nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

I bet you didn't know that this thread would have a part 2

IamMetaldave

BaZmO* wrote: »

This post is the 10,000th post

Pipped.

Mod: Continuation from the old thread, which is here.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

cdeb

Enjoy them while you can. In 600000000 years, they'll be gone - the moon will have receded far enough that the coincidence in sizes won't be there any more.

The moon is receding from earth about as fast as your fingernails grow

mikhail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Speaking of planets the planets in the solar system do not orbit the sun. they orbit the center of mass of all the objects in the solar system which just happens to the be very close to the sun. this point is called the barycenter

I hadn't realised it moved around so much. Nor indeed that there were so many cranks on the internet convinced that the barycentre is the key to understanding how the CIA is controlling their dentist.
bary-1980-2005.png?w=500&h=498

In spite of a fairly big moon, the earth-moon barycentre is inside the earth.

Speaking of big moons, it seems to be a total coincidence that the moon is just far enough away that it covers about the same area of sky as the sun. One consequence is that our solar eclipses are a natural wonder most planets will never experience.

ohnonotgmail

Speaking of planets the planets in the solar system do not orbit the sun. they orbit the center of mass of all the objects in the solar system which just happens to the be very close to the sun. this point is called the barycenter

Capt'n Midnight

Neptune was the outermost planet of the solar system from 1846 until 1930.

And from 1979 until 1999.

And from 2006.

Ipso

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I love him right up to the point my eyes cross and smoke starts to billow out my ear holes as my brain overheats.

Yeah, physics is very interesting but it gets to a point where I have to check out as I feel like Homer Simpson watching Twin Peaks.

[Deleted User]

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I love him right up to the point my eyes cross and smoke starts to billow out my ear holes as my brain overheats.

I think he's hot too!

Wibbs

Oh I love him right up to the point my eyes cross and smoke starts to billow out my ear holes as my brain overheats.

[Deleted User]

I think pretty much all of us love Fourier! I know I do

Squall Leonhart

cdeb

BaZmO* wrote: »

I remember that he wanted his work/method recognised by the scientific community but wouldn’t release his method so that it could be peer reviewed. Obviously the scientific world didn’t want to know.

Must see if I can dig out his name.

He wanted his method recognised, but wouldn't tell anyone what it was?

Right so. Sounds like the psychics saying the conditions weren't right for them this time, but normally they can see things.

Who said his long-term rate was decent btw? Was it him? Or the tabloid media who generate clicks out of "Lots of snow this winter, says famous NZ farmer"?

BaZmO*

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

Ken Ring?

I'm not sure. I could be confusing him with someone else.

From his Wiki

Ring is known for attempting to predict weather and authors books on "how the moon affects the weather", which include an almanac each year for New Zealand (since 1999), Australia (since 2006) and Ireland (since 2010).[13][14] He believes that the cycle of weather follows a lunar pattern and can be used to predict weather many years in advance.[15] The lunar cycle occurs every 9 years,[16] while the solar cycle repeats at 11 year intervals[17] and by assessing the two Ring believes that the weather recycles through a 355-day cycle, a 19-year cycle, and a 36-year cycle.[1] According to his website it is not an exact science - it's not scientific at all[original research?] - and is opinion-based similar to economics or political science or astrology and his rainfall predictions can be out by 24 hours and a radius of 50 to 60 miles (80 to 97 km).

That states that he uses Lunar Cycles and not Sun Spots and is not scientific. The guy that I hazily remember definitely said he used Sun Spots and was based in science.

Buford T. Justice XIX

BaZmO* wrote: »

There was a guy from New Zealand (I think?) that used to give long term weather forecasts to the likes of farmers and he used to glean the information for his forecasts from sun spots. He had a fairly decent prediction rate.
I remember that he wanted his work/method recognised by the scientific community but wouldn’t release his method so that it could be peer reviewed. Obviously the scientific world didn’t want to know.

Must see if I can dig out his name.

Ken Ring?

Fourier

Carry wrote: »

Might take some time because work is looming and needs preparations too.

Fourier, go on

There has actually been quite a debate on whether the planets influence sunspots for roughly 250 years. There was a planetary alignment of all the solar system's gas giants in 1804 that corresponded to a sunspot maximum, but the maximum in 1788 occurred when the gas giants were completely unaligned. So by the 1900s people thought sunspots has nothing to do with planets. However questions about it opened up again in the 1970s when some possible connections with sunspots and Jupiter were seen and it has never really been settled. Until now (maybe!)

Recently a German group did actually show a pretty tight correlation between the orbits of Earth, Venus and Jupiter and the cycle of sunspot activity. Earlier studies in the 1900s had always focused on the gas giants alone being the cause. The new German study confirms part of this, there is little relation between the sunspots and what Saturn, Neptune and Uranus are doing. However it shows those studies were flawed because they ignored the closer large rocky planets: Venus and Earth.

Sunspots happen when a plasma current in the Sun moves in such a way that it generates a powerful magnetic field in a given region. This magnetic field then slows nearby plasma currents just beneath the surface by trapping them in place. Since these currents are what carry energy to the surface of the Sun, this means less energy reaches the surface. So the surface plasma begins to cool and go dark. Solar plasma is made of hydrogen which gets more transparent the cooler it is. So the colder plasma in a sunspot becomes transparent and lets us see deeper into the Sun. Which is why they're useful scientifically as we then get to study the deeper plasma layers.

What seems to be happening with the planets is that Earth, Venus and Jupiter together essentially cause tides in the Sun's plasma that then set up poorly understood types of plasma currents beneath the surface. These currents then generate the massive magnetic fields that trap other plasma currents near by.

I'll just say that all of this still isn't very well understood. Fluids of any kind are the hardest physical systems to model mathematically, so we don't know precisely how the tides caused by planets get the plasma moving the right way. In fact we still don't really know what kinds of plasma flows create these super strong magnetic fields and what types just have a weak magnetic field.

It might sound odd but the motion of your coffee when you stir it with a spoon is far more mathematically complex than a black hole and takes some heavy duty mathematics. Oddly very abstract things like black holes are often much simpler than everyday things like fluids. You can win a million for example for showing the equation that would describe a coffee can actually be solved at all:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness

BaZmO*

Carry wrote: »

Anyway, to relax after a stressful flight and being finally in my restful home in rural Ireland again I watched by chance a documentary about sun spots and how the planets in our sun system might influence the rhythm of their occurence and their influence on life on earth. A reputable documentary by the way.

I was riveted and thought about this very thread. But I have to watch it again and take notes to report. It's in German so a link is of no use for most of the readers.

Might take some time because work is looming and needs preparations too.

Fourier, go on

There was a guy from New Zealand (I think?) that used to give long term weather forecasts to the likes of farmers and he used to glean the information for his forecasts from sun spots. He had a fairly decent prediction rate.
I remember that he wanted his work/method recognised by the scientific community but wouldn’t release his method so that it could be peer reviewed. Obviously the scientific world didn’t want to know.

Must see if I can dig out his name.

New Home

Or five Irish minutes (as in, "I'll be there in five minutes.")

Quazzie

New Home wrote: »

That should state earth years.

sbsquarepants

Carry wrote: »

Fourier, go on

I might get this on a t shirt.....a tattoo is too much I think:D

Carry

Belated thanks to Fourier for his two "coin" posts. I've been abroad and enjoyed a social media free time

. But I still want to know more about the biochemistry stuff.

Anyway, to relax after a stressful flight and being finally in my restful home in rural Ireland again I watched by chance a documentary about sun spots and how the planets in our sun system might influence the rhythm of their occurence and their influence on life on earth. A reputable documentary by the way.

I was riveted and thought about this very thread. But I have to watch it again and take notes to report. It's in German so a link is of no use for most of the readers.

Might take some time because work is looming and needs preparations too.

Fourier, go on

New Home

Fourier

Pretty cool website that let's you explore the tree of life:
http://www.onezoom.org/life

Realt Dearg Sec

cdeb wrote: »

The singer Cher's mum is still alive. Cher is 73, and her mum is 93.

Were her mum's mum still alive, she'd be 106. She was 13 when Cher's mum was born; the father was 21.

I used to work with a man in his 80s in a clothes shop in Kilkenny (he used to cycle to work every day), and his mother died around that time.

cdeb

The singer Cher's mum is still alive. Cher is 73, and her mum is 93.

Were her mum's mum still alive, she'd be 106. She was 13 when Cher's mum was born; the father was 21.

RiderOnTheStorm

mzungu wrote: »

Cheetahs can't roar. They can only meow like domestic house cats.....

We all know that the cheetah is the fastest land mammal. But its also the fastest accelerating land mammal. In a single stride cheetahs can tack on an extra 7 mph, and at their peak the big cats accelerate at a rate of slightly more than 1 g—meaning they accelerate at roughly the speed of a falling rock.

Greyhounds are the second-fastest land accelerator, can post about 0.7 g's

mzungu

Cheetahs can't roar. They can only meow like domestic house cats.

The four "big cats" can roar: lions, tigers, leopards, and jaguars. These species, all of which belong to the Panthera genus, have a ligament in their voice box that can be stretched to create a "larger sound-producing passage and thus a wider range of pitch."

In "small cats" like cheetahs, the "fixed structure" of their voice box limits the range of sounds they can produce. While they can purr continuously, they cannot roar.

Ipso

There’s another joke about a planet name, but I can’t put my finger on it.

maudgonner

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The planet Saturn has the most moons.

Excluding planets and moons we can't see.

The planet Saturn also moons the most. It's always got its ring on show.

Sorry...I'm very sorry

Capt'n Midnight

The planet Saturn has the most moons.

Excluding planets and moons we can't see.

New Home

[Deleted User]

mikhail wrote: »

And how much does dusty air weigh?

It depends if you ask my dad or my ma ðŸ˜‚

Fourier

jonski wrote: »

I'm looking forward to this , I have the ice packs in the freezer ready to strap onto my head .

Well if you want a head melter that's quick to check:

Once you know the coins aren't signalling each other, the other thing you could try is that they were set up in advance to land correctly to obey the rules above.

So say the first coin was set in advance to always land heads. The second coin was set in advance to land heads if you flipped it from heads up and tails if you flipped it from tails up.

Well you can see that this would obey my rules 1 and 3. When both start heads they land the same (rule 1) and when both are tails they land differently (rule 3).

However if the first is flipped from heads and the second is flipped from tails, then they land on different faces. However from rule 2 they should land the same way up in that case.

No matter what way you try to set up the coins in advance at least one of the rules will always be broken. The connections between things in our world are too strong to be deterministic.