Yeah, but then most people aren’t famous for creating entire fantasy worlds, so I’d like to think that it’s reasonable to hold authors to a higher standard here. His world-building is incredibly complex and innovative in many ways, while also being built around fairly derogatory and one-dimensional characterizations. And IMO, his writing, while entertaining, isn’t profound or even note-worthy in many respects compared to many of his contemporaries (I think I’m preaching to the choir, here, but look at the list of significant modernist writers and try to tell me with a straight face that the list should include Tolkien). Personally, as much as I love LOTR, people that argue that Tolkien is a literary genius and can do no wrong are just cringey.

    However, we should always be critical of any creator of any work. We should strive to solve issues and point out flaws in order to improve our world. It can’t change the past, but it can change the future.

    Well said.


  • I think it’s pretty obvious from the rest of the sentence that Tolkien is explicitly using "Mongol-type"as a racial descriptor; “sallow” is referring to skin color, “slanted eyes” speaks for itself, and the fact that he explicitly references European beauty standards are all providing contextual evidence that Tolkien is using Eastern Asians as the physical model for orcs


  • NielsBohron@lemmy.worldtoLord of the memes@midwest.socialSnacks and some pipe-weed
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I mean, I’m all for contextualizing Tolkien, and I’ll grant that many of his contemporaries were far more overtly racist (cough Lovecraft cough), but it’s still pretty hard to justify passages from his private letters that describe orcs as

    squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types

    Edit: here’s the Wikipedia source that describes the issue in fairly nuanced terms



  • Interesting, thanks for the info

    No problem! Obviously, I like talking about this stuff. And if you’re interested, I’d also recommend reading the whole book. It’s pretty fascinating, although in his reminiscing and pontificating, Asimov does get a little “get off my lawn” for my taste at times.

    great name! I found a first edition of his in a basement bookstore in Switzerland as a teen. Totally random, I know.

    Thanks! And it’s not too random, I’d say; we’re in a sci-fi forum talking about historical sci-fi writers, many of whom were also trained as scientists, after all.