IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 20th June 2023, 09:20 AM   #201
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,437
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Proximity to a star is not essential for liquid water. There are oceans of water under the surface of several of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, where life might well exist.
But being too close to the star prevents the formation of liquid water, as well as increases the damage from stellar ejections, radiation, etc.

There's a generally accepted "habitable zone" for planets where it's possible for liquid water to form, and thus for life (as we know it) to evolve. Planets need to be close enough to receive enough energy to prompt the formation of complex organic molecules, but far enough away that the formation of liquid water isn't impossible. For red dwarfs, in order to have enough energy to develop complex organic molecules, the planet also has to be so close that it can't form water. There is no habitable zone.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2023, 09:29 AM   #202
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,437
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
And which could also be happening on moons in the planetary systems of red dwarfs, so such systems could support life. If we rule them out because there would be no planets in the Goldilocks zone, as was suggested, we might be significantly underestimating the number of possible abodes of life in the universe.
Hypothetically, perhaps. But then we're talking about trying to locate the teapot that might or might not be circling Mercury... rather than trying to locate one of several possible teapots at the local antique store.

It's playing the odds. We have limited resources and a really, really, really big universe. Why would we spend effort looking for cases around red dwarfs where outlier conditions capable of producing life might or might not exist... when there are still a whole lot of other stars that we know for sure produce a habitable zone?
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2023, 09:42 AM   #203
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,208
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Actually, no, not really. Earth receives 44 quadrillion (4.4 x 1016 W) watts of energy (well, ok, POWER) from the Sun. Earth's core is estimated to produce about 44 terawatts (4.4. x 1013 W). That's 0.1% of the energy that comes from the Sun, or about the same percentage of the total energy.
Google seems to agree with you but I think this number is wrong.

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


The Google answer seems to come from this NASA pdf which says
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/135642main_..._trifold21.pdf

Quote:
The Sun is the major source of energy for Earth’s
oceans, atmosphere, land, and biosphere. Averaged
over an entire year, approximately 342 watts of solar
energy fall upon every square meter of Earth. This is
a tremendous amount of energy—44 quadrillion (4.4
x 1016) watts of power to be exact.
But...
The total surface area of the earth is 5.1*10^14 m^2
342*5.1*10^14 = 1.74*10^17W (same as above)

TSI ~1370 W/m^2 for the part of the earth facing the sun, to find the average over the entire earth you can divide by 4 (area of a Sphere/area of a circle with the same radius) which is where the 342 number comes from. I suspect someone (probably me lol) is applying this conversion incorrectly.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2023, 09:53 AM   #204
bigred
Penultimate Amazing
 
bigred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 20,694
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Why the latter?

Red dwarf stars last much longer than stars like our sun, so the window of opportunity for life to begin and evolve in such systems would be immense. Earth was already about two thirds of the way through its window when complex life evolved here.
- Highly prone to flares that would wipe out life
- Extremely high emission of x-rays that could sterilize the planet
- One or two other things I forget
bigred is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2023, 09:56 AM   #205
bigred
Penultimate Amazing
 
bigred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 20,694
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, what I learned recently: Hi, my name is Hans and I'm stupid. A stupid audiophile, to be exact. Turns out that getting a sound card that does 32 bits sampling at 384 kHz makes no difference whatsoever:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Yeah basically anything beyond 24 bit depth and 96kHz sample rate is overkill and in fact higher sample rates are if anything worse. More isn't always better. In fact, odds are you could never tell a diff beyond 24/44.1 for that matter (which is what CDs are made at).
bigred is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2023, 10:20 AM   #206
bigred
Penultimate Amazing
 
bigred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 20,694
Looking up something on stars from this and found that apparently we are finding really....really...cool stars: https://skyandtelescope.org/astronom...rs-ever-found/

And it brought up an interesting point we are reaching of when is it a star and when is it just a really big gas planet? This leads me to think that maybe we should say we have 6 planets, not 8, and two really cool stars in the middle. I mean what's a star? A big ball of gas!
bigred is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2023, 10:45 AM   #207
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,208
Originally Posted by bigred View Post
Looking up something on stars from this and found that apparently we are finding really....really...cool stars: https://skyandtelescope.org/astronom...rs-ever-found/

And it brought up an interesting point we are reaching of when is it a star and when is it just a really big gas planet? This leads me to think that maybe we should say we have 6 planets, not 8, and two really cool stars in the middle. I mean what's a star? A big ball of gas!
A star needs to have enough gravity and pressure to fuse hydrogen into helium in their core and Jupiter is too small for that. It would need to be at least 85 times more massive for that.

A science tidbit I learned while checking the minimum mass for a star is that brown dwarfs ~15 - 85 times larger than Jupiter are massive enough to fuse Deuterium and in some cases Lithium but not Hydrogen.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2023, 10:47 AM   #208
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,238
Originally Posted by bigred View Post
Looking up something on stars from this and found that apparently we are finding really....really...cool stars: https://skyandtelescope.org/astronom...rs-ever-found/

And it brought up an interesting point we are reaching of when is it a star and when is it just a really big gas planet? This leads me to think that maybe we should say we have 6 planets, not 8, and two really cool stars in the middle. I mean what's a star? A big ball of gas!
A star should have self-sustaining fusion reactions. I don't think Jupiter and Saturn qualify.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2023, 11:14 AM   #209
bigred
Penultimate Amazing
 
bigred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 20,694
I was kidding...but it was interesting to me how the differences aren't as stark as I'd always felt they were. I do still think it's weird to call a big ball of gas a "planet," but I guess the options are limited...it looks like one after all.
bigred is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2023, 11:19 AM   #210
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,238
Originally Posted by bigred View Post
I was kidding...but it was interesting to me how the differences aren't as stark as I'd always felt they were. I do still think it's weird to call a big ball of gas a "planet," but I guess the options are limited...it looks like one after all.
Trivia for you: the sun and the moon were originally categorized as planets, and Earth was not.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2023, 11:29 AM   #211
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,255
Originally Posted by bigred View Post
... In fact, odds are you could never tell a diff beyond 24/44.1 for that matter (which is what CDs are made at).
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.
Jack by the hedge is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2023, 12:59 PM   #212
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,437
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Google seems to agree with you but I think this number is wrong.
That's a lot of numbers and my brain is tired. That said... Off the top, I think you need to adjust for the fact that only half the earth is facing the sun at a time, not the entire thing.

Maybe I'm being overly simplistic?

Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
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


The Google answer seems to come from this NASA pdf which says
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/135642main_..._trifold21.pdf



But...
The total surface area of the earth is 5.1*10^14 m^2
342*5.1*10^14 = 1.74*10^17W (same as above)

TSI ~1370 W/m^2 for the part of the earth facing the sun, to find the average over the entire earth you can divide by 4 (area of a Sphere/area of a circle with the same radius) which is where the 342 number comes from. I suspect someone (probably me lol) is applying this conversion incorrectly.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2023, 05:39 PM   #213
bigred
Penultimate Amazing
 
bigred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 20,694
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
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.
Yes, my bad. Of course you will get those arguing the superiority of 24 bit or even 32 24 does give you a better noise floor, but about oh 99.9% of the time even that is overkill and unnecessary.

That said, I record at 24/48. lol
bigred is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2023, 01:53 AM   #214
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
That particular tidbit is new to me.

Would moons like the ones in our solar system that might potentially have life, i.e. that circle gas giants a long way out from the star, be as badly affected?
It's fairly new-ish to everyone, scientists included.

Of course, if you're far away enough from the star, you're not going to a be affected as much by a mega-flare. The inverse square law still applies. But we're probably back to the same situation as those moons. They might have liquid water under the ice, and possibly support bacterial life, but probably wouldn't be top candidates for colonization.
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2023, 02:00 AM   #215
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
@lomiller
I suspect that the difference is in the albedo. As they say later in the paper, not all energy from the sun is making it all the way to the surface. Most of it is reflected right back by the clouds, ice, hell, even plants don't absorb green which is why they're green, but also is the spectral peak. Which is also why I didn't just use that cross section.

Of course, since they don't actually show their maths in the paper, it's hard to be sure.
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2023, 01:20 PM   #216
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,208
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
@lomiller
I suspect that the difference is in the albedo. As they say later in the paper, not all energy from the sun is making it all the way to the surface. Most of it is reflected right back by the clouds, ice, hell, even plants don't absorb green which is why they're green, but also is the spectral peak. Which is also why I didn't just use that cross section.

Of course, since they don't actually show their maths in the paper, it's hard to be sure.
~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.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2023, 01:48 PM   #217
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,285
Originally Posted by bigred View Post
Looking up something on stars from this and found that apparently we are finding really....really...cool stars: https://skyandtelescope.org/astronom...rs-ever-found/

And it brought up an interesting point we are reaching of when is it a star and when is it just a really big gas planet? This leads me to think that maybe we should say we have 6 planets, not 8, and two really cool stars in the middle. I mean what's a star? A big ball of gas!
I have an image in my head of an astronaut with a Bic lighter about to ignite Jupiter.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2023, 02:04 PM   #218
pzkpfw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 255
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I have an image in my head of an astronaut with a Bic lighter about to ignite Jupiter.
2010 was 13 years ago.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010:_Odyssey_Two)
pzkpfw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2023, 03:51 PM   #219
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,664
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
That's a lot of numbers and my brain is tired. That said... Off the top, I think you need to adjust for the fact that only half the earth is facing the sun at a time, not the entire thing.

Maybe I'm being overly simplistic?
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.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2023, 03:57 PM   #220
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 86,977
According to some people, it's possible that the Icelandic Vikings independently invented gunpowder and used it in weapons.

Personally, I'm still a bit skeptical, but here it is:

Viking Atgeirr: Reevaluating the Origins of European Firearms (Forgotten Weapons, 19:24)

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
We are living in weird times
dominated by weird people
who talk about weird ****

- Seth Meyers
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2023, 05:22 PM   #221
Delvo
Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 11,644
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.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2023, 05:25 PM   #222
Delvo
Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 11,644
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2023, 06:00 PM   #223
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 86,977
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
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.


Have I mentioned yet that I think April Fool's Day pranks are stupid?
__________________
We are living in weird times
dominated by weird people
who talk about weird ****

- Seth Meyers
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2023, 08:28 PM   #224
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,285
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
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2023, 08:29 PM   #225
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
~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.
Well, that makes it even worse without the sun, then.
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2023, 08:36 PM   #226
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2023, 01:29 AM   #227
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 28,077
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
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.
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.


Originally Posted by SteveAitch View Post
And being under water, unlikely to develop technology?
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.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2023, 02:21 AM   #228
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,285
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
I was thinking life only existing around vents. ....
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
Quote:
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.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2023, 11:00 AM   #229
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,208
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
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.
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

Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
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
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2023, 04:59 AM   #230
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 46,277
Baby formula is highly inflammable.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-...fire/102589096
__________________
We do these things not because they are easy, but because we thought they were going to be easy.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2023, 07:54 AM   #231
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,238
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
Baby formula is highly inflammable.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-...fire/102589096
Of course it is. Basically any powdered food is, because organic materials burn.

But I do have to add one note:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2023, 08:54 AM   #232
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,784
While listening to The Infinite Monkey Cage on my way to work this morning I learned that exercise isn't really that great for weight loss.

I figured I'd need something to back that up, so I found this:

https://www.vox.com/2018/1/3/1684543...-burn-calories
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]

Last edited by 3point14; 11th July 2023 at 08:55 AM.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2023, 09:02 AM   #233
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,760
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.



YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

Last edited by Beerina; 11th July 2023 at 09:26 AM.
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2023, 09:20 AM   #234
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 7,223
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
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.
The old saying goes “You can’t outrun a bad diet”.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2023, 01:00 AM   #235
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 28,077
Exercise makes you feel more hungry, so you eat more. If your diet is bad, this means eating the wrong food.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2023, 12:23 PM   #236
ZirconBlue
Sole Survivor of L-Town
 
ZirconBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lexington, KY, USA, Earth
Posts: 15,137
*shrug* I lost a decent amount of weight when I was getting a lot of exercise (marching drum corps), and gained it all back when I stopped.
__________________
Religion and sex are powerplays.
Manipulate the people for the money they pay.
Selling skin, selling God
The numbers look the same on their credit cards.
ZirconBlue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2023, 09:48 AM   #237
jadebox
Master Poster
 
jadebox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,857
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
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.
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2023, 09:58 AM   #238
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,351
Originally Posted by jadebox View Post
...
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. :-)
Mostly CO2 and H2O, with some N in your pee if you lose muscle mass?
__________________
"There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2023, 10:15 AM   #239
jadebox
Master Poster
 
jadebox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,857
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Mostly CO2 and H2O, with some N in your pee if you lose muscle mass?
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2023, 12:44 PM   #240
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,238
Originally Posted by jadebox View Post
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.
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.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:53 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.