If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Minneapolis Star Tribune)   Every high school graduate should know the answers to these 10 science questions   (startribune.com) divider line 390
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

60872 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Apr 2006 at 2:37 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



390 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-04-16 02:44:38 PM
wjllope I was thinking about that one too...seem to remember something about it being violet, but human eyes can't work with violet very well, we lose most of that end of the spectrum, so we see the blue instead...sound about right?

I love testing how much of those AP classes in high school stuck with me...
 
2006-04-16 02:53:17 PM
AdrienVeidt:
/Got 'em all (even the oldest fossil question), where's my membership card to the Leftist Intellectual Elite club?

Same here, sort of. I didn't answer the Fossil question with as much percision as they used, but I was in the same area, (billions), while I didn't use the correct terminology for the why is the sky blue question.

If I was marking, I would give partial credit for fossil one and with the bonus question I'd have 105%.
 
2006-04-16 02:53:19 PM
A year, 365 days, is the time it takes for the earth to travel around the sun. A day, 24 hours, is the time it takes for the earth to spin around once on its axis.

And here I was trying to explain it through an ancient numbering system based on the Babylonians and their love of the numbers 12, 60, and 360...but oh well I guess the real answer was way too complicated for me.
 
2006-04-16 02:55:18 PM
Taika_: human eyes

yep. see this....

but. while reading this following thought occurred to me. and i have no good answer for this question. someone?

viz. grab your digital camera and takea picture of the sky, just like Ishidan did. it looks cyan, cerulean, whatever, but BLUE. here the "eye" are some lenses and a CCD, not rods and cones. i can imagine i suppose that some kind of color correction algorithm is used in digital cameras.

but when i take a digital picture of something that's purple, violet, whatever, it looks purple, violet, whatever.
not blue.
 
2006-04-16 02:55:35 PM
That Critical Thinking test is stupid.

Many of them are word tricks that play on your preconceptions on the English language and its usage. They're more like riddles.
 
2006-04-16 02:59:16 PM
Tekdude: Seconds are constant though because of the atom.


I thought seconds were constant because of the treebark.
 
2006-04-16 03:00:09 PM
Bob55:
And here I was trying to explain it through an ancient numbering system based on the Babylonians and their love of the numbers 12, 60, and 360...but oh well I guess the real answer was way too complicated for me.

It was the same way with me and the brain signal question. My answer was a little more complex than they were looking for, but at least it mentioned chemical and electrical signals.
 
2006-04-16 03:01:18 PM
prjindigo: Doesn't look like it. Too much dust, particulate suspension and nitrogen for it to ever be blue. The sky is actually slightly off towards the violet of blue.

I like your other answers, I really do... but here you're getting WAY too nitpicky. We're not being Pantone-chip specific in our colors.

The sky is, barring clouds, night, sunset, sunrise, etc., BLUE.

Ishidan: Yeah, unless you have the miraculous "Closed System Beaker". After all, your ambient environment will keep adding heat to the system until it comes into equilibrium.

If you want to go with the "piss the teacher off" answer, what if you're in a place where the ambient temperature is below 0? Then your ambient environment will keep removing heat from the system.

If you've got the system in a freezer set for 0C, of course, it will come to equilibrium by the whole thing freezing.

Is this true? I don't think this is true, provided the 0C is exactly accurate. You could get anything from all liquid to all solid.
 
2006-04-16 03:01:45 PM
BrotherAlpha: Bob55:
And here I was trying to explain it through an ancient numbering system based on the Babylonians and their love of the numbers 12, 60, and 360...but oh well I guess the real answer was way too complicated for me.

It was the same way with me and the brain signal question. My answer was a little more complex than they were looking for, but at least it mentioned chemical and electrical signals.



My answer had boobies in it.
 
2006-04-16 03:05:44 PM
FarkmeBlind: Not really sure what you're saying here, the "property" of the sail remains the same no matter which direction the boat is facing, said property is the ability to catch the wind.

What do you mean by "catch the wind"?

In fact, what I would consider "catching the wind" is exactly how sails DON'T work, at least as how they are described when answering this question. I suspect say the tall ships that would cross the Atlantic go by having the wind blow into their sails and push them along.

But, as it was described to me before, modern performance sailboats work like wings of an airplane. I think this is the answer that the poster was going for.
 
2006-04-16 03:06:05 PM
prjindigo: My favorite example of a bacterial disease is lukemia.


Please deliver a single peer reviewed article that supports that leukemia is caused by bacteria.

(Oh, and your search will be easier if you spell it "leukemia", not that you will find anything).
 
2006-04-16 03:09:47 PM
I got them all except the fossils (that includes the extra credit)- but my membership to the Leftist Intellectual Elite club got turned down because I'm not a leftist. Farkers.
 
2006-04-16 03:10:22 PM
Pfft, I don't need to know that stuff anyway.
 
2006-04-16 03:10:45 PM
My favorite problem from college was a Hydrodyamics question.

Rain is falling on a 500' x 500' asphalt parking lot that has a uniform 5% slope to an open drainage ditch along the low end. The ditch is a 5' wide vee concrete ditch and it leads directly into an 18" concrete pipe culvert of infinite distance. If the rain is falling at a rate of 2" an hour, how big will the puddle in the parking lot be after 6 hours?

The problem is paraphrased from memory and probably missing some details, but I remember needing to set up multiple equations and solving it with an Excel spreadsheet. Very satisfying when I got the answer.
 
2006-04-16 03:14:29 PM
If not, well, you must consider the motivation behind your denial of an alternate theory.

Trust me, I've examined both sides of the argument. Some creationist arguments really did have me questioning the science behind evolution, until I actually did some reading and realized the 'holes' in evolution are only viewed as such by the uninitiated. Having an open mind does not mean sitting on the fence - anyone who has looked at both ideas in a scientific way (which is they only way it should be looked at in this context) comes to the obvious conclusion that ID should not be taught in schools. I have yet to meet a person who supports ID for any reason besides that it's what their church tells them to support.

My denial of ID is based on the fact that it is not a scientific idea. I dont know if a higher intelligence created all of this, and there is no way i can prove it right or wrong. I am not denying that idea - but I am supporting evolution because it is a valid and sound theory which has mountains of evidence to support it.
 
2006-04-16 03:17:56 PM
I have no answers, only more questions to the answers. That is the sign of thinking, and just about everyone who has posted here has shown that

True enough, rdonato. The problem is when that argument is hijacked by people who are not thinking critically, they are repeating an argument as old as they say the earth is.

ID is not 'critical thinking' of science. It is not 'the next wave of brave new scientific ideas'. It is an old, old idea called "the argument from design", and deserves no recognition as a scientific idea.
 
2006-04-16 03:20:04 PM
evaned: Is this true? I don't think this is true,

it's true once (s)he used the word "freezer". unplug it and assume its perfectly sealed and you're right. one would need add'l details to know what temperature the water got to at equilibrium....
but plug the freezer in (and ignore whether or not it's perfectly sealed), and (s)he's right - although it's a bit slick of course to pose a question about one part of an open system w/out defining the rest of the system....

EzraS: My denial of ID is based on the fact that it is not a scientific idea. I dont know if a higher intelligence created all of this, and there is no way i can prove it right or wrong. I am not denying that idea - but I am supporting evolution because it is a valid and sound theory which has mountains of evidence to support it.

while it's not directly part of the scientific method per se, it is typically the case that the simplest possible explanation of the observed facts is generally accepted, until an experimental fact comes along that calls this simplest theory into question...
in that sense, evolution is the simplest testable model that we have. ID is in a sense a simpler model, but alas, not testable AFAIK...

the FSM on the other hand is pure fact, plain and simple, even though it's not testable. i BELIEVE!
 
2006-04-16 03:22:57 PM
wjllope: ID is in a sense a simpler model, but alas, not testable


ID is actually much more complex. Moreover it is not an explanation of anything. If life on earth was created by design, who designed the designer? What is this designer like?

ID is not scientific, does not explain anything, and is basically a front for a faith-based argument.
 
2006-04-16 03:25:16 PM
evaned: But, as it was described to me before, modern performance sailboats work like wings of an airplane. I think this is the answer that the poster was going for.

"Catching the wind" equals providing a resistant surface against which the molecules of air comprising 'wind' will act, thus creating a force differential between the forces acting upon the 'sail' and the air surrounding the 'sail'.

All sails act "like airplane wings", regardless of shape, vintage, materials, etc.

It is fairly simple to explain how a sailboat sails when going downwind. (When the wind is behind you.) You simply let the sails out as far as they will go and the wind pushes on them and the boats hull follows along. However, when the wind is coming from the side there are some special physics at work.

The force that the wind transfers to the sails actually makes a boat move forward for much the same reason a plane flies. If you were to look down on a sailboat from a helicopter you would see what looks like an airplane's wing, except standing on end.

The air moving across the sails, like air moving across an airplane wing, creates a force called lift. A small amount of this force aims aft and actually pushes the boat forward and some of the force is lost due to friction as it moves over the sail. However, most of the force is sideways which tends to make the boat move sideways away from the wind.

The keel or centerboard keeps the boat from being pushed sideways by the wind. The resistance from the hull and the keel translate the lifting force to forward motion.
 
2006-04-16 03:25:48 PM
the humans/dinosaurs question is actually worded incorrectly too. While homo sapiens sure as hell didn't live during the time of the T-rex or other actual dinosaurs, we DO live currently with very closely related (and even some that haven't changed since the age of dinosaurs) creatures like the chicken (T-Rex cousin), arawana, and crocodiles/alligators.
 
2Ah
2006-04-16 03:41:16 PM
1. Do they have a 4th of July in England?
Yes, of course.

2. How many birthdays does the average man have?
One

3. Some months have 31 days; how many have 28?
All months have 28 days.

4. A woman gives a beggar 50 cents; the woman is the
beggar's sister, but the beggar is not the woman's brother. How come?
The beggar is a woman.

5. Why can't a man living in the USA be buried in Canada?
I dont think he would be happy to be burried alive, unless he is playing with his kids on the beach. If he is living in the USA how can he be in Canada? Is he right at the border? Which part of him is 'him' his head?

6. How many outs are there in an inning?
There are 6 outs in one complete inning.

7. Is it legal for a man in California to marry his
widow's sister? Why?
The last I heard, they flip'd again overturning the flop, once again pronouncing it illegal for a man to marry a widower.

8. Two men play five games of checkers. Each man wins the
same number of games. There are no ties. Explain this.
The two men were playing checkers, but not playing against eachother. They might have been on the same team.


9. Divide 30 by 1/2 and add 10. What is the answer?
Seventy

10. A man builds a house rectangular in shape. All sides
have southern exposure. A big bear walks by. What color is the bear? Why?
Brown. Only brown bears live in the south.

11. If there are 3 apples and you take away 2, how many do
you have?
Two

12. I have two US coins totaling 55 cents. One is not a
nickel. What are the two coins?
A fifty cent piece and a nickel. One is not a nickel, but the other is a nickel.

13. If you have only one match and you walked into a room
where there was an oil burner, a kerosene lamp, and a wood burning stove, which one would you light first?
I would turn on the central heat and save the match for a rainy day.

14. How far can a dog run into the woods?
Doesnt matter, the pussy ran right up the first tree. The dog shakes the tree and eats the peaches as they fall.

15. A doctor gives you three pills, telling you to take
one every half hour. How long would the pills last?
Depends on how long they take to digest. The question is, how much digestion can a pill be subjected to before it is no longer considered a pill.

16. A farmer has 17 sheep, and all but 9 die. How many
are left?
Nine

17. How many animals of each sex did Moses take on the
Ark?
Two

18. A clerk in the butcher shop is 5' 10" tall. What does
he weigh?
Animals.

19. How many two cent stamps are there in a dozen?
Twelve

20. What was the President's name in 1950?
What was todays presidents name then? Bush.
What was name of the the president who was president in 1950? Harry S. Truman.




/Cheated on #20... while scrolling down to perform my own mental masturbation, I saw others answers.
/Also, I googled Truman.
/Bold work on less than 3 characers!!!111!
 
2Ah
2006-04-16 03:43:26 PM
/Bold DOESN'T work on less than 3 characters. WTF!
 
2Ah
2006-04-16 03:55:29 PM
Hrm on second thought about #7...

If his wife is a widow then either he is dead, and you prolly cannot marry if you are dead, or if his wife was a widow when they met, and assuming she is still alive, he cannot marry her sister because that would be polygamy, legal maybe in UT but not CA. That I know of. I'm not up on CA laws...
 
2006-04-16 03:57:40 PM
Answer to the "how does granite form?" question that was listed earlier-

Granite is the product of a quartz/alkali feldspar-rich magma melt that crystallizes underground.

/geology minor
//was geology major, but changed it to film major
///geology is boring, but I already have so many credits in it, so might as well minor in it
 
2006-04-16 03:58:02 PM
2Ah: 17. How many animals of each sex did Moses take on the Ark?
Two


the question wasn't how many *of each species*. it was 'of each sex'. so the answer is one i think. one male, one female. of course...

not sure how noah handled the planarian flatworms though... (they're hermaphrodites)

and BTW "two" has 3 characters but came out as bold. but i've noticed myself that bold doesn't always stick, so whatever causes this must involve more than the no. of chars... cheers
 
2006-04-16 04:01:00 PM
still waiting for someone to explain my blue sky conundrum.

see my post 2006-04-16 02:40:20 PM and the followup 2006-04-16 02:55:18 PM.

seriously.
 
2006-04-16 04:02:13 PM
1) Trivia. I was off by 1%. I said 70%
2) Duh...
3) Meh, just pisses fundies off
4) Good question, but limited scope answer...natural selection is the idea, but they over simplified a little
5) Ok, but this isn't problem solving, but common sense
6) Good question, should have had a broader scope as well
7) Another good question...It actually means you understand science
8) Same as 7
9) I said 4 billion...trivia
10) Wonky answer, but a good question
Extra Credit) A good question, but the wording was odd. I agree with the answer (although the tilt of the earth is trivia) and I would have liked to see more of this

I think they should have added:

1) Explain a hypthesis
2) Explain a theory
3) Provide an example of the proper testing of both 1 and 2
4) Explain the difference between a physical and chemical reaction
5) Explain the "water cycle"
 
2Ah
2006-04-16 04:11:44 PM
wjllope
2Ah: 17. How many animals of each sex did Moses take on the Ark?
Two

the question wasn't how many *of each species*. it was 'of each sex'. so the answer is one i think. one male, one female. of course...

not sure how noah handled the planarian flatworms though... (they're hermaphrodites)

and BTW "two" has 3 characters but came out as bold. but i've noticed myself that bold doesn't always stick, so whatever causes this must involve more than the no. of chars... cheers



Yes, one of each species, bleh.

I'm guessing the flatworms were stowaways, or lived through the flood by sucking down algae and such. Didn't Noah just take animals tho?

On the boldness... I said less than 3, not including 3.
 
2006-04-16 04:15:58 PM
My only guess on this would be that the color of the picture itself is that blue-violet, of which we only see the blue. Not sure how that works...

I've read something before about how photographing some blue flowers with some kinds of films results in the image of the flower appearing red, instead of blue--something about the flowers natural color being a mixture of of violet and red (or something?) that looks blue to us, but the violet isn't seen on the film, and the end result is a red flower. Maybe something similar goes on with the sky, the violet and blue are both there, but the violet is filtered out by the camera/film and doesn't show in the final result--and as our eyes don't see it in the first place, it matches up....

I might be able to find that discussion of films, if it'd help you, but I seem to remember it focusing on which kinds of films are best for getting natural colors, and not on why it happened.

If you do figure this one out, I'd love to hear about it, it's an interesting question.
 
2006-04-16 04:18:56 PM
My above comment was to wjllope, and should say "flower's natural color"...
 
2006-04-16 04:20:42 PM
Bad answer:
4. Darwin's theory of species origination says that natural selection chooses organisms that possess variable and heritable traits and that are best suited for their environments.

The question was "what is Darwin's theory of the origin of the species", the answer to which is evolution. The question was not "what is natural selection", which would be a mechanism of evolution, but natural selection alone is not enough for evolution (necessary but not sufficient)--genetic variation is also needed.

But my main quibble is that the answer says natural selection "chooses". It chooses nothing. The theory doesn't say that natural selection is a directed process. This answer is akin to saying "a lake chooses to allow objects with higher density than water to sink to the bottom, and allows those of lesser density to float on top". There's no choosing here, it's simply the reality of the mechanics involved.
 
2006-04-16 04:22:44 PM
Nobody ever gets the right answer for why the sky is blue. The sky is blue because oxygen is blue. Get a 1 to 2 liter clear, not silvered, Dewar beaker of liquid oxygen and put a sheet of white paper behind it and you will see that it is even less blue than Bombay Saphire Gin which is to say just a hint of "sky" blue. Repeat the experiment with liquid nitrogen and you will see that it is as clear as distilled water. Sitting here at the bottom of 100 miles of 21% oxygen is like being in a pool of that "diluted" gin, color wise. The sky looks blue because it is tinted by the color of oxygen. Things in the distance are bluish because of the oxygen tint. If less diffusion of red light was the answer then objects far away would appear reddish instead of bluish because the red light would be scattered less coming from those distant mountains but since you are looking at them through miles of oxygen you perceive them as blue tinted instead.
 
2006-04-16 04:24:10 PM
Taika_: My only guess on this would be that the color of the picture itself is that blue-violet, of which we only see the blue.

but i can see purple things, and they look purple to me.
i can also take pictures of purple things, and these things look purple to me in the picture.
filters, black-light pictures, etc are a whole different ball of wax... sticking simply to looking at the sky, or taking a 'normal' picture of it and then looking at that picture, i'm still not quite getting it... cheers
 
2006-04-16 04:41:40 PM
The other important question besides scientific method is experiment design i.e. the blinded study as invented by Benjamin Franklin. When he was ambassador to France Mesmerism was in vogue and one of the principles was that he could touch an object and it would have a special power called an imal magnetism and the subject could feel the power and would be benefited by it. Franklin designed a very simple experiment in which Mesmer's associate walked through a garden and touched specific objects like a tree and the subjects who had not seen which things he had touched would have to tell. Well nobody did better than chance and the false positives far outweighed the positives and that was the end of Mesemerism although the word mesmerized survives to this day.
 
2Ah
2006-04-16 04:42:56 PM
I used to think that since blue is the only color reflected off a 'blue object', the ojbect is really all colors except blue. I like the theory but there is a better one.

Color is produced by the movement of electrons around the atom. Light energizes atoms causing an eletron to jump out of its normal shell, then it falls back to where it belongs. The movement of the eletron causes a photon to be emitted with characteristics, such as color.

Objects dont 'have' color, they really just throw color off into the world aound them. Some of the Photons hit our eyes and we interpret this as 'blue' or 'red'
 
2006-04-16 04:43:45 PM
Actually, oxygen is not blue. No substance is a color. We identify things as particular colors because those colors are represented by the wavelengths of light best transmitted or reflected by that substance. What color is oxygen when it's pitch black? It isn't any color, because there's no light to be transmitted by it.

The sky is blue because blue is scattered more, not less. A single "wave" (yes, I know, go with me here) of red light is enormously likely to just go straight through the atmosphere and reach one point on the surface. A similar wave (keep going with me...) of blue light will hit a molecule, be scattered by the molecule in a dozen directions, each of those dozen new waves hit another molecule and are scattered again, and there's 144 of them (arbitrary numbers), so on. So when you look up, you might see that one red ray coming from one direction, but you see blue light coming from billions of different directions, and it overwhelms the red. Distant mountains are bluish because they don't reflect the red light hitting them at all. When looking up, you might possibly see a couple rays of red light that you don't really register, because you're looking at light directly from space, via the atmosphere. When you turn and look at a mountain, you're seeing light that's already bounced off things on the surface of the planet. That white light went through the atmosphere, with the blue scattering around. The mountain is not red, therefore it absorbed the red light into itself, and is reflecting the blue/green/brown/grey light toward you, and the blue light is again scattered by the molecules between you and the mountain.

It's not like oxygen is a piece of blue saran wrap suspended over us, and between us and distant mountains.
Assume that anywhere I said blue, I meant blue and violet, but we can't see the violet.
This page: http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html (I am html illiterate, sorry) has a great explanation, you might find it useful.

wjllope, I admit to being stumped. Interesting question.
 
2006-04-16 04:52:04 PM
2006-04-16 04:01:00 PM wjllope
still waiting for someone to explain my blue sky conundrum.
see my post 2006-04-16 02:40:20 PM and the followup 2006-04-16 02:55:18 PM.
seriously.


My Boobies, 2006-04-16 04:22:44 PM, explains why the sky is blue and not (ROY G BIV) indigo or violet which the diffusion explanation fails to do.
 
2006-04-16 04:53:50 PM
Forgot about the filter so that should read my Boobies and not my boobies.
 
2006-04-16 04:55:44 PM
Okay the filter has gotten trickier so that should read my Boobies.
 
2006-04-16 04:57:00 PM
I love the filter.
 
2006-04-16 04:57:55 PM
So the filter works on 1337 5p3ak, so that should be my premier posting to this thread.
 
2006-04-16 05:16:20 PM
That stuff is invaluable knowledge. I can't tell you how many times in my job I've needed to know the reason we put salt on our sidewalks in the winter.

EVERYBODY should know this stuff!
 
2006-04-16 05:27:57 PM
1: Are you paying rent and living alone?
2: Do have disposable income?
3: Have you had 3 or more sexual partners in the last 12 months?
4: Do you regularly cook your own meals?
5: Are you secure in your own body image?
6: If you were to walk by a homeless person would you pass by and mind your own bidness?
7: Do you own a record player and more than 4 dozen albums?
8: Are you currently vested in a retirement plan?
9: Do you have more than 3 years living expences in liquid assets?
10: What are the chances of you being happy?

Bonus:
Do people think you're unusual?
 
2006-04-16 05:35:06 PM
OscarTamerz: My Boobies, 2006-04-16 04:22:44 PM, explains why the sky is blue and not (ROY G BIV) indigo or violet which the diffusion explanation fails to do.

this is getting interesting - fun stuff. (liquid) oxygen is indeed (a very light) blue, agreed. (linky)...

but is that the whole story? i do not disagree w/ the atomic absorption/reemission part of that you mentioned. but i'm not sure this's an entirely complete description...

to wit: why is the sky redder near sunset? clearly, the atomic energy levels of oxygen atoms do not depend on the time of day. if this was purely a question of photon absorption, the sky would be blue always.

the reddenning of the sky at dusk is as much an aspect of rayleigh's 1/lambda^4 dependence as the blueness of the sky is earlier in the day. also completely consistent w/ rayleigh's 'law' is the waneness of the winter sun, and the ease of sunburning at mid-day.
 
2006-04-16 05:43:12 PM
11 out of 10, but I am studying nuclear engineering.
 
2006-04-16 05:53:44 PM
lomans: That stuff is invaluable knowledge. I can't tell you how many times in my job I've needed to know the reason we put salt on our sidewalks in the winter.

if you're perfectly happy knowing only what you need to know while you're at work - i completely agree w/ you. and there's nothing wrong with that. 0% of this information is likely to help you in your daily life.
but, there's another subspecies of humans, however, that like learning stuff. even if it's not completely clear at the time if/how it might possibly pay off.

anurak: 11 out of 10, but I am studying nuclear engineering.

heh - use that built-in factor when you're designing the safety/interlock systems. use the inverse of that factor when you're specifying the operating parameters... cheers
 
2006-04-16 05:57:20 PM
evaned:

Vosh: Here's an intelligence quiz. Do you think that everyone needs to know the same things and/or at the same time?

No, but there's a base set of knowledge that I think almost everyone should know.


Really? So you're in charge of what everyone knows, huh. Fascinating. Where did you get your criterion? How did this criterion demonstrate that "almost" everyone needs to know a particular set of things and at the same time? How did you come to be the inspector? All this is most interesting.
 
2006-04-16 06:00:47 PM
I got 8/10 + the extra credit correct.

/High school junior
 
2006-04-16 06:03:54 PM
if you're perfectly happy knowing only what you need to know while you're at work - i completely agree w/ you. and there's nothing wrong with that. 0% of this information is likely to help you in your daily life.
but, there's another subspecies of humans, however, that like learning stuff. even if it's not completely clear at the time if/how it might possibly pay off.


And they are free to do that, and I am free to do whatever I'm doing. Wherein lies the need to dictate to others what they need to know and when they need to know it? Can't people take care of that themselves? And if we treat them like they can't, starting from age 5, just minutes after being toddlers, then what does that do to people!? Create people who don't get what's wrong with the rationalization that because some people practice x, everyone should.
 
2006-04-16 06:06:30 PM
Distant mountains are bluish because they don't reflect the red light hitting them at all.
???? Go to southern Utah and Arches, Canyonlands, Escalante, Bryces and Zions National Park. Lots of red light reflected by lots of red mountains.
No substance is a color.
Isn't gold sort of gold colored and aren't oranges orangish when thy're properly ripened and then dyed by Sunkist.

The mountain is not red, therefore it absorbed the red light into itself, and is reflecting the blue/green/brown/grey light toward you, and the blue light is again scattered by the molecules between you and the mountain.

One more time very slowly, if the blue light reflected from the mountain is scattered on the way to being absorbed by your retina then you would see predominantly unscattered long wave reds and oranges but you don't, you see blue. If the shortness of the wavelength of blue light causes it to be scattered then the even shorter wavelengths making up indigo and violet would be scattered even more giving the sky a violet and indigo appearance instead of the characteristic "sky blue" of oxygen which is seen only at great distances or high concentration like when it's a liquid. If nothing else on earth had any color, i.e. reflected or transmitted all wavelengths equally well, but oxygen then you would see a slight bluish tinge over everything. When seen, from space the atmosphere sits as a pale blue corona around the earth, the color of oxygen and once again not indigo nor violet.

images.fotosearch.com

If you go to areas where glacial fed streams and lakes predominate like the Kenai River on the Kenai Peninsula or Lake Louise in Banf National Park there is something called glacial flour. This is rock that has been ground to a flour like consistency and when it enters say Lake Louise at the opposite end of the lake from the hotel the water is muddy brown but within about 100 feet of the stream entrance the larger particles sink to the bottom and the ones that remain in colloidal suspension are small enough that they only reflect the wavelengths from green on down so the whole lake has a green-blue, aquamarine appearance like a tropical lagoon in Tahiti but of course the true color of the material is the same muddy brown that you saw at the beginning of the lake and if you pulled a number of gallons of water out and evaporated it you would get the same muddy brown looking material albeit in a much finer form because the optical effect of selective reflection is gone. In other words their is no component of the glacial flour that is that aquamarine color. You don't see the same effect in the southern Rockies like Zions because of the lack of glaciation. That is not true with oxygen, oxygen is sky blue just as gold is gold and copper is copper.
 
Displayed 50 of 390 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report