It's tidally locked to earth. Earth isn't tidally locked to it. Happens slowly due to gravity and differential mass. Relatively stable satellites end up tidally locked given the time. Pretty sure lack of water/liquids/atmosphere hastens the process.
Mercury orbits the sun every 88 earth days. It spins on its axis every 59 earth days, relative to an outside observer (sidereal day.) That makes the solar day (from sunrise to sunrise) 179 earth days long.
No. I rounded off the numbers. A Mercury day is exactly 2 Mercury years. Which is why it’s “in resonance”. That means that gravity will speed up or slow down the rotation to keep the ratio stable over time.
Honestly as a kid I thought I had opened a wormhole in my bedroom. I was sleeping on the floor on an inflatable mattress which had an attached bedsheet that didn’t come off. During the night I turned on my side, flipped the bed, it hooked onto the wardrobe door handle and I was suspended upside down diagonally.
I’m convinced bedding defies physics at this point.
No idea how I did it, all I remember is waking up very confused. It was an air mattress that didn’t inflate properly and I had a habit of sleeping on the edge which I’m guessing is how I did it?
You will find a nice, well actually not that nice, headstone or hopefully just dust somewhere if the burn me. Like the earth, my path had been set already early, doesn’t matter the changes it’s too late for any meaningful effect on the path destination.
I was skeptical thank you for the confirmation. Especially because the time it takes to lock depends on the relative size of the bodies. Our moon being exceptionally big relatively to our planet, if it has locked, then relatively smaller moons should have locked long before.
Btw, the locking is not perfect, there’s a little oscillation of the moon called libration, so we can actually see about 59% of it over the years.
Pedantically speaking, yes. At least some small moons do freely rotate. But they are all very small and very far from their parent planet. If you were on the surface, you wouldn’t see details.
Mars has two small moons close to it, but neither rotate relative to the surface. They’re also really small and zip about super fast so they’re cool for other reasons.
Alien species discovers earth … “Holy shit Kang! These little bipeds are delicious! And all you have to do is support whatever community or belief they follow and they’ll go anywhere you tell them”
Sure but anthropogenic climate change is an issue of greenhouse gas accumulation rather than a lack of oxygen, no? Rather than there being too many people literally just using too much oxygen.
Photosynthesis by ocean-dwelling cyanobacteria produces around 1/3rd of oxygen IIRC. CO2 causes ocean acidification which reduces their ability to grow, thus limiting O2 production. When it is hotter, plants ability to store carbon and photosynthesise goes down. So not right now, but O2 will be cause for concern in the future if we don’t turn away from fossil fuels.
Thanks, I’d never really considered the impacts climate change would have on oxygen. I looked into this a bit and it seems to also be the case that rising ocean temperatures also reduce the capacity of the water to hold dissolved oxygen, which causes a nasty feedback loop.
So while there’s not an immediate risk of atmospheric oxygen concentration dropping by any significant amount, there is a real concern of oxygen concentrations in the oceans dropping pretty drastically. This then accelerates climate change even further and could have longer term effects on atmospheric levels as well.
Hmm, interesting indeed! I get what you’re trying to say, but I would also tend to believe that it’s still the same animal? If not that, then wouldn’t the caterpillar cease to exist when it metamorphosised into something else?
“Caterpillar” is not a species. It’s a stage of some animals’ life cycle. It means 99% of catepillars die before they become butterflies or moths or whatever
I wish it were 100% in tomato hornworms. Seeing that 99% of them die before turning into moths makes me think all of the surviving ones just hang out in my garden.
Even if we planted a trillion trees it would only have a tiny affect on climate change. Same with killing large amounts of people. The only way we combat climate change effectively is getting off fossil fuels.
I feel like this argument is way too imprecise, to the point of being basically untrue. That’s probably based on the average emissions or something like that, but people are not the same and “emission responsibility” is wildly different.
Imagine killing 34k exploited African people, the world’s climate won’t even notice that. On the other hand, killing 34k middle class Americans or Europeans would probably be a little more effective, but still won’t fix anything. Now, killing 34k high-profile megacorp executives would definitely be much more effective, but would also collapse some economies, leading to various climate unfriendly events (like riots, war and shit).
But the simplest empirical evidence is: COVID killed 6 million people and the climate is still shit.
Source: I made it the fuck up, I’m talking out of my ass
Hemp/ Cannibis/ Marijuana are the best crops for carbon capture. Not only do they store 80%+ of the carbon in their roots, one acre of hemp will capture 10 times the amount of carbon as one acre of trees, provided the hemp is harvested at least once a year, and the roots are stored at the bottom of the ocean or something. You can harvest that acre up to 4 times a year in some parts of the world, and hemp can be used for food, fuel, clothing, rope, paper, shelter, concrete, and a ton of other stuff.
The investments of just 125 billionaires emit 393 million tonnes of CO2e each year – the equivalent of France – at an individual annual average that is a million times higher than someone in the bottom 90 percent of humanity.
That is to say, if you multiply the emissions of the gasoline sold by ExxonMobil by whatever percentage of ExxonMobile that’s in Bill Gate’s portfolio, you get an absolutely ridiculous emissions number.
But that seems to assume that if it weren’t for those dastardly billionaires investing in oil companies, we’d all be living in 10-minute cities with incredible subways connected by high speed rail, powered entirely by renewables, and heated by geothermal heat pumps. And I honestly don’t beleive that.
Considering that the oil companies bought up the trolley companies, and shut them down, I would argue that without those particular billionaires, we would still be building walkable cities the way we did for centuries, until they decided that cars should be essential, but a luxury at the same time.
Do they have any investments in the oil sectors? And Musk is absolutely trying to keep cars and kill mass transit. He admitted it. Bezos definitely has invested in making our cities the unwalkable hell scape that the oil companies started.
science_memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.