Slashdot Mirror


Proof Is In: Kansas Is Flatter Than A Pancake

plotdot writes "When motorists drive across Kansas with its expansive, fertile fields of grain, they most often observe that the state is flat as a pancake. Now, three scientists have proved that observation wrong. The May/June issue of Annals of Improbable Research (AIR) carries a story by Mark Fonstad, William Pugatch, and Brandon Vogt proving that Kansas is actually flatter than a pancake."

14 of 104 comments (clear)

  1. Re:what the hell? by violent.ed · · Score: 3, Informative

    the Annals of Improbable Research group do. Quite interesting if your extremly bored i might say.

    --
    - You're not paranoid, they really are after you.
  2. In related news... by momerath2003 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Pancake sales in Kansas increase by 20% because the Citizens of Kansas now feel in some way superior to the pancakes!

    --
    I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
  3. Wrong measure for flatness. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think that "flatness" was incorrectly measured in this case. What should have been used as the flatness measure is the RMS of the discrete slopes in the measurements at a sampling interval measured at the lowest of the two sampling intervals (if the pancake laser raster contained 500 measurements, then only 500 measurements (derived?) of the USGS cross section would be considered).

    Fitting an ellipse just tells you if the state is eccentric. If the state was a completely upwards tilted plane, either it's perflectly flat, or it's moderately (but constantly) non-flat. I assume it's the latter. Now imagine a state containing nothing but up-and-down hills of the same gradient as before. According to the ellipsoid measure, the state could be considered flatter, when in fact it is should be less flat because of the changes in grade.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
    1. Re:Wrong measure for flatness. by Goldsmith · · Score: 4, Informative

      What you're referring to is mathmatically called roughness. Obviously, the expression is not "rougher than a pancake". If we're going to do this scientifically, we have to use the proper scientific definitions.

  4. I live in Kansas... by xenocide2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Its not exactly hilly like a costal California city might be, but most of it isn't too flat. I live in the Kansas City area; there's plenty of hills around. And when I'm not in KC I'm attending school at KSU, where it is also not flat. The region is called the Flint Hills. Not the Flint Plains, nor the Flint Flatter-than-Pancakes. Hills.

    Of course, do be warned, I've never lived on a pancake, so my anecdotal evidence might be flawed =).

    --
    I Browse at +4 Flamebait

    Open Source Sysadmin

    1. Re:I live in Kansas... by Fritzed · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ok, I'll be honest and say I haven't seen a lot of Kansas. I've only been in it for short bursts because Nebraska's main airport is right on the state borderline. However, if the "hills" in Nebraska are similar to the "hills" in Kansas, and I'll bet they are, they are very gradual. The average slope on the hills can't be more than 7 degrees, the real steep hills having a 10 degree slope.

      Now this doesn't mean the hills or valleys don't have an impact on the landscape. On the contrary, they stand out because there are so few of them. However, they are only noticable because that slope continues for a quarter mile so while looking across the vast open spaces you see a break in the nothingness.

      Back to my point, flatness is affected more by extreme changes in altitude than it is gradual ones, so these hills hardly affect the scale of flatness. Pancakes, have heavy drops at their edges which drastically reduce flatness and several deep (relatively) pits produced by bubbles popped near they end of their cooking. Each one of these pits probably effects flatness more than a Kansas hill.

      I spent way too much time on this post.

      ->Fritz

      --
      Spooooon!!!!!
  5. Re:This is not science by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    "But then again that's as useful as complaining it's not news for nerds, stuff that matters."

    Who but a nerd would correct somebody about the flatness of Kansas when compared to a fluffy brekfast food?

  6. What, too cheap to get the 3 pancake stack!? by jeeves99 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Declaring kansas flatter than a pancake based upon a comparison to ONE pancake hardly seems fair. A mean value for the flatness of a pancake should have been derived from multiple pancakes and a standard deviation value given. Besides, you get hash browns and a side of variable meat with the 3-pancake special at IHOP.

    1. Re:What, too cheap to get the 3 pancake stack!? by 1in10 · · Score: 5, Funny

      While we're at it, why not compare with more than one Kansas?

    2. Re:What, too cheap to get the 3 pancake stack!? by acherrington · · Score: 5, Funny

      So um, add Arkansas into the mix?

      --


      Victory is gained, not in knowing your opponents next move, but in preempting them.
  7. [OT] Re: Flatness Humor by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Funny


    > I'm reminded of a scene in one of Donald Westlakes weirder caper novels. Two guys are travelling through a really flat section of Oklahoma. One is a stone killer with no sense of humor or irony. They reach a place where the land is so flat and featureless, you can't even see the horizon. The killer turns to the other guy and says, "You know, before the white man came, there was absolutely nothing here!"

    One of my friends was hitch-hiking across Kansas/Oklahoma when a really weird guy picked him up. They drove for miles and miles without the guy saying anything or even looking at him. Finally he said in a low, slow voice, with his eyes fixed steadily on the road ahead -

    What if I said I had a big ol' knife?
    to which my friend calmly replied -
    What if I said I had a little ol' gun?
    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  8. Not surprising... by floydigus · · Score: 4, Informative
    --

    All things in moderation; including moderation

  9. I-70 by wowbagger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The single biggest problem is that Interstate 70 (which runs across the northern section of the state) goes through some of the most MIND-NUMBINGLY BORING terrain I've ever seen, and since that is how most people who cross the state see it they form an unjustified opinion.

    Most of Kansas used to be inland see, millenia ago. Hence the flatness - the ocean bottom deposited uniformly across the state.

    However, IF you are going to be going through Kansas, let me give you some pointers on where to go:

    Southeastern section: Go see Big Brutus in West Mineral, KS.. If you have any interest in mechanical engineering you'll love this.

    South Central: The Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center has the best collection of Russian space hardware outside Russia itself, as well as US gear. They were the first to be made a Smithsonian partner, and that was as much so that the Smithsonian could gain access to the Cosmospere's collection as the other way around. Hutchinson, KS - and if you were planning on going across on I-70 I's suggest you drop down on I-35 (throught the Flint Hills)to US-50 then across into Hutch. Stop by Yoder, KS and get some Cinnamon Rolls at the Carriage Crossing Restaurant.
    If you are going towards New Mexico, drop down and take I-160 from Medicine Lodge through the Gypsum Hills. There IS scenery in Kansas - we just don't run our major roads through it.

    North West: If you are heading to Denver, you pretty much have to take either I-70 or K-96. If you are on I-70, stop through Quinter, KS and see Castle Rock, a natural formation akin to the Badlands in South Dakota.
    Also, you can go to Monument Rocks which is a similar sort of geography.
    Also on I-70 in Hays, KS is the Sternberg Museum of Natural History which will be a hit with any parent of children who are interested in dinosaurs.

  10. Poorly run experiment by MiniMike · · Score: 3, Funny

    This research is faulty in many ways. They did not account for anisotropy is the samples (i.e. different flatness in different directions) and they fail to mention if the pancake was from the bottom or the top of the stack. Also, I don't think a confocal microscope is the best tool- they probably could have gotten better results with a stylus or an AFM (Atomic Food Microscopy) instrument. With an AFM they could have also nano-indented the sample to hold more syrup. The pancake measurement seems under-sampled from both the digital image processing and the confocal measurements, and it was probably stale well before they finished. I think that this report would have a 'rougher' time in any peer-reviewed journal.

    P.S. Their next research- seeing if the humid summer air is really thicker (more viscous?) than the leftover maple syrup...