Science is interesting

Crawfish · **Posted:** Wed Aug 31, 2011 11:29 pm

Oh my god I am so excited to start my Animal Development class.

We get to raise frogs and do a bunch of awesome things with their embryos oh my godddddd

[Citation Needed] · **Posted:** Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:47 pm

REPOSTED from Unimportant Topics

also THREAD REVIVAL WOOOAHHHH

Quote:

So, like I do EVERY night before I have to work early in the morning, I stay up for hours WASTING TIME on the internet.

Usually reading stupid things for long periods of time.

Anyway, this time I was reading about earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and the Richter Scale.

Found this nice little bit of info:
The 1960 Chile earthquake was 9.5 - that's the strongest earthquake ever recorded.
The asteroid/comet/whatever impact that wiped out the dinosaurs and made the Chicxulub Crater would have been 12.55.
There was a starquake (it's what you think it is. A large part of a star shakes violently and adjusts itself, like an earthquake) on the magnetar (a type of neutron star) SGR 1806-20 and would have been a 32.0. If the star had been within 10 light years of the solar system, it would have caused mass-extinction on earth with the material it ejected.

A 10.0 quake is defined as "total devastation". A 10.0 quake has never been actually recorded.

But 9.5 was pretty daisies close.

Anyway, I just thought this stuff was interesting so I posted it. BED TIME.

YCobb · **Posted:** Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:29 pm

I'm more interested in the 'glowing green cat' bit than the 'cure AIDS' bit.

I think that makes me a terrible person.

Syobon · **Joined:** Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:34 am **Posts:** 15027

Gamers solve molecular puzzle that baffled scientists

This is brilliant.

Exeres · **Posted:** Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:10 am

The plebs at the Funny Picture Thread won't appreciate this one.

Kamak · **Posted:** Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:55 pm

I almost feel terrible for laughing.

Almost.

Nefarious Bear · **Posted:** Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:08 pm

Exeres wrote:

The plebs at the Funny Picture Thread won't appreciate this one.

That is fucking hilarious.

hotb · **Posted:** Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:27 pm

www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

Operation Awesome · **Posted:** Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:13 pm

I just read that, actually.

Will this result in Zefram Cochrane piloting Earth's first warp-capable starship in 2063?
I think yes.

Exeres · **Posted:** Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:17 pm

More likely they cocked up an equation somewhere, which is why they've released all the data publicly hoping someone will find their error.

YCobb · **Posted:** Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:19 pm

Can someone explain to me why the speed of light specifically is the speed limit?
What's special about that number that it's where mass reaches infinity?

Did they actually work this out in an equation?
Who's to say it ever actually hits infinity?

Genuinely curious about this, because it seems pretty difficult to have just figured out with math.

Exeres · **Posted:** Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:22 pm

Talk to Einstein, he'll tell you all about it.

Wait, no. He's dead.

Kamak · **Posted:** Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:58 pm

YCobb wrote:

Can someone explain to me why the speed of light specifically is the speed limit?
What's special about that number that it's where mass reaches infinity?

Did they actually work this out in an equation?
Who's to say it ever actually hits infinity?

Genuinely curious about this, because it seems pretty difficult to have just figured out with math.

It's because light is/has been believed to be massless, and according to Einstein's theory of relativity, if there's even SOME amount of mass, it'll require infinite energy to accelerate.

However, this isn't the first time faster than light speeds have been thought to exist. Scientists are still trying to find out why electrons apparently spin faster than the speed of light would allow, and there are some theoretical particles that are believed to be able to travel faster than light (though some of them are believed to achieve faster than light travel by crossing dimensions).

Brekkjern · **Joined:** Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:22 am **Posts:** 1435

I find it illogical that you can't go past the speed of light. Let's say I take off from earth and move in a straight line at 0,75 times c. It is a speed that is well within our max speed limit. That speed is only relative to the earth. If another object is coming straight towards me from the front at 0,75 times c, why isn't the result 1,5 times c? How can objects be travelling slower because they are moving towards each other?

Exeres · **Posted:** Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:07 pm

Brekkjern wrote:

I find it illogical that you can't go past the speed of light. Let's say I take off from earth and move in a straight line at 0,75 times c. It is a speed that is well within our max speed limit. That speed is only relative to the earth. If another object is coming straight towards me from the front at 0,75 times c, why isn't the result 1,5 times c? How can objects be travelling slower because they are moving towards each other?

This is exactly the type of question that would be solved by taking an introduction to physics college course.

AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Science is interesting

Who is online