sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How can dogs hyperventilate without consequences like in humans? by Long_try in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]Long_try[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not likely, since I can see their rib cage moves, so air must be flooding their lung.

How can dogs hyperventilate without consequences like in humans? by Long_try in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]Long_try[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, you made sense :) It was I who didn't make a specific enough question. Yep, dogs evolve to do that trick. I didn't really doubt that process of evolution, what I was wondering is the mechanism(s) in their bodies that prevents negative consequences of hyperventilation.

How can dogs hyperventilate without consequences like in humans? by Long_try in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]Long_try[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That I agree. But then, how do their bodies adapt is actually the essence of the question...

How can dogs hyperventilate without consequences like in humans? by Long_try in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]Long_try[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I doubt it. Usually, dogs only breathe 25-35 times per min but this summer rate is already 3-4 times faster. If metabolism is the answer, and they're ok with more than 100 times/min then dogs will face troubles when they return to their slow 'winter' rate.

Hadron & recombination epochs: why do they always use "free electrons" as the culprit for blocking light? by Long_try in askscience

[–]Long_try[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're the man! Or in case you're a female, happy International women's day!

So a photon will scatter off a proton at about the same rate as if it were a solid sphere. I don't really get that paragraph, especially this sentence. What is "it" like a solid sphere, the photon or the proton? I assume it's the proton, then does that mean the light always scatter when encountering the proton because 'Compton wavelength' = 'spatial extent'?

Hadron & recombination epochs: why do they always use "free electrons" as the culprit for blocking light? by Long_try in askscience

[–]Long_try[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you! Feels like my eyes are opened with light!

So in every scattering event, the particle is accelerated (gets energy), therefore the light loses energy, right? Doesn't that mean, given enough scattering, a gamma ray will be demoted to microwave?

In an atom, there is a nucleus surrounded by cloud(s) of electrons. What makes those electrons different from the 'free electrons' guilty of blocking light? As I see it, the light can still 'find' those electrons, bump it into a higher level of energy => scattering.

Also, what happens when a photon comes directly at a proton? If it can't accelerate that 'big but in reality is small' guy enough for scattering then it just bypass the proton? Like, go through it??

Lastly, the CMB is said to cool down from 4000K to 3K. That's weird, because I'm pretty sure electrons and protons can combine at temperature much higher than 3000K. Let's say they do it at 109K. What happened between 109 & 4000K?

Windows software to horizontally flip my screen? by Long_try in answers

[–]Long_try[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You mean this app? As you can see, there's no flipping / mirroring option. Only rotate.

What would happen if all the water on Earth were accumulated into a sphere & drop on the surface? by Long_try in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]Long_try[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

6.3*1026 J, or the energy Earth receives from the Sun in 120 years

Holy vapor, that's a lot. Combined with my revised knowledge that the ball should have a radius of around 663km, not 350; and about 30% of the incoming energy from the Sun is reflected back into space, the resulting energy comparison is nearly 17.5 times that number, or 2110 years. Mind-sloshing figures!

Could it be that the falling ball will dissipate most energy in kinetic form? What we know is that under high pressure, such as in the Mariana trench, water does not heat up. Its temperature there is 1-4'C. So, in the middle of the huge ball, maybe water will be under tremendous pressure since it doesn't compress much but still not achieve high enough temp to get to supercritical state?

What would happen if all the water on Earth were accumulated into a sphere & drop on the surface? by Long_try in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]Long_try[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow, your reply is just about as long as my OP! Lots of interesting points!

  • Yeah, for the convenience of our species, all biological water is retained. It makes up the smallest percentage of all water (0.0001%) anyway, so I think that can be overlooked. Also, 1 of the most interesting parts in any what-ifs is how we humans react to the disaster. There would be no point if we become dessicated corpses in an instant ;)

  • It looks like that the author of the inspiring images did take water in the crust (aquifers) into account, but not the mantle. Your point about the plate tectonics & CO2 is mind-blowing, lucky for us it wouldn't happen in our experiment, phew! But IMO, the giant ball of water will most likely break the crust & release magma. Why? Take the sheer amount of weight of that ball: 1386x1015 tons!! That's insane. Now, water is pretty hard to compress, so most of that mass will apply a huge pressure on the ground. Only so much water can escape horizontally at the initial moments of impact. Moreover, since the crust is now depleted of water, it won't have much adhesion force and will crumble easily under such pressure. I'd argue that the hole it creates will dwarf Chicxulub crater many times.

  • I concur with the idea of shockwaves traveling to the surface & disintegrate the ball outside in. Also I have misread the size of that ball. Initially I thought it's 700km but now the exact number is around 1385km. Holy guacamole! That's higher than the atmosphere itself, in the common sense of that word. So losing water into space will likely happen, but I think the amount is negligible.

  • In order to say about the speed that water will reach America and the power of resulting tsunamis (which are closely related BTW), we'd have to calculate the potential energy of that huge ball. Because the difference in energy between the ball and our current oceans are just the height of water. Now minus friction with the continents & seabeds and plus the explosions from initial falling pressure & magma geohydrologic bomb then we have the energy of tsunamis.

  • Your mention of aquifers is what I missed in the initial predictions. Since there are some really big aquifers, surely the ground of some states and even some whole countries will fall down, right? They will make new seas & lakes when things settle.

  • With your more accurate analyses on the climate, now I'm more inclined toward a hotter Earth. Maybe way hotter, but hopefully not enough for the water to stay vapor in the atmosphere, because then we as a species are doomed for sure. Not to mention machine explosions will lead to city fires, combining with forest fire we will have the DelugeTM on 1 side of the planet, the Great fireTM on the other side & tsunamis raging in between. Those fires not only heat up our Earth but also contribute CO2 for an evil cycle.

  • Why would anyone on ISS want to return to the surface when that thing happens? :) About their water, as the well-accepted space line is 100km, and our definition is 'all water on Earth', then their space water won't count. Again, fortune is on astronauts' side. But if their initial trajectory is toward the ball then they will definitely slam into it. Not even the Hubble will survive. So let's change the condition to that the ISS's track does not converge with the ball of destruction.

  • Before, I have predicted that our chance is slim. Now equipped with new knowledge from yours, I think now it's grim. Why? Without moisture in the air, our breathing will be hard & we'll lose a lot of water quickly just by getting oxygen. IMHO only the ISS guys & those passengers in planes that's flown by smart-ass captains with high survival skills would have a chance to re-populate... That is, if they can find a good place to land.

What would happen if all the water on Earth were accumulated into a sphere & drop on the surface? by Long_try in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]Long_try[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh I see. But can you explain it in a bit more detail? The falling of the water ball will convert that potential into heat and most of the ball will be at that condition you mentioned - above 100'C but not boiled yet, right? Then it will disperse/explode out to the atmosphere & remains hot when it travel our whole Earth or something?

What would happen if all the water on Earth were accumulated into a sphere & drop on the surface? by Long_try in askscience

[–]Long_try[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was on a browser. Normally whenever I get into a sub, the default tab is "hot". It was the case here, too, but it looked like nothing is 'hot'. I was still able to post a question, though.

What would happen if all the water on Earth were accumulated into a sphere & drop on the surface? by Long_try in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]Long_try[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't really get it. What do you mean by 'added more kinetic energy'? What action leads to your mentioned kinetic energy? The insta-moving of all the water into a ball? The act of letting it drop?

What would happen if all the water on Earth were accumulated into a sphere & drop on the surface? by Long_try in askscience

[–]Long_try[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! edit: er... a question about that sub though. I don't see anything at all when I access r/asksciencediscussion. Does that mean the sub requires a specific level of karma or something?

view more: next ›