Jump to content

dirtyamerica

Senior Members
  • Posts

    123
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dirtyamerica

  1. Do you have any ringing in your ears? How are your ankles, are they sore? Respond back. If you have these symptoms then I know what you have.
  2. Earth is already in a slightly elliptical orbit, being closest to the sun in the Winter and farthest in the Summer. Of course, we still have our seasons the way they are here in the northern hemisphere due to the sun's angle at which its rays strike the earth.
  3. and while we're talking fusion here, let's remember that stars don't "burn".
  4. and to add to YT's post, the air is made up of compressable gases. The atmosphere at the bottom gets squished more. Think of a big pile up in a football game. The guy at the bottom of the pile is getting smashed down by all the other players on top. Some one near the top isn't squished so badly. And generally, the air mixes enough where there is a constant ratio of N, O, CO2 and others. Some people might argue that there is less oxygen in the mountains. True but there is also less of the other gases per volume. The oxygen (etc.) is spaced out further so when it goes into your lungs, less oxygen can be absorbed so you're out of breath.
  5. +1 on Bernoulli's Principle
  6. Lasers are polarized photons. Not made of protons. We're talking apples and oranges here.
  7. The stars, et. al. are above the north pole. I get the analogy. Nothing is north of the north pole because you physically can't go any farther north, just like you cannot go outside the universe.
  8. This is a pretty good discussion. I thought the GC was created not only through erosion but also because of a massive upheaval dome. Although it does make you wonder why the North and South rims are so different in altitude.
  9. I think that "Bigfoot" exists. I only base my belief on one idea. The fact that we know we have not discovered all living organisms yet leaves the door open.... But... I think most "evidence" isn't actually supportive like the above posts also suggest. Data of an unknown source does not = BIGFOOT! Take a yeti hunter, a ufologist and a telepath. Let them perceive something unknown and watch them argue what just happened until they're all blue in the face. There's a lot of "reseach" done on mysterious phenomena that lacks a scientific approach.
  10. Regarding the capture of tornadic wind energy... You can apply the lightning bolt argument here: Lightning AND tornadoes are relatively rare to specific locations. Even in Tornado Alley the odds of a tornado finally coming close enough to a wind farm is remote. Also, technology prohibits this idea from becoming a viable reality for two reasons off the top of my head: 1. Wind turbines large enough to be able to produce higher amounts of energy are just too big to relocate into the (near) path of incoming tornadoes. and 2. Wind turbines are only physically capable of producing electricity from a definate range of wind speeds, generally somewhere above a slight breeze and somewhere below gale force winds. Building wind turbines to capture the small amount of wind energy in a short-lived and rarely occurring tornado vs. the vast amounts of available energy from long-term weather conditions of windy locales?? It doesn't jive, man.
  11. You bonking your head does certainly destroy one of the fundamental laws of Science...but just for a little while.... ?? You are one weird guy. Best of luck with your Doctor's Degree.
  12. rocks formed from lava or magma google is your friend
  13. My comment may be already related to several comments above but: I don't see how time can be rotated since "rotation" involves an object changing constantly in reference to an x,y and z axis but it takes time for an object to rotate. In this case, time is continuing on (or happening) as it always does. I struggle with the comprehension of space/time fabric so bear with me here. But what would a rotating object look like in rotating time. Would it just not move at all? Or even be perceivable? Or exist?
  14. The weight of displaced water by the battleship is equal to the weight of the battleship. If it is more, it will sink. If it is less the battleship will float higher. The ship will go up or down until an "equilibrium" is reached (although I don't think I should use that term with buoyancy?). If you submerge a balloon and let it go it will quickly rise to the surface. Then look closely. It will float on the surface and displace a very small amount of water (which weighs as much as the balloon). This discussion reminds me of a lesson I once did for my class back when I was scraping by as a science teacher....it's the old "Partially filled dropper inside a 2 liter bottle filled nearly to the top with water." Put the cap on the bottle. Squeeze the bottle and the pressure causes the air bubble in the dropper to decrease in size...thereby displacing less water. The amount of water displaced weighs less than the dropper and it sinks. Some specific amount of squeezing will cause the dropper to become neutrally buoyant and you can keep it in the middle of the bottle (vertically).
  15. There are the odds of this happening are, to use a pun, astrinomical. She should spend time worrying about more probable causes of death like shark attacks or car crashes.
  16. I'm guessing that the terminal velocity would be reached quite rapidly. The viscosity of the liquid should be taken into account too.
  17. You can get a pretty good idea what each element looks like just by looking at the atomic number of each element which is the top number in each box in the periodic table. Remember, atomic # is how many protons are in the nucleus. There will be an equal number of electrons unless we are looking at an element in ionic form. Now look at the atomic mass number of each element, at the bottom of each box. Take that number and subtract the atomic number and this will tell you how many neutrons there are. Then look at the Group number at the top of each column. Not 1-18 but the numbers that range from 1 to 8, probably roman numerals. This indicates how many electrons are in the valence (outer) electron shell. There's other info out there that will tell you how many electrons are in each "shell" somewhere. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong. My memory can be a bit rusty at times but I believe what I posted is all good (although I didn't proofread it.)
  18. The center of gravity between the Moon and Earth is not at Earth's exact core but it is somewhere in the mantle. So Earth has a wobble. Some stars have significant wobbles produced by their planet(s?). This was astronomer's first clue towards the discovery of these extrasolar planets. As far as our own Sun. I don't know what type of wobble it would have considering it doesn't have but one measely planet like many other "solar systems" out there. Since there are 7 other planets, et. al. It surely is a complex influence on the sun itself. Earth also has a wobble in it's rotation.
  19. In your final question I think the "light" you are referring to is background radiation in the form of radio waves? My memory fails me often so I forget how this radiation is left over from the Big Bang.
  20. I read an article recently about matter/antimatter. The author asked something like: If our immediate universe is made up of matter then where did all the antimatter go? or why do we have excess matter left over? Sorry, I don't remember the source of the article but this does seem like a good place to ask.
  21. agreed. but explaining it based on well-known concepts helps:D EDIT: I just thought of this but is there any latent heat required for plasma formation? I've never heard of this before.
  22. I ride bikes too. Actually, while in Colorado I got the chance to ride down a mountain on the highway with my mountain bike back in 2001. I brought with me a backpack full of heavy stuff assuming I would overcome a little more air resistance with the added weight tucked back there. I also hoped that the backpack being located behind me would negate any extra drag. I only rode down once so I have no experience doing the same ride sans weight. Got up to ~50mph before I ran out of gears and reached terminal velocity. Gimme the right hill and I'd love to do 70.
  23. This has been in the back of my mind a while and just wanted to throw it out there to hopefully get some support for my answer to a problem. The place I work at regularly receives shipments of hydrogen gas. One of the truck drivers insisted that after he unloads the hydrogen into our storage tanks that his truck is actually heavier. I disagreed with him. I think that he imagines that hydrogen just magically floats and that he doesn't understand that hydrogen has mass (weight) but is buoyant in the heavier gases of our atmosphere. I reasoned with him that he is taking a large gas cylinder and taking some of the mass (hydrogen) out of it while the cylinder still displaces the same amount of atmosphere. The buoyant force acting on the cylinder is the same but the cylinder weighs less unloaded. He just wouldn't accept my viewpoint. Hopefully you all agree that I was spot on but would you have any other ideas to express this concept? It's not like we got in a fight or that it really bothers me but I just really wanted him to understand.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.