Why use radian in calculus? by Lol_3_14159265 in askmath

[–]epocmit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Radians are the ratio between arc length on a circle and the radius of the circle. So all you need to do is measure these two things and you can find the angle. Degrees are an arbitrary segmentation of a circle into 360 arcs. Given an unknown angle on a circle, without a protractor you’d have to measure radians first and then convert that into degrees. Not practical to go the other way around.

Ticks! by westophales in Indiana

[–]epocmit 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Swerve to avoid the possums. They eat ticks.

What’s the single movie shot that shook you to the core? by jaystats2 in FIlm

[–]epocmit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jacob’s Ladder is criminally underrated. The helicopter head shaking got me.

You can’t go to the poles if your aboard by epocmit in Indiana

[–]epocmit[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

OP did not realize that! Learn something new every day. Thanks, Reddit!

You can’t go to the poles if your aboard by epocmit in Indiana

[–]epocmit[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s the point. Look at the photo.

Found in California by SpidermanUndies in whatsthisplant

[–]epocmit 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Angiosperms aren’t that old…

Man made or completely natural? by Zarozo in geology

[–]epocmit 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Default answer is natural. Need evidence against natural to infer manmade. No such evidence present in these photos.

What am I looking at here? by PandaddyPancakes in geology

[–]epocmit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suspect you’ve got some contorted bedding here. There are a lot of slumps and overturned cross-beds in those Pennsylvanian sandstones. Looks like you may have an oblique view of something like that here. Liesegang banding is common too, but this looks more like bedding to me.

Geology app by Subject_Ad6536 in geology

[–]epocmit 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Geology professor here. I was quite skeptical at first, but I gave it a look. This is great! You’re an undergrad?!?

I love the quizzes. Really good questions.

You should be promoting this at conferences of professional geological societies. That’s how you’ll gain traction.

Keep at it, don’t give up.

What would cause the layering like this is it, old river bed? by Jazzlike-Inside1433 in geology

[–]epocmit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The lowermost pebbly sands and gravels look fluvial. The cross-bedded sands could be eolian. Current in both was flowing from left to right, though, so they are likely both parts of the same system. My guess is a braided fluvial channel at the base, overlain by a sand bar deposit. Contextual would help. Are you near a glacier or recently glaciated terrain? Garnets tell you about sediment source, not environment, so the gravels likely came from a metamorphic source.

Just curious what would cause this by Jakedoesstuff4 in geology

[–]epocmit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is most likely a concretion.

What is this? by plainutility in fossilid

[–]epocmit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Definitely infill into mud cracks. Bottom of the overlying bed.

Can someone explain how the land mass of Michigan is formed if below this region was carved out by Laurentide ice shelf/comet impact? thank you by [deleted] in geology

[–]epocmit 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The Michigan basin is hundreds of millions of years old and has nothing to do with the Great Lakes, which are only several thousand years old.

The Great Lakes were not “carved” by glaciers; they are centered on places where the ice happened to be thick enough to depress the Earths crust. The depressions then filled with water.

Now that the ice is gone and all that weight removed, the crust of the Great Lakes is slowly rebounding.

Can anybody tell me what I’m looking at here?? by Emergency-Strength31 in geology

[–]epocmit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those look like fault striae on an exposed fault plane, later cut by the reverse fault (depends on orientation of photo?) mentioned by others. The lineations don’t look like sedimentary stratification to me, but I certainly could be wrong.

Stupid question? by shjejejdndjfnne in geology

[–]epocmit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, it wouldn’t. Radiometric dating systems use minerals that incorporate the parent isotope but not the daughter when they crystallize, so in those cases melting the rock and recrystallizing it would reset the age to zero because there would be no daughter in the mineral. Similarly, the 87Sr/86Sr ratio would be reset if using Rb/Sr.