« on: Today at 12:30:14 »
"The rich are different from us"
"Yes. They have more money."
"Yes. They have more money."
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Quote from: alancalverd on Today at 15:46:07It shouldn't have - it's their definition!
That sentence will have triggered a “caution” response in numerate readers, and a howl of derision from anyone who has travelled in a crowded train.
I suspect that just generated a sigh from any passing epidemiologists.
Forgot to mention: When Pliny The Elder arrived in Giza one of the things which astounded him was that not a single tailing (stone chips) could be found nearby nor were any chisel-marks present on the stones of the Great Pyramid of Giza.Suggests it was saw-cut, or maybe the sharp edges had been eroded by 2500 years of sandstorms, which certainly defaced the Sphinx.
With the tremendous amount of stone involved the size of the quarry would be hundreds of feet in depth, miles in circumference.Or, to be precise, the volume of the pyramid. Archimedes Principle was true long before Archimedes was born!
The question is not only how the Egyptians could have transported the stones but how they got them out of the depths of the quarry using rope.Contracted the work to the Neolithic Britons, who had already been doing it for about 3000 years.
And where is this huge quarry?Wherever the stone came from - ask a geologist.
They had to have been manufactured in situ.Never a good idea. There's no evidence of major cutting and forming at Stonehenge or any other megalith. Why carry rubbish from A to B and back again, or schlep your saws from one building site to another? Unless you want raw stone for a rockery, every professional quarry supplies material cut to size. The clever bit is writing the specification.
Let's travel to the Valley of The Kings where numerous labyrinths were cut into the rock with precision. Some were hundreds of feet in length. What happened to the mountains of debris? I am also reminded of a letter in The London Times where a reader fascinated by Howard Carter's "discovery" wondered how the Egyptians lighted the "tomb".If you have to tunnel through hard rock in 2500 BC, you will find a ready market for your waste as road dressing, flood defences, small building blocks, or ship's ballast. Spoil heaps are a consequence of mining (particularly soft rock, for coal) rather than tunneling, where the target material is a lot more valuable than the waste. In a well-integrated command economy you can plan your roads and flood defences alongside your tunneling activities. Pity we can't always do so nowadays, though I believe that Crossrail spoil has made a few football pitches on marshland (but sadly not enough to replace those turned into car parks for the London Olympics).
Well, since you are sticking with your idea that the wind can slow down the rotation of the Earth in the long run... you.Please don't ascribe irrelevant ideas to me.
(Hint; it's not atmospheric drag; there isn't a 1000 MPH wind running round the equator)Now who's being silly? "Wind" is air moving over the ground. The surface air at the equator is moving 1000 mph faster than that at the poles, but neither mass is moving very fast over the ground. Now if we take a sample of equatorial air and adiabatically move it 1 degree north, it will be travelling over the ground at about 11 mph. The same volume of air moving 1 degree southward from a northern latitude will be travelling on the opposite direction. That is the origin of geostrophic wind: the north-south movement of air masses is due to temperature differential (cold dense air sinks below warmer air, so the surface drift is from pole to equator), and the east-west movement is due to coriolis force.
Absolute zero is the lowest temperature possible........
How do we know this if Absolute Zero Is unattainable ?
The spinning Earth has enormous rotational KE.
But it can't transfer that energy without slowing itself down.
And it can't slow itself down without an external torque.
Now, the geothermal energy, and the tides might make small contributions but they really don''t do "weather".
So, the fundamental question for you to answer Alan, is this.
Are you abandoning the conservation of energy, or abandoning the conservation of angular momentum?
Not a lot. Solar heating is responsible for the slow, gross convective movement of large air masses towards and away from the poles, but the formation of cyclones is powered by the coriolis displacement of those masses. The wind in the Southern Ocean is almost entirely due to the earth's spin as there is almost no land to produce differential heating, which is why albatrosses live the way they do, reliant on a constant westerly to keep them airborne for years at a time.gnoring second-order effects such as thermal winds, the source of kinetic energy is the rotational energy of the planet, so it must eventually stop spinning.And there was me thinking that the Sun powered the wind.
Eventually, if we keep reproducing and finding cures for disease, we will run out of potable water (i.e. rain) and start killing each other for access to the habitable bit between high tide and desert.If it all hangs together nicely,
Are we likely to find that this situation is related to human relationships?