Ask a physicist anything. (2)

[pgp_protector]

Was that picture taken in (or near) Bethlehem?

That & I don't see any Shepherds

But Merry Christmas All, May The Lord Bless you on this Day
Even if He Wasn't Born on the 25th Of December, He Was Born .

 

[Chesterton]

But cold air and snow aren't that different around Bethlehem than anywhere else.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

But cold air and snow aren't that different around Bethlehem than anywhere else.

They are if they're non-existent .

Doubt you'd get that in Bethlehem!

 

[Chesterton]

They are if they're non-existent .

Doubt you'd get that in Bethlehem!

Well I'm confused as to your point then. If it doesn't do that in Bethlehem, then why couldn't shepherds have been at work in December?

 

[catzrfluffy]

Snow causes disruptions across country - Israel News, Ynetnews

"Snow, Ice and Christmas often go together, although why it should is a bit strange! There is no snow or ice in the Christmas story told in the Bible. However, snow does fall in Israel. Bethlehem and Jerusalem are on a range of hills that go north to south between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan valley. The top of these hills are about 1600 ft (500 m) high. The hills often have very cold weather from November to April and snow can often fall. So, although the Bible story may not have snow in it, Jesus may well have seen some snow in his life!"
Snow and Ice -- Christmas Customs and Traditions -- whychristmas?com

​

 

[parsa]

Can I second Merlin's question..

how were the blocks moved to build
Coral Castle?


And another thing. Regardless of when Jesus was born, how would you know of the climate in a region 2000 years ago?

Can you just assume it should be similar?

 

[Doveaman]

Regardless of when Jesus was born, how would you know of the climate in a region 2000 years ago?

Can you just assume it should be similar?

That's a good question. Perhaps there was global warming back then.

 

[catzrfluffy]

What is the bitterest substance known?

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

What is the bitterest substance known?

As said on wikipedia...

"Denatonium, usually available as denatonium benzoate (under trade names such as Bitrex or Aversion) and as denatonium saccharide, is the most bitter chemical compound known. It was discovered in 1958 during research on local anesthetics by Macfarlan Smith of Edinburgh, Scotland, and registered under the trademark Bitrex.[1] Dilutions of as little as 10 ppm are unbearably bitter to most humans. Denatonium salts are usually colorless and odorless solids but are often traded as solutions. They are used as aversive agents to prevent accidental ingestion. Denatonium is used in denatured alcohol,[2] antifreeze, nail biting preventions, respirator mask fit-testing, animal repellents, liquid soaps, and shampoos. It is not known to pose any long-term health risks."

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What is the bitterest substance known?

As said on wikipedia...

"Denatonium, usually available as denatonium benzoate (under trade names such as Bitrex or Aversion) and as denatonium saccharide, is the most bitter chemical compound known. It was discovered in 1958 during research on local anesthetics by Macfarlan Smith of Edinburgh, Scotland, and registered under the trademark Bitrex.[1] Dilutions of as little as 10 ppm are unbearably bitter to most humans. Denatonium salts are usually colorless and odorless solids but are often traded as solutions. They are used as aversive agents to prevent accidental ingestion. Denatonium is used in denatured alcohol,[2] antifreeze, nail biting preventions, respirator mask fit-testing, animal repellents, liquid soaps, and shampoos. It is not known to pose any long-term health risks."

Beat me too it!

 

[Michael]

Can I second Merlin's question..

how were the blocks moved to build
Coral Castle?

Coral Castle

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Can I second Merlin's question..

how were the blocks moved to build
Coral Castle?

Aliens. Or magic. Or magic aliens.

And another thing. Regardless of when Jesus was born, how would you know of the climate in a region 2000 years ago?

Archaeological evidence, mainly. Sediment laid down during that time would tell us the climate, would it not?

Can you just assume it should be similar?

You could, but you'd need some sort of justification. How do we know the climate was similar? How do we know it was different?

As I said, I'm just going on what I read a long time ago. I could be completely wrong.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That's a good question. Perhaps there was global warming back then.

Almost certainly. But it probably wasn't the anthropogenic warming we have today.

Though saying that, the mass breeding of cattle and planting of rice would have raised methane above its 'natural' levels. That would have had an affect, though how big is hard to say.

 

[Doveaman]

Almost certainly. But it probably wasn't the anthropogenic warming we have today.

Though saying that, the mass breeding of cattle and planting of rice would have raised methane above its 'natural' levels. That would have had an affect, though how big is hard to say.

That being said, is it humanly possible to avoid anthropogenic warming?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That being said, is it humanly possible to avoid anthropogenic warming?

Yes: the elimination of the human species would, eventually, reverse any anthropogenic warming. But in all seriousness, there are countless ways to slow down, halt, and even reverse its effects. Perhaps the most prudent is to cut back on emissions which cause it in the first place.

 

[Chesterton]

If humans aren't unique or special, why is "anthropogenic" a legitimate word? Why distinguish?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If humans aren't unique or special, why is "anthropogenic" a legitimate word? Why distinguish?

Because 'anthropogenic' means 'caused by humans'. While we're not unique or special in any particularly grand way, we are still entities that can influence this or that.

And interesting note: plants completely changed the Earth's atmosphere in a way that we couldn't begin to emulate.

 

[Chesterton]

Because 'anthropogenic' means 'caused by humans'. While we're not unique or special in any particularly grand way, we are still entities that can influence this or that.

And interesting note: plants completely changed the Earth's atmosphere in a way that we couldn't begin to emulate.

Right. Cow flatulence, and plants, and pretty much everything influences the biosphere. That doesn't answer the question - why distinguish activity which is human?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Right. Cow flatulence, and plants, and pretty much everything influences the biosphere. That doesn't answer the question - why distinguish activity which is human?

Because it's where the crux of the debate lies: is climate change caused by humans, or by something else? If we can answer that question, we can focus our efforts on either changing human society and infrastructure (if the former), or on something more drastic (if the latter, such as solar activity).

As it happens, the scientific consensus is that modern climate change is anthropogenic - that is, it is in a large way influenced by human activities. Thus, to combat climate change, it is prudent to change our activities.

 

[Chesterton]

Thus, to combat climate change, it is prudent to change our activities.

If humans are as natural as plants and cows, then whatever activity we may engage in is also as natural as whatever activity plants and cows engage in. So then why should we "combat" the resulting natural change in climate? If the death of life on the earth is the natural result of nature, then that's as it should be.

If Nature is all there is, and is dictacting our actions, what grounds do humans have to deem themselves "special" enough to combat Nature? You're really saying we should engage in combat against ourselves; a Christian idea actually.