Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
HP It's funny.  Laugh. Math Sci-Fi Science

Physicist Explains Cthulhu's "Non-Euclidean Geometry" 179

An anonymous reader writes "Mathematician Benjamin K. Tippett has written a fascinating and deadpan paper (Pdf) giving insights into Cthulhu. A 'Bubble' of warped Space-Time makes alarmingly consistent sense of the dead God's cyclopean city under the sea. From the paper: 'We calculate the type of matter which would be required to generate such exotic spacetime curvature. Unfortunately, we determine that the required matter is quite unphysical, and possess a nature which is entirely alien to all of the experiences of human science. Indeed, any civilization with mastery over such matter would be able to construct warp drives, cloaking devices, and other exotic geometries required to conveniently travel through the cosmos.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Physicist Explains Cthulhu's "Non-Euclidean Geometry"

Comments Filter:
  • by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @07:12PM (#41836969) Homepage
    Satirical scientific articles are a field of literature ripe for expansion. The only one I know of to have really found a wide readership (at least among those who follow modern literature) is Georges Perec's Cantatrix Sopranica L. [amazon.com] . Of course, the Sokal hoax paper is also a brilliant piece of writing.
  • by Anachragnome (1008495) on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @07:13PM (#41836987)

    Why the fuck would any self-respecting god need technology? I was always under the impression technology was humanity's attempts at mitigating our shortcomings as NON-Gods.

  • by Andy Prough (2730467) on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @07:33PM (#41837147)
    What would a "God" really be? Someone with vastly higher intelligence, using technology that you can't comprehend. Everything they did would seem magical, mystical, miraculous. Since you couldn't even comprehend their world, all you would be able to do is make up myths and legends and tall tales to explain their "Godliness".
  • by Sangui5 (12317) on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @07:47PM (#41837247)

    ..but HP?

    Is the new printer lineup Lovecraftian? Has Meg Whitman been conducting dark rituals? Is Itanium powered by the souls of the innocent?

    Wouldn't MS be more appropriate? I'm pretty sure IE is *actually* powered by the souls of the innocent, and there certainly is something evil about the entire OS lineup.

  • Re:Fitted Sheets (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SQLGuru (980662) on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @08:10PM (#41837407) Journal

    It's even worse when you try to figure out how to fold them.......

  • It's a sad day when there's two people in the world who don't recognize a Ghostbusters quote :(

  • by jaxtherat (1165473) on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @08:24PM (#41837519) Homepage

    Way to miss the Ghostbusters quote dumbass.

  • Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gman003 (1693318) on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @08:59PM (#41837685)

    Sorry it's all public domain.

    And since when has that stopped Disney from claiming "ownership" of something?

  • by smugfunt (8972) on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @09:12PM (#41837755)

    The Endochronic Properties of Resublimted Thiotimoline [wikipedia.org] by Isaac Asimov.
    A spoof chemistry paper which he told Campbell to publish pseudonymously in case it prejudice his upcoming thesis examination. Campbell used his real name, his examiners asked about it, and still gave him his doctorate.

  • by awrowe (1110817) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @05:13AM (#41840079)

    What I find fascinating is the propensity of supposedly intelligent people to judge the past using the morals of the present, without taking into account the prevailing culture of that period they are being so judgemental of.

    Equally interesting and rather more worrying is the tendency to want to completely erase a person from history when it is discovered the person has a flaw.

    So Lovecraft was a racist. So were many of his era, to the point where not holding those views was unusual at best. Does that really invalidate the literary merit of his work?

    No person is defined by a single aspect of their personality, we are far too complex for that. If that were the case, people would not be able to learn and adjust to new viewpoints of any kind, much less moral viewpoints.

    We do not change reality by changing the law, says your sig. It's true, we don't. We also don't change the past by denying it. And we can't change the future without learning from our past.

    Finally - and this is intended to be thought provoking rather than insulting - how is your prejudice against people because of the views they hold any different from the prejudice against people because of the colour of their skin? You are placing them in a box labelled "arsehole", purely because of the views they hold, in spite of the fact that their racism was culturally normal and was only a single aspect of their humanity, much like a black man's skin. I'd be uncomfortable with that myself.

  • by ghostdoc (1235612) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @05:43AM (#41840225)

    agree completely.

    We live in an 'enlightened' age where we realise that racism is a bad thing. But we subscribe to plenty of other virulent irrational hatreds (according to another age's moral viewpoint). How would we feel if the best and brightest of our generation were discarded from future history books for being religious, or disagreeing with homosexual marriage, or eating meat, or supporting climate alarmism, or driving cars, or any one of a hundred other things that we consider normal now?

    Our current views are incomprehensible to an educated person of 200 years ago. An educated person of 200 year's time will probably find our current worldview primitive beyond belief.

    Hesitate to judge, lest ye be judged in turn. Appreciate the genius of Lovecraft's writing and ignore his irrational prejudices.

Never buy what you do not want because it is cheap; it will be dear to you. -- Thomas Jefferson