An amorphous solid is simply one that displays no long range order on a microscopic scale (unlike, for example, metals); this doesn't imply that it's a liquid though. Glass, at room temperatures, isn't viscose by any decent means of measurement - if it was then telescopes would display serious visual errors within a few years of usage.
Urban myths
- Thread starter Frank
- Start date
My bet is that is has miniscule importance.
And so does CO2
Data seems to suggest that comsic radiation has a LOT more to say than is "in fashion" to say:
http://www.dr.dk/DR2/VidenOm/Programmer/Viden+Om+med+Ann+Marker/Programmerne/20061115082717.htm
Link tothe broadcast itself:
http://www.dr.dk/Forms/Published/PlaylistGen.aspx?qid=309881&odp=true&bitrate=high
I think the channel is IP locked to dnaish IIP's though.
In short:
Cosmic radiation is a factor in forming of clouds(due to the influnce on particles between 40-200nm that are the particles that is the key components of cloudcreation and cosmic radiation semms to be the missing piece of the puzzle in cloud creation )and that it's not the climates that creates the clouds, but the clouds that create the climate..the more clouds, the cooler climate..up untill now cluds-creation has been nothing more than a majr errormargin in climate models).
Tests at CERN confrims this theory.
And the levels of cosmic radiation coincides with:
Temperature on a +3 billion year scale
Glacial periods on a +3 billlon year scale
The diversity of life on a +3 billion year scale
It's due to oribt of the sun inside the milkyway(moving in and out of the spiralarms eg.) and influence from dwarf-galaxies (like the LMC & SMC)
But the UN tries to dimiss the data, as it conflicts with current eco-politics, even going so far as to call the researhers for "irresponsible"...without refuting the evidence...
And the politicans are trying to ignore this reasearh in Denmark...because that would mean that the CO2 tax in Denmark is unfounded...
I hate it when politics (and NGO's like GreenPeace) dicates "reality" and turns a blind eye science data.
Get politics OUT of science...and put ALL the facts on the table..and out public
The universe is a big place, we get bomabraded with comsmic radition every second on earth and it would be stupid not to factor in those events...which are NOT a factor in current climate-models
The universe is a freaking big place and earth so small that exluding the sun/universe as a factor seems like Earth-megaloamani...
And people wondered what practical value CERN's particle accelerators would have in the real world...here is one major candidate for such a "revolution"
crazygambit
Regular
Didn't know that. What color is it? (I know, I could look it up, but I really don't feel like it.)
What the hell did they teach me in physics in school? Well to be fair I remember very little. I know I've seen those tests with a Watermelon and a tennis ball or something and they fall at the same speed. Right?
There is?
I had no clue.Green(-ish). Sort of depends how you define colour I suppose.
There is?
What holds the Earth in it's orbit around the Sun?
Yes, and that goes for the impact humanity has on the total Earth ecosphere as well. Although I agree it is quite noticeable.
It is? Interesting. Like glass? Although I suspect that has a different reason.
What nature itself does to the earth makes us look like amateur dwarfs...
Don't forget that 99.9% af all life that has excisted has gone extinct and for the most part in violent cataclysms.
The "small" tusnami in Indonesia was triggred by an earthquake with the power of +60.000 hiroshima bombs..and that was nothing compared to what has happend before...
But we humans do like to make ourselfes important..way more than we deserve...
The Solar spectrum peaks at ~500nm, which is in the green part of the visible spectrum. But there's a fairly significant red tail, which would tend to give the impression of a yellow tinge I suppose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color
DuckThor Evil
Legend
What the hell did they teach me in physics in school? Well to be fair I remember very little. I know I've seen those tests with a Watermelon and a tennis ball or something and they fall at the same speed. Right?
Well if you drop a kite made of fabric and similar shape object that is made of iron, I'd take a quess that the iron one will hit the ground faster...
There is?
Yes the athmosphere has nothing to do with gravity forming. Actually the gravity on earth's orbit is almost as big as on the ground, and everything on the orbit is actually free falling to earth, but as earth moves, it keeps getting out of the way.
Blazkowicz
Legend
"The image a mirror displays is mirrored horizontal"
(Its just mirrored. Period. Its interesting to figure out why its assumed to be mirrored horizontal and not, for example, vertically or around your nose though
I read that we should say things are mirrored in the backwards/forwards dimension, not the left/right or up/down one.
Blazkowicz
Legend
isn't the sun white in space.
things fall at the same speed.. in a vacuum. think of a feather vs a lead weight for instance.
What about dust particles which are actually kind of flying
What the hell did they teach me in physics in school? Well to be fair I remember very little. I know I've seen those tests with a Watermelon and a tennis ball or something and they fall at the same speed. Right?
things fall at the same speed.. in a vacuum. think of a feather vs a lead weight for instance.
What about dust particles which are actually kind of flying
Rainbow Man
Veteran
That's curious. I assumed the sun to be pretty much blinding white, if for no other reason due to its sheer brightness, and the yellow tinge down here on earth being due to the dissipating nature of our atmosphere..
After all, if I look straight at a lightbulb it seems white to me even though a spectral analysis may show otherwise. Guwss it depends on where one places the emphasis, from the human point of view or the scientific..
Peace.
Well like I said, it depends on how you are defining colour. If you look through enough neutral density filter you won't see what you're describing above, which is an artefact of the limited dynamic range of the human eye.
"Colour" used as a standalone word it's so non-specific as to be practically worthless. You have to define which colour system you're talking about if you want to be specific. Astronomers routinely measure the "colours" of stars in eg. the infra-red or X-ray, which are clearly only tenuously related to what a layman would be referring to when describing colour as seen by the human eye. Even when talking about human vision there have been numerous definitions of colour developed over the years.