**Ask a monkey a physics question thread**

[MadMojoMonkey]

A hypothesis!

Now test it, and share your results!

***
I don't get why you're so feisty on this issue.

Clearly, dust accumulates where people are not... as dust is a measure of particulate size, nothing to do with humans.
We're not talking about dust in random non-occupied places, though. We're talking about homes in use by people.

All I'm saying is that it's plausible to me that in some houses there are significant human skin cells, dust mites, and mite excrement in the dust to account for a majority of the mass of dust.

Your assertion that this is never the case is strongly worded and requires a strong demonstration of fact to change my mind.

If your sense is so common, it should be easy to conclusively demonstrate your assertion.

[BananaStand]

Your assertion that this is never the case is strongly worded and requires a strong demonstration of fact to change my mind.

Dude...he showed you the math.

Plus he severely lowballed the average house size at 100 m2.

[Poopadoop]

If your sense is so common,

Not as common as I thought, apparently.

it should be easy to conclusively demonstrate your assertion.

It was, did you not read it?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Not as common as I thought, apparently.

This is the reason we need science to root out what "seems" legit from what "is" legit.

"Armchair philosophy" is fine for moral and ethical discussions, but it fails when it comes to making measurable predictions about the world.

It was, did you not read it?

Your statement of plausibility is fine, but it is not a proof, no matter how "reasonable" it sounds.

My critiques:
You've approximated the amount of some human skin dust which you expect in some situations, not all dust in all situations.
You've ignored the amount of dust which is mites and the mites' excrement.
You have not compared those amounts of dust to amounts of dust from other sources.
You have not demonstrated the comparative mass of these sources, as your analysis is based on surface area.
You have not made it clear whether or not you include elements like hair and other macroscopic particles which are commonly mixed in with the household dust, and which I would be hard pressed in a less formal discussion to disagree that stuff is dust.

In short, you've made an argument that human skin is not all of the dust, but you haven't given any context over how much of the dust it is.
Your calculations seem reasonable, but need to now be buoyed by data to support your assumptions.

[Poopadoop]

"Armchair philosophy" is fine for moral and ethical discussions, but it fails when it comes to making measurable predictions about the world.

Agreed. That's why I did the math just to show how absurd it was.

Your calculations seem reasonable, but need to now be buoyed by data to support your assumptions.

I'll get right on that. First I gotta find me a giant ruler to get some hard data on the distance to the sun.

[OngBonga]

I'll get right on that. First I gotta find me a giant ruler to get some hard data on the distance to the sun.

Assuming you could even create a big enough ruler (you can't), a ruler is going to be a really poor method of accurately measuring such large distances. For a start, you'd need to ensure it is perfectly perpendicular to the earth, and that there is no flexing. Also, you're going to have to find a material that is capable of withstanding what I would imagine are immense pressures at the earth end, and definitely at the sun's end. Also, it needs to not expand as temperature increases. Furthermore, you need to accurately measure it and mark it before you can use it. Factor in the time it takes to make the measurement, coupled with the distance between the earth and the sun constantly changing, and I'd say the time you should waste thinking about making a giant ruler should be equal to the time I've wasted making this post.

[Poopadoop]

Making the giant ruler is what techies are for. I'm just the brains behind the operation, the visionary if you will.

[Poopadoop]

Assuming you could even create a big enough ruler (you can't)

This is why you'll never be my techie. I don't want to hear words like 'can't'.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Agreed. That's why I did the math just to show how absurd it was.

If that's why you did the math, you missed the mark for the reasons which I offered in my critique above.

I thought you were a real-life, published scientist?
What publication would post your above "proof" as science?

I'll get right on that. First I gotta find me a giant ruler to get some hard data on the distance to the sun.

There are plenty of credible sources which contain that datum, but I firmly embrace your DIY spirit of attempting to affirm or refute it with your own experiments.

Keep us posted on your 93 million-mile-long ruler project. I'm quite interested in the engineering challenges you have to overcome to maintain rigidity over such length scales.

[Poopadoop]

If that's why you did the math, you missed the mark for the reasons which I offered in my critique above.

Your 'critique' was specious and not worth rebutting in my opinion. Try making a reasonable argument if you want to be taken seriously as a dust analyzer.

I thought you were a real-life, published scientist?

According to some people I am both real life and a published scientist.

What publication would post your above "proof" as science?

I suppose either the Journal of Dust or the Journal of Epidermal Studies would be interested, if not Nature. I'll let you know where it ends up so you can submit something for the comments section.

Keep us posted on your 93 million-mile-long ruler project.

I believe Ong is working on that as we speak, though if I don't see a change in his 'can't be done' attitude the job may be opening up soon.

I'm quite interested in the engineering challenges you have to overcome to maintain rigidity over such length scales.

All the women in my life can attest to my ability to maintain rigidity.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Your 'critique' was specious and not worth rebutting in my opinion. Try making a reasonable argument if you want to be taken seriously as a dust analyzer.

My critique touches on many points. Any one of them is reason to be skeptical of your assertion.

Try making an evidence-based claim if you want to continue this conversation as a scientist.

Since it's clear that you don't, though...

According to some people I am both real life and a published scientist.

I suppose either the Journal of Dust or the Journal of Epidermal Studies would be interested, if not Nature. I'll let you know where it ends up so you can submit something for the comments section.

I believe Ong is working on that as we speak, though if I don't see a change in his 'can't be done' attitude the job may be opening up soon.

All the women in my life can attest to my ability to maintain rigidity.