you don’t, most of the time is not needed. if it is, a sencond lighter flush with the brush thing will take care of everything that is still there. with a controlled flush you just let some water run.
Woah, cool video! I think this video deserves its own post. I just need to figure out which scientific community it is most relevant to … Physics? Epidemiology? Hmmm 🤔
Just think about all those public restrooms with like 8 toilets in a small area, all of which have no lids (not like anyone would put them down anyway) and use those super high pressure flushing mechanisms!
I think someone urgently needs to come up with one of these solutions:
The foot-operated lid;
The toilet with flush and suction;
The Jedi throne (a Jedi-style toilet lid activated by hand movements) and lastly
The Terminator (a time-activated flames of hell) solution. The time-activated mechanism locks the toilet door after the user leaves and burns the entire compartment at solar flare temperatures.
Jim’s a clever guy. We could even seek inspiration in some trash cans that have embraced the pedal idea. Can you believe we’re in the 21st century, surround by ai systems, risking extinction for various reasons, and unable to solve the toilet seat conundrum?
I seem to recall that Mythbusters episode proving the exact opposite. They showed that fecal matter definitely gets sprayed all over the bathroom when the lid is up when flushed.
When you say zoom in, what you are actually asking is what if the wall was a light year away, and you’re building the delayed choice version of the experiment, details here …m.wikipedia.org/…/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser
But basically, the universe knows, and you can’t worm your way around it.if you detect which slit the photons flow through, then you lose the interference pattern.
A measurement device is necessarily local: if it’s “zooming in” from a light year away, it’s using transmitted particles to observe—and those particles are traveling (and entangled) with the particles you’re trying to observe.
If the measurement device were a light year away and were precise enough to “zoom in” and see which slit the electrons went through, what would happen on the final screen?
That level of precision implies technological advancement, that would result with far better equipment to perform the test and measure the results, providing they would be still needed.
I know it sounds like an attempt to brush the question off, but it’s Spherical Cow and/or Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword territory. 😉
First, though, your premise is a bit off. Zooming in still wouldn’t change the speed of light or change how fast the photons take to get from point A to your zoom lens. Zooming doesn’t give you a time or distance shortcut - all zooming does is decrease the angle of view of whatever you are pointied at. The only thing that matters in the double slit experiment is whether you observe them enroute or if you observe the screen after impact. If the screen were between you and the photon sources and you zoomed in, the photons would still hit the screen first and the photons you observe through the lens would come after.
The TL/DR of that article I cited earlier is that we still know the field would collapse. The more interesting question (and the one they pose in the article that remains unanswered) is: how fast does the collapse propagate back to the source? Is the propagation delay of the collapse instant/infinite (like what would be described by entanglement) or is the speed of the collapse still subjected to the speed of light (which is the same for the propagation delay of gravitational waves)?
The “observation” doesn’t occur when a person sees the result, but rather when the electron or photon interacts with the device (in this case the wall). The wall is making the observation. In this situation “observation” doesn’t have the traditional meaning, but rather refers to an interaction event.
So the same average result will happen no matter where the device is, the only thing that changes is its proximity to you.
There’s increasing evidence that it is lack of exposure to some allergens which causes problems. Current advice is to eat peanuts during pregnancy and to introduce peanut butter to baby diets early to reduce the risk of peanut allergy.
So you’re more likely to be reducing the risk. But there’s a lot we don’t properly understand yet, of course.
There had been long-standing advice to avoid foods that can trigger allergies during early childhood. At one point, families were once told to avoid peanut until their child was three years old.
However, evidence over the last 15 years has turned that on its head.
Instead, eating peanut while the immune system is still developing - and learning to recognise friend from foe - can reduce allergic reactions, experts say.
Inside a sphere of constant density, gravity is linearly related to distance from the center.
So for example the Earth has a radius of ~4000 miles. Assuming it has constant density, you would experience 0 gravity at its center, 0.1% of surface gravity at 4 miles from the center, 1% of surface gravity at 40 miles from the center, half of surface gravity at halfway to the surface, and so on.
So the larger the star, given that most (or all) aren’t uniform, there will come a gradient of gravity at its center that one can’t even call it low gravity - it’s heavy material is simply churning too much for their to be a stable center of gravity?
I think the best way to visualize it is that when you are inside a star, you are effectively “standing” on a smaller star. Everything behind you can theoretically be ignored. When you are very close to the center, you are standing on a very tiny star.
Imagine you are standing on the surface of Earth, and you weighed 200 pounds.
Now imagine Earth were magically transported to the center of the sun, completely replacing an equal volume of solar core. Inside the very middle of the sun, standing on planet earth, you would still weigh 200 pounds. The gravity of all the solar mass surrounding the Earth would cancel out.
If you traveled upwards, to the surface of the sun, your weight would increase. At the sun’s surface, you would weigh 5400 pounds.
“If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object’s location within the shell.”
If you had a planet that was hollow in the center*, the entire hollow region would have zero gravity. You could have a thin-skinned planet with the entire interior an empty weightless void. I doubt any planets like this actually exist.
Assuming radial symmetry. If you can represent the planet as concentric spherical shells then you’re good.
You’re right but that was not the point. The comment just explained that at any point inside a hollow sphere gravity forces cancel out so that effectively there is no gravity.
If you had a planet that was hollow in the center*, the entire hollow region would have zero gravity. You could have a thin-skinned planet with the entire interior an empty weightless void. I doubt any planets like this actually exist.
Assuming radial symmetry. If you can represent the planet as concentric spherical shells then you’re good.
Yeah it’s a pretty counter intuitive result. I’d expect a greater pull of gravity towards the nearer side, but it turns out to be exactly cancelled out by the greater mass on the further side.
E: oops, looking at your edited comment, I should stress this is only for hollow bodies. Your comment pre-edit was correct for non-hollow bodies. If you’re part way to the middle of a planet, you can think of the planet as two sections, a small sphere for the part that’s below you, and a larger hollow shell for the rest. You experience no gravity from the outer shell, so only feel gravity of the smaller mass below. 10m from the earth’s center, you feel equivalent gravity to if you were on a 10m radius iron sphere.
Nothing will happen to the black hole, except for its continued growth. At least not anything on time scales that are meaningful for humanity. We’ll be long gone before any observable changes happens to any black holes.
Ask Science
Oldest