Daily fun fact

[First_Speaker]

Did you know:
If you attempt to calculate the circumference of the galaxy using pi to 29 decimal places, your margin of error is less than the diameter of a hydrogen atom.

[DoomCarrot]

I'm really confused.

If you find the diameter of any circle with such a percise pi, shouldn't your answer always have a super miniscule margin of error?

Cause, in theory, if you use pi to its infinite decimal places, then you will have a perfect answer for the geometry of any circle/sphere.

[COOLguy]

Oh irrational numbers! Where error and inaccuracies are accepted as fact.

[DoomCarrot]

Right? In my Physics class this year, practically everything we did was:

"Ok, students! Today we will learn about the moment of inertia for rotational motion! You should know that the equations we will memorize for this are ALL WRONG by like, 30%, but it's a good estimation for some objects."

[First_Speaker]

I'm really confused.

If you find the diameter of any circle with such a percise pi, shouldn't your answer always have a super miniscule margin of error?

Cause, in theory, if you use pi to its infinite decimal places, then you will have a perfect answer for the geometry of any circle/sphere.

Yes. That's the point. The galaxy (one of the largest measurable bodies we have access to) can be calculated to within the diameter of a hydrogen atom using 30 significant figures.

And no. It will never be "perfect" or exact because pi is an irrational (and hence infinite) number.

[First_Speaker]

Oh irrational numbers! Where error and inaccuracies are accepted as fact.

Ahh... as a mathematician, I prefer the words "expression" and "approximation", not inaccuracies or error.

[First_Speaker]

Right? In my Physics class this year, practically everything we did was:

"Ok, students! Today we will learn about the moment of inertia for rotational motion! You should know that the equations we will memorize for this are ALL WRONG by like, 30%, but it's a good estimation for some objects."

Cool! What are you studying?

[DoomCarrot]

*was* studying AP Physics 1

It was basically forces, all types of physical motion, kinematics, energies, linear and rotational torques, torques, electricity, magnetism, and some other things.

It was a lot. I'm glad the AP exams are over.

[First_Speaker]

Excuse my ignorance, but what is AP Physics 1?

[Rose]

AP Physics I, broken down by part by dictionary definition

Ap ( advanced placement) physics ( the study of matter, energy, and the interaction between them )
I ( the first part in a series of courses )

Now my breakdown of AP Physics I

AP ( Almost possible ) Physics ( guesses about things no one will ever understand ) I ( surprise the torture has only just begun )

Hope this answers your Q. First_Speaker

[DoomCarrot]

Lol Rose, that is actually a very good breakdown

Yes, AP is basically a college level class that counts as college credits in some cases. And yes, physics is the study of how the universe works basically. And yes, 1 means that the torture has only begun, as there is also an AP Physics 2, but I probably won't take it until sometime in college.

[Rose]

Just don't wait to long to take the next part or u will forget everything you learned... I made that mistake

[DoomCarrot]

good point, I did not think about that.

[First_Speaker]

Wait... so you're a school student?

Man...I can vaguely remember school.

Yeah, I'm cool with the definition of physics, just didn't know what AP meant. I did unit 1 and 2 physics at uni as part of my science degree but my major was maths/stats.

Physics is awesome. Using the language of maths to describe the workings of the universe...

[Rose]

Yea I'm not going to take that class until next year, don't get me wrong I love math / sci... but i just want to wait untill senior year so that i can take it at a more leisurely pace you know.

Edit : Yea i will be a junior next year

[COOLguy]

AP Physics I, broken down by part by dictionary definition

Ap ( advanced placement) physics ( the study of matter, energy, and the interaction between them )
I ( the first part in a series of courses )

Now my breakdown of AP Physics I

AP ( Almost possible ) Physics ( guesses about things no one will ever understand ) I ( surprise the torture has only just begun )

Hope this answers your Q. First_Speaker

Greatest ever!

[DoomCarrot]

Yeah First_Speaker, I'm in my junior year

And well, I can almost assure you that physics won't be leisurely no matter when you take it rose... Although junior year is so ridiculous that it might be smart to just spread out subjects like that into senior year.

[Rose]

Yea sophomore year was insane and I have a feeling junior year will be just as bad... senior year tho should be fairly easy, all I will have to do Is finish up with my last couple of credits and I will be home free... and English 3 And 4 ugh y... are these classes even nessacary seriously... you would think two would be enough

[First_Speaker]

Fun physics fact:
Thorium is an equally efficient nuclear fuel, is 3-4 times more abundant and has cleaner/safer byproducts than uranium.

So why do we use uranium in our power plants?

Because you can't make weapons grade reactions from thorium....

[DoomCarrot]

Lol ture, also:

Fun fact:

Nuclear power is safer, more efficient, and unmeasurably more effective than coal, oil, or natural gas.

Why does the world depend on coal, oil, and natural gas still? Because big companies make big money from it.

[COOLguy]

Lol ture, also:

Fun fact:

Nuclear power is safer, more efficient, and unmeasurably more effective than coal, oil, or natural gas.

Why does the world depend on coal, oil, and natural gas still? Because big companies make big money from it.

Wrong. Because governments regulate nuclear power to such an extent that it is not economical. Also any transfer to a different power source/new technology takes time and R&D investment. Think of motor vehicles before the advent of Henry Ford; or of the old IBM monster computers.

[COOLguy]

Fun physics fact:
Thorium is an equally efficient nuclear fuel, is 3-4 times more abundant and has cleaner/safer byproducts than uranium.

So why do we use uranium in our power plants?

Because you can't make weapons grade reactions from thorium....

You probably could have researched this fun fact a bit more.

Why do we HAVE (present tense) U-reactors? Because most of our reactor tech in the US was developed during the Cold War - similarly, the reason atomic fission was researched with graphite and Uranium was because WWII created a need for weapons grade reactions. Nothing wrong with that - it was needed at the time.

Why do we not now start using Th-reactors? Simple. Cost. Every time you upgrade or invest in new tech, it costs money; currently India is finding that out.

Also is Th really that better than U? Not necessarily. For instance, Thorium cannot actually be used as a fuel itself. It has to be converted into U-233 which can be weaponized. And these "cleaner/safer byproducts" are still radioactive, and still dangerous. It is not like Thorium produces harmless byproducts. This is also taken from a long term perspective - after 1000+ years, Th-U waste is less dangerous than U-Pl waste.

[DoomCarrot]

Good points, but oil companies are still massive corrupt organizations imo. My uncle used to work on oil rigs for one, and apparently the entire business is scummy inside and out, going as far as cause drug addictions and such to keep their workers in the disgusting worksites, where unhindered drug-dealers keep selling them more meth. True story.

Also, yes, most reactors are made for one type of element and isotope only, so you cannot simply throw in any fuel into current uranium reactors and expect it to work.

[First_Speaker]

Wrong. Because governments regulate nuclear power to such an extent that it is not economical. Also any transfer to a different power source/new technology takes time and R&D investment. Think of motor vehicles before the advent of Henry Ford; or of the old IBM monster computers.

And here in lies one of mankind's biggest flaws... "it's not economically viable" becomes the excuse to cling to primitive technologies rather than develope something that would benefit all. To think that we've gone from monster IBM computers to smartphones with the computational power beyond what folk of those days could have imagined in less than 50 years because it was funded. Imagine if better energy was invested in properly.

[DoomCarrot]

Yes, I agree First_Speaker.

That excuse is like saying we would all be better off using windows vista still, because it is too confusing and difficult to change to windows xp,7,8,10, etc.

[COOLguy]

No, I am saying it takes time and money. It will come eventually, but if you try to force it (with government subsidy) before it is economically viable it will fail. Where do you think "government" money comes from.

Good points, but oil companies are still massive corrupt organizations imo

Please no. I know several in the industry as well as a few that own their own (successful) companies. The energy industry provides not only power and energy that we all use, but also millions of jobs and economic growth.

And here in lies one of mankind's biggest flaws... "it's not economically viable" becomes the excuse to cling to primitive technologies rather than develope something that would benefit all. To think that we've gone from monster IBM computers to smartphones with the computational power beyond what folk of those days could have imagined in less than 50 years because it was funded. Imagine if better energy was invested in properly.

Hello. I was pointing out that the IBM monopoly was what was stifling the computer advancement. It was not until Steve Jobs began his innovations that we've had the flood of tech today. And if I recall, Apple was not government subsidized.

That excuse is like saying we would all be better off using windows vista still, because it is too confusing and difficult to change to windows xp,7,8,10, etc.

No, it is no excuse. Your example is bad logic because there is not a relevant parallel between your example and the situation (besides your example being inaccurate). The new operating systems are not only in place but are the same system (an update). Also the barriers you referenced have nothing to do with economics (ease of access is an entirely different concept).
The 'excuse' is the same as demanding that we transport mail by plane in 1904. The planes were invented and eventually would be used for mail transport, but in 1904, they were inefficient, expensive, and unreliable. Let's say that in 1904, the US government were to mandate that all mail must be carried by plane. That would be ridiculous, because the tech would not be ready!
Even if "public" funds were to be allocated to subsidize airplanes, the result would be bad. The private funds that would have been invested in airplane R&D would now be wasted on constructing and operating inefficient, expensive, and unreliable planes. Any money 'from' the government invested would be rather wasted - there would be no incentive to actually improve the existing tech since the "government's" money would always fund them whether they were successful or efficient or not.

Refusing to force productions over to a new inefficient, unready, and economically nonviable tech because that tech is inefficient, unready, and economically nonviable is not an excuse; it is common sense. I don't know what country you think you are from; but, in the USA, no one is in business to lose money - if you don't make money, you starve.

"it's not economically viable" becomes the excuse to cling to primitive technologies rather than develope something that would benefit all.

When it truly is not economically viable, then it is not an "excuse".

To think that we've gone from monster IBM computers to smartphones with the computational power beyond what folk of those days could have imagined in less than 50 years because it was funded.

Funded by private individuals with their own funds - which shows why energy companies should be left to invest and advance in their industry with their own funds and initiative, and not forced to change over to an economically nonviable system.

[COOLguy]

Also, yes, most reactors are made for one type of element and isotope only, so you cannot simply throw in any fuel into current uranium reactors and expect it to work.

Btw, you should read up more on it. It is all fascinating and much more complicated even than that.

[First_Speaker]

Refusing to force productions over to a new inefficient, unready, and economically nonviable tech because that tech is inefficient, unready, and economically nonviable is not an excuse; it is common sense. I don't know what country you think you are from; but, in the USA, no one is in business to lose money - if you don't make money, you starve.

I'm certainly not from America!

I think you misunderstood my point. I don't mean that forcing it is a good thing, I'm saying that investment in more sustainable and efficient, less harmful (which it is; less than half the transuranic byproducts as current reactors) should not be based on profit.

Mind you, I am an idealist. I do not agree with capitalism as a model so I doubt we will ever agree on this. I do understand your point that personal gain can and often does lead to better solutions, but often it doesn't and do not feel that it should be used as an excuse for refusing progress. The airmail post was a good example of when it fails and yes, in that situation you are correct. But have a look at what private companies do in the name of profit and it's far from advantageous to humanity or it's growth.

I think I'll stop because this is a topic I could go on about for hours but that's not why we're here.

But thanks for an intelligent conversation; they are very difficult to come by these days.

[DoomCarrot]

COOLGuy has made some very good points actually.

[COOLguy]

But thanks for an intelligent conversation; they are very difficult to come by these days.

Yes, thank you too. Most people just go on a rant about how business is all evil and never put out any sensible arguments.

I'm certainly not from America!

lol, I picked up on that That comment was more for DoomCarrot.

I do not agree with capitalism as a model so I doubt we will ever agree on this.

Yes, figured that too. We probably won't agree on the subject.

But thanks for the conversation - I should probably save it for Americans who are voting this year though