Jump to content
boris_73

The Official "Quick Question" Thread

Recommended Posts

Ok I know your probably gonna laugh at this and call me a nut job but what the hey whilest surffing the good old you tube site for crazy paranormal stuff I came across a video I never watched fully coz I shuned it as being a hoax but it was of a supposed archaeological dig in india I think and it was showing a man standing next to a large human skeloton so big that if you imagine it laying flat on it's back with the ordinary man standing next to the head the ordinary mean would probably only just reach the ear lobe. Can anyone tell me for certain that there hasn't been such a discovery in the scientific world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I know your probably gonna laugh at this and call me a nut job but what the hey whilest surffing the good old you tube site for crazy paranormal stuff I came across a video I never watched fully coz I shuned it as being a hoax but it was of a supposed archaeological dig in india I think and it was showing a man standing next to a large human skeloton so big that if you imagine it laying flat on it's back with the ordinary man standing next to the head the ordinary mean would probably only just reach the ear lobe. Can anyone tell me for certain that there hasn't been such a discovery in the scientific world.

I did find this video. And I'm guessing you'll find the giant skull you're talking about in here.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWhZlaIOW6E

 

However, this was allegedly in Wisconsin, so not India. That alone should raise a warning flag. Now, if you watch the video at 1:34-1:39, you'll see a very popular giant skeleton. And I assure you, anyone who tries to put that specific one up as real either has no idea how to do research, or tries to deceive people, because it has been debunked to death already (no pun intended).

 

http://www.snopes.com/photos/odd/giantman.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone tell me for certain that there hasn't been such a discovery in the scientific world.

Yes, any good scientist should be able to explain that such a skeleton must be faked.

The Snopes site refers to the square cube rule but perhaps we should explain it here in the thread.

If you scaled me up to be ten times taller I would weigh 1000 times as much (the cube of the scaling factor) but the bones in my legs and spine would only be 100 times stronger in resisting being crushed by my weight (100 is the square of the scaling factor). So my legs and spine would not be able to hold up my weight.

Actually it's worse than that, since the leg bones would be 10 times longer they would be too spindly to avoid breaking by bending out of shape. So I'd be 1000 times heavier but my legs would only be 10 times stronger.

They would fail as soon as I tried to stand up.

 

There's a similar problem with the amount of oxygen I would need and the area of my lungs. I'd be 10 times shorter of breath than I am now.

So yes, I can say for certain that there has been no such discovery.

Edited by John Cuthber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was a little mental but they just keep popping up these giant videos I keep seeing new ones on you tube and I just think to myself this is madness if they ever exsisted they would not have gone extinct we would be another meal to them as cows are to us they would farm us and use us as slaves for entertainment because they would be the dominant species on the planet not us. With that said has anyone seen Prometheus there are giant beings in that film that actually look plausable because they are not incredibly larger then the tallest humans they are also humanoid so

Yes, any good scientist should be able to explain that such a skeleton must be faked.

The Snopes site refers to the square cube rule but perhaps we should explain it here in the thread.

If you scaled me up to be ten times taller I would weigh 1000 times as much (the cube of the scaling factor) but the bones in my legs and spine would only be 100 times stronger in resisting being crushed by my weight (100 is the square of the scaling factor). So my legs and spine would not be able to hold up my weight.

Actually it's worse than that, since the leg bones would be 10 times longer they would be too spindly to avoid breaking by bending out of shape. So I'd be 1000 times heavier but my legs would only be 10 times stronger.

They would fail as soon as I tried to stand up.

 

There's a similar problem with the amount of oxygen I would need and the area of my lungs. I'd be 10 times shorter of breath than I am now.

So yes, I can say for certain that there has been no such discovery.

here you talk about larger bones the impact of there weight etc. However if there were humans alive today that were two to three feet taller then the tallest men in the world would they still suffer these issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering how to calculate the temperature of water at the bottom of a lake, say, ten meters deep. Would it be possible to reliably refrigerate foods at such depth (in a sealed container, of course) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering how to calculate the temperature of water at the bottom of a lake, say, ten meters deep. Would it be possible to reliably refrigerate foods at such depth (in a sealed container, of course) ?

 

AFAIK there is no simple calculation to tell you this. It depends on several factors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on the lake.

 

You can measure the temperature of the water at the bottom of a lake using some hose and a small pump. Put cloth over one end of a hose, attach a weight to the same end, and let that end fall to the bottom of the lake, use a 12 volt DC pump (used for fountains) and a 12 volt battery to pump water through the hose from the bottom of the lake for a couple of minutes, measuring the temperature of that water continuously until the temperature is lowest. If the water temperature is about 40 degrees, you have a good refrigerator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on the lake.

 

You can measure the temperature of the water at the bottom of a lake using some hose and a small pump. Put cloth over one end of a hose, attach a weight to the same end, and let that end fall to the bottom of the lake, use a 12 volt DC pump (used for fountains) and a 12 volt battery to pump water through the hose from the bottom of the lake for a couple of minutes, measuring the temperature of that water continuously until the temperature is lowest. If the water temperature is about 40 degrees, you have a good refrigerator.

Useful suggestion. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering how to calculate the temperature of water at the bottom of a lake, say, ten meters deep. Would it be possible to reliably refrigerate foods at such depth (in a sealed container, of course) ?

 

I am wondering how to calculate the temperature of water at the bottom of a lake, say, ten meters deep. Would it be possible to reliably refrigerate foods at such depth (in a sealed container, of course) ?

 

 

Where I live, in south eastern NC, the temp of a lake in the summer, at ten meters, would be around 68 to 72 degrees but then that is the ground water temps, in more northerly climes the temp would be lower... surface water here can reach human body temps easy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can some great knowledgeable person explain to me the effect of plasma with electricity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm second in line, I guess :)

 

Don't bother my question too much, for it's pure imaginary.

 

Imagine a ring, donut of indestructable material is being placed around the earth (like a ball and a concentric circle around it with a greater radius). Wat will the ring do? (Spin together with the earth, don't move in reference to the earth, ...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, any good scientist should be able to explain that such a skeleton must be faked.

The Snopes site refers to the square cube rule but perhaps we should explain it here in the thread.

If you scaled me up to be ten times taller I would weigh 1000 times as much (the cube of the scaling factor) but the bones in my legs and spine would only be 100 times stronger in resisting being crushed by my weight (100 is the square of the scaling factor). So my legs and spine would not be able to hold up my weight.

Actually it's worse than that, since the leg bones would be 10 times longer they would be too spindly to avoid breaking by bending out of shape. So I'd be 1000 times heavier but my legs would only be 10 times stronger.

They would fail as soon as I tried to stand up.

 

There's a similar problem with the amount of oxygen I would need and the area of my lungs. I'd be 10 times shorter of breath than I am now.

So yes, I can say for certain that there has been no such discovery.

 

My apologies for bringing up an old post again, but I saw a wonderful video of prof. dr. Walter Lewin from MIT explaining scaling things; physics 8.01, 1st lecture.

Referring to an old post (#166) and I was wondering if it's "forumlegal" to post 2 same threads in 2 different categories, to provoke multiple sorts of reactions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies for bringing up an old post again, but I saw a wonderful video of prof. dr. Walter Lewin from MIT explaining scaling things; physics 8.01, 1st lecture.Referring to an old post (#166) and I was wondering if it's "forumlegal" to post 2 same threads in 2 different categories, to provoke multiple sorts of reactions?

We have a one thread per topic rule and really, you'd likely get the same people responding anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm second in line, I guess :)

 

Don't bother my question too much, for it's pure imaginary.

 

Imagine a ring, donut of indestructable material is being placed around the earth (like a ball and a concentric circle around it with a greater radius). Wat will the ring do? (Spin together with the earth, don't move in reference to the earth, ...)

 

I am not a physicist, but I think it would depend on whether you place the rotational movement in the ring when setting it in place. It would posses whatever rotational energy you give it, from 0 to ? I believe the spin seen in planets, solar systems and galaxies is due to gravitational forces and the angular momentum it produces in matter, it slowly builds up over time as the objects gain mass, its similar what you see as water spins down the drain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm second in line, I guess :)

 

Don't bother my question too much, for it's pure imaginary.

 

Imagine a ring, donut of indestructable material is being placed around the earth (like a ball and a concentric circle around it with a greater radius). Wat will the ring do? (Spin together with the earth, don't move in reference to the earth, ...)

 

 

If it is homogeneous and totally solid then it would just sit there - conservation of angular momentum; why should it start to spin?

 

If there were inconsistencies - ie one bit was denser than the rest then case would be different; not sure it would spin but it would shift the earth and itself such that forces were rebalanced.

 

If it were not totally solid then inconsistencies in the earth would cause it to start to bulge and shrink - then viscosity will lead to that bulge following to a tiny extent the inconsistency that caused it. It will start to spin and the earth will start to slow so that ang mom is conserved.

 

All above guesswork

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I have plans on posting this in another forum, and I would like to have my work checked before I do so. Here it is:

 

 

I've come to learn that there are some very intriguing facts and concepts in this world that will absolutely blow your mind if your mind is open to being blown. Here's an example of what I mean:

 

Pixels are coloured using the red-green-blue colour scale. Each of these colours have 256 settings (0 to 255), which means that there are a total of 2563 number of possibilities for a pixel colour

 

Images are, obviously, made out of pixels. Let's say we have a 2048x2048 picture, which means that the total number of pixels in that picture is 20482.

 

Now, we can tell that the total number of unique pictures we can make is (2563)2048^2 which is approximately 3.61744599e+30302671 according to my programming calculator. :squee:

 

A huge number, right? Well, it's important to understand that this number is still finite. Inside this huge range of possible pictures, there is every image you can imagine. There's a picture of the big bang in that range. There's a picture of you when you were just a toddler. There's every picture you ever took with your boyfriend. There's every picture you didn't take with your boyfriend. All of it, almost anything you could imagine is within that range of picture, and that seemingly infinite number of possibilities are actually finite. Doesn't that blow your mind?

 

What interesting facts and concepts do you have?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering how to calculate the temperature of water at the bottom of a lake, say, ten meters deep. Would it be possible to reliably refrigerate foods at such depth (in a sealed container, of course) ?

I just remembered that when i was a little boy my grandpa kept milk in gallon jugs suspended in the well we got water out of, it was in the mountains and ground water there was rather cold..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many words can a quick question have? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many words can a quick question have? :unsure:

I believe the limit on a quick question is not number of words, but number of posts. A quick question should be one that can be stated in one post and answered in another. The alternative is a question that one asks in a thread and has many responses, possibly by several people. If someone asks a question in this thread that takes too many posts, a moderator can move it to another thread, one created for the question. Thus, one may ask any question in this, the Quick Question thread, even if it takes several posts to answer. Just don't create work for the moderators moving posts on purpose; try to keep questions in this thread that can be answered by one post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How many words can a quick question have? :unsure:

I believe the limit on a quick question is not number of words, but number of posts. A quick question should be one that can be stated in one post and answered in another. The alternative is a question that one asks in a thread and has many responses, possibly by several people. If someone asks a question in this thread that takes too many posts, a moderator can move it to another thread, one created for the question. Thus, one may ask any question in this, the Quick Question thread, even if it takes several posts to answer. Just don't create work for the moderators moving posts on purpose; try to keep questions in this thread that can be answered by one post.

 

It was a joke Ed. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say that there's a function whose limit is zero as the function approaches infinity. Would I be justified in saying that, if I put infinity in the function, that the answer would be zero?

Edited by Asterisk Propernoun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say that there's a function whose limit is zero as the function approaches infinity. Would I be justified in saying that, if I put infinity in the function, that the answer would be zero?

I would say that in your proposed case it is implied that infinity is a number, and that infinity is not a number so you would not be justified in your conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(pq+((p-q)/2)2)0.5±(p-q)/2=p&q

 

I think that there's a consistent method to prove whenever statements such as this are true or not. Does anyone here know what that method is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.