I am doing a project for trig on cyclic things such as sunrises and sunsets. One of the questions asked why the sunrises and sunsets are cyclic and it would be great if u guys knew! Help!!!! thanks
The earth is rotating around an axis a a constant duration, but since this axis is tilted and rotating around the sun, then the depending on where the earths orbit is around the sun, and the relation of the earth's tilt in relation to the sun (ie is it winter or summer) will regulate the what time the sun comes up and goes down every day in the calender.
If that is too hard to understand, I would get a farmers almanac that tells the times for sunrise and sunset for every day of the year. The phases of the moon is also cyclic as well.
because the earth is turning at a steady rate
Thursday, April 9, 2009
In acid rain, the mobility of heavy metals in the soil profile increases/decreases/ does not change. WHY?
I'm confused... I think I know the answer yet again I'm not sure... so if someone could help me I'd appreciate it a lot! Thanks!!
P.S: Right answer will be voted as best answer!!
it increases because heavy metals are diluted in water so they can flow from place to place instead of just laying in the dirt.
P.S: Right answer will be voted as best answer!!
it increases because heavy metals are diluted in water so they can flow from place to place instead of just laying in the dirt.
When I think of an aquifer I think of the water that is in it. However, what do these two resources refer to?
When I think of an aquifer I think of the water that is in it. However, what do these two resources refer to the aquifer as?
groundwater reservoirs and lakes.
groundwater reservoirs and lakes.
What kinds of soils and ground material frequently form an aquifer?
What kinds of soils and ground material frequently form an aquifer?
What is recharge?
What are ways in which water is removed or escapes from an aquifer?
Why would we want to know where recharge areas are and map them?
(and dont say "do your own homework", im a grown man with an old textbook who wants answers for my own knowledge.)
non permeable and semipermeable
when the aquifer fills up after being depleated.
threw permeable rock, water wells.
so you could have a reliable source of water.
What is recharge?
What are ways in which water is removed or escapes from an aquifer?
Why would we want to know where recharge areas are and map them?
(and dont say "do your own homework", im a grown man with an old textbook who wants answers for my own knowledge.)
non permeable and semipermeable
when the aquifer fills up after being depleated.
threw permeable rock, water wells.
so you could have a reliable source of water.
What determines how much water an aquifer can hold?
What determines how much water an aquifer can hold?
what the surrounding bedrock is composed of.
The amount of empty space in the rock that contains the aquifer. This can be either through porosity of the rock/soil, compaction of the rock/soil, or fractures and joints in the rock/soil. The more empty space there is in a rock, the more water can fill it.
The surrounding bedrock.
what the surrounding bedrock is composed of.
The amount of empty space in the rock that contains the aquifer. This can be either through porosity of the rock/soil, compaction of the rock/soil, or fractures and joints in the rock/soil. The more empty space there is in a rock, the more water can fill it.
The surrounding bedrock.
If you dug a hole through the center of the earth,and jumped in?
Would you float in the middle or something?
yes you would.
ignoring the temperature, and the problems trying to keep the walls from falling in, and scraping the heck out of your hide, as you whizzed down the tube, of course.
you'd probably yoyo back and forth for a while, and the gravity that holds you in the center would be fairly weak, so you'd be able to climb many miles up the tunnel before you'd feel much trying to draw you back to the center.
let's assume you could dig such a hole and decided to jump in. Actually, you would also want to assume you dropped in and make a number of other very technical assumptions to ensure you did not strike the sides of the hole as you fell down.
Now, you are falling inside this imagined hole through the center of the earth and are wondering what happens next. It turns out, the gravitational acceleration you experience will keep you oscillating from one side of the planet to the other forever. More assumptions are needed. This time you must also assume there is no resistance to your falling due to either air or any other phenomena that may characterize the hole you are falling through.
Why would you oscillate from one side of the planet to the other? Because the gravitational acceleration you experience will vary from one 'g' to zero 'g' and back to one 'g'. One 'g' at the surface of the planet from which you first drop into the hole and that is one 'g' of acceleration toward the center of the planet, zero 'g' at the instant you pass through the center of the planet, and one 'g' of acceleration back toward the center of the planet as you reach the surface on the opposite side of the planet.
You would burn in a firery death from being in a 100,000 degree(c) core.
THE DUD
Edit: its kind of hard to tell seeing that nothing can make it past the mantle. But gravity wise, no one knows for sure.
THE DUD (again)
yes assuming you somehow could keep the hole from caving in and also stay alive and get air etc etc
You would burn and die immediately.
Sorry, I should have said it nicer. But that's the truth.
you will be on flat land or if you dug it completely i don't think you will float but sink through the hole.
uh. you'd burn up. :( so don't try it.
yes you would.
ignoring the temperature, and the problems trying to keep the walls from falling in, and scraping the heck out of your hide, as you whizzed down the tube, of course.
you'd probably yoyo back and forth for a while, and the gravity that holds you in the center would be fairly weak, so you'd be able to climb many miles up the tunnel before you'd feel much trying to draw you back to the center.
let's assume you could dig such a hole and decided to jump in. Actually, you would also want to assume you dropped in and make a number of other very technical assumptions to ensure you did not strike the sides of the hole as you fell down.
Now, you are falling inside this imagined hole through the center of the earth and are wondering what happens next. It turns out, the gravitational acceleration you experience will keep you oscillating from one side of the planet to the other forever. More assumptions are needed. This time you must also assume there is no resistance to your falling due to either air or any other phenomena that may characterize the hole you are falling through.
Why would you oscillate from one side of the planet to the other? Because the gravitational acceleration you experience will vary from one 'g' to zero 'g' and back to one 'g'. One 'g' at the surface of the planet from which you first drop into the hole and that is one 'g' of acceleration toward the center of the planet, zero 'g' at the instant you pass through the center of the planet, and one 'g' of acceleration back toward the center of the planet as you reach the surface on the opposite side of the planet.
You would burn in a firery death from being in a 100,000 degree(c) core.
THE DUD
Edit: its kind of hard to tell seeing that nothing can make it past the mantle. But gravity wise, no one knows for sure.
THE DUD (again)
yes assuming you somehow could keep the hole from caving in and also stay alive and get air etc etc
You would burn and die immediately.
Sorry, I should have said it nicer. But that's the truth.
you will be on flat land or if you dug it completely i don't think you will float but sink through the hole.
uh. you'd burn up. :( so don't try it.
Which of these most likely explains why life on Earth continued following these catastrophes?
Earth has undergone some catastrophic changes from time to time. Which of these most likely explains why life on Earth continued following these catastrophes?
A. Dominant species had a slow mutation rate
B. Many species filled the same niche
C. A strong species had many different characteristics
D. A wide diversity of species existed
thanks
D. The more diversity, the greater the chance that something will survive.
A. Dominant species had a slow mutation rate
B. Many species filled the same niche
C. A strong species had many different characteristics
D. A wide diversity of species existed
thanks
D. The more diversity, the greater the chance that something will survive.
If its really cold and water freezes will the ocean get smaller or larger?
smaller the ice takes more room but it will more or less almost pile up
If it wasn
I'm doing a science project and I need to know what would the world be like if newton haden't been born, or if he was stupid. I already know what he invented like the laws, but what did he do to help humanity?
Newton didn't invent the laws of gravity or physics, he simply explained what was already there. Leibniz invented calculus at about the same time as Newton, so this powerful mathematical tool would have been available even without Sir Isaac's intellect. The discovery of gravity and "Newtonian" physics probably wouldn't have been delayed by more than 50 years if he hadn't done so himself. As it is, Newton really marks the final transition from superstition (Newton was also an alchemist) to modern science.
His equations (while not as accurate as Einstein) were used to send Apollo 11 to the moon
well, I know a few people who would have tried to make ill-fated flights off their garage if they didn't know about gravity...
you might want to talk about that lol
Newton didn't invent the laws of gravity or physics, he simply explained what was already there. Leibniz invented calculus at about the same time as Newton, so this powerful mathematical tool would have been available even without Sir Isaac's intellect. The discovery of gravity and "Newtonian" physics probably wouldn't have been delayed by more than 50 years if he hadn't done so himself. As it is, Newton really marks the final transition from superstition (Newton was also an alchemist) to modern science.
His equations (while not as accurate as Einstein) were used to send Apollo 11 to the moon
well, I know a few people who would have tried to make ill-fated flights off their garage if they didn't know about gravity...
you might want to talk about that lol
What is a fault and how is it related to the term
Focus is where the earthquake starts and epicenter is right above the focus on the ground. Fault is the crack on the ground that causes earthquakes.
VOTE AS BEST ANSWER!!!
Earthquake!
VOTE AS BEST ANSWER!!!
Earthquake!
Why do we need geologists?
What do they exactly do? Why would anyone be interested to become a geologist?
ahh, you don't need us. just muddle along in total ignorance and you will be just fine. good luck finding that water you need, and figuring out why your crops do not grow well over in the north forty, or building any structures taller than a hut that will stay stable for more than a few years (if that), or understanding why the frig those stupid earthquakes and volcanoes keep smacking some places and not others, or how you are going to keep the harbor open for shipping, or who actually is responsible for the poison in your well (you killed kenny you .....), or where you should put your septic tank (and how you need it to be built so it actually does what you want it to), or where are those metals we need to build all the stuff we want anyway?
And why the heck did that dam collapse and kill everyone in town and why didn't we know that putting it there was a bad idea (stupid us), and why are we getting flooded every year south of town and how can we stop that from happening?
Who decided to build that road on that hillside, because this spring it washed away so now we gotta do it all over again, maybe putting it in the exact same place will be a good idea.
Dang, that bridge we built on the muddy bank got washed away, maybe we could've prevented that, but how?
getting the idea yet?
I sometimes question this myself, but someone has to teach the basics to geotechnical engineers (the people who do all of the stuff that the guy above me described).
Geologists are important in the same way other scientists are important - they figure out how nature works. Then, the engineers of the world take what the scientists have learned about nature and find ways to use it to make our lives better.
As to why someone would be interested in it, you've got to be a certain kind of person to enjoy geology. And you need a beard. All geologists I've ever met have beards.
Geologist can help. to find the treasures under earth unknown to us
Helpl
for knowing weather conditions
unearthing past history by doing excavation.
Help us to lead good life by finding water source precious metalsoil condition for human ,animal and nature.
It gives hand in helping all other studies needed for peaceful living
ahh, you don't need us. just muddle along in total ignorance and you will be just fine. good luck finding that water you need, and figuring out why your crops do not grow well over in the north forty, or building any structures taller than a hut that will stay stable for more than a few years (if that), or understanding why the frig those stupid earthquakes and volcanoes keep smacking some places and not others, or how you are going to keep the harbor open for shipping, or who actually is responsible for the poison in your well (you killed kenny you .....), or where you should put your septic tank (and how you need it to be built so it actually does what you want it to), or where are those metals we need to build all the stuff we want anyway?
And why the heck did that dam collapse and kill everyone in town and why didn't we know that putting it there was a bad idea (stupid us), and why are we getting flooded every year south of town and how can we stop that from happening?
Who decided to build that road on that hillside, because this spring it washed away so now we gotta do it all over again, maybe putting it in the exact same place will be a good idea.
Dang, that bridge we built on the muddy bank got washed away, maybe we could've prevented that, but how?
getting the idea yet?
I sometimes question this myself, but someone has to teach the basics to geotechnical engineers (the people who do all of the stuff that the guy above me described).
Geologists are important in the same way other scientists are important - they figure out how nature works. Then, the engineers of the world take what the scientists have learned about nature and find ways to use it to make our lives better.
As to why someone would be interested in it, you've got to be a certain kind of person to enjoy geology. And you need a beard. All geologists I've ever met have beards.
Geologist can help. to find the treasures under earth unknown to us
Helpl
for knowing weather conditions
unearthing past history by doing excavation.
Help us to lead good life by finding water source precious metalsoil condition for human ,animal and nature.
It gives hand in helping all other studies needed for peaceful living
How is acid rain formed ?
Acid rain is caused by acidic gases such as sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxides in the air.
Sulphur dioxide reacts with water vapour and sunlight to form sulphuric acid. Likewise nitrogen oxides form nitric acid in the air. When air pollution becomes a big problem, such gases are found in the air at higher concentrations, resulting in disastrous acid rainfalls.
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is emitted through combustion of fossil fuels containing sulfur as an impurity. Coal combustion is by far the major source of sulfur dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. During combustion, sulfur is oxidized to form sulfur dioxide (SO2). Sulfur dioxide rises into the atmosphere and is oxidized once again in the presence of atmospheric hydroxyl radicals to form sulfur trioxide (SO3). Sulfur trioxide reacts with atmospheric water droplets to form sulfuric acid (H2SO4). Sulfur dioxide emission is the most common contributor to acid deposition, responsible for about 70% of the total. The greatest source of sulfur dioxide is electrical utility plants, which pump approximately 15 million tons of SO2 into the atmosphere each year, out of the total 22 million tons generated annually by human activities. Other contributors of sulfur dioxide include industrial processes and automobiles and other motor vehicles.
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are also formed through fossil fuel use. In contrast to sulfur, nitrogen is not an impurity but rather an integral part of the organic material making up fossil fuels. Fossil fuel combustion releases nitrogen into the atmosphere, usually in the form of nitric oxide (NO). Nitric oxide (NO) is oxidized by atmospheric molecules, such as ozone (O3) or hydrogen dioxide (HO2), to form nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) reacts with OH in the atmosphere to form nitric acid (HNO3). Nitric acid can also form when nitrogen dioxide (NO2) reacts with the nitrate radical (NO3) in the presence of atmospheric water or aldehydes. Nitrogen oxides account for approximately 30% of all acid deposition. Major sources of nitrogen oxide emissions are automobiles and fossil fuel burning power stations.
oxides of N and SO2 are produced from the volcanoes, the degradation of organic material by bacteria.and basically from the use of petrol and its products in factories.this oxides go to the air where they react with water vapor creating HNO3 and H2SO3 ACIDS WHICH COME DOWN WITH THE RAIN.this is acid rain
H2O (l) + CO2 (g) ?H2CO3 (aq)
or
2H2O (l) + H2CO3 (aq) is in equilibrium with CO32- (aq) + 2H3O+(aq)
Simple chemestry
%0D%0A
Sulphur dioxide reacts with water vapour and sunlight to form sulphuric acid. Likewise nitrogen oxides form nitric acid in the air. When air pollution becomes a big problem, such gases are found in the air at higher concentrations, resulting in disastrous acid rainfalls.
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is emitted through combustion of fossil fuels containing sulfur as an impurity. Coal combustion is by far the major source of sulfur dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. During combustion, sulfur is oxidized to form sulfur dioxide (SO2). Sulfur dioxide rises into the atmosphere and is oxidized once again in the presence of atmospheric hydroxyl radicals to form sulfur trioxide (SO3). Sulfur trioxide reacts with atmospheric water droplets to form sulfuric acid (H2SO4). Sulfur dioxide emission is the most common contributor to acid deposition, responsible for about 70% of the total. The greatest source of sulfur dioxide is electrical utility plants, which pump approximately 15 million tons of SO2 into the atmosphere each year, out of the total 22 million tons generated annually by human activities. Other contributors of sulfur dioxide include industrial processes and automobiles and other motor vehicles.
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are also formed through fossil fuel use. In contrast to sulfur, nitrogen is not an impurity but rather an integral part of the organic material making up fossil fuels. Fossil fuel combustion releases nitrogen into the atmosphere, usually in the form of nitric oxide (NO). Nitric oxide (NO) is oxidized by atmospheric molecules, such as ozone (O3) or hydrogen dioxide (HO2), to form nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) reacts with OH in the atmosphere to form nitric acid (HNO3). Nitric acid can also form when nitrogen dioxide (NO2) reacts with the nitrate radical (NO3) in the presence of atmospheric water or aldehydes. Nitrogen oxides account for approximately 30% of all acid deposition. Major sources of nitrogen oxide emissions are automobiles and fossil fuel burning power stations.
oxides of N and SO2 are produced from the volcanoes, the degradation of organic material by bacteria.and basically from the use of petrol and its products in factories.this oxides go to the air where they react with water vapor creating HNO3 and H2SO3 ACIDS WHICH COME DOWN WITH THE RAIN.this is acid rain
H2O (l) + CO2 (g) ?H2CO3 (aq)
or
2H2O (l) + H2CO3 (aq) is in equilibrium with CO32- (aq) + 2H3O+(aq)
Simple chemestry
%0D%0A
Does England and America have daylight Savings?
Yes, America and England have Daylight Savings (DST). Although for England, it is called the British Summer Time (BST) instead of DST. BST starts on the last Sunday in March and ends on the last Sunday in October.
idk bout england but america does
yes.
idk bout england but america does
yes.
How do humans cause erosion?
When vegetation is removed (construction, road building, agriculture, wildfires, over-grazing, etc) we can increase the rate of erosion.
When we divert surface water or concentrate its flow, we can increase erosion.
When we increase slope angles (again usually during some form of construction) we can increase the potential for erosion.
Erosion can be harmful when nutrient-rich soil is lost, or when the eroded materials are deposited somewhere we wouldn't necessarily want them (say in gravels in stream beds where fish spawn). If you live on a hillside that's been over steepened (maybe to build your home) then erosion could lead to a loss of your home, and possibly even your life!
There are numerous ways to prevent or reduce erosion. Better land use decisions help us determine areas where we shouldn't disturb, or at least provide adequate controls on erosion and deposition. Often you'll see bales of straw, silt fences, and revegetating or hydro-seeding to protect disturbed areas. No till agricultural practices and better water management help soil loss in agriculture.
Preventing human cause wildfires would also help reduce the potential for erosion.
Touching, walking, running, handling, jumping, building, digging, grading, landscaping, mining, and littering.....to name a few.
We build homes in areas we shouldn't, we remove the trees and brush from hillsides and this causes erosion.
When we divert surface water or concentrate its flow, we can increase erosion.
When we increase slope angles (again usually during some form of construction) we can increase the potential for erosion.
Erosion can be harmful when nutrient-rich soil is lost, or when the eroded materials are deposited somewhere we wouldn't necessarily want them (say in gravels in stream beds where fish spawn). If you live on a hillside that's been over steepened (maybe to build your home) then erosion could lead to a loss of your home, and possibly even your life!
There are numerous ways to prevent or reduce erosion. Better land use decisions help us determine areas where we shouldn't disturb, or at least provide adequate controls on erosion and deposition. Often you'll see bales of straw, silt fences, and revegetating or hydro-seeding to protect disturbed areas. No till agricultural practices and better water management help soil loss in agriculture.
Preventing human cause wildfires would also help reduce the potential for erosion.
Touching, walking, running, handling, jumping, building, digging, grading, landscaping, mining, and littering.....to name a few.
We build homes in areas we shouldn't, we remove the trees and brush from hillsides and this causes erosion.
How do the waxy leaves in coniferous trees reduce moisture loss?
I don't understand how wax can do that!
wax acts as a waterproof barrier: in this case to keep moisture in by reducing evaporation.
wax acts as a waterproof barrier: in this case to keep moisture in by reducing evaporation.
How is the permeability of the materials in an aquifer related to the water movement in the aquifer?
How is the permeability of the materials in an aquifer related to the water movement in the aquifer?
if the rock surrounding the water is permeable the water would be very mobile.but if the bedrock is impermeable the water wouldn't move much.
The more permeable a rock is the quicker the movement of water through it. Porosity - little spaces between grains (is important to permeability but is not enough. The pore spaces must also be connected to allow flow. THe more frequent the connetions the higher the rate of permeability.
if the rock surrounding the water is permeable the water would be very mobile.but if the bedrock is impermeable the water wouldn't move much.
The more permeable a rock is the quicker the movement of water through it. Porosity - little spaces between grains (is important to permeability but is not enough. The pore spaces must also be connected to allow flow. THe more frequent the connetions the higher the rate of permeability.
Why don
There is a balance point when it comes to design and construction. How much money can we spend? The stronger a structure is, the more it costs. At some point, we'd find ourselves building structures that are so expensive that nobody could afford to buy them. The opposite end of the spectrum is cheap buildings that anyone could afford, but are completely destroyed by disasters. Good in the short term, fail in the long term.
Design and construction has to be somewhere in between. Structures that can survive a disaster, but will need repair afterward, which will come at a reasonable price.
what?
Design and construction has to be somewhere in between. Structures that can survive a disaster, but will need repair afterward, which will come at a reasonable price.
what?
What is semi-molten rock ?
Well, normally it means a rock that is behaving so plastically that it is behaving as a thick liquid, like what occurs when a rock is pushed down to high pressure and temperature and starts to melt but really hasn't turned into a complete liquid. The reverse can also occur, where a liquid cools to the point where it is largely solidified but still behaves as a thick liquid or very plastic substance.
Since a semi-molten rock is largely solid, but a very plastic solid, plastic deformation features get formed and preserved, and that is what is the key to identifying it as having behaved as a semi-molten material. It would have a mixture of solid and liquid features.
A rock that's semi-motlen.
A rock that's isn't fully molten.
huh?
Since a semi-molten rock is largely solid, but a very plastic solid, plastic deformation features get formed and preserved, and that is what is the key to identifying it as having behaved as a semi-molten material. It would have a mixture of solid and liquid features.
A rock that's semi-motlen.
A rock that's isn't fully molten.
huh?
At what point does a tremor become an earthquake?
just had a 4.6 here in anchorage...18 miles north..It shook the whole building...: )
Ow. I hope nothing got broken!
Tremors and earthquakes are different words for the same thing, kind of like cars and autos. The word tremor sometimes can be used to refer to smaller earthquakes, but the use is quite informal and there are no real rules.
Ow. I hope nothing got broken!
Tremors and earthquakes are different words for the same thing, kind of like cars and autos. The word tremor sometimes can be used to refer to smaller earthquakes, but the use is quite informal and there are no real rules.
Is the Precambrian Time apart of evolution?
I mean like...
does it involve evolution?
Every period involves evolution! Any time there is the presence of living organisms, evolution is occurring! For example, the Cambrian period began right after the end of the Precambrian. This periods was marked by an event of huge scientific importance dubbed "The Cambrian Explosion." Not a true explosion, but an amazing and eruptive divergence of evolution! The animal phyla that developed in the cambrian explosion would set the course of evolution for the next several hundred million years up until the present!
The Precambrian was a time where the first fish evolved, crustaceans called trilobites (which still exist, as horseshoe crabs) came into being, the first invertebrates, and countless others. It may have been a long time ago, but life was teeming and evolution was no doubt there!
Yes evolution occured during the Precambrian.
Precambrian is the period before about 540 million years ago. (to about 4 or 4.5 billion years ago).
During this time the first life appeared, and yes evolved. It was mostly single celled organisms, but they gradually become more varied, and some became more complex - through evolution. Towards the end of the precambrian, the first multi-celled organisms evolved. (fossils of them have only been recently, and are uncommon and not well-preserved)
In the subsequent Cambrian period, there was an explosion of diversity (the Cambrian explosion) in the variety and types of multi-celled organisms - all this was also due to evolution.
does it involve evolution?
Every period involves evolution! Any time there is the presence of living organisms, evolution is occurring! For example, the Cambrian period began right after the end of the Precambrian. This periods was marked by an event of huge scientific importance dubbed "The Cambrian Explosion." Not a true explosion, but an amazing and eruptive divergence of evolution! The animal phyla that developed in the cambrian explosion would set the course of evolution for the next several hundred million years up until the present!
The Precambrian was a time where the first fish evolved, crustaceans called trilobites (which still exist, as horseshoe crabs) came into being, the first invertebrates, and countless others. It may have been a long time ago, but life was teeming and evolution was no doubt there!
Yes evolution occured during the Precambrian.
Precambrian is the period before about 540 million years ago. (to about 4 or 4.5 billion years ago).
During this time the first life appeared, and yes evolved. It was mostly single celled organisms, but they gradually become more varied, and some became more complex - through evolution. Towards the end of the precambrian, the first multi-celled organisms evolved. (fossils of them have only been recently, and are uncommon and not well-preserved)
In the subsequent Cambrian period, there was an explosion of diversity (the Cambrian explosion) in the variety and types of multi-celled organisms - all this was also due to evolution.
Is it possible that we have met someone in the future without realising before?
I was wondering in thousands or even millions of years time people on Planet Earth might of found away to travel back and forward in time, so if they did they could of came to the year 2009.
Might sound a bit like doctor who lol, but do you think it is possible?
In Science it's possible look at Einstein theory ;) moving Forward in light speed will get the time faster as example going 1 hour in light speed you may pass 100 actual years. ;)
Regards
Time is not like space, so we can't travel in it. Can people travel in books? Time is just a process of change, not a real dimension, so there's no way to travel in it. It slows down, if one moves fast enough, but that's not time travel. That's just fantasy, not science, so it belongs in another category.
I think it is very possible, but if that was true then wouldnt it mean that whats hapening now in the world has already happend and the people of the future now whats going to happen to us because they are from the future
well anything is possible perhaps that's why there are so many lottery winners lol
No. Impossible.
yes it is hard to believe, but like me, i often dream of fragments of memories in the future.
Might sound a bit like doctor who lol, but do you think it is possible?
In Science it's possible look at Einstein theory ;) moving Forward in light speed will get the time faster as example going 1 hour in light speed you may pass 100 actual years. ;)
Regards
Time is not like space, so we can't travel in it. Can people travel in books? Time is just a process of change, not a real dimension, so there's no way to travel in it. It slows down, if one moves fast enough, but that's not time travel. That's just fantasy, not science, so it belongs in another category.
I think it is very possible, but if that was true then wouldnt it mean that whats hapening now in the world has already happend and the people of the future now whats going to happen to us because they are from the future
well anything is possible perhaps that's why there are so many lottery winners lol
No. Impossible.
yes it is hard to believe, but like me, i often dream of fragments of memories in the future.
Forests: What is logging?
Logging is the process in which certain trees are cut down for forest management and timber.
In forestry the term logging is sometimes used in a narrow sense concerning the logistics of moving wood from the stump to somewhere outside the forest, usually a mill or a lumber yard. In common usage however the term may be used to indicate a range of forestry or silviculture activities. For example the practice of the removal of valuable trees from the forest has been called selective logging sometimes confused with selection cut.[1]
Illegal logging refers to what in forestry might be called timber theft.[2] An example of illegal logging is cedar theft.[3]
In common usage what is sometimes called clearcut logging is not is necessarily considered a type of logging but a harvest or silviculture method and is simply called clearcutting or block cutting. In the forest products industry logging companies may be referred as logging contractors.
Logging usually refers to above-ground forestry logging. Submerged forests exist on land that has been flooded to create artificial dams and reservoirs. Such trees are logged using underwater logging or by the lowering of the reservoirs in question. Ootsa Lake and Williston Lake in British Columbia, Canada, are notable examples where timber recovery has been needed to remove inundated forests.
hope that Helps!!!
good luck!!!!
I hope I'm the best answer!!!!!
Ashmash
Logging is the process in which trees are cut down for forest management and timber. the timber is used to build houses, bridges and to make paper.
Making logs. Cutting trees down to make logs.
cutting down of trees.
Mass cutting down of trees
In forestry the term logging is sometimes used in a narrow sense concerning the logistics of moving wood from the stump to somewhere outside the forest, usually a mill or a lumber yard. In common usage however the term may be used to indicate a range of forestry or silviculture activities. For example the practice of the removal of valuable trees from the forest has been called selective logging sometimes confused with selection cut.[1]
Illegal logging refers to what in forestry might be called timber theft.[2] An example of illegal logging is cedar theft.[3]
In common usage what is sometimes called clearcut logging is not is necessarily considered a type of logging but a harvest or silviculture method and is simply called clearcutting or block cutting. In the forest products industry logging companies may be referred as logging contractors.
Logging usually refers to above-ground forestry logging. Submerged forests exist on land that has been flooded to create artificial dams and reservoirs. Such trees are logged using underwater logging or by the lowering of the reservoirs in question. Ootsa Lake and Williston Lake in British Columbia, Canada, are notable examples where timber recovery has been needed to remove inundated forests.
hope that Helps!!!
good luck!!!!
I hope I'm the best answer!!!!!
Ashmash
Logging is the process in which trees are cut down for forest management and timber. the timber is used to build houses, bridges and to make paper.
Making logs. Cutting trees down to make logs.
cutting down of trees.
Mass cutting down of trees
The structure of the Earth.?
How does the mineralogy and major element chemistry of the Earth differ between the crust, mantle and core?
The mineralogy of the inner core is believed to be a single nickel-iron crystal, possibly with sulfur as an anion. The outer core is molten (liquid) and is not a mineral. It (probably) contains the same elements as the inner core. The mantle has an ultramafic composition, with olivine, pyroxene and garnet in the upper mantle, spinel replacing olivine in the middle mantle and perskovite replacing pyroxene in the lower mantle. The major elements are magnesium, iron, calcium, silicon, oxygen and aluminum. The crust is divided into two parts: a mafic oceanic crust and a felsic continental crust. Oceanic crust is mostly calcium plagioclase, olivine, pyroxene and amphibole with the elements magnesium, iron, calcium, silicon, oxygen and aluminum. Continental crust is very diverse and cannot be summarized other than saying it approaches the mineralogy of a grano-diorite. Major elements include silicon, oxygen, calcium, sodium, potassium, magnesium, iron and aluminum.
chemistry: more Fe Mg in the mantle and core, in the crust much more of Al Sio2
The mineralogy of the inner core is believed to be a single nickel-iron crystal, possibly with sulfur as an anion. The outer core is molten (liquid) and is not a mineral. It (probably) contains the same elements as the inner core. The mantle has an ultramafic composition, with olivine, pyroxene and garnet in the upper mantle, spinel replacing olivine in the middle mantle and perskovite replacing pyroxene in the lower mantle. The major elements are magnesium, iron, calcium, silicon, oxygen and aluminum. The crust is divided into two parts: a mafic oceanic crust and a felsic continental crust. Oceanic crust is mostly calcium plagioclase, olivine, pyroxene and amphibole with the elements magnesium, iron, calcium, silicon, oxygen and aluminum. Continental crust is very diverse and cannot be summarized other than saying it approaches the mineralogy of a grano-diorite. Major elements include silicon, oxygen, calcium, sodium, potassium, magnesium, iron and aluminum.
chemistry: more Fe Mg in the mantle and core, in the crust much more of Al Sio2
Why do meteorologists want to know about the density of an air mass? (Choose the best answer.)?
a. Low density air rises, and that sets up conditions which can produce stormy weather.
b. High density air sinks, and that creates conditions that cause mostly clear weather.
c. The vertical movement of air gives rise to the conditions that create winds.
d. All of the above are good reasons to understand air density.
d. final answer.
D. All of the above.
b. High density air sinks, and that creates conditions that cause mostly clear weather.
c. The vertical movement of air gives rise to the conditions that create winds.
d. All of the above are good reasons to understand air density.
d. final answer.
D. All of the above.
What happens if the ice melts?
Will the whole world be underwater like in the movie Waterworld with Mel Gibson?
Which big cities will be sunk? New York, San Francisco, Tokyo, London????
First off, its really sad, all polar bears and any other ice flow animals will die out alot unless they find land before they drown.
All coastal cities will be at risk, the low lying ones first, then gradually move in. I do not think the entire world will be under water. Its amazing, just this week, in the arctic and antarctic a huge ice shelf is coming loose.
Its very possible that before recorded and studied history, that these areas had this happening every so often. All we can do is hope for the best. Since the world is not run as one many countries will not do what it takes to help slow this down. Even with the laws here in the US, we are only slowing things down, not stopping. We pretty much cant stop all polluters from running, all cars, businessess planes, manufacturing processes. Each of us needs to learn to help even more in a our daily routines. But it is other earth goings ons that cause these gassess too.
It's predicted that the water will only rise about 20 feet or so. New Orleans, Houston, and other coastal cities are all going to be in danger. Inland cities not likely. As for Waterworld, not likely either, there is not that much water locked up in the icecaps.
If the ice melts, the sea levels rise. I believe it will take quite a few decades, we will no longer be alive by the time it happens.
In the meantime, try to enjoy life.
All of the polar ice cap could melt, and the oceans would rise no more than a foot...
yes, and they will be covered
Which big cities will be sunk? New York, San Francisco, Tokyo, London????
First off, its really sad, all polar bears and any other ice flow animals will die out alot unless they find land before they drown.
All coastal cities will be at risk, the low lying ones first, then gradually move in. I do not think the entire world will be under water. Its amazing, just this week, in the arctic and antarctic a huge ice shelf is coming loose.
Its very possible that before recorded and studied history, that these areas had this happening every so often. All we can do is hope for the best. Since the world is not run as one many countries will not do what it takes to help slow this down. Even with the laws here in the US, we are only slowing things down, not stopping. We pretty much cant stop all polluters from running, all cars, businessess planes, manufacturing processes. Each of us needs to learn to help even more in a our daily routines. But it is other earth goings ons that cause these gassess too.
It's predicted that the water will only rise about 20 feet or so. New Orleans, Houston, and other coastal cities are all going to be in danger. Inland cities not likely. As for Waterworld, not likely either, there is not that much water locked up in the icecaps.
If the ice melts, the sea levels rise. I believe it will take quite a few decades, we will no longer be alive by the time it happens.
In the meantime, try to enjoy life.
All of the polar ice cap could melt, and the oceans would rise no more than a foot...
yes, and they will be covered
Thursday, April 2, 2009
How will raising temprerature affect particle speed and pressssure?
Pressure and particle speed increase as temperature increases
Name for a travel agency that takes you to the past?
I have to make a slide show for history about taking a trip to Ancient Egypt. I am the 'travel agency' and I need a name?
Help :)
The Days Gone-By Travel Agency.
Backtraveller
"Your Favourite Past Time"
"What's Your Past Time?"
Montauk - it may get the job done, but it makes one hell of mess on the way.
Help :)
The Days Gone-By Travel Agency.
Backtraveller
"Your Favourite Past Time"
"What's Your Past Time?"
Montauk - it may get the job done, but it makes one hell of mess on the way.
Do solar flares kill Life?
Do they? Yes or no. I just read a artice on a film "The Knowing" and it mentions solar flares. Would we die from a Solar flare. or does it just mess up our Electricity?
No, not really.
Solar flares happen all of the time. Of the few that are pointed our way, most are deflected away harmlessly by the earth's magnetic field. Big solar storms can cause intense aurorae. The biggest solar storm in recorded history caused aurorae as far south as New Orleans and the Florida keys (1859).
The movie 'knowing' hyped up the danger of solar flares, and used that as a premise in their plot. A solar flare of that intensity is fiction (at least for our sun at this point in its life).
Certain scientists have been warning about the fragility of our power grid, and have published a 'worst case scenario' where the power grid loses many of its key transformers. While I agree that there is not enough redundancy built into the power grid, I think their scenario is over the top.
In order to 'kill life', a solar flare would have to be much, much more powerful than any that our sun is capable of producing at this point in its life. We have a really good idea of what sun-like stars do over their lifetimes by looking at other sun-like stars of various ages. The 'knowing' type of solar flare is simply not a probable event for our sun at this point. When it becomes a mira-type variable in a few billion years, then yes.
Nope!
The Knowing is an exaggerated form of fiction and not a reliable source of information. The sun isn't a flare star, it isn't that active anymore and it is very stable unlike what they portray in the movie. Solar maxima are not as violent as what you can see in the movie. EE or everything else there is made up to for entertainment's sake.
Solar flares occur all the time, and are located on the surface of the Sun. Some flares trigger coronal mass ejections (CMEs) which can have effects as far away as Earth, mainly aurorae. A few particularly strong CMEs may affect Earth's telecommunications and electrical grids. They are not a danger to humans. "The Knowing" is just a movie.
Only if the form of life is in space
.
On the planet the magnetic field that covers the earth saves us from that
.
Wipe out
.
Did we all die during the solar maxima of 2000, 1989, 1978, 1967, 1956, 1945, 1934, 1923, 1912, or 1901?
if the ozone fall then yes it can kill us and life
No
they haven't yet. why would they start doing so?
i assume you know that the movie in question is fiction?
No, not really.
Solar flares happen all of the time. Of the few that are pointed our way, most are deflected away harmlessly by the earth's magnetic field. Big solar storms can cause intense aurorae. The biggest solar storm in recorded history caused aurorae as far south as New Orleans and the Florida keys (1859).
The movie 'knowing' hyped up the danger of solar flares, and used that as a premise in their plot. A solar flare of that intensity is fiction (at least for our sun at this point in its life).
Certain scientists have been warning about the fragility of our power grid, and have published a 'worst case scenario' where the power grid loses many of its key transformers. While I agree that there is not enough redundancy built into the power grid, I think their scenario is over the top.
In order to 'kill life', a solar flare would have to be much, much more powerful than any that our sun is capable of producing at this point in its life. We have a really good idea of what sun-like stars do over their lifetimes by looking at other sun-like stars of various ages. The 'knowing' type of solar flare is simply not a probable event for our sun at this point. When it becomes a mira-type variable in a few billion years, then yes.
Nope!
The Knowing is an exaggerated form of fiction and not a reliable source of information. The sun isn't a flare star, it isn't that active anymore and it is very stable unlike what they portray in the movie. Solar maxima are not as violent as what you can see in the movie. EE or everything else there is made up to for entertainment's sake.
Solar flares occur all the time, and are located on the surface of the Sun. Some flares trigger coronal mass ejections (CMEs) which can have effects as far away as Earth, mainly aurorae. A few particularly strong CMEs may affect Earth's telecommunications and electrical grids. They are not a danger to humans. "The Knowing" is just a movie.
Only if the form of life is in space
.
On the planet the magnetic field that covers the earth saves us from that
.
Wipe out
.
Did we all die during the solar maxima of 2000, 1989, 1978, 1967, 1956, 1945, 1934, 1923, 1912, or 1901?
if the ozone fall then yes it can kill us and life
No
they haven't yet. why would they start doing so?
i assume you know that the movie in question is fiction?
What time do you actually set your clock back on daylight savings time?
If you set your clock back at 12am then it will make it 11pm but if you set it at 1am then its 12am which would be correct? But what happens if you own a bar and you close it at 12:30 everyday what do you do?
2 am
Here in the UK the time change is always between 1am and 2am in either direction (i.e. 1am->2am in spring, 2am->1am in autumn). This avoids any possible confusion as to what day it is. Most businesses operate on the previous days hours until whatever time they close. This approach is mandated by the Licensing Act for those businesses covered by that legislation, such as bars.
You could close it at the usual 12:30 A.M. and go home. Come back the next day at the regular time and when you get there to open, set the clocks back then, and they will be in sync with the patrons. This would only work for going from DST to standard time. If standard time to DST, you could set the clock forward an hour after closing.
businesses that operate all night generally ignore the time change until they close that evening. all-night bus and subway schedules are a good example of this.
2 am is when you do the set back or in spring to move forward
2 am doggy
2 am
Here in the UK the time change is always between 1am and 2am in either direction (i.e. 1am->2am in spring, 2am->1am in autumn). This avoids any possible confusion as to what day it is. Most businesses operate on the previous days hours until whatever time they close. This approach is mandated by the Licensing Act for those businesses covered by that legislation, such as bars.
You could close it at the usual 12:30 A.M. and go home. Come back the next day at the regular time and when you get there to open, set the clocks back then, and they will be in sync with the patrons. This would only work for going from DST to standard time. If standard time to DST, you could set the clock forward an hour after closing.
businesses that operate all night generally ignore the time change until they close that evening. all-night bus and subway schedules are a good example of this.
2 am is when you do the set back or in spring to move forward
2 am doggy
Would it be possible to launch our refuse into space or into the sun?
What would the estimated cost of launching it and how much can be sent at a time? Do you think this would be possible in the far future? What may some of the consequences be if this is done?
Well, I guess that an idea like this has to be considered from time to time...after all there is lots of room up there...
Right now, it costs about $10,000 to place one pound of material into space orbit. How much does your junk trash weigh?
Also, given the way things work...If you put it up there, sooner or later it is going to come down again, into someone elses yard. I don't know if they will be happy about that or not. A lot of it might burn up on the way down, but it sure seems simpler to me to just burn it up right here on the surface of the Earth.
Shipping it to the Sun...Wow. Now there is an idea. Plan on spending something like one billion dollars for a package of refuse the size of a VW Beetle Car. Do you really want to spend that much to dispose of trash? Garbage Collectors will get really rich in the future if that is our plan.
Too expensive.
I think that it would be cheaper just do designate a large island as the world's garbage dump and ship all our rubbish there. Build a large wall so that the rubbish doesn't blow into the sea. Build a recycling facility on the island so that whatever is recyclable can be reused. Charge countries to dump it, then resell the recyclables.
Being from Australia, I would recommend that we designate either New Zealand or the UK as the island of choice, but of course, it will have to be up for debate.
.
20 thousand bucks a kilo.
the launch capacity of a shuttle is one garbage truck load, btw.
even if we could, and we are several orders of magnitude away from even thinking about it, we should concentrate on recycling our garbage instead.
Well, I guess that an idea like this has to be considered from time to time...after all there is lots of room up there...
Right now, it costs about $10,000 to place one pound of material into space orbit. How much does your junk trash weigh?
Also, given the way things work...If you put it up there, sooner or later it is going to come down again, into someone elses yard. I don't know if they will be happy about that or not. A lot of it might burn up on the way down, but it sure seems simpler to me to just burn it up right here on the surface of the Earth.
Shipping it to the Sun...Wow. Now there is an idea. Plan on spending something like one billion dollars for a package of refuse the size of a VW Beetle Car. Do you really want to spend that much to dispose of trash? Garbage Collectors will get really rich in the future if that is our plan.
Too expensive.
I think that it would be cheaper just do designate a large island as the world's garbage dump and ship all our rubbish there. Build a large wall so that the rubbish doesn't blow into the sea. Build a recycling facility on the island so that whatever is recyclable can be reused. Charge countries to dump it, then resell the recyclables.
Being from Australia, I would recommend that we designate either New Zealand or the UK as the island of choice, but of course, it will have to be up for debate.
.
20 thousand bucks a kilo.
the launch capacity of a shuttle is one garbage truck load, btw.
even if we could, and we are several orders of magnitude away from even thinking about it, we should concentrate on recycling our garbage instead.
Does this description of omnipotence make your head spin? It does mine...?
Another such response is that by definition an omnipotent being is set free from the grip of what is logically possible. An omnipotent being therefore would not be subject to what is logically possible. In this sense, an omnipotent being could create a rock that even itself could not lift, then lift it. An omnipotent being could also not exist and exist at the same time at any time. A being with knowledge of the concept of omnipotence could then see that omnipotence is by no way limited by logic.
Being omnipotent is to live without limits so by definition as humans we can not begin to understand the existence of such an entity. It could by all estimates create, destroy and create with it thoughts. Imagine I dream Of Genie with the capacity to imagine infinite possibilities. To be omnipotent is to exist at all times in all places. The very word is a misnomer. how can we know what it is to be this powerful without understanding what all powerful really is.
A wonderful example of the principle that whenever you decide to simply start making shite up, you have the right to make up whatever shite you please.
ADD: And how, exactly, do you suppose that "deities" relate to the science of astronomy?
Which is why your question should be in philosophy and not Science.
No.
Being omnipotent is to live without limits so by definition as humans we can not begin to understand the existence of such an entity. It could by all estimates create, destroy and create with it thoughts. Imagine I dream Of Genie with the capacity to imagine infinite possibilities. To be omnipotent is to exist at all times in all places. The very word is a misnomer. how can we know what it is to be this powerful without understanding what all powerful really is.
A wonderful example of the principle that whenever you decide to simply start making shite up, you have the right to make up whatever shite you please.
ADD: And how, exactly, do you suppose that "deities" relate to the science of astronomy?
Which is why your question should be in philosophy and not Science.
No.
How big is a nuclear explosion?
idk just wondering:)
You have asked a poorly defined question.
It's like saying, "How long is a rope?"
Anyway.
All of the explosions that we have made so far have been no bigger than the equivalent of 50 to 60 million tonnes of TNT.
Of course, larger explosions are possible. Novae, and supernovae are incomporably larger, and are very definitely 'nuclear'.
Biggest frikin nuclear bomb..............
The Tsar Bomba was a three-stage hydrogen bomb with a yield of about 50 megatons. Exploded October 30, 1961 on Novaya Zemlya Island in the Arctic Sea.The fireball touched the ground, reached nearly as high as the altitude of the release plane, and was seen and felt almost 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) from ground zero. The heat from the explosion could have caused third degree burns 100 km (62 miles) away from ground zero. The subsequent mushroom cloud was about 64 kilometres (40 mi) high (nearly seven times higher than Mount Everest) and 40 kilometres (25 mi) wide. The explosion could be seen and felt in Finland, even breaking windows there. Atmospheric focusing caused blast damage up to 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) away. The seismic shock created by the detonation was measurable even on its third passage around the Earth. Its Richter magnitude was about 5 to 5.25.
Which nuclear explosion do you mean? There is no one size of nuclear explosion. This is like asking how large is a boat - they come in all sizes.
Human-made nuclear explosions are usually measured in the kilotons (the amount of TNT it would take to create the same explosive force).
For example, the Hiroshima bomb was about 15 kilotons.
The actual explosion occurs in a critical mass of uranium only a few inches in diameter. Everything after that is just expanding hot gasses.
H-bombs are about a thousand times more powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, and will destroy almost everything within a 15 mile radius and kill by radioactive fallout over an area of hundreds of square miles.
I think the bombs were exploded at 10,000 ft. to destroy the cities below. Still nothing compared to the H-Bomb.
one metric buttload
You have asked a poorly defined question.
It's like saying, "How long is a rope?"
Anyway.
All of the explosions that we have made so far have been no bigger than the equivalent of 50 to 60 million tonnes of TNT.
Of course, larger explosions are possible. Novae, and supernovae are incomporably larger, and are very definitely 'nuclear'.
Biggest frikin nuclear bomb..............
The Tsar Bomba was a three-stage hydrogen bomb with a yield of about 50 megatons. Exploded October 30, 1961 on Novaya Zemlya Island in the Arctic Sea.The fireball touched the ground, reached nearly as high as the altitude of the release plane, and was seen and felt almost 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) from ground zero. The heat from the explosion could have caused third degree burns 100 km (62 miles) away from ground zero. The subsequent mushroom cloud was about 64 kilometres (40 mi) high (nearly seven times higher than Mount Everest) and 40 kilometres (25 mi) wide. The explosion could be seen and felt in Finland, even breaking windows there. Atmospheric focusing caused blast damage up to 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) away. The seismic shock created by the detonation was measurable even on its third passage around the Earth. Its Richter magnitude was about 5 to 5.25.
Which nuclear explosion do you mean? There is no one size of nuclear explosion. This is like asking how large is a boat - they come in all sizes.
Human-made nuclear explosions are usually measured in the kilotons (the amount of TNT it would take to create the same explosive force).
For example, the Hiroshima bomb was about 15 kilotons.
The actual explosion occurs in a critical mass of uranium only a few inches in diameter. Everything after that is just expanding hot gasses.
H-bombs are about a thousand times more powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, and will destroy almost everything within a 15 mile radius and kill by radioactive fallout over an area of hundreds of square miles.
I think the bombs were exploded at 10,000 ft. to destroy the cities below. Still nothing compared to the H-Bomb.
one metric buttload
Inner orbits vs. outer orbits?
I'm trying to answer a question for an astronomy lab: "Imagine Earth as a planet with an outer orbit and Venus as a planet with an inner orbit..." I'm not quite sure what this means. I've looked up both "inner" and "outer" orbits, and I'm pretty sure this doesn't refer to either short-period/long-period orbits or to inner/outer planets (which wouldn't make sense anyways). Anyone have any other ideas?
What is the rest of the question? Mercury and Venus orbit closer to the Sun than the Earth does, so they both have inner orbits relative to the Earth. Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto have orbit's that are more distant than the Earth's. Mercury , Venus, Earth and Mars are "inner planets", Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto are "outer planets.
I think you are going to have to ask your teacher/professor/teaching assistant about this because maybe it is a typo on your assignment. Perhaps it should have been written like this...
"Imagine Earth as a planet with an inner orbit and Venus as a planet with an outer orbit..."
...everyone makes mistakes, perhaps somebody made a mistake when thy wrote up your assignment.
Of course, you could tell us what it says after the "dot dot dot" and that might help us, help you with this question. You wrote...
"Imagine Earth as a planet with an outer orbit and Venus as a planet with an inner orbit..."
...what comes after those three dots?
< >
What is the rest of the question? Mercury and Venus orbit closer to the Sun than the Earth does, so they both have inner orbits relative to the Earth. Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto have orbit's that are more distant than the Earth's. Mercury , Venus, Earth and Mars are "inner planets", Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto are "outer planets.
I think you are going to have to ask your teacher/professor/teaching assistant about this because maybe it is a typo on your assignment. Perhaps it should have been written like this...
"Imagine Earth as a planet with an inner orbit and Venus as a planet with an outer orbit..."
...everyone makes mistakes, perhaps somebody made a mistake when thy wrote up your assignment.
Of course, you could tell us what it says after the "dot dot dot" and that might help us, help you with this question. You wrote...
"Imagine Earth as a planet with an outer orbit and Venus as a planet with an inner orbit..."
...what comes after those three dots?
< >
Does space have a temperature?
Does space have a temperature? Does it matter whether your close or far away from the sun? Could you catch a cold?
yes space has a Temperature. And it does change when your closer to the sun, but in space around earth it is like -256 degrees Faraonn heightt so you woulls definately catch a cold!!!!!
Yes, the temperature of space is the temperature a perfectly black object will settle to while sitting in it. In deep space, far from any stars, this is about 2.7 kelvins. This is caused by the microwave background radiation which permeates the universe and hits you from every direction no matter how hard you try to hide from it. It is actually the heat of deep space.
When calculating the temperature in space, it is important to understand that most estimates must take into account the varied makeup of space. Outer space is the portion of the universe which is almost entirely empty. Unlike the small pockets of our universe which are inhabited by stars, planets, and other large sections of matter, outer space contains very, very little. Nonetheless, it is not entirely empty, and this is important to understand when considering the temperature in space.
The short answer is that the temperature in space is approximately 2.725 Kelvin. That means the universe is generally just shy of three degrees above absolute zero ?the temperature at which molecules themselves stop moving. That almost -270 degrees Celsius, or -455 Fahrenheit.
In one sense, we can talk about the temperature in space as being 2.725 K. This shifts a bit from place to place, but not by much more than a thousandth of a degree. For all intents and purposes, this is the generally accepted temperature in space.
To understand it further, we can look at what a temperature actually is, and what space actually is. When wee measuring the temperature of something, what wee really talking about is the energy of the molecules in it. It has to do with the density of the molecules, which in turn helps determine how often they run into one another. If they don run into one another, they never really lose their initial energy.
Space is very, very empty. There aren many molecules out there, which means none of the molecules have much of a chance to run into one another. What does this have to do with the temperature in space? If we were to take a random molecule in space, say one that is part of the solar winds, and estimate its temperature, it would probably be around a million or more degrees Kelvin. That because this molecule hasn been bumping into things to get to the temperature it naturally wants to be at ?what is called its equilibrium.
How much sunlight a particular area of space is exposed to also plays an important role in determining the temperature in space in that area. When scientists talk about 2.725 K as the temperature in space, theye talking about an average temperature ?actually, what is called the Cosmic Background Radiation, which is the energy still left over from the Big Bang. If we were to look at space a bit closer to home, even somewhere very far away such as just outside of Pluto, the temperature would probably be closer to 35 or 40 K. Still very cold, but nowhere near as cold as somewhere in deep space, far from any sunlight.
So what is the temperature of space? That a bit like asking what the temperature of Earth is. We can find an average, and we can give a good guess for a particular region, but there is no one-size-fits-all answer. Still, 2.725 K is a fairly widely accepted answer to this frequent question, although it does not represent the temperature range that is as expansive as space itself.
Yes, space does have temperature. What the temperature is depends on where you are and the density of the matter around you, and the proximity of any star that might be radiating ionizing radiation. The temperature of space and density of matter is not uniform, as demonstrated by several satellites.
space is nothing. it has no temperature.
if energy is coming in (e.g. sunlight), the temperature of an object will increase. if energy is not coming in (e.g. shadow) the object will radiate heat. these two effects must be balanced when designing spacecraft. this is why so many are white, to limit the amount of heat they absorb from teh sun, bcuz they have ppl and electronics inside making heat that must also be radiated in to space.
Everything above zero K or absolute zero has a temperature. Well since something at zero K has a temperature of zero I guess everything does.
Space does have a temperature, and heat increases as you get closer to the sun.
Yeah it does have
yes space has a Temperature. And it does change when your closer to the sun, but in space around earth it is like -256 degrees Faraonn heightt so you woulls definately catch a cold!!!!!
Yes, the temperature of space is the temperature a perfectly black object will settle to while sitting in it. In deep space, far from any stars, this is about 2.7 kelvins. This is caused by the microwave background radiation which permeates the universe and hits you from every direction no matter how hard you try to hide from it. It is actually the heat of deep space.
When calculating the temperature in space, it is important to understand that most estimates must take into account the varied makeup of space. Outer space is the portion of the universe which is almost entirely empty. Unlike the small pockets of our universe which are inhabited by stars, planets, and other large sections of matter, outer space contains very, very little. Nonetheless, it is not entirely empty, and this is important to understand when considering the temperature in space.
The short answer is that the temperature in space is approximately 2.725 Kelvin. That means the universe is generally just shy of three degrees above absolute zero ?the temperature at which molecules themselves stop moving. That almost -270 degrees Celsius, or -455 Fahrenheit.
In one sense, we can talk about the temperature in space as being 2.725 K. This shifts a bit from place to place, but not by much more than a thousandth of a degree. For all intents and purposes, this is the generally accepted temperature in space.
To understand it further, we can look at what a temperature actually is, and what space actually is. When wee measuring the temperature of something, what wee really talking about is the energy of the molecules in it. It has to do with the density of the molecules, which in turn helps determine how often they run into one another. If they don run into one another, they never really lose their initial energy.
Space is very, very empty. There aren many molecules out there, which means none of the molecules have much of a chance to run into one another. What does this have to do with the temperature in space? If we were to take a random molecule in space, say one that is part of the solar winds, and estimate its temperature, it would probably be around a million or more degrees Kelvin. That because this molecule hasn been bumping into things to get to the temperature it naturally wants to be at ?what is called its equilibrium.
How much sunlight a particular area of space is exposed to also plays an important role in determining the temperature in space in that area. When scientists talk about 2.725 K as the temperature in space, theye talking about an average temperature ?actually, what is called the Cosmic Background Radiation, which is the energy still left over from the Big Bang. If we were to look at space a bit closer to home, even somewhere very far away such as just outside of Pluto, the temperature would probably be closer to 35 or 40 K. Still very cold, but nowhere near as cold as somewhere in deep space, far from any sunlight.
So what is the temperature of space? That a bit like asking what the temperature of Earth is. We can find an average, and we can give a good guess for a particular region, but there is no one-size-fits-all answer. Still, 2.725 K is a fairly widely accepted answer to this frequent question, although it does not represent the temperature range that is as expansive as space itself.
Yes, space does have temperature. What the temperature is depends on where you are and the density of the matter around you, and the proximity of any star that might be radiating ionizing radiation. The temperature of space and density of matter is not uniform, as demonstrated by several satellites.
space is nothing. it has no temperature.
if energy is coming in (e.g. sunlight), the temperature of an object will increase. if energy is not coming in (e.g. shadow) the object will radiate heat. these two effects must be balanced when designing spacecraft. this is why so many are white, to limit the amount of heat they absorb from teh sun, bcuz they have ppl and electronics inside making heat that must also be radiated in to space.
Everything above zero K or absolute zero has a temperature. Well since something at zero K has a temperature of zero I guess everything does.
Space does have a temperature, and heat increases as you get closer to the sun.
Yeah it does have
How the moon reflects the sun
The Moon is extremely light colored, a very light gray, like concrete is here on Earth. Because it is so light colored, and it has little or no atmosphere to absorb sunlight, and no foliage or water to absorb sunlight, it reflects a tremendous amount of the light that strikes it. It is also quite large, over 2,000 miles in diameter, so it makes a really good natural mirror to reflect all that sunlight. Interestingly, Earth reflects sunlight the same way, which is why when you look at the Moon as a thin crescent, you can see the shadowed side of the moon bathed in faint bluish light, called %26quot;earthshine%26quot;.
The amount of light reflected by an astronomical body is called its %26quot;albedo.%26quot;
As astronomical bodies go, the moon actually has a pretty low albedo, only around 0.07 (meaining it reflects only 7% of the light that shines on it). Many objects have much higher albedos, but it is the moon%26#039;s close proximity that makes all the difference.
There are bodies in the universe that have EXTREMELY high albedos. Saturn%26#039;s moon Enceladus has nearly a 99% albedo. Eris, one of the larger Kuiper Belt Objects (and classified with Pluto as a dwarf planet) also seems to have a very high albedo. The planet Venus has an Albedo of 65%. Even the Earth is much more reflective than the moon, with an albedo of about 30%. (This, combined with the earth%26#039;s larger size, makes the Earth as seen by Apollo astronauts orbiting the moon about 60 times?over 4 magnitudes?brighter than the moon seen from here.)
every object in the universe (except black holes) reflect light, the percentage of light reflected does vary however on the surface of a object and what it is made of
Think of the Sun as a flashlight and Moon as a mirror and yourself as the Earth. If you shine a flashlight on a mirror, the light reflects back to you which is what is happens.
Actually, the moon is very dark. IT%26#039;s black like coal if you%26#039;re up there. It reflects about 12% of the light that is incident upon it. But 12% of a whole lot of sunlight makes for quite a bright surface.
%0D%0A
The amount of light reflected by an astronomical body is called its %26quot;albedo.%26quot;
As astronomical bodies go, the moon actually has a pretty low albedo, only around 0.07 (meaining it reflects only 7% of the light that shines on it). Many objects have much higher albedos, but it is the moon%26#039;s close proximity that makes all the difference.
There are bodies in the universe that have EXTREMELY high albedos. Saturn%26#039;s moon Enceladus has nearly a 99% albedo. Eris, one of the larger Kuiper Belt Objects (and classified with Pluto as a dwarf planet) also seems to have a very high albedo. The planet Venus has an Albedo of 65%. Even the Earth is much more reflective than the moon, with an albedo of about 30%. (This, combined with the earth%26#039;s larger size, makes the Earth as seen by Apollo astronauts orbiting the moon about 60 times?over 4 magnitudes?brighter than the moon seen from here.)
every object in the universe (except black holes) reflect light, the percentage of light reflected does vary however on the surface of a object and what it is made of
Think of the Sun as a flashlight and Moon as a mirror and yourself as the Earth. If you shine a flashlight on a mirror, the light reflects back to you which is what is happens.
Actually, the moon is very dark. IT%26#039;s black like coal if you%26#039;re up there. It reflects about 12% of the light that is incident upon it. But 12% of a whole lot of sunlight makes for quite a bright surface.
%0D%0A
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)