Tuesday, December 22, 2009


Bleedin' Obvious

What next?:

[A]ccording to a new academic paper ... [a]ngels can't fly.

A leading biologist has compared the physiology of flighted species with the representations of spiritual and mythical creatures in art – and found the angels and fairies that sit atop of Christmas trees did not get there under their own steam.

Prof Roger Wotton, from University College London, found that flight would be impossible for angels portrayed with arms and bird-like feathered wings.

"Even a cursory examination of the evidence in representational arts shows that angels and cherubs cannot take off and cannot use powered flight," said Prof Wotton. "And even if they used gliding flight, they would need to be exposed to very high wind velocities at take off - such high winds that they would be blown away and have no need for wings.

I breathlessly await the study that shows that painted halos cannot shine by their own light.

Boy, there's a shock. Next thing you know, they'll be telling us fat men can't fit down chimneys, and then where will we be?
... or that reindeer can't fly!
I'm waiting for the more important question. "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin"? I'm guessing......none.
How big would the wings and muscles have to be, I wonder?

Pratchett & Gaimen had it right in "Good Omens":
"Firstly: angels simply don't dance. It's one of the distinguishing characteristics that marks an angel. They may listen appreciatively to the Music of the Spheres, but they don't feel the urge to get down and boogie to it. So, none."
Where can get some of THAT research money? And, Happy Holidays
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

. . . . .


How to Support Science Education