Search
Profile

Blake Stacey is a physics boffin who wandered the Earth and eventually settled in the nation-state of Denial. He has written a science-fiction novel.
Recent Posts
- Vertices for My Vacation
- The Downside of Monomania
- Not the Raptor Post I Was Expecting to Write
- Social and Administrative Notes
- Ooh, Shiny
- Holiday Fluff: Judging Books by Hacked Covers
- Fuller's Plan for Financial Gain
- Carnival of the Elitist Bastards IIX
- Post-Christmas Thoughts on Science Communication
- Audiobook Announcement: The Authoritarians
Reader Favourites
- An Alloy of Pleasures
- The Necessity of Mathematics
- Reverse the Baryon Flux Polarity!
- Physics Makes a Toy of the Brain
- The EmDrive Story, or How to Propel Pseudoscience
- Textbook Cardboard and Physicist's History
- Just Add Exploding Spaceship
- Archimedes
- I Google You
Spiffy Icons
Recent Comments
- Blake Stacey on The EmDrive Story, or How to Propel Pseudoscience
- mike on The EmDrive Story, or How to Propel Pseudoscience
- Nemo on The Downside of Monomania
- Blake Stacey on The EmDrive Story, or How to Propel Pseudoscience
- Mike on The EmDrive Story, or How to Propel Pseudoscience
- Rieux on Not the Raptor Post I Was Expecting to Write
- Ben on Not the Raptor Post I Was Expecting to Write
- mollishka on Not the Raptor Post I Was Expecting to Write
- Rob W on The Downside of Monomania
- Jonathan on Not the Raptor Post I Was Expecting to Write
Archives
Categories
- A World Worth Fighting For
- About this Blag
- Astronomy
- BPSDB
- Bad Math
- Bibliophilia
- Carnivalia
- Cooking
- Cosmology
- Elitist Bastardry
- Evolution
- Fiction
- Mathematics
- Neuroscience
- Open Access
- Physics
- Plectics
- Poetry
- Popularization
- Pseudoscience
- Science history
- Social Events
- Software
- Surveys
- Video
- Wobosphere Silliness
- arXiv
Blagnet
- A Geocentric View
- Bad Astronomy
- Ben Goldacre
- Blue Collar Scientist
- Bug Girl
- Carl Zimmer
- Cocktail Party Physics
- Columbia Journalism Review
- David Brin
- Denialism
- Digital Cuttlefish
- Ecstathy
- Effect Measure
- En Tequila Es Verdad
- Entropy Bound
- ERV
- Everything Seminar
- EvolutionBlog
- Gateway Skepticism
- God Plays Dice
- Imaginary Potential
- Joel Achenbach
- Jonathan Shock
- Knight Science Journalism Tracker
- Laelaps
- Language Log
- Larry Gonick’s Raw Materials
- Memoirs of a Skepchick
- Neil Gaiman
- NEQNET
- NeuroLogica
- Open Access News
- Pharyngula
- Philosophia Naturalis
- Planet Musings
- Plektix
- Respectful Insolence
- Russell Blackford
- Science Based Medicine
- Secret Blogging Seminar
- Skulls in the Stars
- Sum 1 to N
- Symmetry Breaking
- Terence Tao
- The Rogues Gallery
- The Unapologetic Mathematician
- Three-Toed Sloth
- Tobasco da Gama
- TR Gregory’s Genomicron
- Tyler DiPietro
- US LHC Blog
About
Science After Sunclipse is a blag for discussing math and physics on the Wobosphere. It began as a coordination site for a seminar on information theory and related topics led by Blake Stacey and his compatriots Eric and Ben. The "Do It Yourself University" seminars are still meeting at various locations in the Greater MIT Metropolitan Area, but soon the blag found its true calling, mixing physics and mathematics with commentary on science's endless battle against mysticism and snippits of what one might loosely call Internet culture. (Ben later started blagging at Plektix.)
Sunclipse is the word Buckminster Fuller suggested as a less geocentric replacement for sunset; the corresponding word for sunrise is sunsight. Blake chose this as the blag's title because he seems to do a whole lot of science stuff in the darkest hours of the morning.
To the extent that this blag has a purpose, it is to answer a question. After two years working on Wikipedia, several months commenting at places like Skepchick and Bad Astronomy, and over a year writing at Sunclipse, Blake felt he had a decent sampling of the ways online science writing worked and, also, failed to work. His first rule for understanding the kind of content one can find was as follows:
| Imagine what is easiest for people to do. Then imagine it being done over and over again. |
This can have exasperating, and sometimes counterintuitive, effects when people get to talking physics online. As John Baez once observed,
| Ask people what they think about quantum gravity — or a theory of everything based on the Lie group E8 — and everyone has a strong opinion. But ask them what'll happen when you shine light on a gadget with vanes that are black on one side and white and the other, in a perfect vacuum, and suddenly they're completely quiet! |
The question one should ask is then, "What is easy for me but difficult or impractical for others?"
Blake is currently researching applications of mathematical tools from physics to biological problems and writing autobiographical essays in the third person.
Over at Cosmic Variance, Sean Carroll once called the Blagnet "the most erudite and challenging large-scale conversation in human history", while noting that the words we use to describe this activity sound more like "something you feel compelled to do after doing too many Smirnoff shots the previous evening". We hope you enjoy our contributions to the conversation.
Administrative contact: bstacey(AT)alum.removethis.mit.andthistoo.edu
Comment Policy
Don't be a jerk.
Seriously. That's the first and most important rule. This place is like my front porch: we're out in the open air, so you can be a little loud or even rowdy, but you're still on my property. I'm the one who signed the contract which brought this place into being. So, under the general "don't be a jerk" rubric, here are a few types of behaviour which are indicative of jerkdom:
1. Racist, misogynist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, etc., etc. speech.
2. Dismissing decades or centuries of investigation by thousands or tens of thousands of scientists with a wave of your hand and an appeal to "entropy", particularly if you've never in your life calculated a volume in phase space or the efficiency of a Carnot engine. I embrace the policy set forth by Scott Aaronson: if you wish to derail the discussion here, please employ the following procedure.
1. Publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal setting out the reasons for your radical departure from accepted science. 2. Reference the paper in your rant. |
3. Accusing me of being "anti-faith" in the comment thread of a post about scientific facts which have nothing to do with religion.
Comments which do not meet these standards will be disemvowelled, deleted or mocked, depending upon my mood.
![[sex and science]](http://www.sunclipse.org/downloads/sexandscience3.png)




