Answer My Science Question

[guitarchick]

Question: Would the Coriolis force result in drunks falling more often to the right in the Northern Hemisphere and more often to the left in the Southern Hemisphere? Or does the force only effect objects in motion that do not touch the ground.

Just wondering everyones ideas on this ;)

[RicardoObviouso]

drunks have the ability to alter their path through coordination and gravity, and you have to travel a fairly vast distance in order for the effect to take place.

[saturnine]

i think it would have more to do with the individual's center of gravity and balance.

[ToadMan]

Coriolis only applies for fluids I think. Also the effect is only apparent over huge distances. For example, your toilet doesn't flush the way it does because of coriolis.

[guitarchick]

Thats too bad. I think it would make life a little more interesting if it actually did affect someone drunk. Plus those who lived at the equator would just walk straight even if intoxicated ;). However, my text says that it affects the accuracy of navy ships missiles and even affects a baseball games? Sounds a little over the top. But I guess when accuracy is important, it could affect an object in a very small way even over a small distance.

[ToadMan]

Ships are in a fluid, and traveling over large distances. Missiles are in air, which acts like a fluid in some ways. They also travel great distances. I can't see the baseball thing being true... I'm going to do some math.

 

---

 

Ok, so here you have it.

 

Assumptions:

The earth is a sphere (yes, I know it is an oval), with a radius of 6571km.

If we split the earth vertically (pole to pole) then we get a circle. For any point on that circle the velocity of that point is proportional to it's position along the arc towards the poles, where the equator has a velocity of 465.1m/s, and the poles have a velocity of 0. If we take just the equator up, then this is a cosine function.

A baseball leaves the bat at 35.9m/s (80.4mph)

My baseball is going over the fence, so it covers 76.2m

The baseball experiences no friction losses

My hypothetical baseball diamond has home plate on the equator and the ball is hit going straight north.

 

Given the above, the earth is spinning, and the baseball is considered to still have 100% of it's inertia from the moment it leaves the ground (is thrown). This means that in an absolute reference frame it appears to be going east at 465.1m/s

The fence at 76.2m is moving 7.61x10-6 the speed of home plate, or 465.096 m/s

In the reference frame of the baseball, the earth appears to be moving 0.004 m/s to the west.

So for the baseball it takes 2.1s to clear the fence, which means that the earth appears to move 0.008m. For the person watching this would appear to be to the east (because the baseball is, at the fence, moving faster to the east than the earth).

 

So the math says that this is about 1cm of distance... I can't really see how that would effect a baseball game in any significant manner...

Edited September 13, 2011 by ToadMan

[saturnine]

i don't come here for math. shut your whore mouth.

[ToadMan]

I'd be worried about that if you brought anything to the table.

[Moonlight_Graham]

math fight!

[sodamntired]

For each breath that you take, how many of the air molecules would also been breathed by the patron saint of Physics, Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727)during his life time, the atmosphere is about 8 km high, and the molecules in the air each occupy a space representing a little cubic box about 3.33*10^-9 m along a side, the earths radius is 6..38*10^6. make any reasonable assumptions for any data needed.

 

a) 6 b) 6*10^3 c) 6*10^6 d) 6*10^9 e) 6*10^12

 

 

answer that Math nerds. ;)

[ToadMan]

It's not really worth it. Also, there is no such thing as an "air molecule"... I mean, air is a combinations of mostly nitrogen and oxygen. That being said, there are a whole ton of assumptions you would need and few of them can really be quantified. The resulting answer really has no value.

 

If your intention was to be multiple choice, I would just go with the lowest number.

[Prometheon]

The best estimate for the overall mass of the universe is 3.14*10^54 kg

The average weight of an adult male in the United States is about 86 kg

 

That means that the average person is only .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000027388535% of the universe.

 

To give you a sense of scale, your body is made up of atoms which are far too small to see without highly sophisticated measurement equipment. The mass of atoms is measured in AMU (atomic mass units) which are equivalent to about 1.66053886e-27 kg. Again assuming an average mass of 86 kg, that means that a single proton (1AMU) is .0000000000000000000000000000193085914% of your body

 

So comparing these two numbers, we get the following equation (conveniently formatted for Google calculator if you're interested): (1.93085914

Edited September 15, 2011 by Prometheon

[Crusader]

You're all wrong. 42 is the answer.

 

BSc's to prove it.

[guitarchick]

Okay you crazy math sluts. Heres another one for you that I have to write a report on something really lame.

The question is, does the human population directly contribute to "global warming" aka climate change, by just breathing.

I think this is complete crap but I need some good ideas from your sexy math brainz.

[Lauren]

no.

 

 

 

 

45678

[ToadMan]

Actually that's an interesting question.

 

What you would need to do is estimate the volume of O^2 converted to CO^2 as a result of humans breathing. I would balance that against how much CO^2 the existing forest cover is capable of removing. That would give a pretty good idea of if the situation is positive or negative feedback. Note that there is a built in assumption that CO^2 causes warming... and as we know, only 98% of scientists actually believe that, so it's far from concrete ;)

[guitarchick]

Good idea !

Unfortunately I cannot find the planets carbon budget which I would assume would be in the trillions of tons. I fugred that would be a better number to compare it to since the ocean is also a carbon sink.

[ToadMan]

Yeah, that makes it a tough one. Basically I was suggesting analyzing the first derivative not the actual volumes. It's not important how much CO^2 is in the environment, all you need to really argue is that the amount is increasing at a rate greater than it is decreasing. Then by logic you can assert that CO^2 caused warming will result. Basically you are saying that it doesn't matter how big the bucket is, if the hole in the bottom doesn't drain faster than the tap fills, then the bucket overflows. That might make the problem even more interesting, because you can argue that human carbon velocity is directly proportional to population, and in some magic world, independent of the carbon removal rate. Then you can basically assert a human population ceiling.