Science questions not worth a thread I: I'm a moron!

[madviking]

That would help our helium shortage.

 

[peter grimes]

That would help our helium shortage.

I thought the shortage was only an artifact of US government policy?

 

[madviking]

Link to video.

 

[Cutlass]

I thought the shortage was only an artifact of US government policy?

Well, not really. On the one hand, the US government decided to give away our helium reserves as a form of corporate cronyism. But even had they not done that, there really is not that much recoverable helium reserves on Earth.

 

[uppi]

If humans ever invent viable fusion power, will Helium be one of the byproducts?

All but one of the (semi-) viable fusion reactions have Helium as their end product. So Helium will be main product of a fusion reactor. But the yield would be quite low. A reactor with a thermal power of 1GW would just produce 2mg of Helium per second. So at most (if the reactor is run continuously, which is impossible with the Tokamak design), you would get a bit more than one liter of liquid Helium per day. I doubt it would be profitable to extract such a small amount.

 

[Berzerker]

Didn't they just finish a mission measuring lunar gravity to determine whether the maria were from the impact of a hypothetical second moon Earth may have had that formed in conjunction with the first?

Yes, they did. It was something like the far side of the moon impacted with the second moon to create those craters. Though I need to read the actual paper, rather than a popular science magazine.

The previous theory was that the crust of the moon is thicker on the far side than the near side due to the process which tidally locked the moon, so impacts on the far side are less likely to be erased by lava outflows.

The maria began forming during or shortly after the lhb around 3.9 bya as plate tectonics and life appear on Earth, the formation of the moon(s) occurred ~4.5+ bya. But what crater has been linked to the impact of a 2nd moon?

That is a big leap of logic to make there. With a sample size of 1, that is simply not enough to say definitively that the surface is covered in water.

We have more than 1 sample and we have other evidence of ample water available for the forming Earth, we just dont have evidence of that water forming here.

If you took a random rock sample from Earth today, and declared whatever you found to be the entire surface of the Earth. Chances are, you will have found one which formed in water. Therefore, modern Earth is entirely covered in water. Therefore, there can be no fire-using intelligent species because fire cannot burn underwater. Therefore, humans cannot exist.

The Earth doesn't have puddles...Your complaint is that I cannot "assume" water covered the surface based on a small sampling of water born rock because you're assuming only puddles existed based on a sample size of 0

You must take information from multiple sources to draw a conclusion, not just one. Earth cannot have formed in the outer regions as mentioned earlier. Parts of the surface could have been dry simply by proposing the existence of highlands, or an asymmetrical surface where water will collect, kind of like how the surface is asymmetrical today. It's not a very big leap of logic to assume a non-isotropic surface, is it?

I am relying on multiple sources and the asymmetrical surface of today is the result of plate tectonics forming continents over the last ~4 billion years whereas the Moon's asymmetry was basically "set in stone" following the lhb and subsequent maria formation.

If you are right, and the Earth formed at the Freeze line and migrated inward, this will imply that Newtonian Mechanics is terribly wrong at the domains which observationally it has never been wrong before. How do you account for the angular momentum loss?

You accounted for it - a large retrograde object striking the Earth

This is fundamental physics, not something which can result from many different processes. The calculations provided on deuterium levels in primordial Earth's location at 1 AU might have been off. The calculations for deuterium migration from LHB might have made incorrect assumptions. Maybe only a small fraction of Earth's water formed at larger distances, but at a very deuterium enriched region, and then accreted by Earth. There can be many explanations, while your proposed solution either ignores angular momentum, or requires a rather extreme event to take place that is essentially inconsistent with itself.

You said the Earth formed here along with most or a majority of its water. That would mean a bunch of our water didn't come from the asteroid belt but further away from the Sun. Isn't that why comets were originally a proposed source of water that has since lost its appeal as a theory? Btw, life and plate tectonics are the products of an extreme event.

If you're referring to the Giant Impact theory, that took place a billion years earlier than LHB.

Closer to a 1/2 billion years earlier, but the formation of the Moon (and its accretion of a possible 2nd moon) does not explain the maria and events 4 bya during the lhb.

No, because nearly random motions in a spherical cloud turns out to be roughly 50/50 chance of going either in your direction of motion, or not.

The Oort cloud is a theory, but are you saying it doesn't orbit the Sun or that roughly half the Oort Cloud orbits in retrograde?

Saturn's rings "point" to Pluto near the perihelion is purely coincidence because of orbital precession of orbiting bodies, much like the moon "perfectly" (not really) covers the sun during the occasional solar eclipse. Eventually, Saturn's orbit will precess such that it will not line up with Pluto anymore, likewise with Pluto.

It is entirely a timing issue. The orbits will precess, and soon they will not line up, much like the moon in the past will produce much longer total solar eclipses and can never produce the Baily's beads/Diamond Ring effect because it was closer and not any in the farish future because it has drifted far enough away.

The Moon would have been orbiting faster back then, but precession will also re-align Saturn's rings with Pluto. Do the equatorial planes of the other planets point to Pluto or is this coincidence unique? That aint the only connection between the two - they ascend the ecliptic together and do so when Pluto is at perihelion.

Comparing the age of Saturn's rings, that would also imply it happened in the recent past, about a billion years ago by examining the dustyness of the rings from asteroid impacts. The density of the Kuiper belt is simply not high enough to produce that.

Saturn's rings are 4+ byo. Now I'm not saying Pluto has no connection to the formation of Saturn's rings, but I'm using them only as a visual representation of Saturn's equatorial plane.

Now we have proven using Newtonian Physics that Pluto being ejected from Saturn's orbit is impossible in the mechanism required to form the 2:1 distance ratio (Note: Earth and Jupiter is 5:1 at perihelion. Simply finding cute number patterns doesn't guarantee a relationship, especially if you have to do convoluted subtractions that make no physical sense), unless if you can come up with a physically and mathematically consistent way to describe how the 2:1 distance ratio can form (more significant are 2:1 resonance ratios with orbital periods, not distances, and no subtracting out orbits), it can only be regarded as a curiosity and coincidence.

I'll clarify what I said, subtracting Saturn's orbital distance from Pluto's creates a 2:1 ratio in Pluto's aphelion and perihelion.

No, the Earth's outgassed water mixed with the water that formed from the asteroid belt. It's not water and oil, they mix, and you have to consider relative abundances of each, not assume it is all or nothing.

Then why does our water bear a deuterium ratio characteristic of the asteroid belt? If most or a majority of our water formed here, it would take plenty of water from beyond the asteroid belt to combine with 1 AU water to create that ratio.

You're assuming that a single paper is so infallible in its calculations that it overturns centuries of Newtonian mechanics.

The paper does what?

I may be wrong, but I believe he's assuming that because it plays into his pet theory about how the world was created in accordance with the Babylonian creation myth (you know, those people who knew about the existence of Pluto, no less).

and it really seems to bother you

1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth -- 2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters

9 And God saith, `Let the waters under the heavens be collected unto one place, and let the dry land be seen:' and it is so. 10 And God calleth to the dry land `Earth,' and to the collection of the waters He hath called 'Seas'

 

[Arakhor]

Any sort of theological creationism being peddled as science bothers me. Your idea, however, doesn't have 150+ million people who seem to believe that it is the ultimate truth from God above.

 

[Bluemofia]

We have more than 1 sample and we have other evidence of ample water available for the forming Earth, we just dont have evidence of that water forming here.

I'm going to call citation needed here.

The Earth doesn't have puddles...Your complaint is that I cannot "assume" water covered the surface based on a small sampling of water born rock because you're assuming only puddles existed based on a sample size of 0

No, my argument does not solely rely on the water on Earth being only made up of small puddles. It is significantly independent of the presence/absence of large bodies of water. Yours on the other hand, explicitly requires everything to be fine tuned or flat out ignored for it to work.

Before you go any further, please provide an explanation as to where the angular momentum could have gone during LHB. Without addressing this, your theory is dead. It must be able to remain consistent with at the very least, the most well supported observations. Not ignore them in an attempt to address the lesser known ones.

With your current arguments, I wonder why you did not create a theory that requires a violation of both thermodynamics and special relativity. That's basically the only way you can make it less plausible.

I am relying on multiple sources and the asymmetrical surface of today is the result of plate tectonics forming continents over the last ~4 billion years whereas the Moon's asymmetry was basically "set in stone" following the lhb and subsequent maria formation.

Umm, that logic does not follow. The Moon's asymmetry does not prove the formation of the Earth in the Asteroid belt. There are multiple better fitting theories for this, two of which being the aforementioned theories, which do not violate angular momentum like yours does.

You accounted for it - a large retrograde object striking the Earth

No, I said a large retrograde object striking earth cannot have happened because then we would have a highly eccentric orbit similar to a Hohlman transfer orbit if that were the case. Go re-read my statement. A single large impact of that magnitude in a retrograde orbit will produce an orbit that is highly eccentric, and thus highly unstable in the early solar system, especially being interior to Jupiter. This will have a very high chance of being ejected or absorbed by the sun due to interactions with Mars, Jupiter, or Saturn before the Earth's orbit circularizes.

The only way is a gradual accretion of ~43% of the Earth's present mass in retrograde objects (or have 2/3 of the Earth form and then absorb the remaining 1/3 in retrograde asteroids) such that the Earth can circularize it's orbit between accretions.

The gradual accretion also has significant problems.
1. This becomes very hard to justify "mostly formed" in the asteroid belt.
2. Where is all of that mass in general coming from during LHB? There's not enough mass left over period in the solar system to account for that.
3. Where in Zeus' beard is all that retrograde mass coming from?!?! To suggest that roughly 1/3 of Earth's mass was retrograde is completely ignoring angular momentum, as you can't find that much retrograde angular momentum. Anywhere.

You said the Earth formed here along with most or a majority of its water. That would mean a bunch of our water didn't come from the asteroid belt but further away from the Sun. Isn't that why comets were originally a proposed source of water that has since lost its appeal as a theory? Btw, life and plate tectonics are the products of an extreme event.

Could you elaborate on how both life and plate tectonics support your statements? From my current understanding due to your wording, I believe you have a severe misunderstanding of what plate tectonics. Or even what life is. (Organic molecules are fragile to things like... Asteroid impacts. One operates on the scales of 10^-21 J, while the other on scales of 10^25 J.)

Closer to a 1/2 billion years earlier, but the formation of the Moon (and its accretion of a possible 2nd moon) does not explain the maria and events 4 bya during the lhb.

Citation/explanation needed.

The Oort cloud is a theory, but are you saying it doesn't orbit the Sun or that roughly half the Oort Cloud orbits in retrograde?

Yes, I am saying roughly half of the Oort Cloud orbits are in retrograde. No, I am not saying it doesn't orbit the sun. Where did I ever imply that?

Before you make the argument that the Oort cloud provided the retrograde motion, no, it can't. Because statistically for every retrograde comet that the Earth absorbs, it absorbs another in prograde motion, balancing it out.

The Moon would have been orbiting faster back then, but precession will also re-align Saturn's rings with Pluto. Do the equatorial planes of the other planets point to Pluto or is this coincidence unique? That aint the only connection between the two - they ascend the ecliptic together and do so when Pluto is at perihelion.

So you are suggesting that we happen to be in a precise integer precession cycles from Saturn/Pluto formation? One that has had at least 10^6 cycles? Also, re-read what I said. Orbits and rotational axes precess. That includes perihelion and aphelion locations and ecliptic intersections for both objects. Pluto isn't even at integer orbital periods with Saturn. Regardless, can you provide a reason that conserves angular momentum for this relationship to be possible?

Also, provide a possible mechanism other than stating coincidences and speculating. If you wish to do that, I can speculate the Declaration of Independence was forseen has a connection to the 4 fundamental forces of nature because they both involve the number 4, with Gravity being the oldest known force coined by an Englishman and the Strong and Weak nuclear forces being discovered by multiple nationalities of scientists, symbolic of the immigrant nature of the United States. Or the English alphabet has 26 letters and therefore there must be a relation to the death of Edward Jenner, inventor of the smallpox vaccine due to his death on the 26th day of the year in at the age of 73, just 60 more than half of 26, let alone both of them being related to England.

Just because you heard a cute story about plate tectonics being one of the coincidences eventually proven to have a connection, doesn't mean every coincidence will be vindicated eventually.

Saturn's rings are 4+ byo.

No, they are not. The ages of the rings can be dated by looking at the amount of dust from asteroid disintegration debris, and they are dated at younger than 1 billion years old. It also doesn't help your case that Saturn's Moon Enceladus has been observed to constantly refresh the rings via ice geysers.

I'll clarify what I said, subtracting Saturn's orbital distance from Pluto's creates a 2:1 ratio in Pluto's aphelion and perihelion.

And I'll clarify again that this makes no sense from a physics standpoint for the exact same reasons.

Then why does our water bear a deuterium ratio characteristic of the asteroid belt? If most or a majority of our water formed here, it would take plenty of water from beyond the asteroid belt to combine with 1 AU water to create that ratio.

If anything, the Earth forming at the asteroid belt would produce a characteristic deuterium ratio further out than the asteroid belt because of contamination due to LHB. Considering how LHB mixes comets from the region between Neptune and the Asteroid belt into the Earth's water, yes, it does work.

The paper does what?

I'm trying to put it politely, but you are being a typical conspiracy theorist who will twist whatever evidence that is close enough to the conclusion you want it to fit to fit it, and then ignore all evidence on the contrary.

You even admitted a few posts back that you can't argue the math. You then proceeded to at best misunderstand it, or at worst ignore it. So for now, I am not letting you get off the question of angular momentum conservation until you have come up with a satisfactory mechanism that conserves it, and can be observationally consistent. Then we can move onto addressing the more complicated details.

 

[Berzerker]

I'm going to call citation needed here.

For what, Earth's oldest rocks or evidence of a water supply for the Earth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_dated_rocks

The paper I quoted already explained the water problem

No, my argument does not solely rely on the water on Earth being only made up of small puddles. Yours on the other hand, explicitly requires everything to be fine tuned or flat out ignored for it to work.

You used the word puddle when explaining why we have rock that formed in water. My argument requires rock that formed in water, and thats what we have...

Before you go any further, please provide an explanation as to where the angular momentum could have gone during LHB. Without addressing this, your theory is dead. It must be able to remain consistent with at the very least, the most well supported observations. Not ignore them in an attempt to address the lesser known ones.

You already dealt with that problem, a large retrograde object striking the Earth.

Umm, that logic does not follow. The Moon's asymmetry does not prove the formation of the Earth in the Asteroid belt.

I didn't say it did, I said the Earth's asymmetry is the product of 4 billion years of plate tectonics. You assumed the asymmetry existed before that and we dont have evidence for that.

No, I said a large retrograde object striking earth cannot have happened because then we would have a highly eccentric orbit similar to a Hohlman transfer orbit if that were the case. Go re-read my statement. A single large impact of that magnitude in a retrograde orbit will produce an orbit that is highly eccentric, and thus highly unstable in the early solar system, especially being interior to Jupiter. This will have a very high chance of being ejected or absorbed by the sun due to interactions with Mars, Jupiter, or Saturn before the Earth's orbit circularizes.

here is what you said:

So the Earth needs to shed 1.95*10^40 m^2 kg / s of angular momentum. This amounts to accreting ~ 43% of its mass at 3 AU in material moving in a direct opposite orbit to cancel out angular momentum. By the time of LHB, there is nowhere that much material to accreted, let alone traveling in opposite of the Earth's motion.

What most likely happened with that is the zicron formed in a small puddle of water on the surface (or even a large ocean; it doesn't matter as much), and then LHB brought in some more water in addition to the Earth's original supply of water to produce inconsistent deuterium ratios.

There's your puddle and retrograde object - you just dismissed the latter because you're assuming there wasn't enough matl by the lhb.

The only way is a gradual accretion of ~43% of the Earth's present mass in retrograde objects (or have 2/3 of the Earth form and then absorb the remaining 1/3 in retrograde asteroids) such that the Earth can circularize it's orbit between accretions.

Would several impacts work? And by larger objects than asteroids.

The gradual accretion also has significant problems.
1. This becomes very hard to justify "mostly formed" in the asteroid belt.

What if the Earth was larger back then and the impact(s) reduced its mass? How would that alter angular momentum?

2. Where is all of that mass in general coming from during LHB? There's not enough mass left over period in the solar system to account for that.

A large retrograde object on a highly eccentric and inclined orbit. The Moon got plastered by debris flying off the Earth (and its impactor), that was the beginning of the lhb and the maria began forming followed by plate tectonics and life on Earth.

3. Where in Zeus' beard is all that retrograde mass coming from?!?! To suggest that roughly 1/3 of Earth's mass was retrograde is completely ignoring angular momentum, as you can't find that much retrograde angular momentum. Anywhere.

Remnants of a nearby supernova reaching us a 1/2-1 billion years after the shock wave

Could you elaborate on how both life and plate tectonics support your statements? From my current understanding due to your wording, I believe you have a severe misunderstanding of what plate tectonics. Or even what life is. (Organic molecules are fragile to things like... Asteroid impacts. One operates on the scales of 10^-21 J, while the other on scales of 10^25 J.)

Plate tectonics and life appear after the lhb - that was an extreme event, look at the Moon.

Citation/explanation needed.

For what? The difference in time between the giant impact creation of the Moon and the lhb and maria?

Yes, I am saying roughly half of the Oort Cloud orbits are in retrograde. No, I am not saying it doesn't orbit the sun. Where did I ever imply that?

I was asking for clarification

So you are suggesting that we happen to be in a precise integer precession cycles from Saturn/Pluto formation? One that has had at least 10^6 cycles?

Why not? Are you saying these alignments we see now never happened in the distant past?

Also, re-read what I said. Orbits and rotational axes precess. That includes perihelion and aphelion locations and ecliptic intersections for both objects.

Yes, and they're cyclical

No, they are not. The ages of the rings can be dated by looking at the amount of dust from asteroid disintegration debris, and they are dated at younger than 1 billion years old. It also doesn't help your case that Saturn's Moon Enceladus has been observed to constantly refresh the rings via ice geysers.

http://www.space.com/20424-saturn-rings-moons-age.html

If anything, the Earth forming at the asteroid belt would produce a characteristic deuterium ratio further out than the asteroid belt because of contamination due to LHB. Considering how LHB mixes comets from the region between Neptune and the Asteroid belt into the Earth's water, yes, it does work.

Can you do the math on that or link me to the research? I was under the impression current theory is water bearing asteroids brought us water during the lhb and comet activity was much more limited.

I'm trying to put it politely, but you are being a typical conspiracy theorist who will twist whatever evidence that is close enough to the conclusion you want it to fit to fit it, and then ignore all evidence on the contrary.

You even admitted a few posts back that you can't argue the math. You then proceeded to at best misunderstand it, or at worst ignore it.

I'll try to be as polite when correcting your mistakes

 

[Bluemofia]

You already dealt with that problem, a large retrograde object striking the Earth.

Which cannot be because such large retrograde objects will not exist during LHB, because in their very formation process, they will be accreting primarily prograde dust and rocks, and not become that retrograde to begin with, or fall into the sun long before planetary accretion ends. If it happens to hit Earth on its way into the sun, it will add a net zero or a very small amount of retrograde momentum.

The amount of mass requirement I calculated earlier is in completely unrealistic conditions, assuming the impact is a head on collision with a retrograde object (be it a grain of sand or a planetesimal), in order to showcase how absurd everything needs to be in order for that to happen. More realistic conditions, such as absorbing orbitally decaying retrograde objects on their way into the solar system will have a much more stringent mass requirement.

Would several impacts work? And by larger objects than asteroids.

No, because the larger the impact, the closer it is resembling a Holman transfer orbit, which will produce a more and more elliptical orbit, magnifying the problem of an increasingly elliptical orbit being more prone to disruption.

Only small objects can work, and if the density were that high of small objects, it will still be in the planetary accretion phase where the majority are moving in a prograde direction, or it is in a Hollywood movie.

What if the Earth was larger back then and the impact(s) reduced its mass? How would that alter angular momentum?

Ignoring that the physics is even more hideously impossible for that because after a certain threshold is reached, asteroid impacts cannot be moving fast enough to reduce the mass of an object compared with the mass they introduce into the system, you would need preferentially shed prograde angular momentum, rather than shedding angular momentum opposite the direction of impact, ie isotropically.

By the way, the Earth is sufficiently massive that in order to destroy it with a retrograde impact, you need to throw a mass 8 times its mass at it. Which in turn is sufficiently massive to accrete the Earth, which means you effectively cannot make the Earth lose significant mass through small impacts, as the impactors themselves tend to give more mass than the Earth loses, unless if impactors have velocities greater than escape velocity of the sun by a significant margin, which is not allowed even with gravitational slingshots from the gas giants.

A large retrograde object on a highly eccentric and inclined orbit. The Moon got plastered by debris flying off the Earth (and its impactor), that was the beginning of the lhb and the maria began forming followed by plate tectonics and life on Earth.

Ruled out for aforementioned reasons. Impossible for an object that large to make it to the LHB period. Also, if it were highly inclined, it will add almost no retrograde momentum regardless of speed and mass of impact.

This is Late Heavy Bombardment, not Planetary Formation by Accretion part II. The planets are already mostly formed, and their orbits are now in the process of stabilizing.

Remnants of a nearby supernova reaching us a 1/2-1 billion years after the shock wave

Ignoring how you now are attempting to introduce almost untestable solutions by introducing supernovae to try and solve your problem, you don't understand how shocks work, do you? The shock is the material, and no, it does not contain much angular momentum because the mass contained in the cross section swept out by the Earth is tiny.

If the sun and Earth were to be rearranged such that the Earth is not orbiting the sun, but rather stationary, and the sun were to magically explode in a supernova, and see what happens.

The amount of mass intercepted by Earth is:
(mass of sun) / (4*Pi * (1AU)^2) * (radius of earth^2 *Pi)

The Earth will be showered with 10^21 kg of material, about the mass of Ceres. Or 0.01 % of its mass.

Let's assume the debris is moving sufficiently fast that it will not destroy the Earth completely without gravity being able to reform at least some of it. So it is moving with kinetic energy at the gravitational biding energy of Earth, equivalent of saying it will dump that much energy into the system. Which is 2.24*10^34 J (U = 3GM^2/(5R) for a uniform sphere).

KE = 2.24*10^34 = 1/2 * M*V^2
V= 7*10^6 m/s

Now how much momentum would that transfer to the Earth, and what is it's new velocity?

p = m*v
= 6.3 *10^27 m kg /s

So new velocity of the Earth is:
P1i + P2i = Pf
0*Mass of Earth + 6.3 *10^27 m kg /s = (Mass of Earth + 10^21 kg)*Vf
Vf = 1 km/s
And the Earth gains a paltry 1 km/s. Not nearly enough to shift it's orbit.

For proper comparison, if we had the Earth orbiting the sun and got struck by an object with that momentum in retrograde motion, it will be only 1% the required momentum transfer.

Since effective volume scales as r^2, "nearby" supernovae explosions of even 1000 times the sun's mass will have no noticeable effect in momentum transfer. If you consider that you can arbitrarily crank up velocities up and up until you reach relativistic speeds, then it becomes slightly more complicated conceptually, but very simple mathematically. But let's look at it from a classical standpoint, and then shift it to a relativistic analysis later. Classically, it ends up that you add less momentum at higher speeds, because energy scales at V^2 (to maintain the same energy at gravitational binding energy with less and less mass intercepted, you can't increase velocity as quickly at higher velocities) , while momentum only at V, so overall you get much less momentum the higher velocities you get. Now from a relativistic standpoint, impact velocity means little, so you look at it from a momentum transfer standpoint, and you use the equation:

E^2=p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4
or, as mass becomes vanishingly small,
E=p*c

Since E is restricted to gravitational binding energy, and c is c, we end up asymptoting to 7.5 × 10^25 m kg / s.

Long story short, no, supernova cannot provide sufficient momentum.

Why not? Are you saying these alignments we see now never happened in the distant past?

I am not saying they never happened in the distant past. I am saying that because they precess, you cannot say they have a connection, otherwise you have to justify why we are at a precise integer precession. I can just as easily claim that they never had anything to do with each other, and precessed to a way that they look like they have a connection. It is as silly as saying four alarms which go off every 4.4, 5.8, 6.2, and 7.8 hours set a hundred years ago in the past must be set at the same time if you happen to hear them going off at the same time now.

Also, orbital axes, orbital planes, perihelion and aphelion locations for the both planets must be accounted for, and they all operate on very different periods. There is nothing connecting them together, and just because you found a coincidence doesn't mean there actually is a connection.

Not to mention the proposed process of Saturn somehow spitting Pluto out makes no physical sense because of again, angular momentum.

http://www.space.com/20424-saturn-rings-moons-age.html

The lack of explanation or citation to an actual paper on that page is concerning. Regardless, popular science magazines are prone to hype, and whenever possible, you should cite actual journals rather than things which might not necessarily pan out after they are further refined and analyzed. I don't know how many popular science articles have been printed of "New proposed model to how the universe works" ended up falling short and disproven a few months to years later.

There is on the other hand, a large body of literature focused on determining the ages of the rings of Saturn using a variety of techniques, and quite well cited. Not to mention from a physics standpoint, large, dense structures will dynamically relax with interactions between ring particles de-orbiting the rings eventually, hence the faintness of the rings of the other gas giants.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0019103587900790
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103510003222
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.3305v2.pdf

It's well known that Saturn's ring composition is very young because of the lack of debris and how young the ice is. There may be some debate as to the actual age of the rings as a system, but it's very hard to come up with a solution that allows for both ancient rings from the formation of Saturn as well as the rings to be so clean while its moons are so pockmarked with largeish impact craters, and the age of the constituent particles of the ring is in the millions of years, rather than billions.

 

[Meteor Man]

I think Bluemofia is winning the fight, objectively.

 

[Glassfan]

Scientists Find Link Between How Pathetic You Are, How Fast You Respond To Emails

“Our research shows that, without exception, only the saddest and most pitiable individuals will reply to a new message in their inbox within moments of receiving it, whereas those who respond after an extended period—oftentimes up to multiple days—are invariably more socially adept, confident people,” said sociologist Daniel Moran, confirming that the length of time that passed between receiving a given work or personal email and sending a reply was directly correlated to the level of excitement, diversity, and fulfillment in that person’s life."

Spoiler :

Some might think this is humor...

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

Do we have the technology today to accurately and realistically portary lightning and lightning bolts using just CGI, without giving the lightning the usual hollywood-ish look in CGI lightning?

 

[dutchfire]

How does tap water in high buildings work? The Burj Kalifa is 800 m high, so there will be a pressure difference of 800 m *9.8 m/s^2*1000 kg/m^3 = 9 MPa. So if you want the water to come out of the tap normally at the top, wouldn't the lower part of the pipes basically explode?

 

[Cutlass]

How does tap water in high buildings work? The Burj Kalifa is 800 m high, so there will be a pressure difference of 800 m *9.8 m/s^2*1000 kg/m^3 = 9 MPa. So if you want the water to come out of the tap normally at the top, wouldn't the lower part of the pipes basically explode?

Booster pumps on the way up. May even have a storage tank at the top.

 

[Mise]

Scientists Find Link Between How Pathetic You Are, How Fast You Respond To Emails

“Our research shows that, without exception, only the saddest and most pitiable individuals will reply to a new message in their inbox within moments of receiving it, whereas those who respond after an extended period—oftentimes up to multiple days—are invariably more socially adept, confident people,” said sociologist Daniel Moran, confirming that the length of time that passed between receiving a given work or personal email and sending a reply was directly correlated to the level of excitement, diversity, and fulfillment in that person’s life."

Spoiler :

Some might think this is humor...

Yeah someone sent me that link 3 days ago but I haven't got round to replying to it yet because I don't want to seem desperate.

 

[Souron]

Scientists Find Link Between How Pathetic You Are, How Fast You Respond To Emails

“Our research shows that, without exception, only the saddest and most pitiable individuals will reply to a new message in their inbox within moments of receiving it, whereas those who respond after an extended period—oftentimes up to multiple days—are invariably more socially adept, confident people,” said sociologist Daniel Moran, confirming that the length of time that passed between receiving a given work or personal email and sending a reply was directly correlated to the level of excitement, diversity, and fulfillment in that person’s life."

Spoiler :

Some might think this is humor...

Yes that's right, the reason I may be delayed in replying to emails has everything to do with how socially adept and confident I am, and nothing to do with my procrastination.

 

[Bluemofia]

Do we have the technology today to accurately and realistically portary lightning and lightning bolts using just CGI, without giving the lightning the usual hollywood-ish look in CGI lightning?

Using just CGI? At that point, isn't it just up to the skill of the CGI people?

 

[emzie]

Using just CGI? At that point, isn't it just up to the skill of the CGI people?

Much of CGI comes down to algorithms for physics that were developed. It's not about drawing lightning frame by frame in a realistic manner. It's about organically growing realistic lightning depictions.

 

[Souron]

You could probably simulate lightning physics with a random walk to a reasonable precision, if you're talking about the shape of the bolt.