I would say degenerate matter in a neutron star is a better conductor of sound. It’s densely packed and doesn’t have to deal with pesky things like electromagnetism slowing down the sound wave.
Sinclair is ok. He wrote a book called “lifespan” that’s pretty well regarded. Also look up Aubrey de Grey. His book, Ending Aging, is also good. He himself is problematic though. If you’re interested in this sort of tech, also look up the SENS foundation (I donate there).
Fair warning, most everything focuses on increasing healthspan, not lifespan. I.e. Being able to be active and alert at 90. There’s no way for tech to guarantee an increase in lifespan within our lives, because we would need a few generations of evidence to guarantee that. So at most you’ll get partial evidence and animal models. But you gotta start somewhere. And if we’re lucky, we’ll stop be around for the ‘proof’ in 200 years :-)
Wouldn’t healthspan and lifespan go hand in hand tho? Like… I can’t imagine a 99 year old going for a marathon today and just dropping dead tomorrow due to old age. Wouldn’t an increased healthspan also include an increased lifespan?
Probably? I think the difference is the reasearch is going into meaningful things, such that would keep you healthy rather than just alive. I think it’s just a matter of semantics though.
Those two graphs have different scales on the y-axis. One is Irradiance per nanometer of wavelength, and one is Irradiance per terahertz of frequency. Both graph’s y-axis are called “spectral irradiance”, despite being different things. This causes most of the distortion between the two graphs, and can even change the location of the absolute maximum.
The graphs’ x-axis have different units. This causes some distortion too, but wouldn’t change the absolute maximum. It would help if they used a log scale in both cases, because wavelength and frequency are inversely related, so then the graphs could just be horizontally flipped.
So, look at the top graph (by wavelength), and see how much power is in that 1000-2000nm area. It’s still a lot, just spread out over a large area. It’s the same amount of power in the lower graph (by frequency) shoved into the much smaller area from 150THz to 300THz. Since it’s in a smaller area on the lower graph, it has more power-per-unit-of-x-axis.
Thank you. I understand most of your comment, and it makes sense. However, I still don’t understand how the change of units in the y-axis would cause a different maximum. It seems to me that the y-axis for both use the same formula with their respective x-axes: W/m^2/x.
It’s because the wavelength and frequency are inversely related. When the wavelength is low and the frequency is high, the wavelength is also moving very slowly, compared to the frequency which is moving very quickly. Since the frequency is changing so quickly, the power-per-unit-frequency is lower at higher frequencies, and higher at lower frequencies (at least relative to the power-per-unit-wavelength).
Let me try and use a car analogy:
You’re driving home through Wisconsin, and you live on the border between Wisconsin and Minnesota. The mile markers on the road decrease as you go, reaching 0 at the state border, where you happen to live.
The cows along the highway are evenly distributed, so if you count the cows as you drive, but restart your count every mile when you see the mile marker, you will reach the same number of cows every mile.
Now, the frequency is inversely related to the mile number. The frequency in this case refers to your children in the back seat asking, “Are we there yet?” They know damn well how far it is to home, because they can just look at the mile markers. Regardless, their rate of asking increases as the mile markers go down. When you’re at mile marker 100, they ask once every 10 minutes. When you’re at mile marker 1, they ask 10 times per minute.
If you instead look at the number of cows between “Are we there yet?” asks, then you will find that the cows-per-ask is much different from the cows-per-mile. At high distances (low frequencies), the cows-per-ask is very high, while at low distances (high frequencies), the cows-per-ask is very low.
Now, the article is looking at power-per-unit-frequency, so you’d actually have to measure the rate in change of how often the kids ask “Are we there yet?” And that would give you a little different result. You might need calculus to correctly calculate the derivative of the number of asks. But hopefully this illustrates that you can get different results, by using a different per-thing to measure your value.
This covers it all well, but I think a simple explanation is that although “W/m^2/x” looks the same on the axes, it’s not the same. f=1/w, so one axis is W/m^2/f and one is W/m^2*f. The article makes a big deal out of the differences as if the x axis were the only difference, but they’re just very different things being plotted.
For example: You eat too many potato chips and that’s bad for your health. Now you don’t go cold turkey on the snacks, but buy carrots instead and eat those.
How? You do it often enough. Do it for half a year, every other day and it’ll become the new habit.
The short answer is yes, you can trade one addiction for another and no, it doesn’t necessarily cause spiraling.
The long answer is yes, with a great deal of patience, you can condition yourself into just about anything. Breaking from an addictive personality is far from easy and requires a deep understanding of yourself and your triggers. Introspection and therapy aplenty. There can be relapses or worse if you try to hack together a treatment plan for yourself. Support groups can be helpful and leaning on friends and family, when possible, can make or break you.
While reading text your brain will bulk recognise what it interprets as common phrases and sentence fragments to build an internal lexical model to then interpret. After a while as you get more proficient at reading this becomes a mostly subconscious operation, which then hands concepts from what it’s read to your front of mind to further deal with.
If you blend contradictory common phrases together your brain will bounce through the phrase/fragment recognition part fine. Then it will trip over the lexical parsing of them, suddenly requiring a lot more mental horsepower to figure out what’s going on. Basically your front of mind task will be interrupted by your subconscious task basically going “what the hell is this!? I can’t make sense of this, you have a look” as it dumps a jumble of words on you.
For example, has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? That phrase broke the internet about 10 years ago and it’s a pretty good example.
G is the gravitational constant, the m’s are the masses in question, and F is the force generated. The r is radius from the center of one body to the other; that is, height. If it didn’t decrease, orbits wouldn’t exist the same way and astronomers would have laughed Newton out of the room.
I could give you a link if you really want, but it’s the Newtonian gravity equation, so it’s probably just going to be “Gravity” on Wikipedia.
G is also fixed in GR, although it’s not guaranteed to manifest in a neat relation like that in every situation because spacetime curvature has a lot of components at every point, and they interact super nonlinearly.
Not your fault, but that is the most annoying calculator I've ever encountered, as someone who uses the metric system.
I mean, what kind of maniac describes the amount of oxygen produced in pounds?
Also are those US gallons or UK gallons?
The increments used for the circumference of the tree is also incredibly weird, 7 and 3/4 inches? Really? Clearly converted metric to imperial. Why not include a slider to switch to metric, if that's what you've based your numbers on?
Probably because the writer is not reporting her own original research. She is reporting work done by others, they often used metric, and any metric units were converted to common US units because the article was intended for a general American audience.
And why isn’t there a button to restore the original metric units? Same reason why when a newspaper reports a translated quote from Macron or Putin or Xi, there is usually no button to restore the original French or Russian or Chinese: the editor decided that it wasn’t necessary for the intended audience.
It’s true. And christmas trees would be fine if they’d end up in long lasting buildings and wouldn’t need a lot of fertilizer which usually is made from oil.
If it generates “I ate” and the next word can be “a” or “an”, then it will just generate one or the other based on how often they appear after “I ate”. It hasn’t decided by this point what it has eaten. After it has generated the next token, for example “I ate an”, then its next token is now limited to food items that fit the grammatical structure of this sentence so far. Now it can decide: did I eat an apple? An orange? An awesome steak? etc
askscience
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.