Science desk
< November 18	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 19

Are African Americans ever included in the study of collectivist and individualist cultures?

moved to Humanities Desk Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

So far, I've read academic journal articles that compare American immigrant families from developing countries and white European-American families. But I think there is something missing. Has there been any discussions on where African Americans fit in the collectivist-individualist spectrum? (By "African-Americans", I mean African Americans whose ancestors have been through the 1800s, not modern-day African immigrants.) 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General relativity

Partly answered and partly incomprehensible. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(Deleting repeat question...we already answered this question, above.) SteveBaker (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't an answer because no one was a professor of physics, except one who didn't answered.

Because you when you go hiking on mountains you see that your moon has 5 years more ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.194.81.188 (talk) 19 November 2014‎

If we consider the answer of Dragons flight what do you do with the last hour ? What happens to A if B has one hour more ?

The time they will meet, they will be no more synchronized.

Please show this work to someone who is a professor in physics. Partly answered and partly incomprehensible, what does that mean ? Are you a professor in physics ?

Easily answered ? You just said before incomprehensible.

Spherics of Earth vis-à-vis other heavenly bodies

Greetings!

I've been reading some of the works of astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, and I've been struck by an insight that he made concerning the nearly spherical nature of our world. Namely, he states that the relief features on globes are grossly exaggerated, and that while Earth does not quite constitute a perfect sphere, it comes arbitrarily close to approximating one.

Indeed, Prof. Tyson goes on to say that if one ran a gigantic finger around the planet—in a great circle taking in both Mount Everest and Challenger Deep—it would feel as smooth as a cue ball. Looking at it another way, if someone shrank Earth down to the size of a billiard ball, then it would remain a measly ±4 mils (101.6 μm) out of round. (For the record, the Billiard Congress of America allows an engineering tolerance for billiard balls of ±5 mils [127.0 μm].)

I cannot help but wonder, though. Is our world unique—or nearly so—in the solar system, in this manner? To wit, although Mars has only one ninth the mass of Earth, its highest point, Olympus Mons, dwarfs Everest by more than 2.5:1 (relative to the geoid or mean, sea level). Likewise, numerous other mountains, canyons, and ravines, as well as solar flares, spots, and prominences make other parts of our star system seem "bumpier" and less smooth than our home.

Thus, my question: If the sun, planets, satellites, kuiper-belt objects, et al somehow became shrunken to the size of billiard balls (all other things remaining equal), then would Earth seem the smoothest, most spherical globe in the group? Would all the others have more "lumps," protrusions, and roughness than it?

Thank You. Pine (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I already know that ice almost wholly covers Europa; nevertheless, would its depths/geological features seem rougher than Earth's relative to its geoid?

It's my impression that Mars is a bit 'bumpier' than Earth - it has a smaller radius and a larger biggest mountain - but it's all still within the same order of magnitude. The same could be said of any broadly spherical planet or moon. The ones which are very 'lumpy' are also not spherical because they have insufficient gravity. They're all also pretty small. To be honest, the Earth's biggest deviation from being a sphere is that it is actually an oblate spheroid - it's about 200 miles shorter through the poles than through the equator. That's a difference about an order of magnitude greater than the Everest/Challenger discrepancy. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a totally different context, you might like to read about spherics on Earth and on other heavenly bodies... in radio-jargon, "spheric" refers to an burst of atmospheric electromagnetic noise, typically caused by a lightning blast somewhere very far away. Nimur (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) As a rule, the stronger is the surface gravity of the planet, the lower would be the tallest possible mountain on it. Mars gravity is about 3 times weaker than Earth's, and the tallest mountains on Mars are about 3 times taller than the tallest mountains on Earth. The reason for this is simple: the rock at the "root" of the mountain has limited strength. That is, there is only a limited amount of stress (produced by the weight of the mountain above it) that the rock can resist without undergoing an elasto-plastic transition (see e.g. Plasticity (physics)). The taller is the mountain the larger is the stress. The weaker is the gravity the smaller is the stress. Small rocky objects such as comet cores and smaller asteroids are not massive enough to even assume spherical shape. Very massive rocky objects, by contrast, would be extremely smooth. Earth non-smoothness is about 8.8 km (tallest mountain over sea level) / 6400 km (typical radius) = 0.0014, about 0.14%. Dr Dima (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, are there any recent figures estimating the tallest that a mountain on Earth has ever been? Even a range like the Himalayas is eroded by snow and wind, but ... what happens if a mountain projects up even higher, right out of the atmosphere, so high that no appreciable erosion can occur in its upper reaches? Wnt (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On another point, terrain (mountains, ocean trenches, etc.) is not the only reason for the Earth to deviate from a sphere. There's also the equatorial bulge caused by the Earth's rotation. It is better to say that terrain consists of deviations from an oblate spheroid. (When other, much smaller effects are taken into account, the term for the idealized shape, as mentioned above, is the geoid.) However, the maximum amounts of deviation due to the equatorial bulge and due to terrain are similar, so the original poster's general remarks are correct. According to Wikipedia, Mt. Everest is 8,848 m high, while various measurements put the Challenger Deep at about 10,900 m; the difference is about 19.75 km. And the Earth's equatorial and polar radii are 6,378.1 and 6,356.8 km, a difference of 21.3 km. Looking at other planets, the gas giant planets rotate fast and would all have much larger equatorial bulges than Earth, though they have no visible solid surface so we can't say anything about terrain; the other three terrestrial planets rotate slower than Earth and are smaller, so they would have smaller equatorial bulges but, as noted, they can have higher terrain. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To get the closest to spherical possible planet you would want no rotation and for it to be covered with an ocean. Eliminate moons and place it far from it's star to prevent tides (the ocean would need to be methane perhaps, to keep it liquid at that distance). You'd still get some convection to redistribute the uneven heating from it's star. Perhaps putting it at the Lagrange point between two stars in a binary system so that it gets equal heating on each side might reduce that. I'm thinking if you had a planet like this it could be within a meter of a perfect sphere. StuRat (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Smooth" is a very wrong term. Sandpaper is very even but the opposite of smooth. Smoothness is the result of polishing and in that regard most other planets we know are more polished and thus smoother than our beloved rough Earth. --Kharon (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]