now that's just cool.
posted by oog at 2:43 PM PST on February 5


yeah, lots and lots and lots of words of four letters or less.
posted by donkeyschlong at 2:44 PM PST on February 5


science predicts that one day we'll be able to explain it just three
posted by Peter H at 2:47 PM PST on February 5


that's with just three
gaa, i fucked up my joke!
posted by Peter H at 2:49 PM PST on February 5


Well done. Only in one spot or two can you tell that he had a hard time with the task. This can show that even a guy that blew your mind in the past can be put in a way that you can get!
posted by psychotic_venom at 2:49 PM PST on February 5


This beats the way my physics teacher explained it, which was, "just give up, you'll never understand."
posted by Hildago at 2:50 PM PST on February 5


"When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity." -- Old Al
posted by Hildago at 2:54 PM PST on February 5


Well technicall, it's four letters or fewer, as you can't have a fractional letter. But then again fewer has greater than four letters, so you're screwed either way.
posted by woil at 2:54 PM PST on February 5


fantastic post. thanks bunches. this theory is something i've always struggled with in those damn astro classes; it's nice to have it explained to you by someone who knows you're not particularly interested in the details, just the gist.

[this is freaking good]
posted by fishfucker at 2:56 PM PST on February 5


But Herb -- what? No, Herb isn't his real name, but I like to call him that

Hah.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 2:58 PM PST on February 5


[this is very good]
posted by yhbc at 3:02 PM PST on February 5


[this is exaggeratedly superexcellent]
posted by Pretty_Generic at 3:03 PM PST on February 5


Hey, those weren't the kind of four-letter words I was hoping to read.

It was good even without curse words. The F-word would have made it so colorful though...
posted by VelvetHellvis at 3:05 PM PST on February 5


Do we have a rule of some kind that says that when you talk back to a post that uses some kind of neat idea with how it says what it says, your own post has to be done the same way?
posted by wanderingmind at 3:16 PM PST on February 5


this is really neat, and wanderingmind: nice.
posted by quin at 3:49 PM PST on February 5


Let's see him try it with eighteen letter words. That would impress me.

Very nice link. And very well done.
posted by Kafkaesque at 3:57 PM PST on February 5


woil:
Well technically, it's four letters or fewer, as you can't have a fractional letter. But then again fewer has greater than four letters, so you're screwed either way.


"four words or not as many"?
posted by notsnot at 4:34 PM PST on February 5


"Letters" is a word with more than four letters, so I don't think that matters.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:47 PM PST on February 5


What, no post with a link or note of Made Apex Dean yet?
posted by jjg at 5:10 PM PST on February 5


This is very good post. I can't not type like this. My mind is now jelly. All your fault.





[but good post still]
posted by krazykity16 at 6:42 PM PST on February 5


I don't believe it - relatively speaking of course.
posted by LowDog at 6:59 PM PST on February 5


Heh, now I'm thinking about how it would have been if Else Holmelund Minarik had written this as one of her Little Bear books (with Maurice Sendak illustrations, of course).
posted by wobh at 7:08 PM PST on February 5


Just plain elegant.

A brilliant use of a simple sub-set of Basic English and other simple words.

As Churchill said: "The short words are best, and the old words are the best of all."

(As a friend once said, she then breaking out in a hearty laugh, "That old drunk... he probably couldn't remember the LONG words!")

If the only rap against this tour de force is that the title does not conform to the "four letter or less" criteria, how about this:

ORIGINAL: Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity In Words of Four Letters or Less

NEW: The Tale of Why Al's Idea That "E" Is Dead On The Same As "MC²."
And Told So That Each Word Is Of Four or Less Jots In Each Type Unit.
posted by Dunvegan at 7:21 PM PST on February 5


Oh. Must fix that.

Here:

The Tale of Why Al's Idea That "E" Is Dead On The Same As "MC2" Is True.
And Told So That Each Word Is Of Four Or Less Jots In Each Type Unit.

So be it. Ack.
posted by Dunvegan at 7:40 PM PST on February 5


or:

Why Old Al's Idea of E and MC2 is True: As Told in an Odd Way.
posted by pheideaux at 8:26 PM PST on February 5


Peep Al E's "E" and "MC" fly dope done home like, yo!
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:51 PM PST on February 5


Einstein himself wrote a fairly understandable book about relativity, which I read sometime in grade school.
posted by BlueWolf at 9:14 PM PST on February 5


This idea of Al's has had its day. Now, if you ask a man in a lab coat what of the big area away from the ball we live on, he will tell you that the main idea now is tiny rope, tiny rope all over, and also that many key bits of Al's idea are made fun of by the ever more pat idea of lots and lots of tiny tiny bits.
posted by dhartung at 9:38 PM PST on February 5


dhartung, I feel...I don't know...somewhat strung along by that theory...but, after some thought, perhaps it's a super theory, after all.
posted by Dunvegan at 10:09 PM PST on February 5


I always thought E=mc^2 was `leet speek anyways.
posted by blue_beetle at 10:13 PM PST on February 5


« Older Hey, did you see Romenesko tod...   |   Well known for speaking the tr... Newer »