Are there Soviet Venera landers still intact, or even recognizable as Earth artifacts? |
- Are there Soviet Venera landers still intact, or even recognizable as Earth artifacts?
- How do they put a rod into a broken femur?
- How can we be sure of the precision and accuracy of modern measurement tools?
- What is in a vacuum?(Not the machine)
- Why are there so many different units of radiation, and how do they differ?
- How are you supposed to picture complex wave functions?
- Has geographically localized human activity in aggregate been able to impact weather patterns / other things on a small time scale?
- Why are some astronomical masers circularly polarized while others are linearly polarized?
- If the Planck length is 0 and the observable (or infinite) universe is 100, what value is the Earth?
- Do all planets travel around their orbit at a fixed speed?
- [Chemistry] How do you find the Dielectric Constant of a solution?
- If shadow can travel "faster than light", can't we use that to convey information at that rate?
| Are there Soviet Venera landers still intact, or even recognizable as Earth artifacts? Posted: 25 Feb 2017 04:52 AM PST Obviously we cannot send anyone to Venus' surface to check on their status. I was wondering if the good folks of this subreddit could put their minds together and try to extrapolate what the surface conditions of Venus have done to those landers in the decades since their respective missions. How long might it take for Venus' surface conditions to, for lack of a better term, degrade them out of existence? [link] [comments]  |
| How do they put a rod into a broken femur? Posted: 25 Feb 2017 05:53 AM PST I know someone who broke their femur in half while skiing. I saw their x-ray and the doctors put a rod actually inside the bone to hold the two halves together while it healed. How would they do this? [link] [comments]  |
| How can we be sure of the precision and accuracy of modern measurement tools? Posted: 25 Feb 2017 06:37 AM PST Suppose I have defined a 'redditmeter' [rm] in some acceptable way (that is - I can always know that this 'thing' that I measure is indeed rm units in size). After a few months, a new way was invented to measure 0.5rm, so on so forth - we get to the smallest scales. I logically conclude that this process is a very crude way of what happened in the way we humans measure things like length, weight etc. But how can we be sure that the scales we measure today are actually accurate? if we can measure 0.5rm with 99% accuracy, then measuring 0.25rm might have even less accuracy, going all the way to 1*10-[integer] rm. How can we know that our measurement tools are actually acceptably precise? Or to put it in another words - How do we check our most modern and precise measurement tools? Edit Thank you for your current attempts of answering, but my question wasn't how can we be sure that a kilogram is a kilogram. To clarify furthermore - How can we be sure that the most modern measurement device actually measures with a good enough precision and not with it's measurement fault being 50% of accuracy (50% of times or 50% of given value). [link] [comments]  |
| What is in a vacuum?(Not the machine) Posted: 25 Feb 2017 06:38 AM PST Just curious what really is left when a vacuum is created. I know it's most likely going to be a quantum mechanically related answer, so please explain because I don't know much about quantum mechanics! Thanks! [link] [comments]  |
| Why are there so many different units of radiation, and how do they differ? Posted: 24 Feb 2017 09:37 AM PST During a recent Wikipedia tab death spiral, I was struck by how many different units we use for measuring radiation- becquerel, curie, rad, roentgen, sievert... how do they differ? Do different industries/fields use a particular unit for one reason or another? [link] [comments]  |
| How are you supposed to picture complex wave functions? Posted: 24 Feb 2017 07:35 PM PST |
| Posted: 25 Feb 2017 12:48 AM PST Not sure if the question is specific enough, but for example: Human population density congregates the coasts of the U.S. Is maybe the heat released from things like lighting buildings, pure body heat of that many humans, automobiles, etc -- enough to warm the air enough to maybe produce wind currents or something? Is that many feet hitting the ground enough enough to cause some kind of impact? (As opposed to like industrial activity or actually digging into the ground, or releasing pollutants, or global warming, etc). [link] [comments]  |
| Why are some astronomical masers circularly polarized while others are linearly polarized? Posted: 24 Feb 2017 07:09 PM PST Even for particular transitions (e.g. OH 1665 MHz), there appears to be emission with both types of polarization present. Is this simply because of the stimulating photons from some external radiative pump? [link] [comments]  |
| If the Planck length is 0 and the observable (or infinite) universe is 100, what value is the Earth? Posted: 24 Feb 2017 10:31 AM PST Just curious as to size comparison between the smallest and largest things possible. [link] [comments]  |
| Do all planets travel around their orbit at a fixed speed? Posted: 24 Feb 2017 04:48 PM PST Part 1- Do individual planets always maintain a constant speed during their orbit? Paer 2- Do all planets in a solar system orbit their sun at the same speed? Obviously they complete an orbit at different times due to the distance but are they traveling at the same speed as each other? It seems like the gravitational pull would be weaker the father out you go, but at the same time they are moving through empty space so there doesn't seem like there would be any resistance to lessen the gravitational pull of the sun. So I guess these are physics questions. These might be dumb questions but they've come up a few times so I figured I'd ask. Thanks for any thoughts. [link] [comments]  |
| [Chemistry] How do you find the Dielectric Constant of a solution? Posted: 24 Feb 2017 04:21 PM PST I am having a little trouble with this. I am working on finding the Debye length of solutions, but I can't find how to find the dielectric constant. I think I figured out KCl, but I am 100% stuck on CaCl2. [link] [comments]  |
| If shadow can travel "faster than light", can't we use that to convey information at that rate? Posted: 24 Feb 2017 09:29 AM PST Okay, so my source for this assumption is actually a Vsauce video - this one (I've linked to the relevant time) - where Micheal says that if we were to cast a shadow on the Moon, and then move it, the shadow would move faster than c. This, he claims, is possible because shadows carry no information, and hence A on Earth can't communicate with B on Moon faster than light. But why can't shadow carry information? If in front of a light source, I put a 2x2 inch grid of glass, light will go through it, and if I cover a square inch at the corner, light won't go through that bit. But now I can convey 4 on-off bits of information, so someone on the Moon could see that the shadow covers, out of the four bits on the 2x2 grid, and infer 4 binary values from them, and interpret those four values at the speed of the shadow - that is, faster than light. What am I thinking wrong here? [link] [comments]  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from AskScience: Got Questions? Get Answers.. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment