Saturday, December 25, 2010

"A rolling stone gathers no moss"

It's often said that a rolling stone gathers no moss, but is this literally true? To find out, a chart was made combining Science and Googles.

The stone is shown in blue, rolling along the ground on the bottom of the chart. The amount of moss gathered is indicated by the red line above it.

As you can see, from 1800-1810 the stone actually gathers moss very quickly. However it's way too early to draw any conclusions yet because the stone has just started rolling, so it's probably not going fast enough to stop moss from gathering.

From 1810-1825 as the stone picks up speed, there is indeed a steady decline in the amount of moss gathered. Perhaps 'they' were right after all.

However from 1825-1900, despite some fluctuations, there's a steady increase in the amount of moss gathered, to the extent that by 1900 there's probably no room left on the stone for any more moss.

Unsurprisingly this overcrowding causes moss accumulation to decrease rapidly, until by 1985 the stone's popularity as a moss gathering destination has reached its lowest point.

Since then however, there has been a steady upswing in moss gathering until the present time, suggesting a renewed interest in stone-based moss accumulation.

This is probably because as the stone lost popularity among the moss population it became less densely moss-populated ('mossulated'), until it became a desirable moss-gathering venue again.

This is likely a cyclic phenomenon, as future Googles may demonstrate.

In conclusion then: does a rolling stone gather no moss? The answer would seem to be no, yes it does. Then yes, no it doesn't again, and so on.

Friday, December 24, 2010

"While the cat's away, the mice will play"

There has long been a theory which states that if no cat is present, mice will engage in a variety of leisure activities. Could this really be true? Science and Googles have observed mouse/feline interactions and produced this chart.

As you can see, from 1800 to the present day, cat absence levels (represented here by the blue line) have fluctuated wildly, due to the unpredictable nature of felines and the availability of warmer places with better food, regardless of the fact that you do everything you can to please the ungrateful little beasts.

Mouse recreation levels on the other hand (shown here in red) remain resolutely at zero regardless of the presence or otherwise of Tiddles. Mice, it seems, simply refuse to enjoy themselves under any circumstances.

In conclusion then: it appears that while the cat's away mocking your kindness, the mice will stubbornly continue to sulk and fixate on cheese. And not play.

Thursday, December 23, 2010

"Two heads are better than one"

Some people say two heads are better than one. Exactly how many of them have ever had two heads though? Luckily we no longer have to rely on such dubious claims because we have Googles and Science to make a chart.

As you can see, throughout history the quality of two heads, indicated by the blue line, and the quality of one head, indicated by the red line, have remained at a constant level.

Somewhat surprisingly, that level is zero. Clearly, heads are no good at all, in any amount.

In conclusion then: two heads are just as bad as one. Heads generally are of a very low quality, and simply adding more heads does nothing at all to improve the situation.