snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > We've Got Mail

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04 February 2007, 08:15 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,606
Blow Your Top People in serious need of math and science lessons

Comment: This is in regard to the contestants who have missed the first question on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" In particular the Frenchman who missed the question regarding which object cirlces the earth.

There a actually 2 correct answers. The obvious answer is the moon. But mars also circles the earth by virtue of the fact that it's orbit around the sun lies outside of earth's orbit around the sun.

Of the nine plants generally recognized as comprising the solar system, Pluto has the distinction of circling the sun, the other planets and all their moons.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04 February 2007, 11:26 PM
inkrose115's Avatar
inkrose115 inkrose115 is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,059
Default

But... I thought poor Pluto wasn't a planet anymore?

Edit: Now I'm curious. Out of all the mail y'all get, I wonder what percentage of it is this... amusing.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05 February 2007, 12:09 AM
Troodon Troodon is offline
 
Join Date: 06 January 2004
Location: Waltham, MA
Posts: 8,077
Default

I think I see what the letter is trying to say - the orbits of the outer planets are so large relative to the orbit of the earth that they appear to circle the earth. Of course, what is happening is that they are circling the sun but the earth is just always very close to the sun compared to them.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05 February 2007, 02:06 AM
hambubba's Avatar
hambubba hambubba is offline
 
Join Date: 30 June 2000
Location: Gonzales, LA
Posts: 10,715
Default

I think it's the big circles that give it away.

Really, those planets are like balls on a hula hoop, it's obvious to anyone who has ever opened a science book.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05 February 2007, 02:07 AM
One-Fang's Avatar
One-Fang One-Fang is offline
 
 
Join Date: 02 November 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 1,610
Default

Nah, I get what they mean. It's not the answer WWTBAM was looking for, but I can sort of buy it. If an object travels in a great big circle, can we say that it "circles" anything inside that circle? This is what they're getting at. But since the Earth is not the centre of its circling plane, maybe you can't say that?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05 February 2007, 02:19 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,606
Glasses

Quote:
Originally Posted by One-Fang View Post
If an object travels in a great big circle, can we say that it "circles" anything inside that circle?
You could, but the question asked which body orbits (or "revolves around") the Earth. Mars does not "orbit" the Earth -- it orbits the sun, traversing a path concentric with Earth's.

- snopes
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05 February 2007, 11:27 AM
KingDavid8 KingDavid8 is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 4,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
Comment: This is in regard to the contestants who have missed the first question on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" In particular the Frenchman who missed the question regarding which object cirlces the earth.

There a actually 2 correct answers. The obvious answer is the moon. But mars also circles the earth by virtue of the fact that it's orbit around the sun lies outside of earth's orbit around the sun.

Of the nine plants generally recognized as comprising the solar system, Pluto has the distinction of circling the sun, the other planets and all their moons.
Actually, by that logic, there are six correct answers (if we're counting Pluto), since all planets but Mercury and Venus and Earth itself have an orbit that lies outside the earth's orbit.

But I think he's wrong on the last point. Pluto's orbit isn't always outside of Neptune's orbit. It's occasionally closer to the sun than Neptune. Or am I also in need of a science lesson?

David
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05 February 2007, 01:37 PM
Traveler in Black
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Strictly speaking, don't the Earth and the Moon both revolve around their barycenter?

There's a logic problem that asks: if a squirrel is going around a tree, and an observer is circling the tree at a rate such that the tree is always interposed between the observer and the squirrel, does the observer go around the squirrel or not?

There's also a classic SF story that extends this principle to a stranded astronaut on an asteroid and the hostile ship that's searching for him, but I can't seem to recall the title or the author.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05 February 2007, 03:08 PM
Dog Friendly
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Traveler in Black View Post

There's also a classic SF story that extends this principle to a stranded astronaut on an asteroid and the hostile ship that's searching for him, but I can't seem to recall the title or the author.
I can't recall the name of the story, but the author is Arthur C. Clarke. I think it's in the collection "A Fall of Moondust, and other stories".

Dog ("My mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it") Friendly
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05 February 2007, 03:24 PM
Eddylizard's Avatar
Eddylizard Eddylizard is offline
 
Join Date: 15 June 2006
Location: Tonbridge, Kent, UK
Posts: 17,857
Default

Doesn't Earth have two moons though, plus a possible third one under dispute?

Cruithne
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07 February 2007, 08:20 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,606
Glasses

Comment: I heard that we could easily (more or less) stop global warming
the same way the ice age(s) came about centuries ago when volcanos
erupted. I'm no scientist but wouldn't spewing dust or something like
volcanno smoke "cool" the earth down like it did before?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07 February 2007, 10:24 AM
Drainfluid
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jeremy Clarkson has a better solution

In summary: since the main problem with global warming is rising sea levels, we should just make a 75 mile long hosepipe, stick one end in the sea and the other in space, where the vacuum will suck the sea levels lower.

Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07 February 2007, 10:56 AM
KingDavid8 KingDavid8 is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 4,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drainfluid View Post
Jeremy Clarkson has a better solution

In summary: since the main problem with global warming is rising sea levels, we should just make a 75 mile long hosepipe, stick one end in the sea and the other in space, where the vacuum will suck the sea levels lower.

Problem solved.
That's so crazy it just might work!

Or not.

David
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07 February 2007, 11:57 AM
stalker stalker is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2006
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 2,020
Ponder

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drainfluid View Post
Jeremy Clarkson has a better solution

In summary: since the main problem with global warming is rising sea levels, we should just make a 75 mile long hosepipe, stick one end in the sea and the other in space, where the vacuum will suck the sea levels lower.

Problem solved.
Quote:
Of course there is a small problem with this idea. Gravity means the hosepipe will keep falling back to the ground again
Erm...and the water. So all you'd gain is the water that is shooting up the pipe and that which would be constantly falling as rain. Which I'm guessing won't be that much unless the pipe is really, really, really wide.

It could be used as a renewable energy source though. Kind of an upside-down hydroelectric power plant.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07 February 2007, 12:04 PM
Troberg Troberg is offline
 
 
Join Date: 04 November 2005
Location: Borlänge, Sweden
Posts: 11,580
Default

Quote:
In summary: since the main problem with global warming is rising sea levels, we should just make a 75 mile long hosepipe, stick one end in the sea and the other in space, where the vacuum will suck the sea levels lower.
That would work nicely.

Provided, of course, that the vacuum of space isn't more than 17 m or so higher than the ocean.

To fix that, we just need to find some way to blast away the atmospere. And to reduce gravity so that the ocean don't just fall back down again.

Nah, there is probably some easier way.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07 February 2007, 12:39 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is online now
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 22,693
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
[A tube of water extedning into space] would work nicely.

Provided, of course, that the vacuum of space isn't more than 17 m or so higher than the ocean.
Actually, water at sea level would only rise about ten meters in the column. Unfortunately, sea water would rapidly evaporate into the vacuum causing it be less than perfect, eventually filling the column with water vapor and other gases. (Water evaporates in a vacuum.) Water barometers need to have something to prevent the water from evaporating, such as antifreeze.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07 February 2007, 12:52 PM
Troberg Troberg is offline
 
 
Join Date: 04 November 2005
Location: Borlänge, Sweden
Posts: 11,580
Default

Quote:
Actually, water at sea level would only rise about ten meters in the column.
Correct. That's what I get for relying on memory instead of doing the math.

I'd like to see the pipe strong enough to hold a column of water that reached into space. I don't even think it could be built, it would collapse under its own weight, even without the extreme water pressure.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07 February 2007, 02:10 PM
stalker stalker is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2006
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 2,020
Teacher

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
(Water evaporates in a vacuum.)
I'm guessing you know and were just short-handing but it's really just that its boiling point is lowered. Water will freeze in a vacuum if the temperature is low enough (e.g. comets).
Of course, in this context it works as the temperature 10 metres above the ocean is unlikely to be cold enough to freeze water in a vacuum or even keep it as a liquid.

Last edited by stalker; 07 February 2007 at 02:24 PM. Reason: grammar
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 13 February 2007, 05:57 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,606
Icon97

Comment: I heard years ago that a baby fell through a second or third
story window without breaking the glass and the "reason" for this is that
glass like all solids is made of molecules moving very quickly, and that
sometimes all those molecules will line up to make it so that other solids
can pass through them, but only temoprarily. How true is this? i don't
even remmber where I heard it, but it seems like maybe 20 years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 13 February 2007, 10:29 AM
Tisiphone Tisiphone is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2006
Location: Durham, UK
Posts: 340
Default

I remember Aule's brother talking about this, saying that since particles are always moving then technically if you kept hitting the table with your hand eventually your hand would pass through it. Of course in reality this would never happen, but if you're bored and near a table or a window...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.