I just looked this up. I hate to disappoint some of you quoters of hackneyed aphorisms and urban tales, who may not know this! And for those who already knew, to whom this old news is no news, still you can't blame me for putting it out there as good news - because I'm sorry to be late with the big front-page bulletin, but there are still people out there who seem to think bees can't fly! Who throw that in your face, as an affront, like you're some flat-earth chin-dribbler who can't tell which end of science is the business end. To these people, their ridiculous claim is that it is scientifically or mathematically impossible for bees to fly.
Unso.
The bee flight problem, first pointed out in 1934 by French entomologist August Magnan, got finally and definitively solved in 2005. That's right.
What happened was, a couple dudes named Dickinson and Altshuler apparently figured it out with high-speed photography and a giant robotic bee-wing. They wrote it up in the November 28 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. I haven't verified the nitty-gritty details myself, via my own reproducible experiments (except for a few dangerous and preliminary trials in the field, which tended to support the conclusions of the research), but it does seem to have held up. If you ask me, we can all be pretty safe just waiting for the movie with Russell Crowe as Dickinson. I can't wait for the inevitably thrilling scene where the robotic bee-wing breaks loose, and Dickinson has to pull out some kind of hero move!
There's your update, science fans. Bees CAN fly. And to all you nay-sayers, I say: I knew it.
I always knew it.
7 comments:
I have to agree with you. I always thought there was something funky about that phrase "Bees mathematically can't fly" Which I always responded, "Yet!" Because I can see them flying and mocking me for not be able too.
But as another famous web phrase goes. "Links or it didn't happen"
And what is this about a movie with Russell Crowe about this? Wow.
Tony, thanks for your comment! And I wholly agree - I always knew those damn bees weren't going to take these slights to heart in the slightest. Bees weren't going to be a bit befronted by the doubters! They were always going to come through with the goods - whether or not we could keep up with them with our theories.
I love bees. A rose by any other name would NOT be as sweet! Not without bees.
I must reluctantly address your link request. What I have to say next, I say with trepidation. I say it not to be a jerk, but to warn you of a rise in sophisticated jerkery. With that link request of yours - the more you put out a reasonable-seeming link request on an article that has already cited its sources by name with precision and specificity, the more jerks there are going to be, who respond to that request with one of these:
Ostensibly Amusing 'Let Me Google That For You' Result.
Now they're going to think that's funny. Don't expose yourself to that sort of "humor"!
Oh, the Russell Crowe movie - AWESOME!! If they do it!
On that one, I'm more trying to sow the seeds for greatness. Sorry about the premature excitement. As far as I know there's nothing in the works right now, but what a perfect fit for everybody involved!
Russell Crowe, I guess. Principally. And bees.
My favorite part of this entire post is the word "Unso."
I imagine saying it as though it were two words, very loudly, while shaking your finger to the sky, thus:
"UN!!!!" (finger pointing upwards, raising arm to sky, shaking) "so." (finger pointing down, jabbing arm downwards toward ground.)
Oh I love that lmgtfy. Don't worry Dogimo, I understand your position on linking sources already mentioned. In fact, it is something that I haven't make a decision yet when it comes to posts (are links necessary or just a convenient decoration of sources). I guess laziness got the best of me.
But one thing is for sure, I will watch that movie (if it's ever produced) with Russell Crowe or not.
Lacrema, I imagined that word with being said by a British judge or so.
@LAC - I LOVE "UNSO." I am so glad you singled that out! I use that one very sparingly (and with a bit more minimalist enunciation than what you're using, but by all means continue with my blessings!). But it has been a sleeved ace of mine for years, ready at need to let fly. To let hang, voice poised upon a pause, and then let drop: "Unso."
Delivered with keen, pointed, disappointed look; said with a crisp, clipped, understated tone, almost-as-if-bored-by-the-embarrassing-necessity-of-having-to-belabor-the-obvious: "Unso."
I reserve it exclusively unto those awkward situations where only the very dry delivery of an utterly made-up word will do, to express one's wry bemusement at how jarring the juxtaposition is between the facts as they are, and the facts as they have been claimed by some chump to be.
@Tony (and I apologize to you both for the multiplicty glitchy and now deleted comments just now!) - you make a good point about decoration. I think what decoration feels appropriate for a given piece does come into play, in a gut-feel way. I put in plenty of links within posts that feel like bloggy, linked-up, online pieces. But on some of my other stuff sometimes, where I am trying for a different feel like a newspaper op/ed page or a screenplay pitch or a literary artillery pompous barrage, the feel feels wrong to be slapping hotlinks in there.
I guess I just pretty much go by ear in each case! It's a little on the subconscious side. The desired effect subconsciously governs.
Post a Comment