|
Man, I woke up, saw the thread with tons of new posts, was expecting whether I can start digging a hole in my backyard or not.
From a math standpoint, you'd need the parenthesis like Simberto said, people mistake (10m)^3 for 10m^3, you'd never really assume the 1st from the 2nd unless the people you were talking to came off as really lazy and uneducated imo.
I think the English language is fine though, because the only time you'll be talking perfect cubes is in a math environment where things are probably being written down, etc, so the implied meaning should be the same during regular speech. In the odd case of somebody actually needing to discuss a cube with side length of 10m, I'd stick to saying that.
Although it always kind of bothered me when I saw units like scf (standard cubic feet), because it always felt to be doing a disservice to math instead of saying it how its written: m^3 should be said meters cubed only, that's like someone writing out 10 kg*m^2*s^-3 and you says ah yes, 10 Watts.
|
Why does it seem like your ass knows not to shit when you go to fart while wearing underwear, yet if you're naked your ass seems to be more ambiguous about what it's trying to do.
Is this selection bias? Am I only noticing the borderline shart cases when I'm naked because the situation has higher consequences than if I was wearing underwear? Or is there some kind of involuntary muscle conditioning going on since childhood?
I guess you could test by seeing if sleeping people shart more while sleeping in the nude?
|
I absolutely do not have that issue, with or whiteout clothes... Maybe its because I achieved absolute mastery of my bodily functions or that i'm not a toddler anymore?
|
Are you seriously going to tell me you fart naked with impunity?
|
|
|
Actually, he has made clear he has no problem with farting normally, except when he has no underwear on. I recommend psychotherapy.
|
|
|
Okay I defer to the farting experts here. I hardly fart in general let alone when I'm naked so I'll have to trust you.
|
On April 10 2019 00:45 oBlade wrote:
Okay I defer to the farting experts here. I hardly fart in general let alone when I'm naked so I'll have to trust you.
Lies. Do not think that a single person here believes you.
|
|
|
That may be the explanation I guess, just lack of experience. 10,000 hours and so on.
Men fart frequently and effortlessly at urinals here, it's not physically possible for me.
|
|
|
On April 10 2019 01:08 JimmiC wrote:
I think maybe you have a "shy farter" much like many men have trouble peeing in front of others.
Again, I hardly fart in front of myself, let alone others, but more power to you. And in this case I simply do not have the anal precision to reliably fart, while standing and peeing at the same time, nor do I want to. In fact I can't recall ever experiencing dual output before of any kind. Are you telling me that's supposed to be normal too? I give up.
|
|
|
On April 09 2019 00:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Although it always kind of bothered me when I saw units like scf (standard cubic feet), because it always felt to be doing a disservice to math instead of saying it how its written: m^3 should be said meters cubed only, that's like someone writing out 10 kg*m^2*s^-3 and you says ah yes, 10 Watts.
Feet as a unit has absolutely no place in maths whatsoever. Doesn't matter if normal, square or cubic! Please refrain from ever using this unit again. Thank you!
To the farting discussion: i think when you are actually sitting on the toilet you just fart with more enthusiams than in any other situation. Therefore chances of matter coming with it is higher.
I never had problems with "dry" farting, besides on 2 occasion where I was ill and had trouble controlling my body and all its openings
|
How do u capture an image of a black hole if it sucks in light? Are we just capturing the “outter” visuals of the activity of a black hole that creates its silhouette?
Genuinely curious here
|
On April 11 2019 05:03 Emnjay808 wrote:
How do u capture an image of a black hole if it sucks in light? Are we just capturing the “outter” visuals of the activity of a black hole that creates its silhouette?
Genuinely curious here
Pretty much. Everything outside the event horizon can "escape", but there are already tremendous forces ripping matter apart, which cause all manner of radiation, from visible light to x-rays to gamma-rays. All of this can be "observed".
In terms of what a black hole would look like up close, Interstellar's depiction is insofar as I know the most work done to simulate that to the best of our abilities, although it is a movie, and despite apparenly really working with their science advisors to get it right, they may still have beautified it for artistic reasons.
|
You can not see the black whole itself, but you can see some things that it does.
Previously, one usually detected them through their effects on other things, either by effecting them via its gravity or by its effect on their light.
In the first instance, one observes the paths that things that we can see (stars usually) take, and sometimes one notices that they seem to be influenced by a very massive object that we cannot see, and thus we deduce that there is something.
The second case is the effect of gravitational lensing.
![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/A_Horseshoe_Einstein_Ring_from_Hubble.JPG)
The space-warping effect of massive objects acts similar to a lense for light coming from behind those objects. In the case of this image, the star in the middle warps the light of an object behind it, which is now seen as this circular ring around the star. This same effect can also happen for black holes, as they are very massive, too.
However, in the current case of the Black hole picture, what you are seeing is the accretion disc. Basically, this is a bunch of stuff that is circling the black hole and slowly falling into it, giving off all sorts of light (in this case people detected it in the radio band).
A slightly longer explanation: Black holes are very massive, and very small (compared to other stellar stuff. They are still very big compared to, for example, a car). If stuff gets close to black holes, it behaves similar to when it gets close to stars. Namely, it starts moving in ellipses around the black hole. If there is enough stuff circling the black hole, things bump into each other from time to time. When this happens, they lose kinetic energy (speed) and heat up. Losing kinetic energy means that they get closer to the black hole, and heating up means that they get brighter. As this continues, you have a bunch of stuff that moves pretty fast and tightly around the black hole, bumps into each other, and gets hotter. And if it is hot enough, it is shiny enough for us to see, as hot things emit light (of some sorts, not necessarily visible light).
So, the thing we see is not the black hole itself, but the doomed stuff that spins around it, which will eventually fall into it.
|
On April 11 2019 05:29 Simberto wrote:
You can not see the black whole itself, but you can see some things that it does.
So, the thing we see is not the black hole itself, but the doomed stuff that spins around it, which will eventually fall into it.
That's kinda dark. Does some of what we see escape or is everything we see around it doomed?
|
On April 11 2019 05:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 05:29 Simberto wrote:
You can not see the black whole itself, but you can see some things that it does.
So, the thing we see is not the black hole itself, but the doomed stuff that spins around it, which will eventually fall into it. That's kinda dark. Does some of what we see escape or is everything we see around it doomed?
I'd guess that at least some of it escapes, as the stuff that we see is explicitly the stuff that is not within the event horizon, from where there is no escape.
And if there is enough stuff flying around at high speeds, just by random chance some of it is going to get lucky and get crashed in by other stuff in a way that launches it at escape velocity away from the black hole. This is going to be an incredibly small percentage of the things in that disc, though. The main thing that escapes is light. Which is also something, and the reason why we know anything about what is going on there. If stuff isn't emitting or influencing light in some way, we usually don't know very much about it.
There are also relativistic jets, which are freaky and i have no idea how they work. Apparently black holes sometimes launch thin jets of large amounts of high-speed ionised particles away at a 90° angle to their accretion disc due to reasons. So that is another way how some of the stuff in the accretion disc can escape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
