"... she'd have her own gravitational pull."

[Drooling Iguana]

Actually, everyone has their own gravitational pull. Anything with mass has gravity, but for smaller objects the pull is too weak to be noticed.

Furthermore, an object's gravitational pull depends exclusively on its total mass; density has nothing to do with it. However, with a denser object you would be able to get closer to said object's centre of mass without hitting the edge of that object, and since the gravitational pull between any two objects is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centres of mass, the area immediately surrounding a dense object would have stronger gravity than the area around a less dense object of equivalent mass.

A more appropriate insult would be "...I swear to god if she were any more dense she'd have her own event horizon," since the formation of an event horizon, unlike gravitational pull, is dependant on the density of the object in question.

[Casual Notice]

Actually, assuming a constant volume, density is the only variable that would affect mass, and therefore provide the mass necessary for a noticeable grvaity well.

That being said, physics can suck the funny out of a joke.

[Drooling Iguana]

Nonsense! Physics makes everything better! SCIENCE!

[bloodeye]

Nah, physics is too fragile. One recorded event in which results of a situation fail to mesh with all previous results, and the whole system falls apart.

Philosophy or bust.

[lazyguygy]

just tell her shes fat and leave the science to those who... crap i was going somewhere with this.... arrgh

[Dynamo]

Nah, physics is too fragile. One recorded event in which results of a situation fail to mesh with all previous results, and the whole system falls apart.

Philosophy or bust.

Naw, each recorded event that refutes the model provides data to make the model stronger.

Science NOOB.

[bloodeye]

No, it requires a new model, one less intuitive than the previous. A continuation of new data sets eventaully leads to a fully counter-intuitive model, that only experts have any hope of understanding. Why most scientists are now experimental and collect massive amounts of data, rather than theoritical, like Einstein, Hawking, Newton, and most others who radically advanced science. However, being the only one who understands what the hell you're talking about makes for greater job security.

[Dynamo]

A complex universe requires complex modelling. Anyone who tells you the universe is simple is selling something.* A good scientist knows that his/her model is flawed if subjected to enough empirical evidence, and a model that cannot withstand refinement in response to contradictory evidence is insufficiently robust and will fail in the marketplace of ideas. The only fully correct answer in science is "It depends."

Nitty-gritty, detail-oriented science is every bit as important as "high concept" science. Neither would get far without the other. While most scientists can function in either environment, the best specialize in one or the other. You never hear about the specialists in nitty-gritty, because it's not glamorous, but that doesn't make them any less vital.


* "Life IS pain, Highness. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something."
-The Man in Black

[HiFranc]

To tell the truth, just a couple of days before the "gravitational pull" strip was reprinted I was wondering where I'd seen that.

[Casual Notice]

Funny...being...sucked...out of...room...all...life...becoming...as...boring...as a...pre-Nova...documentary...