search results matching tag: supernova

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (43)     Sift Talk (2)     Blogs (0)     Comments (59)   

I’m 100% Serious

newtboy says...

Unbelievably *terrible idea.

Never in a million years, and it shouldn’t happen, and wouldn’t help. Trump would show for the money and do nothing but bash Obama as a foreigner Muslim illegitimate “so called president” (who won two more presidential elections than Trump), would blame all his failures on either Obama or Biden, and would interrupt Obama’s every thoughtful point with rambling, self congratulatory nonsense. Trump has no interest in unification unless that means everyone unify behind him and he’s emperor. Trump is a divider, his entire platform is “blame the libs for everything wrong, take credit for anything that’s working, even if he opposed it”. He has nothing to offer but hateful lies.

Trump is incapable of having a nice discussion. If the other people speaking aren’t just praising him, he thinks they should just shut up and let him praise himself. It’s an impossibility for him to sit and have a productive conversation with a non sycophant, especially one as intelligent and knowledgeable as Obama that would outshine him like a supernova beside a black hole of ignorance. He wouldn’t make it 5 minutes before his first temper tantrum.

Obama doesn’t need the money, he’s a real, successful, happy, self made multi millionaire...no doubt he would donate any payments to the needy ….Trump does need the money, he’s an unhappy failed businessman and broke trust fund baby with dozens of criminal court cases pending and hundreds of millions in unpaid bills...no doubt he would pocket every penny...and Trump is considered by most Americans as personally responsible for the worst attack on Washington since 1812 as an attempted coup....and the idea is to give him another high profile platform from which he can try again to make his baseless and highly divisive case that he's not a loser, like he does at his shrinking rallies and random paid events at his properties.

If you want to unify America, you need to remove Trump from the equation, he divided America more than slavery. Division is his only real accomplishment….how does this guy think he’s the one to help unify?

It's like saying Jim Jones or David Koresh should be publicly debating the Dalai Lama to unify people around religion in positive ways, they both just had that one little slip up and their remaining people still believe in them for the most part.

'Was that disruptive?': congressman "blasts" Trump official

psycop says...

I think it kind of depends on what he means by 16,000x louder? If he's talking in decibels, then it's already a logarithmic scale, so 16,000x times higher output amplitude is about 84db? higher (which is no joke) not quite sure on the maths there. 16,000db higher is basically impossible unless we are talking a supernova or something.

That puts it at over 204db which is apparently the same volume as the Saturn V launch. Which would definitely kill you, but maybe not 8000 times over... I mean once really does the trick.

If he's talking about the energy input, it seems that's a different thing according to wikipedia, and would result in an increase of 42db, which puts it at 162db, which is about the same as a 12-guage.

He may also mean that the sound is that loud at source, but as the guy was probably trying to say as he was squirming, the distance matters. The sound energy will be dissipated over a 2D shell and so I'd guess it drops off proportional to distance squared plus some extra for loss as it goes.

All of that is in air, it's quite a different matter in the water as I think the force is transmitted more efficiently.

Either way, every 10 seconds for months? No thanks.

This Is How You Quit Your Job

The Birth of Helium Atoms

iaui says...

Neat! I remember seeing one of these at a science fair when I was a wee tyke. If he'd put the radioactive metal in line with the plane of the alcohol vapour we'd have seen a full-length supernova of particles in the bubble chamber.

Stacked Ball Drop

siftbot says...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Stacked, sizes, Balls, Drop, basketball, various, different, supernova, gravity, balanced' to 'Stacked, sizes, Balls, Drop, basketball, supernova, gravity, balanced, physics girl' - edited by eric3579

How Cricket Balls Are Made (1956)

Key & Peele: Funky Nonsense

deathcow says...

Got a pocket full of funky with a peppermint twist
She’s a cool, shifty mama blastin’ off on the flip
iridescent pork belly galactic super train
mama sister playground with a straw daddy cane
(Uh-Huh)

Gotta get it up
(Hey)
Gotta get it on
(Ah)
Gotta get it down
(Hey)
Gotta make it strong

Got that quick dip crayon earthquake jet pack on a bun
Locomotive supernova Spanish Harlem sun (yeah)
Slick crawfish solar blast with a phosphorescent brain
Who’s that mama squat town? Deep fried Detroit soda train


Gotta shake it up
Gotta move it in
Gotta put it down
Gotta make it swim

Nebulatic comets sanitation disease
quick play tornado rip and tickle beef sneeze
Ships planets justice cannons, cables and trees
Doctor’s office penguin shillings, railroads and peas
I said crippled donkey mel brooks book train bats on my knees

penicillin trapdoor laser currency beans

He say penicillin trapdoor laser currency beans

Bill Nye: Creationism Is Just Wrong!

shinyblurry says...

Doing a simple calculation of the area of a disk 10,000 light-years vs. 100,000 light-years (but 50,000 light-years in radius) yields an area of our galaxy about 25 times larger that we can NOT survey for supernova remnants vs. what we can.

That's incorrect. We have radio telescope images of the galactic center which is 26000 light years away. Second, the estimates are based not on what we can't see, but the percentage that we can see and then averaging for the rest.

The next part is that supernova remnants don’t just form out of nothing, they form from the explosions of dying stars. The stars that live and die the fastest still take about 10,000,000 years before they “go nova” and release a cloud of debris that will later become what we observe. That’s pretty much the minimum time a star can “live” during the current epoch of the Universe. Only after that will we see a supernova form.

Actually, O3 type stars can go nova in about 3 million years time, according to that model.

So, add that to our estimate of the age by the number of stars and we have 10,250,000 years, or 10.25 million years for the age of the galaxy. You should note at this point I’ve been saying “age of the galaxy.” That’s because this would only be used to date our galaxy, not the Universe as a whole. So you need to add in the time for galaxy formation … which is still a number that’s hotly debated, but no respected astronomer will say happens instantaneously.

You can't argue that the galaxy is that old because the stars are that old, when that is the thing in dispute. The argument is intending to prove the stars couldn't be that old in the first place, thus proving the galaxy is not that old.

BUT, there’s another complication to this situation which shows why this apparent “method” for dating our galaxy isn’t valid: Supernova remnants fade! They only are visible for a few tens of thousands of years. What does this mean for our estimate of 1,000,000 years for the age of our galaxy? Well, by the time the “oldest” supernova is fading, we starting to observe supernova 200! We should only expect to see in the neighborhood of a few hundred supernova remnants in our vicinity, regardless of how old our galaxy actually is."

According to

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/snrfab.html

"Obviously, Davies never went SNR hunting in a galactic environment, but I have. For one thing, an SNR becomes essentially invisible, even in a non-crowded environment, within 1,000,000 year tops, maybe less, depending on the specifics of the supernova and environment. But in practice they become essentially invisible long before."

So, they can be visible up to 1,000,000 years, yet we don't find even one at the maximum range of expansion that we are able to detect (or anywhere near it). We should be seeing the entire range of the spectrum, but the biggest we can find (according to their model), is 20000 years old. So this evidence doesn't hold up and the point remains.

zombieater said:

Old hat.

Bill Nye: Creationism Is Just Wrong!

curiousity says...

Sigh... Since I'm sitting here at work and lacking the ability to be constructive on my focused tasks, I'll use this as a distraction and save some other people time. BTW, I do enjoy how Occams Razor could only bring proof to the point you are trying to argue... Of course it couldn't be that you are wrong, could it?

Rebuttal: The number of supernova remnants observed

Missing Supernova Remnants as Evidence of a Young Universe?

Supernovae, Supernova Remnants and Young Earth Creationism FAQ

Bill Nye: Creationism Is Just Wrong!

zombieater says...

Old hat.

"We cannot observe supernova remnants across our entire galaxy – basically nebulae. Supernova events we can see across the visible universe, but the actual gaseous remnants are much fainter because they are more diffuse. Because of dust and gas in the way, we cannot see all the objects in our own Galaxy. Probably the farthest we can see into the galaxy is maybe to a distance of 10,000 light-years. The galaxy is about 100,000 light-years across. Doing a simple calculation of the area of a disk 10,000 light-years vs. 100,000 light-years (but 50,000 light-years in radius) yields an area of our galaxy about 25 times larger that we can NOT survey for supernova remnants vs. what we can.

So now, we need to multiply our 10,000 years by 25, giving us 250,000 years for the age of the galaxy.

The next part is that supernova remnants don’t just form out of nothing, they form from the explosions of dying stars. The stars that live and die the fastest still take about 10,000,000 years before they “go nova” and release a cloud of debris that will later become what we observe. That’s pretty much the minimum time a star can “live” during the current epoch of the Universe. Only after that will we see a supernova form.

So, add that to our estimate of the age by the number of stars and we have 10,250,000 years, or 10.25 million years for the age of the galaxy. You should note at this point I’ve been saying “age of the galaxy.” That’s because this would only be used to date our galaxy, not the Universe as a whole. So you need to add in the time for galaxy formation … which is still a number that’s hotly debated, but no respected astronomer will say happens instantaneously.

BUT, there’s another complication to this situation which shows why this apparent “method” for dating our galaxy isn’t valid: Supernova remnants fade! They only are visible for a few tens of thousands of years. What does this mean for our estimate of 1,000,000 years for the age of our galaxy? Well, by the time the “oldest” supernova is fading, we starting to observe supernova 200! We should only expect to see in the neighborhood of a few hundred supernova remnants in our vicinity, regardless of how old our galaxy actually is."

Bill Nye: Creationism Is Just Wrong!

shinyblurry says...

Alright, you asked for it, so you got it.

I'm not going to argue against Bill Nye and try to discredit the evidence of radiometric dating. Instead, I will present some compelling evidence for a young Earth/Universe. I'll start off with this one:

1. Supernovas

When stars explode they leave behind SNRs, or 'supernova remnants'. The remnant is a radially expanding cloud of gas and debris, and based on the average expansion speed, we can determine based on that speed how long it would take for an SNR to reach certain expansion diameters.

In 30 years it is predicted the cloud would be about 13 light years across. In 125,000 years it would be 250 light years and in 6 million years it would be 1500 light years across. 6 million years of expansion is about the limit our current instrumentation will allow us to observe; after that it would be too diluted to observe.

Looking around the galaxy, we should be seeing SNRs of many different sizes, from 6 million years of expansion to 5 million to 1 million to a few hundred thousand years, down to recent times of the supernovas we have observed in our recent history. We should be seeing a whole spectrum of sizes, but we don't. In fact, there is no SNR that we have observed which exceeds around 7 thousand years of expansion. Occams razor again demands that we use the simplest explanation, which is that these stars went supernova very recently and are not billions of years old.

Further, we should be observing a certain quantity of SNRs in the galaxy. Based on the average of around 4 per year, in only a billion years we should expect to see around 7200 of them. On the other side, if it has only been 7000 years we should expect to see 125 of them. What we actually observe is around 200 SNRs which is a lot closer to 7000 years than 1 billion.. Occams razor says the simplest explanation is that the galaxy is young.

ChaosEngine said:

And now it's just a matter of time before either @bobknight33 or the @shinyblurry come in and try to defend creationism.

Oh, did I just accelerate that? Heh heh.... ding ding, round x + 1 bitches... time to get schooled again

MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

Judy Jetson Gets Around

Trancecoach says...

In the *future, teen girls don't have the same hangups around sex as they have today... or, at least, they used to have, when I was growing up... or had only when I was interested...

I'm changing my name to Sammy Supernova

Audiance Member Reacts Like A Boss

Measuring the Universe

Community: Abed's cameo in a genuine Cougar Town episode



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon