If baudib's mother is fatter than wuf's mother, does that mean baudib will age slower than wuf?
06-12-2015 08:17 AM
#1
| |
If baudib's mother is fatter than wuf's mother, does that mean baudib will age slower than wuf? | |
| |
06-12-2015 09:47 AM
#2
| |
06-12-2015 12:16 PM
#3
| |
Assuming both baud and wuf are staying quite close to their mothers, and their mothers aren't too close to each other, then yeah, I guess. | |
06-13-2015 05:44 PM
#4
| |
I already knew the answer to my question, I just thought it was funny. You guys are too serious. I guess you're all aging slower than me. | |
| |
06-19-2015 04:37 PM
#5
| |
I have questions about my Einstein book. Some of them aren't related to quantum physics, should I start a new thread? | |
06-19-2015 04:54 PM
#6
| |
06-20-2015 03:53 PM
#7
| |
Ok, cool. Like I said, Einstein by Walter Isaacson has a lot to think about. | |
06-20-2015 08:19 PM
#8
| |
A) Yes, what you describe with (186 - 10) is called Galilean Relativity. | |
06-20-2015 05:14 PM
#9
| |
Oooh I think I know some of this. I don't care if I don't, I'm answering. | |
| |
06-20-2015 07:00 PM
#10
| |
Right, it is starting to make sense. | |
06-20-2015 08:36 PM
#11
| |
That link offers a poor explanation that ignores the fact that we can take out the acceleration entirely and still predict the time dilation. | |
06-21-2015 07:54 AM
#12
| |
| |
06-21-2015 07:57 AM
#13
| |
| |
| |
06-21-2015 08:02 AM
#14
| |
It should be noted that no matter how fast you're going, you will never measure c at more than it should be. You will simply assume that others are measuring it as faster, when actually they're measuring it travelling at the same speed over a longer distance. It's space, and therefore time, that we disagree on, not c. | |
| |
06-21-2015 02:05 PM
#15
| |
As if I'm doing anything different? Mostly, I'm repeating what textbooks and professors have shown me. | |
06-21-2015 03:11 PM
#16
| |
Sometimes I think I get it. | |
06-21-2015 10:08 PM
#17
| |
I spent hours trying to weed through the YouTubes to find a brief, but concise explanation of the Michelson-Morley experiment and to put it in the context of one of the most successful "failures" in the history of modern physics. | |
06-21-2015 08:54 PM
#18
| |
| |
| |
07-07-2015 05:11 PM
#19
| |
This is probably an easy one for you. | |
07-07-2015 06:00 PM
#20
| |
Note that I make stark contrast between temperature and heat | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 07-07-2015 at 06:07 PM. | |
07-07-2015 06:39 PM
#21
| |
The issue though is that the dousing with water seemed to change the way I felt the heat. The pan felt quite warm when I was holding it, but within 2-3 seconds of running the water onto it, it became almost too hot to hold. It's like the water somehow caused the pan to become a faster heat conductor, which makes no sense to me. | |
Last edited by Renton; 07-07-2015 at 06:44 PM. | |
07-07-2015 07:20 PM
#22
| |
I get you. My hypothesis is that the sensation is more to do with heat flow in your hand than with heat flow in the pan. | |
07-07-2015 07:16 PM
#23
| |
Condensation of steam as it makes contact with the handle? | |
| |
07-07-2015 07:28 PM
#24
| |
As a liquid molecule boils into a gas, it expands, and in doing so, it absorbs heat (cooling anything it comes into contact with - lick the back of your hand). On the other hand, as a gas molecule condenses into a liquid, it radiates heat. Thus, as water hits the hot pan, it creates steam, which then comes into contact with the relatively cool pan handle, causing condensation, which in turn causes heat transfer from steam to pan handle. | |
| |
07-07-2015 09:44 PM
#25
| |
The molecule doesn't change size. | |
07-07-2015 09:51 PM
#26
| |
I'll do your experiment next time I cook. I think I know what it feels like to hold something that's hot for a little too long, and this really seemed different from that. That said I know that doesn't sound very scientific. | |
07-07-2015 10:10 PM
#27
| |
| |
| |
07-07-2015 10:15 PM
#28
| |
And yes mojo, I realise that an expanding gas does not mean the molecules are actually getting bigger, that was sloppy language on my part. An expanding gas as I understand it is one in which the molecules have an increasing average distance between each molecule, or something like that anyway. | |
| |
07-07-2015 11:07 PM
#29
| |
The conclusion that condensation adds temperature in the time-opposite way that evaporation removes temperature deserves some respect, actually. | |
07-08-2015 02:53 AM
#30
| |
Is there methane based life on Titan that eats hydrogen? | |
07-08-2015 03:00 PM
#31
| |
Dunno. | |
08-01-2016 11:18 PM
#32
| |
Going back to an old topic. | |
08-02-2016 11:09 AM
#33
| |
The first question answers itself. It would be hugely unlikely for it to have DNA if it isn't something that the universe or periodic table favors. If it could be shown that the DNA-having stuff originated from somewhere else, that's huge. (If it turns out it came from here and contaminated to somewhere else, then that's meh.) If it turns out that there is non-DNA-based life, then that's huge. | |
08-02-2016 11:30 PM
#34
| |
That is what I thought and why I was confused by the Niel DeGrasse Tyson statement which I thought was irrelevant to the original answer. Sure non earth originating DNA is interesting but let's not rule out non DNA exotic life. | |
07-08-2015 06:40 AM
#35
| |
| |
| |
07-08-2015 01:04 PM
#36
| |
"Provided it is steam." | |
07-08-2015 07:19 AM
#37
| |
I think that in the 2-3 seconds that it takes for the handle to warm noticably, some of the water is turning into steam as it makes contact with the very hot surface of the pan. This in turn saturates the surrounding air, warming it and causing locally high humidity, resulting in a decrese in aerial condensation of steam. This will cause a reasonable amount of steam to travel in all directions as it expands (or diffuses?). Any steam that comes into contact with the cool metal handle will quickly condense into water, thus releasing heat. | |
Last edited by OngBonga; 07-08-2015 at 07:24 AM. | |
07-08-2015 02:07 PM
#38
| |
This could be tested with a 2nd pan. Allow the steam from the first pan to condense on the handle of the 2nd pan and measure the increase in temp on the 2nd pan's handle. | |
07-08-2015 07:34 AM
#39
| |
I remember watching a documantary about how the Chinese built the Tibet Railway. They had one serious problem up on the tundra, and that was that the top inch or two of the ground would not remain frozen all year round, meaning it would compromise the structural integrity of the track. They solved this problem by using a couple of solutions, but the key one was to refridgerate the underlying rock by exploiting the evaporation/condensation cycle. I can't remember what liquid they used, but they would put tubes upright into the ground with a liquid trapped inside. It would settle in the bottom, and evaporate, rising to the top as a vapour, where it would condese, and settle at the bottom as a liquid. Ths cycle would transfer heat from the ground to the atmopshere, reducing the local ground temperature just enough to keep it frozen all year round. | |
| |
07-08-2015 02:33 PM
#40
| |
The liquid is ammonia. | |
07-08-2015 02:19 PM
#41
| |
Sounds like you're talking about a butane lighter (as opposed to a Zippo-type, which generally burns Naptha). The butane is a gas at STP, so it must be contained in a pressure vessel. | |
07-08-2015 03:13 PM
#42
| |
| |
| |
07-08-2015 03:17 PM
#43
| |
Also, yes it was indeed ammonia. I went and watched the documentary again. Knowing how to refridgerate something without power could be a useful bit of knowledge! | |
| |
07-08-2015 03:31 PM
#44
| |
The ancient Egyptians had A/C in their homes (of a sort). Probably just the wealthy homes, not sure at all. | |
07-08-2015 05:25 PM
#45
| |
It's taken me longer than it should to realise you mean air conditioning rather than alternating current haha. I was thinking wtf, they had alternating current back then? I thought that was Tesla's work! | |
| |
07-08-2015 06:25 PM
#46
| |
07-08-2015 09:47 PM
#47
| |
Hmm. I assumed (I know you love that word) that the presence of water vapour in the air would make it more dense, not less. | |
| |
07-08-2015 10:02 PM
#48
| |
Ok so I've thought this through for a minute or two while smoking. | |
| |
07-09-2015 12:31 AM
#49
| |
I don't know of anyone who got this right the first time they guessed. Myself included. | |
07-10-2015 03:17 PM
#50
| |
I decided to look for the source of this model before I went on to speculate over our hypothesis. This is the only thing I found that seems to match the description that I gave. It has no references, and is of dubious authority. | |
07-09-2015 08:40 AM
#51
| |
| |
Last edited by OngBonga; 07-09-2015 at 08:42 AM. | |
07-09-2015 08:56 AM
#52
| |
Ok so let me see if I understand why humid air is less dense than dry air... | |
| |
07-09-2015 02:46 PM
#53
| |
It's no good to count electrons for the mass. A proton has about the same mass as a neutron, and both are about 1,800 times as massive as an electron. Furthermore, counting electrons is equivalent to counting protons (for atoms, not ions), but ignores the neutrons. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 07-10-2015 at 01:57 PM. | |
07-10-2015 03:30 AM
#54
| |
What are the cliff notes on the way quantum physicists answered Einstein's questions below? | |
Last edited by Eric; 07-10-2015 at 03:34 AM. | |
07-10-2015 01:28 PM
#55
| |
| |
07-11-2015 12:16 PM
#56
| |
Here's an excellent video from Crash Course on the topic of photons and atoms. | |
07-11-2015 11:36 PM
#57
| |
| |
07-12-2015 02:05 AM
#58
| |
I have to interpret "one" as "any instrument". Allowing a human observer adds an electro-chemical soup of an observer which certainly can't function w/o light involved. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 07-12-2015 at 02:15 AM. | |
07-12-2015 07:28 AM
#59
| |
Well that was certainly a fascinating discussion about atmospheric dynamics. I think I'm exhausted on that one, not sure I can add anything more. I'd like to have a better understanding of these kind of things, this is why I want to study environmental science. | |
| |
07-12-2015 09:41 AM
#60
| |
Sounds about right. It reminds me of a story about a beehive where scientists placed food directly above the hive. Usually when a bee finds food, he goes back to the hive and does a figure 8 where he wiggles through the center pointing in the direction of the food. The bee accomplishes this by using the sun to navigate. The sun's ultraviolet rays penetrate the hive and it's visible to the bees inside. Well, when the food was straight up from the hive, the bee had no way of communicating this to the other bees, so it just danced around haphazardly. | |
| |
07-12-2015 02:00 PM
#61
| |
srsly? | |
07-12-2015 04:54 PM
#62
| |
| |
| |
07-12-2015 05:53 PM
#63
| |
07-12-2015 10:04 AM
#64
| |
I liked to think bees at least had enough about them to have a "fuck this, just follow me" level of intelligence. | |
| |
07-12-2015 10:08 AM
#65
| |
How does a bee tell another bee, "fuck this, just follow me."? | |
| |
07-12-2015 11:59 AM
#66
| |
By stopping its haphazard dance and flying in the direction of the food? I'd follow it if I were a hungry bee who didn't know what he was trying to say. Then again I'm pretending to be a hungry bee with the brain of a stoned adult human. | |
| |
07-12-2015 01:45 PM
#67
| |
When it comes to animal intelligence, I think it's far too easy to anthropomorphize creatures which we have no solid reason to. I don't know what my cat, a fellow mammal, is thinking, let alone what an insect is thinking. | |
07-12-2015 05:34 PM
#68
| |
| |
| |
07-12-2015 06:15 PM
#69
| |
Yeah, I misremembered. It's UV light outside, internal clock inside. | |
| |
07-14-2015 08:59 PM
#70
| |
WoooHooo! | |
07-15-2015 07:16 AM
#71
| |
If electricity always follows the path of least resistance, why doesn't lightning only strike France? | |
| |
07-23-2015 04:57 PM
#72
| |
![]() ![]()
|
Not a physics question but I'll ask here. Is there any real world application to mathematical proofs? |
07-23-2015 05:46 PM
#73
| |
Every proof just shows a shortcut to get an answer more quickly. The need for the shortcut in a real world situation is often a motivation to prove something. Equally, though, many proofs are purely motivated by mathematical curiosity. | |
07-23-2015 05:54 PM
#74
| |
Proofs from probability and statistics. They certainly have an application in games of chance where probabilities can be discretely known, if you consider those part of the real world. It's interesting to think about what happens between a structured double-blind study of some drugs effectiveness over to that drug's impact on the wider population, do the probabilities transfer 1:1, because if they do, then that'd be the winner right there. | |
| |
07-23-2015 05:58 PM
#75
| |
That's if you consider the result of the proof having a real world application counting as the proof having a real world application. | |
| |