Interesting Stuff Thread

endacl

Sarky wrote: »

The further you are away from a mass, the smaller the gravitational force it exerts on you. So the further you are away from the planet, the less energy you need to counteract its gravity. Gravitational attraction is an inverse square law, so the effect of the planet's gravity decreases pretty much exponentially with distance from it. I'm sure there's a graph somewhere, but I'm lazy.

That's ok. Graphs look pretty, but truth be told, I never actually read them...

Kivaro

Though only about dozen potentially habitable exoplanets have been detected so far, scientists say the universe should be teeming with alien worlds that could support life. The Milky Way alone may host 60 billion such planets around faint red dwarf stars, a new estimate suggests.

More here: http://www.space.com/21800-alien-planets-60-billion-habitable-exoplanets.html

Of all the planets, in all the galaxies, in all the Universes, Jesus had to be conceived on ours.

magicbastarder

Gbear wrote: »

Having read all that, i didn't think Mach 5 was escape velocity.

Didn't the shuttle take off at Mach 25?

mach 5 is not escape velocity, but escape velocity is based on a ballistic trajectory; if you are talking about a powered takeoff, it's perfectly possible to leave the earth without exceeding the escape velocity.
long story short, escape velocity is immaterial for powered flight. especially if the goal is not to escape earth orbit.

robindch

Well-funded religious groups in the US are using after-school clubs to spread fundamentalist dogma and to undermine the public school system:

http://neatoday.org/2013/05/02/religious-right-using-after-school-bible-clubs-to-undermine-public-education-says-author/

TheChizler

To continue the theme of space flight, Space X have developed a reusable rocket, capable of vertical landing. Has this been done on anything close to this scale before? I just think this is one of the coolest videos I've ever seen.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/10163963/First-full-launch-for-Grasshopper-rocket.html

Kivaro

TheChizler wrote: »

To continue the theme of space flight, Space X have developed a reusable rocket, capable of vertical landing. Has this been done on anything close to this scale before? I just think this is one of the coolest videos I've ever seen.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/10163963/First-full-launch-for-Grasshopper-rocket.html

Ah, very cool.
But the amount of fuel required for vertical landing from outer space?
I understand a certain amount of gliding can be done, but straightening it up to a controlled decent would take a lot of fuel.

TheChizler

Kivaro wrote: »

Ah, very cool.
But the amount of fuel required for vertical landing from outer space?
I understand a certain amount of gliding can be done, but straightening it up to a controlled decent would take a lot of fuel.

Was thinking that but obviously Space X think its worthy of investigation. I imagine some type of parachute/rocket combo? Or lunar delivery service, wouldn't take much to land vertically there.

FouxDaFaFa

I didn't know where to put this because it's not "funny", just really inspiring.

If the translation is correct, this young Egyptian boy shows a startling amount of insight to egyptian politics and society as a whole. If I had a kid I hope he'd turn out like him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeDm2PrNV1I

robindch

Take the CS Monitor's science quiz!

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/1209/Are-you-scientifically-literate-Take-our-quiz/Composing-about-78-percent-of-the-air-at-sea-level-what-is-the-most-common-gas-in-the-Earth-s-atmosphere

Can anybody beat 84%?

Liamario

robindch wrote: »

Take the CS Monitor's science quiz!

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/1209/Are-you-scientifically-literate-Take-our-quiz/Composing-about-78-percent-of-the-air-at-sea-level-what-is-the-most-common-gas-in-the-Earth-s-atmosphere

Can anybody beat 84%?

Page is taking forever to load, so I'm going to assume a score of 96%

Bannasidhe

Liamario wrote: »

Page is taking forever to load, so I'm going to assume a score of 96%

We can do that? :eek:


I got 98% and anyone calling for a review of my mark will be hearing from my solicitor*.





*and they say lecturers don't learn from their students.

Pherekydes

A miserable 80%.

TheChizler

86%! Need to work on my astronomy.

endacl

TheChizler wrote: »

86%! Need to work on my astronomy.

86% here too. Astronomy was grand. It was physics for me...

joseph brand

Found this on reddit:

A man nailed to a cross? Nobody thinks twice before letting their kids see the crucifix. But stop and think... Shouldn't it be just as shocking as this image?

The artist who created this remarkable installation is Christian Lemmerz[2] . It definitely makes one stop and think about macabre religious iconography, and how we're all accustomed to not seeing it for what it truly is: torture and death as the symbol of a belief system.

The Life of Brian:

Centurion: You know the penalty laid down by Roman law for harboring a known criminal?
Matthias: No.
Centurion: Crucifixion!
Matthias: Oh.
Centurion: Nasty, eh?
Matthias: Could be worse.
Centurion: What you mean "Could be worse"?
Matthias: Well, you could be stabbed.
Centurion: Stabbed? Takes a second. Crucifixion lasts hours. It's a slow, horrible death.
Matthias: Well, at least it gets you out in the open air.
Centurion: You're weird!

TheChizler

Yikes! How is it that we're conditioned to not baulk at displays of open heart surgery in the kitchen for instance, but this initially seems more horrifying?

Sulla Felix

Hanging it around your neck would now be even slightly more creepy.

TheChizler

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Hanging it around your neck would now be even slightly more creepy.

Double death!

endacl

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Hanging it around your neck would now be even slightly more creepy.

Turtles all the way down...

He doesn't look circumcised either, disgusting.

88%. Stupid chemistry.

endacl

Deleted User wrote: »

88%. Stupid chemistry.

Chemistry is stupid, or you're stupid chemistry-wise?

:P

legspin

98%
That was only because I mixed up Watt and Joule.

Turtwig

endacl wrote: »

Chemistry is stupid, or you're stupid chemistry-wise?

:P

Your.*

endacl

endacl wrote: »

Chemistry is stupid, or you're stupid chemistry-wise?

:P

Chemistry is stupid. Why should I care what number some guy gave an element!?

(Shut up about number of protons.)

endacl

Jernal wrote: »

Your.*

Nah. You're = You + are.

I won't be out-natzeed.

swampgas

robindch wrote: »

Take the CS Monitor's science quiz!

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/1209/Are-you-scientifically-literate-Take-our-quiz/Composing-about-78-percent-of-the-air-at-sea-level-what-is-the-most-common-gas-in-the-Earth-s-atmosphere

Can anybody beat 84%?

94%
Got the cell division wrong and the more obscure planetary moons beat me as well.

Gbear

74%.

Boo.

endacl

Gbear wrote: »

74%.

Boo.

You can repeat in the autumn. If you don't score at least 80% then, I'm afraid it's the spirituality forum for you.

Obliq

endacl wrote: »

You can repeat in the autumn. If you don't score at least 80% then, I'm afraid it's the spirituality forum for you.

Jaysus, wat? I gave up after I got at least half of them wrong by question 12. And one of the right ones was given to me by mistake (they gave the answer for the heaviest noble gas in the tag line!). Sigh. Didn't do science after 2nd year till a biology module in college (that I failed, badly ). I am, however, a proper order atheist - 2nd generation I'll have you know. Spiritual types get a hard time trying their "angel" crap on me