• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A scientific fact/tidbit you recently learned that you thought was interesting

If you click the "YouTube" logo in the lower right corner to go to the actual YouTube page for that, you can see at the top of his description that it was an April Fool's Day joke.

It was published on the same day as Jackson Crawford's joke video on the same subject. Jackson Crawford did a much better job of making it clear throughout the video that it was all a joke, which I guess means you could say Forgotten Weapons did a better job of making it seem like it might not be. And JC had done joke videos on several previous April Fool's Days, so his viewers knew what to expect. He's the one who roped collaborators into this.
 
I've seen all those standard model particles, usually lined up in a chart. And I've seen the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) collision images. My brain wasn't ready to go beyond that. Now I am ready for one more step and here it is. (The embed won't play so you have to open the link for the 17 minute video.) The diagrams are excellent and in some cases they show atomic particles in an entertaining way. Also, Dr Matt O'Dowd is improving his speaking style. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbzZIMQC6vk&t=13s
 
lomiller said:
~30% of the sunlight that reached is the earth is reflected, but the discrepancy between the two numbers is almost exactly 4X which is exactly the difference between TSI and average insolation across the entire earths surface after accounting for the fact only one side of the earth faces the sun.
Click to expand...

Well, that makes it even worse without the sun, then.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I suspect you meant 16/44.1 as the CD standard is 16 bit. But your point stands; 16 bits are enough, if the recording is properly mastered to use the full range.
Click to expand...

If it's any defense, my reasoning wasn't about verbatim recording and reproduction. (Even I'm not delusional enough to think that my rips from a 16 bit CD are going to sound better in 32 bit.) My reasoning was that a lot of the time you end up processing and remixing those sounds before reproduction. Like, a game might have footsteps, gun shots, dialogue, my own music as a background, and those are going to be scaled up and down depending on distance (so some will have the amplitude very much reduced, and then combined with some louder ones), have some processing based on environment, and then everything is mixed together. So my reasoning was mostly to have more bits of accuracy for that processing, so not as much error is introduced by those.
 
Pixel42 said:
I don't see why. Some of those oceans are immense, and unless I'm missing something (which is entirely possible) I would think the conditions that are suitable for life would prevail across fairly large regions of them.
Click to expand...

I was thinking life only existing around vents. But if you get enough of them something might evolve that is big and can go from one vent to another eating what they find. These might behave like deep underwater fish do on Earth. But there would need to be enough vents for such a fish to find and go to another without starving. Also there would need to be enough large fish to breed with each other.


SteveAitch said:
And being under water, unlikely to develop technology?
Click to expand...
True. Only large predators would need much intelligence and they would be rare to start with. That is, even if they exist (see above). Remember brain power requires a lot of food to sustain it.
 
rjh01 said:
I was thinking life only existing around vents. ....
Click to expand...
The vents provide heat energy but most of the lifeforms rely on chemical energy. So heat and chemical reactions replace photosynthesis.

NOAA - Life on a Vent
Organisms that live around hydrothermal vents don't rely on sunlight and photosynthesis. Instead, bacteria and archaea use a process called chemosynthesis to convert minerals and other chemicals in the water into energy. This bacterium is the base of the vent community food web, and supports hundreds of species of animals.
Click to expand...
 
Oystein said:
What counts is the projection of the planet - i.e. the circle that has the same radius.
Remember: The bit of planet surface that is directly facing the sun, i.e. where the sun is in the very zenith, receives 100% of the power, whereas a point where the sun is curretly hugging the horizon (subrise or sundown) is barely getting any wattage at all.
The amount of energy from the sun available to be absorbed by the planet is the amount of radiation within a circle with the circumference of the equator.
Click to expand...

Which is what I think I did in my calculation (Note that while I said sphere I meant circle and I did use Pi*R^2 not 4*pi*R^2)

for a circle with the radius of the earth:
Pi*(6.4*10^6)^2 = 1.29*10^14 m^2

1.29 * 10^14 m^2 * 1370W/M^2 = 1.76*10^17W

or if you want to include albedo

1.29 * 10^14 m^2 * 1370W/M^2 * 0.7 = 1.23*10^17W

lomiller said:
Radius of the Earth ~ 6.4*10^6m
This means the earth carves out a spear of 3.14 * 6.4 * 6.4 * 10^12 m^2
or: 129*10^12 m^2
TSI at the top of the atmosphere is ~1370W/m^2

so total power = 1.37*129*10^15 = 1.76*10^17W
Click to expand...
 
Dr. Dean Edell, who used to host a weekly med analysis show, which I miss terribly, used to say that all the time. If you wanna lose weight, you need to cut calories, not exercise more.

It's not that exercise doesn't work, it's that you get a lot more bang for the buck lopping 1500 to 2000 calories a day off your regular gorging than burning an extra 500 the hard way, which is hard to keep up on top of it.



 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
Dr. Dean Edell, who used to host a weekly med analysis show, which I miss terribly, used to say that all the time. If you wanna lose weight, you need to cut calories, not exercise more.

It's not that exercise doesn't work, it's that you get a lot more bang for the buck lopping 1500 to 2000 calories a day off your regular gorging than burning an extra 500 the hard way, which is hard to keep up on top of it.
Click to expand...
The old saying goes “You can’t outrun a bad diet”.
 
Beerina said:
It's not that exercise doesn't work, it's that you get a lot more bang for the buck lopping 1500 to 2000 calories a day off your regular gorging than burning an extra 500 the hard way, which is hard to keep up on top of it.
Click to expand...

Not that I am great at watching my weight, but knowing that it would take 90 minutes of brisk walking to burn off the calories has encouraged me from eating a Snickers bar a few times.

Even though exercise isn't great for weight loss, there is a lot of evidence for it providing better health even for overweight people and that even moderate exercise can help one lose weight - if only because you are not as likely to be snacking on potato chips while walking around the block!

As far as cool science fact, have you ever wondered how the weight gets out of your body when you lose it? It's a silly bit of trivia I ask people about sometimes. You would be surprised, or maybe not, by how many people think you poop it out. :-)
 
jadebox said:
...
As far as cool science fact, have you ever wondered how the weight gets out of your body when you lose it? It's a silly bit of trivia I ask people about sometimes. You would be surprised, or maybe not, by how many people think you poop it out. :-)
Click to expand...

Mostly CO2 and H2O, with some N in your pee if you lose muscle mass?
 
GlennB said:
Mostly CO2 and H2O, with some N in your pee if you lose muscle mass?
Click to expand...
Yes. Fat is lost mostly through carbon dioxide. So you breathe it out. That helps me understand one reason that losing weight is so difficult.
 
jadebox said:
Yes. Fat is lost mostly through carbon dioxide. So you breathe it out. That helps me understand one reason that losing weight is so difficult.
Click to expand...

Conversely, most of the mass of, say, a tree comes from the air. Very little comes from the soil, and a bit comes from water, but the majority is air.

In fact, for a C6H12O6 sugar molecule created by photosynthesis, the hydrogen is the only part that doesn't come from the air. From looking just at the chemical formula it looks kind of like you strip a carbon from CO2 and stick it on to the H2O, but in fact you strip half the oxygen from the CO2 and all the oxygen from the water to add the hydrogen to the CO. So the oxygen in water used in photosynthesis doesn't become part of the sugar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom