"As celestial bodies are always moving, no one has ever been in the same place twice" Is this true or false?
13 answers
True. Celestial bodies, such as planets, stars, and galaxies, are constantly moving and in motion. Therefore, no person has ever been in the exact same place twice due to the continuous motion of these celestial objects.
How much damage to the economy would be caused if everyone living in the USA withdrawed all their money from their bank accounts at the same time?
A complete withdrawal of all money from bank accounts in the USA by everyone simultaneously would have a catastrophic impact on the economy. This scenario is commonly referred to as a "bank run" or a "mass withdrawal."
Banks do not hold all depositor funds in cash; they rely on the fractional reserve system, where only a portion of deposits is kept in reserve. Banks use the rest of the money to provide loans, invest, and earn profits. If everyone were to withdraw all their money at once, banks would not have enough cash to meet the demand, leading to a liquidity crisis.
Consequences of such a scenario could include:
1. Bank failures: Many banks would be unable to provide cash to all depositors, resulting in widespread bank failures.
2. Economic collapse: The banking system is a critical part of the financial infrastructure. A complete collapse of the banking sector would lead to a severe economic downturn.
3. Loss of confidence: The faith in the banking system and the stability of the economy would be significantly undermined, causing panic and anxiety among the public.
4. Disruption of businesses: Businesses rely on bank financing, credit lines, and transactions for their operations. With a complete withdrawal of funds, businesses would struggle to operate, leading to layoffs, closures, and a decrease in economic activity.
5. Government intervention: To prevent a complete economic collapse, the government would likely step in and take emergency measures such as implementing capital controls, freezing assets, or enacting legislation to mitigate the crisis.
It's important to note that the likelihood of such an event happening is extremely low as it goes against rational economic behavior. Nevertheless, even a rumor or a partial bank run can have dire consequences.
Banks do not hold all depositor funds in cash; they rely on the fractional reserve system, where only a portion of deposits is kept in reserve. Banks use the rest of the money to provide loans, invest, and earn profits. If everyone were to withdraw all their money at once, banks would not have enough cash to meet the demand, leading to a liquidity crisis.
Consequences of such a scenario could include:
1. Bank failures: Many banks would be unable to provide cash to all depositors, resulting in widespread bank failures.
2. Economic collapse: The banking system is a critical part of the financial infrastructure. A complete collapse of the banking sector would lead to a severe economic downturn.
3. Loss of confidence: The faith in the banking system and the stability of the economy would be significantly undermined, causing panic and anxiety among the public.
4. Disruption of businesses: Businesses rely on bank financing, credit lines, and transactions for their operations. With a complete withdrawal of funds, businesses would struggle to operate, leading to layoffs, closures, and a decrease in economic activity.
5. Government intervention: To prevent a complete economic collapse, the government would likely step in and take emergency measures such as implementing capital controls, freezing assets, or enacting legislation to mitigate the crisis.
It's important to note that the likelihood of such an event happening is extremely low as it goes against rational economic behavior. Nevertheless, even a rumor or a partial bank run can have dire consequences.
"That's wrong. The earth is on an elyptical orbit, meaning that it indeed speeds up and slows down during the course of a year. The reason you cannot feel it is just that the change is incredibly slow.
The Math (not from me, took it from a comment of u/TheBlueWizardo):
"Speed of Earth at perihelion, when it's the fastest, is 30.29 km/s
Speed of Earth at aphelion, when it moves the slowest, is 29.29 km/s
It takes half a year to move between the two (that is 15768000 seconds)
the formula for acceleration is simple
a = [v(1) - v(0)] / t
So we just plug in the numbers aaand:
a = (30.29 - 29.29) / 15768000 = 0.00000006 km/s^2
That is the same acceleration as a car stopping from 50km/h (31mph) over the course of 64 hours." Is this true or false?
The Math (not from me, took it from a comment of u/TheBlueWizardo):
"Speed of Earth at perihelion, when it's the fastest, is 30.29 km/s
Speed of Earth at aphelion, when it moves the slowest, is 29.29 km/s
It takes half a year to move between the two (that is 15768000 seconds)
the formula for acceleration is simple
a = [v(1) - v(0)] / t
So we just plug in the numbers aaand:
a = (30.29 - 29.29) / 15768000 = 0.00000006 km/s^2
That is the same acceleration as a car stopping from 50km/h (31mph) over the course of 64 hours." Is this true or false?
The information provided about Earth's elliptical orbit and the change in its speed throughout the year is true. The Earth does indeed follow an elliptical path around the Sun, and its orbital velocity is faster when it is closer to the Sun (perihelion) and slower when it is farther away (aphelion).
The calculation using the acceleration formula and the numbers provided seems to be correct as well. It shows that the acceleration resulting from the change in Earth's speed over half a year is approximately 0.00000006 km/s^2. This is equivalent to the deceleration of a car stopping from 50 km/h (31 mph) over the course of 64 hours.
Therefore, the statement is true. The change in Earth's speed due to its elliptical orbit is slow and not perceptible in daily life.
The calculation using the acceleration formula and the numbers provided seems to be correct as well. It shows that the acceleration resulting from the change in Earth's speed over half a year is approximately 0.00000006 km/s^2. This is equivalent to the deceleration of a car stopping from 50 km/h (31 mph) over the course of 64 hours.
Therefore, the statement is true. The change in Earth's speed due to its elliptical orbit is slow and not perceptible in daily life.
"everyone is commenting that because we are in an inertial space, we can't feel the force/change of speed. but I wanted to take on what the man really said in the video.
it is true that the earth changes speed but you can't compare it to hitting the breaks on your car not only because of the inertial reference frame but also because of the time during which you are decelerating:
the earth does change speed over one rotation, it takes half a year for the earth to go from apohelio to perihelion. at apohelio, the (center of the) earth is 152.098*10^9 m away from the sun, at perihelion, that distance is 147.098*10^9 m.
we can use this formula to get the speed of the earth :
sqrt (mu * (2/r - 1/a))
where mu is a constant depending on the sun (mu = 1.327*10^20 m^3/s^2)
a is the means of the earth's orbit radius (a = 1.496*10^11m)
and r the distance between the earth and the sun.
now at apohelio, the speed is 30.285 km/s
at perihelion, this speed is reduced to 29.289 km/s
this is great speed and 1Km/s is huge but this slow down takes place during half a year.
on average, each day the earth slows down by 5.45m/s each second, the speed of the earth should change on average by 6.3*10^-5 m/s or or 19 *10^-5 km/s.
you can't feel if your car is slowing by 10^-4 km/s.
to be noted. the earth's acceleration is not constant but I'm too lazy to do proper science. I just wanted to do some quick one because the comments weren't satisfying.
TL:DR : one year is more than enough to not fell the change of speed" Is this true or false?
it is true that the earth changes speed but you can't compare it to hitting the breaks on your car not only because of the inertial reference frame but also because of the time during which you are decelerating:
the earth does change speed over one rotation, it takes half a year for the earth to go from apohelio to perihelion. at apohelio, the (center of the) earth is 152.098*10^9 m away from the sun, at perihelion, that distance is 147.098*10^9 m.
we can use this formula to get the speed of the earth :
sqrt (mu * (2/r - 1/a))
where mu is a constant depending on the sun (mu = 1.327*10^20 m^3/s^2)
a is the means of the earth's orbit radius (a = 1.496*10^11m)
and r the distance between the earth and the sun.
now at apohelio, the speed is 30.285 km/s
at perihelion, this speed is reduced to 29.289 km/s
this is great speed and 1Km/s is huge but this slow down takes place during half a year.
on average, each day the earth slows down by 5.45m/s each second, the speed of the earth should change on average by 6.3*10^-5 m/s or or 19 *10^-5 km/s.
you can't feel if your car is slowing by 10^-4 km/s.
to be noted. the earth's acceleration is not constant but I'm too lazy to do proper science. I just wanted to do some quick one because the comments weren't satisfying.
TL:DR : one year is more than enough to not fell the change of speed" Is this true or false?
The explanation provided in the comment seems to be accurate and reinforces the notion that the change in the Earth's speed due to its elliptical orbit is not perceptible in daily life. The calculations and comparisons made in the comment suggest that while the change in speed of the Earth is significant in terms of velocity, it occurs gradually over an extended period of time.
The comment states that on average, each day the Earth slows down by 5.45 m/s, or in terms of speed, by 19 * 10^-5 km/s. The argument made is that such a small change in speed, occurring over the course of a year, is not noticeable to humans. Comparing it to the sensation of a car decelerating at a similar rate further emphasizes this point.
Therefore, the statement is true. The Earth's change in speed over its orbit is minimal on a daily scale, and the gradual nature of the change makes it imperceptible to our senses.
The comment states that on average, each day the Earth slows down by 5.45 m/s, or in terms of speed, by 19 * 10^-5 km/s. The argument made is that such a small change in speed, occurring over the course of a year, is not noticeable to humans. Comparing it to the sensation of a car decelerating at a similar rate further emphasizes this point.
Therefore, the statement is true. The Earth's change in speed over its orbit is minimal on a daily scale, and the gradual nature of the change makes it imperceptible to our senses.
"If all 8 billion human beings were ground into mincemeat, the resulting ball of flesh would be just under 1 km in diameter." True or false?
False. The statement is not true.
The average weight of a human being is around 62 kilograms. Assuming that all 8 billion human beings have an average weight, the total mass would be approximately 496 billion kilograms.
If we were to grind all the human beings into mincemeat, it would result in a complex mixture of soft tissue, bones, and other organic components. The density and composition of this mixture would vary, but it would not form a solid ball of flesh.
Moreover, estimating the size of such a ball would require consideration of factors such as packing density, air gaps, and the preservation or loss of moisture. It is not feasible to accurately determine the diameter of such a hypothetical ball, but it certainly would not be close to 1 kilometer.
The average weight of a human being is around 62 kilograms. Assuming that all 8 billion human beings have an average weight, the total mass would be approximately 496 billion kilograms.
If we were to grind all the human beings into mincemeat, it would result in a complex mixture of soft tissue, bones, and other organic components. The density and composition of this mixture would vary, but it would not form a solid ball of flesh.
Moreover, estimating the size of such a ball would require consideration of factors such as packing density, air gaps, and the preservation or loss of moisture. It is not feasible to accurately determine the diameter of such a hypothetical ball, but it certainly would not be close to 1 kilometer.
"Yeah, checks out.
Worth noting that the original image is a bit older and had 7.88 billion humans as a baseline.
Total human body mass: 7,880,000,000 * 62 kg = 488,560,000,000 kg
Total blended human volume: 488,560,000,000 kg / 985 kg/m3 = 496,000,000 m3
Volume of a sphere: V = 4/3 * pi * r3
Radius of a sphere: r = (V/pi * 3/4)1/3
Radius of the blended human sphere: (496,000,000 m3/pi * 3/4)1/3 =~ 491.06 m
Diameter of the blended human sphere: 2 * 491.06 m = 982.12 m
Using 8 billion barely makes a difference though:
(8,000,000,000 * 62 kg / 985 kg/m3 / pi * 3/4)1/3 * 2 = 987.07 m
As for the picture, Central Park is around 800 m wide, so the sphere sticking out a bit on the sides looks about right." True or False?
Worth noting that the original image is a bit older and had 7.88 billion humans as a baseline.
Total human body mass: 7,880,000,000 * 62 kg = 488,560,000,000 kg
Total blended human volume: 488,560,000,000 kg / 985 kg/m3 = 496,000,000 m3
Volume of a sphere: V = 4/3 * pi * r3
Radius of a sphere: r = (V/pi * 3/4)1/3
Radius of the blended human sphere: (496,000,000 m3/pi * 3/4)1/3 =~ 491.06 m
Diameter of the blended human sphere: 2 * 491.06 m = 982.12 m
Using 8 billion barely makes a difference though:
(8,000,000,000 * 62 kg / 985 kg/m3 / pi * 3/4)1/3 * 2 = 987.07 m
As for the picture, Central Park is around 800 m wide, so the sphere sticking out a bit on the sides looks about right." True or False?
The calculations provided in the comment appear to be accurate based on the given assumptions.
Using the original baseline of 7.88 billion humans and assuming an average body mass of 62 kg, the total blended human volume would be approximately 496,000,000 cubic meters. The formula for the volume of a sphere is correctly applied, resulting in a radius of approximately 491.06 meters and a diameter of approximately 982.12 meters.
Even when considering 8 billion humans, the slight difference in the total volume does not significantly affect the resulting calculations. The diameter of the blended human sphere in this case is estimated to be approximately 987.07 meters, which aligns with the information provided.
The comparison to Central Park's width also appears to be reasonable, as it gives a visual reference to help understand the size of the hypothetical sphere.
Therefore, the statement is true. The provided calculations and analysis demonstrate the estimated diameter of the hypothetical sphere formed if all human beings were ground into mincemeat.
Using the original baseline of 7.88 billion humans and assuming an average body mass of 62 kg, the total blended human volume would be approximately 496,000,000 cubic meters. The formula for the volume of a sphere is correctly applied, resulting in a radius of approximately 491.06 meters and a diameter of approximately 982.12 meters.
Even when considering 8 billion humans, the slight difference in the total volume does not significantly affect the resulting calculations. The diameter of the blended human sphere in this case is estimated to be approximately 987.07 meters, which aligns with the information provided.
The comparison to Central Park's width also appears to be reasonable, as it gives a visual reference to help understand the size of the hypothetical sphere.
Therefore, the statement is true. The provided calculations and analysis demonstrate the estimated diameter of the hypothetical sphere formed if all human beings were ground into mincemeat.
"Am I correct in thinking a single Dorito sized piece of neutron star suddenly appearing on earth would cause a mass extinction event? I know it’s bad just not sure how bad" Would a mass extinction event happen?
No, a single Dorito-sized piece of a neutron star suddenly appearing on Earth would not cause a mass extinction event.
Neutron stars are incredibly dense objects, typically composed of tightly packed neutrons. They are remnants of massive stars that have undergone a supernova explosion. Neutron stars have immense gravitational forces but are also relatively small in size, usually around 10 to 20 kilometers in diameter.
If a piece of a neutron star, even as dense as it is, were to suddenly appear on Earth, its gravitational effects would be limited to its immediate vicinity. Its small size and mass would not be enough to trigger a mass extinction event on a global scale.
However, it is important to note that the addition of such dense matter on Earth could have catastrophic local effects. The extreme gravitational forces would likely cause significant disruptions in the surrounding environment, potentially leading to devastation and even loss of human life in the vicinity of the impact.
So while the impact of a Dorito-sized piece of a neutron star would be significant in its immediate vicinity, it would not result in a global mass extinction event.
Neutron stars are incredibly dense objects, typically composed of tightly packed neutrons. They are remnants of massive stars that have undergone a supernova explosion. Neutron stars have immense gravitational forces but are also relatively small in size, usually around 10 to 20 kilometers in diameter.
If a piece of a neutron star, even as dense as it is, were to suddenly appear on Earth, its gravitational effects would be limited to its immediate vicinity. Its small size and mass would not be enough to trigger a mass extinction event on a global scale.
However, it is important to note that the addition of such dense matter on Earth could have catastrophic local effects. The extreme gravitational forces would likely cause significant disruptions in the surrounding environment, potentially leading to devastation and even loss of human life in the vicinity of the impact.
So while the impact of a Dorito-sized piece of a neutron star would be significant in its immediate vicinity, it would not result in a global mass extinction event.
1 answer