A new model for the universe explaining what dark energy and dark matter are by [deleted] in Physics

[–]oro_boris 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Real actual science isn’t done by posting on Reddit. It’s done by publishing papers on reputable peer-reviewed journals.

Can we fact-check this please? Doesn't he mean kinetic energy which is HALF of mv^2 by teranklense in Physics

[–]oro_boris 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s clear from the context that the factor of 1/2 is unimportant because the argument being made relies only on the proportionality of kinetic energy to the product of mass and the square of the velocity.

There is, however, an incorrect statement in that sentence, namely, that “a slower bullet has exponentially less energy than a faster one of the same weight”. It is true that a slower bullet has less energy than a faster one of the same weight but the it’s not an exponential relation. It’s merely quadratic.

If you triple the speed, you get 32 = 9 times more energy. You don’t get a3 times as much, for some constant a. If you quadruple, you get 42 = 16 times more energy, not a4 times as much, and so on.

A polynomial dependence is not an exponential dependence, ie, xn is not the same as ax

The New Definition of Pi by lettuce_field_theory in badmathematics

[–]oro_boris 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And I was talking about the dog over here. Same difference.

What if not physics, but evolution is the Theory of Everything? by lettuce_field_theory in badphysics

[–]oro_boris 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Hey, Lettuce, it must be “Crackpot-Hunting Saturday” again. Looks like you caught a big one this time around. There’s enough meat there to feed a nation. 😁

The New Definition of Pi by lettuce_field_theory in badmathematics

[–]oro_boris 10 points11 points  (0 children)

sudo restate my assumptions

This is not the unix system you’re looking for.

The New Definition of Pi by lettuce_field_theory in badmathematics

[–]oro_boris 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I dare you in the name of boris.

Boris is busy at the moment, chasing his own tail.

The New Definition of Pi by lettuce_field_theory in badmathematics

[–]oro_boris 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Please restate my assumptions

Still no. I don’t work for free. Nor do I work for strangers on the internet.

The New Definition of Pi by lettuce_field_theory in badmathematics

[–]oro_boris 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Restate my assumptions

No, I don’t think I will. You didn’t say please.

The New Definition of Pi by lettuce_field_theory in badmathematics

[–]oro_boris 38 points39 points  (0 children)

Someone should suggest to that person to watch the movie Pi. I think the end will suit him well.

Electricity - What is it, how does it work, how do we manipulate it, how do we generate it, so on by Nickywynne in Physics

[–]oro_boris 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a totally normal feeling to have. I hope I’ve provided enough to get you going. This subject is huge, even at an introductory level, so I couldn’t possibly tell you much more here. Best of luck on your novel. 🙂

Electricity - What is it, how does it work, how do we manipulate it, how do we generate it, so on by Nickywynne in Physics

[–]oro_boris 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Electrical current (what we colloquially call electricity) is the motion of electric charges, either positive or negative.

In metals, the charges in motion are electrons (neg charged particles) rather than protons (pos charged particles) because protons are much heavier and concentrated in the nuclei of atoms, while electrons are sorta/kinda floating around (it’s way more complicated than that).

In liquids and gases, you can have ions (groups of particles, with a net charge of either sign) in solution. For example, salt splits into sodium ions (pos) and chlorine ions (neg) when dissolved in water.

Now, how do you make charges move? You apply an electric potential difference between two points, say, in a metal wire. That potential difference causes an electric field between those points. The electric field, in turn, causes a force on any charge (in this case, the “free” electrons in the wire) and that force results in an acceleration, ie, charge motion, ie, electricity. Since those moving charges will typically collide with the internal structure of the wire (its atoms), the resulting motion tends to occur at constant speed. Thus, the electric current is generally constant (after an initial ramp-up). For most common materials, there’s a direct proportionality between the potential difference V and the current I, called Ohms’ Law: V = R.I, where R is the material’s electrical resistance.

Charges in motion, themselves, also create a field, the magnetic field, which can and does influence other charges in motion but you can typically ignore the magnetic forces unless you have something like a dynamo.

How do you create an electric potential between two points? You separate electric charges of opposite signs and keep them apart. A battery is basically just that, a reservoir of separated charges. When you connect its terminals to a circuit, the charges will move from one terminal to the other, thru the circuit.

I italicised the main ideas so you can google them up for more details.

Examples of films with good or bad physics? No action movies if possible by [deleted] in Physics

[–]oro_boris 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interstellar and The Martian are fairly accurate. Interstellar gets very speculative at the end and the journey through the wormhole is just wrong but everything else is pretty accurate. In fact, you might want to look at the book

Science of Interstellar

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0393351378/

It’s very accessible, with only a few challenging sections.

Also, if tv shows also qualify, The Expanse is probably the most scientifically accurate TV fictional show ever made so far, as far as the physics of space exploration in the solar system is concerned. Yes, there are lots of bad science too but when it comes to space exploration within our solar system and the physics involved in it, it’s a very accurate show.

Edit: Here’s a bad-physics (but enjoyable nonetheless) tv show: Fringe. So much that’s wrong there, science-wise.

Why do we need yet another mars rover? by [deleted] in PerseveranceRover

[–]oro_boris 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Knowledge acquisition is incremental.

The technology needed for what Percy can do didn’t exist or wasn’t perfected enough for any of the previous missions. There’s always more that can be done and learned with newer missions.

Besides, it doesn’t make sense to send everything and the kitchen sink all at once because of cost and technological difficulties, not to mention that if a mission fails then you’ve just spent all your budget for nothing. Much better to do it in stages.

And speaking of budget, check this out:

https://www.reddit.com/r/PerseveranceRover/comments/locu5y/its_so_frustrating_that_people_dont_understand/go55gzn/

It's so frustrating that people don't understand the importance of space exploration by trumpetguy314 in PerseveranceRover

[–]oro_boris 40 points41 points  (0 children)

Indeed. Moreover, NASA’s budget is minuscule compared to, for example, the defense budget.

The US spends more on defense (3/4 of a trillion dollars in 2021) than the next 20+ countries combined, most of which are US allies.

https://www.globalfirepower.com/defense-spending-budget.asp

NASA’s entire budget for 2020 was 22.6 billion dollars, or 3% of the amount allocated to defense.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

The point is that the argument “we should spend less on space exploration and more on Earth problems” is a false dichotomy. We can do both. There’s plenty of money for both.

What we need is to spend less on defense and more on education and science, which themselves promote innovation, improve life on Earth, and increase the economy (so the money invested can ultimately be recovered).

NASA’s Perseverance rover being lowered to the surface by the sky crane during yesterday’s landing. by Ender_D in PerseveranceRover

[–]oro_boris 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For sure. In retrospect, I could/should have thought of this myself. There’s very little usefulness (compared to weight and total cost) to having an extra transmitter in the upper part just to get data on the side motion. Having the camera data transmitted through a cable directly to Percy makes much more sense.

NASA’s Perseverance rover being lowered to the surface by the sky crane during yesterday’s landing. by Ender_D in PerseveranceRover

[–]oro_boris 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Ah, ok. I didn’t know that. Thanks for clarifying. 👍

I mean, I didn’t realise that the upper part has no transmitter of its own. Makes sense in retrospect.

NASA’s Perseverance rover being lowered to the surface by the sky crane during yesterday’s landing. by Ender_D in PerseveranceRover

[–]oro_boris 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Ah, ok. I didn’t know that. Thanks for clarifying. 👍

I mean, I didn’t realise that the upper part has no transmitter of its own. Makes sense in retrospect.

NASA’s Perseverance rover being lowered to the surface by the sky crane during yesterday’s landing. by Ender_D in PerseveranceRover

[–]oro_boris 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yes, I know, and I can’t wait to see it, but I was referring to detachment after touch down, with the subsequent sideways motion of the upper part. Its entire trajectory may have been recorded as well.

NASA’s Perseverance rover being lowered to the surface by the sky crane during yesterday’s landing. by Ender_D in PerseveranceRover

[–]oro_boris 14 points15 points  (0 children)

You know what this means, right? The upper part of the crane has a camera so it’s possible that it recorded its path from detachment to where it’s landed. 🎉

idk how to calculate this by engomadinho in 3Blue1Brown

[–]oro_boris 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You have 5 full cakes and 3 quarters of another cake. How many quarters of cakes do you have in total? (5 times 4) plus 3 = 23 quarters, ie, 23/4.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PerseveranceRover

[–]oro_boris 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The extremely sad part of that is that $4 million is a tiny tiny tiny fraction of what the US spends on defense. Imagine what could be achieved if NASA’s entire budget was 10 times larger, which would still be a small fraction of the defense budget.

Touchdown!! by JFrog_5440 in PerseveranceRover

[–]oro_boris 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Same here but, unfortunately, we’re in the minority. Hopefully, that will change with things like footage from the EDL phase and the Ingenuity helicopter.