You are confused. The Van Allen radiation belt isn't composed of x-rays. And even the most energetic solar x-ray flares release less than.01 watts per square meter. For comparison, sunlight before it's filtered by the atmosphere is 1400 watts per square meter. There's no way a human body would melt or burst into flame from exposure to even the brightest x-ray flares. Also, the number of particles in the radiation belts varies dramatically with time. The Apollo astronauts were lucky.
In elementary school (and even high school still!) we are taught that gravity is the result of the earth spinning, which is clearly nonsense.
What do you mean 'we'? I was never taught this, and I challenge you to show me a single grade or high school textbook that makes this claim. My suspicion is that you were just a bad student or you had bad teachers, which is confirmed by your current lack of understanding of energy and the work function.
The spring acts more like gravity than a string? The more the spring stretches, the greater the force (Hooke's Law, I believe), making the rock-on-a-string follow a linear force law (the greater the distance, the greater the force), while the force of gravity follows an inverse square law (the greater the distance, the weaker the force). The string provides a constant force, which is closer to being inverse than the spring. But, yes, the string is only a good analogy for circular orbits, where the distance never changes and so the force of gravity, like the string's, is constant.
Your confusion over the work function has been dealt with in another post. Just because you don't understand physics doesn't mean it's wrong.
Go outside whatever building you are in right now and try as hard as you can to push it to the east for 10 minutes. Guess what? According to this logic, you have expended no energy! Oh, never mind that spaghetti feeling in your arms and legs. You've expended no energy because the building never moved.
No kinetic energy has been imparted to the building, as the work function implies. No physicist in the world would claim that no energy was expended, however. The real question is where did the energy go. It was turned into useless thermal energy within the muscles of the idiot who actually tried your dumb little experiment, resulting from the spasmodic movement of actin fibers pulling on each other. You need to learn more about the different forms of energy before you are qualified to participate in discussions like this. Oh, wait, this is/.. Never mind.
Afraid to try the real stuff? The darker a bean has been roasted, the less caffeine it has. If I buy the lightest roast I can, I can make coffee so strong that I can barely hold a pencil afterward, though it doesn't taste any stronger than coffee at your favorite greasy-spoon. Ususally I mix a little dark roast in just to make it taste as strong as it actually is, much like adding foul-smelling mercaptans to odorless natural gas so that gas leaks have a smell.
Water is going to act as a great shield for the gamma and alpha rays coming from U-235. Try googling for a waterproof geiger counter. There's a reason why the bomb hasn't been found yet.
This might have worked before the internet, but when somebody thinks there's a possible strike, the news gets out within hours. This is due in large part to the huge numbers of amateur astronomers who are often relied upon to do follow-up observations.
The study was performed by a physicist who didn't know the first thing about microbiology before he started. Other people concluded it was a terrestrial fungus. Check out the discussion on sciscoop. Full disclosure: many of the posts there are mine.
Here it is: http://www.discoveryatlantis.com/. The story submitter's links sucked. The first was only one paragraph and misspelled Sarmast's last name, the second was hardly better. The wiki reference was ok for background info. Anyway, here's the press release that started it all, http://www.discoveryofatlantis.com/800/press.htm, and from there are links to some actual bathymetric maps, etc., of the region: sea level lower 1.6 km, 3D seafloor, and others.
My guess is that Venus's thicker atmosphere and pressure broadening of the CO2 spectral lines (surface pressure Venus's 90 atm. vs. Titan's 1.6 atm), and additional absorption lines from the sulfuric acid droplets makes the Venusian atmosphere optically thick at all IR wavelengths.
The added volume on the modified F-5E, however, allowed researchers to better distribute the air pressure build-up in front of a supersonic plane, which shapes how the pressure is later released in a sonic boom shockwave as the aircraft breaks the sound barrier.If it's already supersonic, how can it break the sound barrier?
an astronomy observing lab at 2 in the morning, and only now find out about this? There didn't seem to be increased number of meteor above the usual sporadics, but the ones I saw did have radiants originating in Lyra. Seems to me the more popular showers have gurus like Esko Lyytenin who try to predict the exact time and rate of peak (and which part of the globe this will occur over), but apparently these are hard to predict.
Since the house is connected to the grid, the most efficient method would have been to skip hydrogen or any other storage entirely and sell/buy electricity to/from the grid. The whole hydrogen system is unnecessary. It would make sense if the house wasn't on the grid, but then the hydrogen storage capacity would have to be significantly increased for sufficient power during long periods of cloudy days. Yeah, I know, it's just a demo......
Here's an extremely lazy way to estimate it. Assuming the bubble collapse time is 100 ns (article only says "Within nanoseconds"), the top of the bubble will fall an extra 5x10^-8 microns during collapse, using the.5*g*t^2 formula. Even if I'm off by many orders of magnitude (and I'm guessing I overestimated), this is quite insignificant compared to the.06 micron size of the bubble at its smallest.
Grandiose claims do not substitute for facts
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
I didn't see any relevant facts in your link.
It was also said that the toxic output of this blast contained nearly a thousand times the ozone depleting chemicals that humans have created since the Industrial Revolution."
I've heard this claim before, investigated it, and found it to be ridiculous.
From this reference: "...[T]he large explosive eruption of Mount Pinatubo on 15 June 1991... injected about 17 million tonnes of SO2 into the stratosphere.."
The fossil-fuel derived output of SO2 was roughly equivalent to 68 Tg/yr of S (68 million tonnes/yr) in the late 80's (source: Global Environment: Water, Air, and Geochemical Cycles, by Berner and Berner, 1996). Since this number is only for the sulfur component, the total mass of SO2 is even larger, 136 million tonnes/yr.. A year's worth of human sulfur dioxide production far outweighs Pinatubo's production. The sulfate aerosols resulting from SO2 act as surfaces for ozone-destroying chlorine. The lifetime for these sulfate aerosols is 3 years, as compared to 45-100 years for common manmade (and ozone destroying) CFCs (ref).
Also from the 1st ref."...[V]olcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons). Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes...."
Slashdot Mirror
The wiki table on Hubble fails to mention it operates in the UV, though it's mentioned further down. This is what astronomers will miss the most.
You are confused. The Van Allen radiation belt isn't composed of x-rays. And even the most energetic solar x-ray flares release less than .01 watts per square meter. For comparison, sunlight before it's filtered by the atmosphere is 1400 watts per square meter. There's no way a human body would melt or burst into flame from exposure to even the brightest x-ray flares. Also, the number of particles in the radiation belts varies dramatically with time. The Apollo astronauts were lucky.
What do you mean 'we'? I was never taught this, and I challenge you to show me a single grade or high school textbook that makes this claim. My suspicion is that you were just a bad student or you had bad teachers, which is confirmed by your current lack of understanding of energy and the work function.
Your confusion over the work function has been dealt with in another post. Just because you don't understand physics doesn't mean it's wrong.
No kinetic energy has been imparted to the building, as the work function implies. No physicist in the world would claim that no energy was expended, however. The real question is where did the energy go. It was turned into useless thermal energy within the muscles of the idiot who actually tried your dumb little experiment, resulting from the spasmodic movement of actin fibers pulling on each other. You need to learn more about the different forms of energy before you are qualified to participate in discussions like this. Oh, wait, this is /.. Never mind.
Afraid to try the real stuff? The darker a bean has been roasted, the less caffeine it has. If I buy the lightest roast I can, I can make coffee so strong that I can barely hold a pencil afterward, though it doesn't taste any stronger than coffee at your favorite greasy-spoon. Ususally I mix a little dark roast in just to make it taste as strong as it actually is, much like adding foul-smelling mercaptans to odorless natural gas so that gas leaks have a smell.
Water is going to act as a great shield for the gamma and alpha rays coming from U-235. Try googling for a waterproof geiger counter. There's a reason why the bomb hasn't been found yet.
This might have worked before the internet, but when somebody thinks there's a possible strike, the news gets out within hours. This is due in large part to the huge numbers of amateur astronomers who are often relied upon to do follow-up observations.
The study was performed by a physicist who didn't know the first thing about microbiology before he started. Other people concluded it was a terrestrial fungus. Check out the discussion on sciscoop. Full disclosure: many of the posts there are mine.
You shouldn't try to kill mold with bleach.
Odd seafloor fatures do not an island make.
Here it is: http://www.discoveryatlantis.com/. The story submitter's links sucked. The first was only one paragraph and misspelled Sarmast's last name, the second was hardly better. The wiki reference was ok for background info. Anyway, here's the press release that started it all, http://www.discoveryofatlantis.com/800/press.htm, and from there are links to some actual bathymetric maps, etc., of the region: sea level lower 1.6 km, 3D seafloor, and others.
There is (was?) a version of Winamp for the Mac. I'm not sure why it wasn't renamed.
My guess is that Venus's thicker atmosphere and pressure broadening of the CO2 spectral lines (surface pressure Venus's 90 atm. vs. Titan's 1.6 atm), and additional absorption lines from the sulfuric acid droplets makes the Venusian atmosphere optically thick at all IR wavelengths.
The added volume on the modified F-5E, however, allowed researchers to better distribute the air pressure build-up in front of a supersonic plane, which shapes how the pressure is later released in a sonic boom shockwave as the aircraft breaks the sound barrier.If it's already supersonic, how can it break the sound barrier?
and there's less than 1 every five minutes. It's cold and I'm going to bed,
The direction is from Lyra towards us. What more do you need?
an astronomy observing lab at 2 in the morning, and only now find out about this? There didn't seem to be increased number of meteor above the usual sporadics, but the ones I saw did have radiants originating in Lyra. Seems to me the more popular showers have gurus like Esko Lyytenin who try to predict the exact time and rate of peak (and which part of the globe this will occur over), but apparently these are hard to predict.
Since the house is connected to the grid, the most efficient method would have been to skip hydrogen or any other storage entirely and sell/buy electricity to/from the grid. The whole hydrogen system is unnecessary. It would make sense if the house wasn't on the grid, but then the hydrogen storage capacity would have to be significantly increased for sufficient power during long periods of cloudy days. Yeah, I know, it's just a demo......
Here's an extremely lazy way to estimate it. Assuming the bubble collapse time is 100 ns (article only says "Within nanoseconds"), the top of the bubble will fall an extra 5x10^-8 microns during collapse, using the .5*g*t^2 formula. Even if I'm off by many orders of magnitude (and I'm guessing I overestimated), this is quite insignificant compared to the .06 micron size of the bubble at its smallest.
The previous one was about microbes growing gold, this one is about plants.
Theory is that gold nuggets don't just occur by themselves, they're deposited by microbial colonies.
It was also said that the toxic output of this blast contained nearly a thousand times the ozone depleting chemicals that humans have created since the Industrial Revolution."
I've heard this claim before, investigated it, and found it to be ridiculous.
From this reference: "...[T]he large explosive eruption of Mount Pinatubo on 15 June 1991 ... injected about 17 million tonnes of SO2 into the stratosphere. ."
The fossil-fuel derived output of SO2 was roughly equivalent to 68 Tg/yr of S (68 million tonnes/yr) in the late 80's (source: Global Environment: Water, Air, and Geochemical Cycles, by Berner and Berner, 1996). Since this number is only for the sulfur component, the total mass of SO2 is even larger, 136 million tonnes/yr.. A year's worth of human sulfur dioxide production far outweighs Pinatubo's production. The sulfate aerosols resulting from SO2 act as surfaces for ozone-destroying chlorine. The lifetime for these sulfate aerosols is 3 years, as compared to 45-100 years for common manmade (and ozone destroying) CFCs (ref).
Also from the 1st ref."...[V]olcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons). Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes...."
"Beyond 2000" is correct. Give the man a virtual cigar.
.... they're looking towards the center of our galaxy, although a globular cluster might also be a good candidate.