As a side-note: I uploaded this video in 4240x2400 resolution.
I still don't understand what the point is. Such an arbitrary resolution that goes well beyond what any monitor supports. Why not make it 42400x24000 while you are at it? Bigger is better, so why not make it really big?
Or maybe because it's made of polygons, so it's too advanced for SNES to handle. You can notice it slows down at times, and only runs at an average of 20 FPS maybe.
That doesn't explain the loading screens. What does it need them for?
It could also be because the original Amiga version had loading screens, so they were too lazy to edit them out, or they didn't know how to do it.
That's absolutely nonsensical. You talk like if the SNES was running an Amiga emulator and running the original game binary under it. Which is ridiculous.
It's actually these fissions which create the energy of the bomb, and not the fusion reaction.
I'm not sure that's true. According to wikipedia it's estimated that 97% of the energy released by the 50-megaton Tsar Bomba was produced by fusion alone. (Sure, the size of the explosion could have been increased much further by using fissile material, but saying that the energy of the bomb is not produced by the fusion is just wrong.)
Pointless Boy wrote:
Saying "I cannot find this info" is a bit disingenuous, since it implies you tried to find the info, which you couldn't have, since wikipedia would be your first stop, and wikipedia does have this info, and it's not hard to find.
My main question was: How much fusion fuel there is in a typical H-bomb? I asked here precisely because I could not find this information anywhere. Wikipedia was my first stop.
Ok, but the video I posted is not misinformation, most of it is good general information about astrotheology, so it's a good introduction video for people new to that.
It's not a good introduction to anything. Not to astrology, theology, religion or the history of any of those (which would have become clear if you had read the website I linked, which you clearly haven't). This is not even a question of skepticism and rational thinking. It's a question of accurate history.
(Come on, equivocating "sun" and "son" because they sound similar in English? You gotta be kidding me. And it only goes downhill from there.)
Take it easy, there's no need to get so defensive.
Actually there is. Misinformation is always detrimental at all levels of society. (And I'm not even going into your deliberate misuse of the term "defensive".)
Dada wrote:
I've met plenty of people who spout the most bizarre nonsense about all sorts of stuff and then follow up with the excuse that they're "just skeptics", and that I'm "against skepticism" or even that I know I'm wrong and just don't want to hear it.
There's a relatively widespread misconception that "skepticism" and "critical thinking" (as they are defined in the philosophy of science) mean "be skeptical/critical of established science / official stories". Another misconception (which may overlap with the previous) is that they mean "doubt everything as a matter of principle".
Of course that's not what they mean at all. Instead, what they mean is, roughly, "don't believe something without proper evidence." (Of course it then comes down to what is "proper evidence", but that's another lengthy story in itself.)
I think you are equivocating movie publication numbers with "database internals".
If I understand correctly, when you use the term "database internal" you are referring to data in the database that's just used internally for bookkeeping, indexing and so on, and being completely internal, this data could well change at any moment without the external behavior of the site changing in any way. In other words, it's just an internal implementation detail, irrelevant to the outside.
However, I don't consider movie publication numbers mere "internal details". They convey (assuming they were consistent) interesting and useful information. They tell if a given publication is newer than another publication, they tell how many publications there have been so far, and they provide a simple ID which can be used to refer to a specific publication easily and, more importantly, unambiguously. (You can say things like "check movie number 1234 for an example" and it will be short, completely unambiguous, and handy.)
In fact, publication numbers are probably the easiest way of referring to specific publications. I can't think of any easier way.
This isn't a pure physics question per se, but close enough.
I have been trying to find out how much fusion fuel there is in a typical H-bomb, but I cannot find this info. Does anyone have any idea?
Also: Is the fusion fuel pure hydrogen, an isotope, or something else?
On that topic, how can a star collapse further through degeneracy pressure?
AFAIK you can get two particles arbitrarily close to each other, just not exactly on the same place. It's just that the closer you try to get them, the more force it requires. When density is high enough, gravity provides that force, and when the certain critical density is surpassed, the event horizon will appear. Then there's no way out.
Maybe in a very rough sense. I thought entropy is the measurement of how much energy available for useful work there is in the system.
There are many examples of situations where the stabilization of temperature (ie. energy flowing from a hot place to a colder one, completely in accordance to thermodynamics) actually increases order. For example a chunk of lava, which is just an amorphous blob of molten rock material, cools down to ambient temperature, and inside the blob crystals form, which are very highly-ordered arrangements of molecules. Or you could have a droplet of water, which is just an amorphous blob of water molecules: It freezes and forms a highly-ordered, multiple-axis-symmetrical snowflake.
Increasing entropy does not always mean increasing chaos. There are many, many situations where order increases instead. This does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. The increase in chaos might be true for most gaseous materials, as entropy in them increases, but it's certainly not true in all other cases as well. I don't really know where this notion is coming from.
(I know that Stephen Hawking put up the notion in his famous book. He probably didn't invent the notion, but he certainly made it popular. Hawking is an absolutely brilliant scientist, but even as a layman I would question his competence as a popularizer of science, ie. explaining science to the lay public. His latest book, for example, was quite a disappointment.)
Well, why do you often see glasses fall down from tables and shatter, but never pieces of glass start bouncing towards each other and just happen to meet in the right way to fuse into a glass which proceeds to jump up to come elegantly to rest at the table?
Because of gravity.
The first is natural, but the second is absurd, but why?
Because of gravity. It overwhelms any chemical or quantum-mechanical effect the glass may be experiencing.
(Ok, it may be that there's an astronomically minuscule chance that due to quantum fluctuations all of the molecules of the glass would spontaneously move to the right places at the same time, re-forming the glass. However, I don't think this has anything to do with thermodynamics and all to do with quantum mechanics. Anyways, the chances are so small that it just doesn't happen.)
Anyways, I just don't see how reversing entropy would make pieces of glass spontaneously re-form the original shape. Entropy doesn't "know" what the "original shape" was, how can it form it? Reversing entropy does not reverse gravity, how could it defy it? It makes no sense.
Better to say "sorry for my English" than "pardon my French"... ;)
Anyways, I agree with the OP's sentiment that getting upset when someone corrects your usage of the language is silly. Personally I would probably still be making many mistakes in my English if people hadn't corrected me. (Not that my English is yet perfect. I mean mistakes that I used to make that I don't anymore.) The best way to learn a language is for people to teach you that language.
If the second law of thermodynamics is reversed, then you would lose entropy on each "energy transaction"; the easiest way to imagine a universe bound by those rules would be to have one just like ours except that time flows backwards.
"Most people think time is like a river, that flows swift and sure in one direction. But I have seen the face of time, and I can tell you - they are wrong. Time is an ocean in a storm."
Surprisingly, there might be more truth to this fictive statement than one might think.
In GR the concept of time is complicated. Time passes at different speeds in different frames of reference, and in different gravitational potentials. Also, time is more related to the geometry of space than in classic physics.
In quantum mechanics the concept of time is... even more complicated. Cause-and-effect relationships get muddled, reversed and pretty confusing. Effect may, seemingly, precede cause (such as in the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, where a choice made after measurement affects the measurement... seemingly from the future).
More related to the quote, AFAIK in some interpretations of quantum mechanics there's no "arrow of time". (Of course this is probably a vast oversimplification. As said, the subject is complicated.)
If the numbering were strict, it would convey useful information: The number would directly tell how many movies have been published up to the specified one. (Hence if you look at the newest publication, you'll know how many movies have been published during the history of the site.)
Hence the desire for the number to be significant in such a way is understandable.
Speaking of neutron stars, what happens if eg. a companion star keeps adding material to a nearby neutron star until its mass exceeds the degeneracy pressure and it collapses? Does it behave like a supernova, or something else?
amaurea wrote:
The second law tells you that it will flow from hot to cold because the entropy would increase otherwise
I think you mean decrease.
If you kept the first law the same, but reversed the second law, you would end up with a universe behaving much as if time went backwards. Heat would flow from cold objects to warm ones, the air molecules in a room might suddenly all concentrate in one end of the room, and a shattered glass might spontaneously reassemble.
You lost me on that last one. Why would that be? What does thermodynamics have to do with the shattering of a glass? I don't see the connection to temperature.
Two questions:
1) The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that it's not possible to know both the exact position and momentum of a particle at the same time. However, what happens at absolute zero temperature, where all motion stops?
2) I know extremely little about thermodynamics, but it sounds to me like the second law is just a consequence of the first law, and hence redundant. Please correct my understanding.
Let me explain: The first law states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. In other words, a closed system cannot produce more energy than it contains.
The second law states that the entropy of a closed system never decreases. In other words, the amount of energy available for useful work in a closed system never increases.
This sounds to me like a simple consequence of the first law. If the amount of energy available for useful work inside a closed system could increase, that would mean that the closed system could produce more energy than it contains (by doing more work than what its available energy would allow), which would be against the first law.
Why is the second law necessary?
I don't even know how to vote E/T on runs to begin with. >_>; If there's a way for people to do it, then it's not exactly apparent; maybe that's why it doesn't happen often.
In the movie's page there's a "rate this movie" link where the rating appears.
OTOH, this link only appears if you are logged in. Maybe this should be changed so that it's always visible, but if you click it while not logged in, it jumps to the login page (and from there, if the login is successful, to the rating page)? (If this is too laborious to implement, then perhaps the link could just jump to a page saying "you need to be logged in to rate movies.")
Rating someone's run low because they rated your run low is not being honest.
Hmm? I never said that.
Are you really saying that it's just pure coincidence that you just happened to give the exact same low rating to someone's run, when they first had rated your run low? Twice?
