The best science explanation you ever heard.

[npc revolution]

Okay, I just learned about the photoelectric effect in physics, and I didn't get it at all until the teacher described it like so: (spoilered for boring science)

Imagine the electron as a cup, that will be freed when it's full of water. And that if the water pours in from a tap, you'd see a gradual increase until the electron is free, and any rate of flow will do. This is not what happens in experiments.

However, in reality it's more like water balloons being thrown at the cup, if there's enough water inside to fill the cup in one go, then the electron is freed immediately, if not, then nothing happens.

The analogy really helped me understand how the photoelectric effect proves that light interacts in discrete quanta.

So, what's been your favourite science analogy? :smallsmile:

[Yora]

One that I like, but I still think I didn't completely understand, was about shifting paradigms how humans percieve things and construct their understanding of reality.

There are three umpires presiding over games.
The first umpire stated, “There are balls and there are strikes, and I call them as they are.”
The second umpire said, “There are balls and there are strikes, and I call them as I see them.”
The third umpire states, “There are strikes and they aren’t anything until I call them.”

The first approach is useless for any attempt to learn anything.
The second is better, since it accounts for the chance of error.
However the third one accounts for the fact that it all doesn't matter when people agree on believing something else. :smallbiggrin:

[Eloel]

You have to play the game.
You can't win the game.
You can't break even in the game.

I'd say this is obvious enough :smallsmile:

[KenderWizard]

You have to play the game.
You can't win the game.
You can't break even in the game.

I'd say this is obvious enough :smallsmile:

I've always really liked that one! I think I heard it as
We are all in the game.
You cannot win the game.
You will lose the game.

[pffh]

Got so many from an old geology/physics/chemistry teacher of mine but his is the best one:

Electronegativity:

You're out in the snow wearing a cap, two sweaters, a jacket, thick underwear, thick pants, good warm shoes the whole thing except you only have one glove. While walking in the snow you find another man that is wearing nothing but a single glove what do you do? You beat the crap out of him and take his glove since it doesn't help him at all while it will make all of you warm.

[Raddish]

ooooorrrrrr

You only have 1 glove because you lost your other hand in a random accident involving 6 deer, 2 washing machines, a pineapple and 20 inches of snow.


It is kinda cool to have something said in a way and it suddenly become obvious how it works. I used to know something like this but I cant bring my mind to remember it right now, maybe I will later.

[Ceric]

Capacitors

The electrons are guys, and the nearby positively-charged plate is a beach full of hot girls. All the guys hate each other but they're willing to crowd close together if it means that they get to see the girls. If there's more girls, or if they can get really close to the beach, then the guys are willing to put up with more and more other guys. And then if they manage to actually get access to the beach with the hot girls, they'll all head over there immediately.

I learned this a few years ago and I wouldn't be surprised if I've misremembered something, but that's the gist of it.

[Karoht]

"It's a double pump high rise carburator"
"What's that?"
"It squirts the fuel in, makes the car go faster"
Bonus points for the fact that it's explained by a decent looking lady.
Best auto-tech lesson ever.

Lets hear it for Transformers!

[Yora]

Oh, here's a great one I've heard from a rather weird statistics professor at the start of the semester.
It's about neccessary and sufficient conditions.

A mathmatican comes home to his mathmatican wife and says "I love you". Hearing that she gets angry and hits him.
Mathmatically correct he would have had to say "I love you, and only you!"

[Traab]

On the nature of time.


Imagine a donut, fired from a cannon
at the speed of light while rotating.
Time is like that, except without
the cannon and the donut.

[Zen Monkey]

The cook in the awful movie Deep Blue Sea explains relativity as (paraphrasing) "Put your hands on a hot woman, an hour can seem like a minute. Put your hands on a hot stove, a minute would seem like an hour."

[Weezer]

The cook in the awful movie Deep Blue Sea explains relativity as (paraphrasing) "Put your hands on a hot woman, an hour can seem like a minute. Put your hands on a hot stove, a minute would seem like an hour."

Which has nothing to do with special or general relativity. Sure it has to do with how our perceptions of things change, but that's not a science explanation.

[Yora]

On the nature of time.

So the nature of time is light speed?

[The_Final_Stand]

Light speed while spinning.

[Traab]

Light speed while spinning.

Bingo baby!

[Xyk]

Time is like a map of New Jersey, and only New Jersey, and only a map.

[Jeff the Green]

My professor's explanation of point mutations:

"You're a DNA polymerase and you've been out partying and you're hungover and you screw up and put in a T instead of a G."

[Ravens_cry]

Bingo baby!
But spinning without anything actually doing said spinning, apparently.

[Mono Vertigo]

But spinning without anything actually doing said spinning, apparently.
Is the point of that explanation the fact time doesn't actually exist?
Because else I don't think I get it at all. :smalleek:

[Ravens_cry]

Is the point of that explanation the fact time doesn't actually exist?
Because else I don't think I get it at all. :smalleek:
If you take away the spinning doughnut, but keep the spinning, what is doing the spinning? A just abstract property of spin, which is a rather interesting* concept.
Damn, now I am hungry.:smallsigh:
*and possibly nonsensical.

[Raddish]

Is that like saying there time is always there but without something for it to affect there is no real way to describe it? That made more sense in my head...

[Traab]

It was a dilbert comic, take it with a grain of salt. :smallbiggrin:

[Ravens_cry]

It was a dilbert comic, take it with a grain of salt. :smallbiggrin:
In that case, I am taking it with grains* of salt.
*Technically a bucket of salt can be measured in grains, just a rather large number.

[Traab]

In that case, I am taking it with grains* of salt.
*Technically a bucket of salt can be measured in grains, just a rather large number.

Send that off to hannerlore. She will be happy to tell you how many grains are in there if you like.

[Weezer]

In that case, I am taking it with grains* of salt.
*Technically a bucket of salt can be measured in grains, just a rather large number.

Technically anything can be measured in grains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_(unit)).
Gotta love obscure units of measurement

[Ravens_cry]

Technically anything can be measured in grains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_(unit)).
Gotta love obscure units of measurement
Any mass anyway.:smallamused:
I take far too much pleasure in being a nit-picking bastard.

[Weezer]

Any mass anyway.:smallamused:
I take far too much pleasure in being a nit-picking bastard.

I was using thing to refer to objects, if you can point me to an object that can't be measured in grains, please let me know. :smallsmile:
I can nitpick too, and I find it glorious

[Ravens_cry]

I was using thing to refer to objects, if you can point me to an object that can't be measured in grains, please let me know. :smallsmile:
I can nitpick too, and I find it glorious
What property would you like measured?
Mass is but one property of an object, there is others:smallcool:
We can keep going if you like.

[Illieas]

Solonoids are like tall water slides. closing your circuit to a solonoid is like coaxing your 7 year old son to go on the slide. At first, He will resist going on the slide because it is freaking scary drop. But once he gives it a try. he will find him that the slide is damn fun and You can't stop him from going on the slide even when you tell him it is time to go (opening the circuit).

[Teddy]

I was using thing to refer to objects, if you can point me to an object that can't be measured in grains, please let me know. :smallsmile:
I can nitpick too, and I find it glorious

Define "object". :smallamused:

[KenderWizard]

The cook in the awful movie Deep Blue Sea explains relativity as (paraphrasing) "Put your hands on a hot woman, an hour can seem like a minute. Put your hands on a hot stove, a minute would seem like an hour."

Didn't Einstein say that?

Anyway, I have a great geology lecturer who explains things in all sorts of crazy ways. Best one I can remember is radioactive decay as a party.

You start with 32 cans of beer. In the first hour, you've got a wild party going on, loads of energy, you get through half your beer. In the second hour, things slow down, you can only get through 8 of the remaining 16 cans because you're feeling more sluggish. In the third hour, it's even worse, you're just sitting there slowing drinking 4 of the remaining cans. etc. And this is why the earliest planetesimals to form melted like crazy and broke up again, while the later ones, the radioactive elements in them being halfway or more used up, melted slowly and were able to accrete to form planets!

[phoenixineohp]

The Atom explained perfectly (for basic science). (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhbqIJZ8wCM)

[Ravens_cry]

Not an explanation or metaphor of a scientific principle or fact, but an explanation of what Science is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1dgrvlWML4).
Really quite enlightening in my opinion.

[irenicObserver]

There was an XKCD strip that described how physics worked basically. Hold I have to find it.

[Reejis]

There's a YouTube video (can't link it due to being on a mobile :smallannoyed: should be easy to find though) of Carl Sagan explaining the nature of a tesserect or 4-dimensional hypercube. I've always had trouble wrapping my head around the concept of a 4th spacial dimension but this video just completely got the idea across.

[averagejoe]

Heisenberg's uncertainty:

Tie the end of a jump rope to a wall, hold the other end and stand back. You can whip it once, and a single distortion will travel up and down the rope. (image (http://labspace.open.ac.uk/file.php/7027/ta212_2_008i.jpg)) In this case you can make a pretty good statement about the position of the wave at any given time, but how do you describe its wavelength? Now whip the jump rope repeatedly up and down (thusly (http://scienceprojectideasforkids.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/standing-wave-300x272.jpg)). Now you can say something about the wavelength, but how do you describe the position? And you can see that as you can more precisely describe one, you can necessarily describe the other less precisely.

Why electrons orbiting an atom produce a very strong repulsion force:

You can put your hands in between a fan's blades pretty easily when it isn't moving. But fire that thing up and try to stick your hand through - it's almost solid.

Edit: Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9dhO0iCLww) for protein synthesis. And possibly the best thing I've ever seen.

[Weezer]

Do you mean Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle?

[averagejoe]

Do you mean Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle?

Oh, my. That's very embarrassing. :smallredface:

[Ravens_cry]

Which is why a good old fashioned Heisenberg Compensator is so useful when building your own do-it-yourself Transporter.:smalltongue:

[Caesar]

The following is entirely accurate regarding relativity, but it skips over some technicalities, as they do not change the result, but merely work to obscure how we get there:

You are sitting in the end of a long, long, very long hallway. At the end of the hallway, is a mirror and a window. The hallway is really a ship, and it flies "sideways", ie perpendicular to the length of the hallway. In your hands is a lasergun.

You shoot the laser at the mirror. The pulse heads down the hallway, but because the ship is so long, you dont see it until it bounces off the mirror and returns all the way to your eye, several seconds later. Then you see a red flash. Most people get this far without too much trouble.

Ok. Now, the ship is moving very fast. So fast that in the time it takes the laserpulse to go up and down the hallway, you can pretty much cross the solar system. That fast. The moment you pull the trigger, Earth happens to be outside the window, not that you could see it in all the blur, but it is there. The laser pulse makes it way up the hallway..

Wait! Some people stop here, and claim the speed of the ship ought to bend the laser, so that it would hit the wall. But the earth is basically a cosmic spaceship, whipping its way around the sun, which in turn is spinning around in an arm of the Milkyway galaxy, which is spinning about the galactic hub, which is making its way thru the cosmos, etc etc.. And we dont have any trouble with our flashlights hitting the walls here on earth, do we? Regardless of which direction we point them in. So we rest assured that the path of the light is straight as always. (This is in essence the fundamental realisation that Einstein made, that one never observes a motionless particle of light, despite the myriad of sources, and that this has some big consequences as we shall see.)

..and it strikes the mirror. This time, Jupitor is outside the window. Not that you could see it, but it is there. And now the laser pulse reflects back towards you, as the ship speeds onwards, and finally you see a red flash as it strikes your eye, and just at that moment, Pluto passes by outside the window.

So here is the kicker: Which way did the light go? Obviously, it went up the hallway, and back down the hallway, which is precisely double the length of our super long ship, right? I mean, it didnt hit the walls or anything, we are sure of that. But wait. It started at one end of the ship, near earth. Then we move the ship to Jupitor, and now its at the other end of the ship. Then we slide on out to Pluto, and the light returns. If you draw this out, you end up with two sides of a triangle (the base is the path your butt makes thru space). And this path, well.. its longer than double the length of the ship.

So what happened? How can the light take both paths at the same time, even tho one path is longer than the other? We cant even cheat, and say that the light goes faster depending on how you look at it, because going back to the Einstein's original premise, light ALWAYS has the same velocity, regardless of where you point it or how you measure it. This has been tested so many times, its crazy. But its always true so far.

And here is the real kicker: Instead of making the light go faster or slower, what if.. just WHAT IF.. we were going slower. Or rather, Time was going slower. So we meausure on the spaceship, waiting for that laser to return, only the whole world is in slow motion, and we cant tell. It seems normal to us. Until we turn around and get off at earth again, and compare our clocks. And only then do we find out that we have been running slow, while everybody on earth seems to have been running fast. And the time we are missing? It is the amount of time the light should have taken on the long path, minus the time it should have taken on the short one.

If you draw the triangle out, picking suitable distances and speeds related to C , and use pythagoras' theorem as well as some simple algebra, you can quickly show this time dilation in the same manner as the Lorentz transformation, which is the more general description. And that is relativity in a nutshell.

[Yora]

Ok. Now, the ship is moving very fast. So fast that in the time it takes the laserpulse to go up and down the hallway, you can pretty much cross the solar system. That fast.
Is it supposed to go thousands of times the speed of light? Or maybe not THAT fast?


So here is the kicker: Which way did the light go? Obviously, it went up the hallway, and back down the hallway, which is precisely double the length of our super long ship, right? I mean, it didnt hit the walls or anything, we are sure of that. But wait. It started at one end of the ship, near earth. Then we move the ship to Jupitor, and now its at the other end of the ship. Then we slide on out to Pluto, and the light returns. If you draw this out, you end up with two sides of a triangle (the base is the path your butt makes thru space). And this path, well.. its longer than double the length of the ship.
However, when you throw a ball inside a train or plane, it also seems to travel at the same speed relative to you, if you throw it to the front or the back.
Now that's because of innertia and the only problem is that light shouldn't have any since it has no mass. But just saying that the light seems to go faster then speed of light on its way to the mirror, and even move backwards after being reflected, does not seem that suprising, as it's exactly what you'd assume the ball to do. So using that as the core mystery of the explaination does not seem to be such a very good analogy. I think it's better if you describe something that doesn't make sense on atomic scale to make people realize how weird things are on the subatomic scale.


And the time we are missing? It is the amount of time the light should have taken on the long path, minus the time it should have taken on the short one.
Okay, now that's fascinating. I knew about time dilation, but never asked why it happens. I don't think I have completely grasped the full extend of the explaination yet, but it's still fascinating and makes weird sense.

[Yora]

"Online Ads are like public toilets. Everyone agrees that they are neccessary, but nobody wants to do "business" there if it can be avoided."

[Partysan]

"Online Ads are like public toilets. Everyone agrees that they are neccessary, but nobody wants to do "business" there if it can be avoided."

This is not the first time you've been reading the same articles as I have.

[Yora]

When we first dealt with electricity in school, the teacher explained that the electrons in a wire are just like ball bearings in a tube. If you push one in one side, another one will be pushed out the other side.

However, wouldn't this mean that I can make an effect travel at faster thanlight speed? Electricity would be infinitely fast, but it isn't.

But that problem even translates into atomic scale: Assumed I have a long pole that reaches all the way to the moon to a big button. When I push the pole here on earth, and send a light signal to the moon, wouldn't the button be pushed two seconds before the light reaches the moon? Didn't I just effect something at a speed faster than light?

[averagejoe]

When we first dealt with electricity in school, the teacher explained that the electrons in a wire are just like ball bearings in a tube. If you push one in one side, another one will be pushed out the other side.

However, wouldn't this mean that I can make an effect travel at faster thanlight speed? Electricity would be infinitely fast, but it isn't.

But that problem even translates into atomic scale: Assumed I have a long pole that reaches all the way to the moon to a big button. When I push the pole here on earth, and send a light signal to the moon, wouldn't the button be pushed two seconds before the light reaches the moon? Didn't I just effect something at a speed faster than light?

It goes even deeper than that. Relativity was originally created to describe electrical interactions. If you take electrostatics (that is, stationary electrical charges) and use relativity on them, you get magnetism. Mind blown.

[madtinker]

When we first dealt with electricity in school, the teacher explained that the electrons in a wire are just like ball bearings in a tube. If you push one in one side, another one will be pushed out the other side.

However, wouldn't this mean that I can make an effect travel at faster thanlight speed? Electricity would be infinitely fast, but it isn't.

But that problem even translates into atomic scale: Assumed I have a long pole that reaches all the way to the moon to a big button. When I push the pole here on earth, and send a light signal to the moon, wouldn't the button be pushed two seconds before the light reaches the moon? Didn't I just effect something at a speed faster than light?

It sounds like that would work, but your pole is not infinitely stiff, and your push travels through the pole at the speed of sound in that material, which is pretty fast, but still not faster than the speed of sound.

[GnomeFighter]

When we first dealt with electricity in school, the teacher explained that the electrons in a wire are just like ball bearings in a tube. If you push one in one side, another one will be pushed out the other side.

However, wouldn't this mean that I can make an effect travel at faster thanlight speed? Electricity would be infinitely fast, but it isn't.
The energy, or the push, moves at the speed of light. Think of the ball bearings. It may seem to you that the movement is instant, but only because it is so fast. There is a movement pulse that travels down the tube, compressing an expanding through each ball bearing.



But that problem even translates into atomic scale: Assumed I have a long pole that reaches all the way to the moon to a big button. When I push the pole here on earth, and send a light signal to the moon, wouldn't the button be pushed two seconds before the light reaches the moon? Didn't I just effect something at a speed faster than light?

In this case I think it would be the same with the compression wave moving along the stick. However, even if it is not only the data moves faster than light, not any object.I would email a physicist about that.

[Knaight]

You have to play the game.
You can't win the game.
You can't break even in the game.

I'd say this is obvious enough :smallsmile:

I favor:
You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't leave the game.

Then there is basic circuitry, almost all of which can be explained by plumbing.

[averagejoe]

In this case I think it would be the same with the compression wave moving along the stick. However, even if it is not only the data moves faster than light, not any object.I would email a physicist about that.

Nope, "data" can't travel faster than light according to currently accepted theory. This is important for phenomena like, say, a shadow moving across a screen. Say you have a movie projector which projects on a very big screen, and you moved your hand across the lens. The shadow that is projected on the screen would "move" faster than light - it would take the same time to move across the screen as your hand did to move in front of the lens, but it has much more distance to travel. However, this is fairly worthless - the points between which the shadow moved faster than the speed of light (that is, two points on the screen) can't use this to send signals to each other faster than light, and the shadow "travels" to the screen at the speed of light, since it is just an interruption of the movement of light particles. This is a fairly subtle concept, and I always feel like this sort of explaination doesn't do it justice. In fact, one might argue that giving such an explaination runs contrary to this thread's purpose.

As for the actual example, with the stick and the button, remember that no object is truly rigid. What would happen is your "push" would become a pressure wave that moves along the object at the speed of sound through that material. Realistically your "force" would probably dissipate to heat and such before the button got pushed, but even if not it would go more slowly than the speed of light. Matter is made out of atoms remember! Even the solidest surface is just the interactions of electrons moving insanely quickly. See my "fan blades" explaination above.

[Lappy9001]

"It was created by a scientist. And as we all know, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Ergo, a wizard did it" -Me :smalltongue:

[Ravens_cry]

I favor:
You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't leave the game.

A wonderfully concise explanation of thermodynamics.


Then there is basic circuitry, almost all of which can be explained by plumbing.
In fact, with certain kinds of "circuitry", it is plumbing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidics).

[Knaight]

In fact, with certain kinds of "circuitry", it is plumbing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidics).
I actually wasn't aware of that. I believe the sanctioned internet term is "mind = blown".

[Yora]

Nope, "data" can't travel faster than light according to currently accepted theory. This is important for phenomena like, say, a shadow moving across a screen. Say you have a movie projector which projects on a very big screen, and you moved your hand across the lens. The shadow that is projected on the screen would "move" faster than light - it would take the same time to move across the screen as your hand did to move in front of the lens, but it has much more distance to travel. However, this is fairly worthless - the points between which the shadow moved faster than the speed of light (that is, two points on the screen) can't use this to send signals to each other faster than light, and the shadow "travels" to the screen at the speed of light, since it is just an interruption of the movement of light particles.
How does the shadow move faster than light? If I move my hand in front of the light, all the light that has allready left the projector will still continue its trip to the screen and the visible shadow will appear on the screen with exactly the speed of light. When I remove my hand, the light that can now freely pass to the screen still needs to travel the distance at light speed, before the shadow on the screen disappears.


Matter is made out of atoms remember! Even the solidest surface is just the interactions of electrons moving insanely quickly. See my "fan blades" explaination above.
I think the important part is, that atoms are mostly made out of empty space. The particles don't touch directly but stick together because of magnetic bonds. (said in laymens terms.) And when I move an object, these spaces between the particles get compressed or stretched, with the next particle in the chain getting into its new position with some lag, which is the speed of light?

[Teddy]

How does the shadow move faster than light? If I move my hand in front of the light, all the light that has allready left the projector will still continue its trip to the screen and the visible shadow will appear on the screen with exactly the speed of light. When I remove my hand, the light that can now freely pass to the screen still needs to travel the distance at light speed, before the shadow on the screen disappears.

He's talking about the shadow as a percieved 2-dimensional object, not the (lack of) light. If you let a small object rotate very closely to the speed of light around a point that contains a light source, then it's shadow would seem to move faster than the speed of light when projected on a surface that's sufficiently far away. His point is, however, that point A and B which lies along the shadow's route can't use this to comunicate with eachother at a speed faster than light, because they can in no way influence the shadow that the object casts without manipulating the object itself, thus limiting communication to the speed of light.

[Weezer]

I think the important part is, that atoms are mostly made out of empty space. The particles don't touch directly but stick together because of magnetic bonds. (said in laymens terms.) And when I move an object, these spaces between the particles get compressed or stretched, with the next particle in the chain getting into its new position with some lag, which is the speed of light?

Actually the lag speed is related to the elasticity/stiffness of the material. It's this quality that determines the speed that compression waves move. Of course the speed of light sets an upper limit on this speed, but the vast majority of the time it is much lower than c.

[Yora]

He's talking about the shadow as a percieved 2-dimensional object, not the (lack of) light.
Now I understand what you meant. I've read about this before.

Like pointing a powerful laser to one spot on the moon and with a very small change of the angle the dot on the moon would jump to the other side pretty much instantly.

But what about the amount of light. If I stand on a lawn with a garden hose and turn around quickly, the point where the water hits the ground would move at a very fast speed. But at the same time, the line the point will make on the ground will be much smaller than if I turn around slowly, since less water comes out of the hose while I turn.
Now light doesn't gather where it lands but is instantly absorbed or reflected. But what would happen? Would the moving dot on the moon appear dimmer than when its motionless?

[Ravens_cry]

I actually wasn't aware of that. I believe the sanctioned internet term is "mind = blown".

Fluidics blew my mind when I first found out about it, an excellent example of the Turing completeness.
A computer doesn't care if it is using electrons, fluid ,gas or redstone.
While its speed will be affected, any calculation on one can be made on the other.

[Weezer]

Fluidics blew my mind when I first found out about it, an excellent example of the Turing completeness.
A computer doesn't care if it is using electrons, fluid ,gas or redstone.
While its speed will be affected, any calculation on one can be made on the other.

This XKCD (http://xkcd.com/505/)takes this to it's logical extreme

[Ravens_cry]

This XKCD (http://xkcd.com/505/)takes this to it's logical extreme
I've read that, an excellent example of xkcd in a nutshell: Profound and thought provoking as well as delightfully silly at the same time.

[Teddy]

Now I understand what you meant. I've read about this before.

Like pointing a powerful laser to one spot on the moon and with a very small change of the angle the dot on the moon would jump to the other side pretty much instantly.

Yes.


But what about the amount of light. If I stand on a lawn with a garden hose and turn around quickly, the point where the water hits the ground would move at a very fast speed. But at the same time, the line the point will make on the ground will be much smaller than if I turn around slowly, since less water comes out of the hose while I turn.
Now light doesn't gather where it lands but is instantly absorbed or reflected. But what would happen? Would the moving dot on the moon appear dimmer than when its motionless?

No, the dot wouldn't become dimmer, but it would move faster. if you study any single point along the laser's path, you'd find that it'd be illuminated for a shorter time if you turn the laser at a faster speed, but it would appear just as bright.

It's the same with the hose. The amount of water that comes out of it in any given time interval is constant, but the exponation time for any given point along the line you make will be shorter if you turn faster, meaning that less water hit just that spot, and thus won't flow out as far, making the line thinner in the process.

[averagejoe]

I actually wasn't aware of that. I believe the sanctioned internet term is "mind = blown".

My mind is right there with yours.


I think the important part is, that atoms are mostly made out of empty space. The particles don't touch directly but stick together because of magnetic bonds. (said in laymens terms.) And when I move an object, these spaces between the particles get compressed or stretched, with the next particle in the chain getting into its new position with some lag, which is the speed of light?

Magnetic forces aren't actually hugely significant compared to the other forces that keep atoms together, but yes, that's essentially the right idea. There's also the fact that there's space between atoms.


But what about the amount of light. If I stand on a lawn with a garden hose and turn around quickly, the point where the water hits the ground would move at a very fast speed. But at the same time, the line the point will make on the ground will be much smaller than if I turn around slowly, since less water comes out of the hose while I turn.
Now light doesn't gather where it lands but is instantly absorbed or reflected. But what would happen? Would the moving dot on the moon appear dimmer than when its motionless?

I'm going to answer that with a, "It depends." The quality of "Dimness" actually does come from seeing fewer photons of light per area, and in theory you could have a light appear dimmer by moving it across a surface in the way you describe, but it depends on a lot of other things too. So, and keep in mind I'm basically guessing, it is theoretically possible, but there would be significant engineering concerns in actually making it work to a measurable degree.

[Tirian]

I favor:
You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't leave the game.


Needs moar Michael Jackson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YrinCQOxB0).



Then there is basic circuitry, almost all of which can be explained by plumbing.

If you can explain transistors with plumbing, I would be full of gratefulness.

[averagejoe]

If you can explain transistors with plumbing, I would be full of gratefulness.

Or just make them with plumbing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidics#Amplifier)

[Tirian]

Or just make them with plumbing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidics#Amplifier)

AHA! All this time, I've been misunderstanding what was being amplified. The transistor, while still amazing, is much less magically impossible than it seemed to me.

Okay everyone, today is International averagejoe Day. Spread the word!

[averagejoe]

AHA! All this time, I've been misunderstanding what was being amplified. The transistor, while still amazing, is much less magically impossible than it seemed to me.

Okay everyone, today is International averagejoe Day. Spread the word!

Actually I just read the article that Ravens_cry linked to. :smalltongue:

[Knaight]

Actually I just read the article that Ravens_cry linked to. :smalltongue:
Today is International Fluidics day then.

[cattoy]

I favor:
You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't leave the game.

Then there is basic circuitry, almost all of which can be explained by plumbing.

You can't win.
You can't break even.
and you can't get out of the game.

-Michael Jackson