I was always annoyed by this question for the same reasoning. However, as another person already said, you can sometimes feel it in some part of the body. When feeling bad, it feels like pressure in my stomach, there a a few other.such connections. Now I find it somewhat useful as part of mindfullness.

I do still get annoyed when asked this question, partly because whenever he asks the question i do not feel it anywhere, also it seems irrelevant. But the main reason is probably defiance that this seemingly stupid question of him was sensible all along. So much I had to write this response.

To add what the others said, this image is most likely taken with a special filter for taking only one specific wavelength, so color. In this case H-alpha, so excited hydrogen atoms, which is deep red. With this and additional filters for safety you can see more or less this image yourself, except it’s red. I already had the opportunity to try this.

Here is a site showing daily images of the sun taken with different filters. Red is H-alpha, also shown in OP. Only with this filter you can see the protuberances. White is white, so what you would see if you could look directly without burning your eyes, or what you see with eclipse goggles. Right is another special Line, Calcium K. All of this you can look at with the right filters and a telescope and it looks similar to the images here, except the two colors are even more saturated than shown here. However, changes are on the order of minutes, so it looks more like an still image.

However, the sun and planets are pretty much the only object where images are similar to what you could see with telescope and filters. Colorful images of the moon are always heavily processed. For nebulas and galaxies its even more of a difference, they are just too dark to see more than a grey blob. For this a telescope does not help much, similar to a lens not helping to see in the dark. So nebulas and galaxies are shown at least hat they would look like, if they were brighter. But most of the time they are shown with a lot brighter colors than reality.

I think it’s possible to prove, under the right conditions. One assumption is, that Humans are not point like, so that depending on the exact position the person may be half on two sides. For simplicity, I assume a continuos finite population density everywhere, which can be a small peak where a person is and zero everywhere else.

In this case, it is obvious that for any angle, we can draw a line splitting the population in half. Imagine just shifting the line until the population on both sides is the same. This means we can, for any angle, draw a cross with each line splitting the population in half. This can be written as the following condition, considering the colors above and R, G, Y, B as populations in the Red, Green, Yellow, and Blue quarters, respectively: R+G=B+Y and R+B=Y+G. So G=B and R=Y. What we still need to prove is that it is always possible to have G=R. Now we can do this continuously for each angle of the cross, so starting with an arbitrary cross, we rotate it slowly 1/4 turn counterclockwise. Now R is where G was before. Due to the conditions it can be exactly the same cross but with colors switched. So if R>G before, we now have R<B=G, so during this path, and everything being continuous, there must be an angle for which R=G holds and so all four quarters are at equal size.

The real question is, does this hold on a globe with great circles is splitting lines?

Hopefully, otherwise it may end bad: https://what-if.xkcd.com/6/

Gases we emit into the atmosphere are well mixed over the whole globe in a relatively short time span over a few years or faster. So these refrigerants are in the same concentration over Antarctica as over inhabitated land. However, the ozone depletion effect of the gases is dependent on a lot of factors. One of them are stratospheric clouds, which seem to be one reason for the hole above Antarctica.

I think it simulates each person going to their (a?) car and driving this car to another parking lot with free spots. So they do really fill up. However, I do not have first hand experience. In our glorious republic walking an public transport is all we need. So not even the most loyal party members get cars.

The only game I know where you have to consider parking is “Workers & Resources: Soviet Republic”. I haven’t provided any private cars to the people from my Republic yet. But from what I have seen, you need to provide parking lots close to their home and their destinations.

This post and thread gives me (back) so much hope. I always hoped for something like described here. But I never came anywhere close and so I have lost the hope over time. I was thinking in the direction of “I just want someone to share my life with. It will work out to be ok somehow.” But some recent events and post like this give me back the hope to find a the person I really want to share time with. It also brings me the motivation to work on myself, so to be more like I would like to be. Thanks you all.

No, to orbit the earth at an height of let’s say 1000 km you would need a speed of around 7km/s. If you go faster, you don’t follow an circular orbit. Wirh around 11km/s you would be so fast to leave the gravity well of earth. The particles in those colliders are almost moving at the speed of light. To be exact, they move only 3.1m/s slower than the speed of light, so almost 300000km/s. They would fly almost straight and would be barely influenced by the gravity well.

In my opinion this is a bit of a narrow view. It definitely holds true for many Christians. But I think some religions like Buddhism may actually help you find a way without guard rails.

The more self-sufficient you can be, the fewer societal resources you will take up, which could then go to someone else in greater need. That’s my perspective at least.

But the more self-sufficient you are, the more resources of yourself you need to supply yourself. So you can provide less societal resources. If you do not need to provide clothes for yourself, you have more time caring for elderly, etc.

As another view, the total resources need does not directly change by changing who does what. The advantages of helping each other are in the OP. At some point however, I would think, the overhead of organization grows so large that it may not be worth it anymore. Just think of the amount of work put into “useless” administration in many countries. But in a 30 person village, this is probably negligible.

Edit: Thanks for helping other people on the feet!

I think your post is exactly what is criticized by OP. In the first part of the post it is explicitly stated men should not talk over the fear of women. A message like yours seems to blame people just because they criticize the way of discussion in some places. I think it is obvious that men are influenced in a possible negative way, when they are always seen as danger. At least for me it probably contributed to my low self esteem, especially in all sex/gender related topics. I think, we as men do so much harm, I don’t want to take part in this. But i took it to the extreme, so I was ashamed of everything sexual about me. But as OP said, all of this doesn’t invalidate the feeling of any woman. But for example this situation here is not governed by fear, still it seems you can’t discuss the social effects of this sentiment “against” man, without discrediting the other side. Sure, violence done mainly to women is the most important topic. But if men always get portrayed as danger, I can understand some are open to other, more misogynist worldviews.

I bit late but i i think it is proven there is no solutions, except for the special case 0° and side lengths 1, 1 and 0. Let us consider the triangle with a²+b²=c² and a = c sin(pi q) where q is the angle as a fraction of half a circle. So you are looking for a solution where a, b, c are integer and q is rational. So we first need to find a rational value for q where sin(pi q) is rational. According to https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/87756/when-is-sinx-rational#87768 this happens only for the well known case of 30°, so q=1/6 and a/c=1/2. However, in this case b=c/2 × sqrt(3) which is irrational, so with this angle we can never create integer side length.

Acapellascience (Tim Blais)

This wasn’t the point as i read, the question was about confidence. And this has little to do with how “pretty” you are. Your confidence is only in your mind. Sure if others think of you as ugly, it’s harder to gain confidence. But I think especially a lot of girls have confidence issues with their appearance despite looking “good”.

deleted by creator

Good description, but I would say even the parallel and seemingly rational analysis can be very one sided. I noticed on myself that in similar situations my “rational” analysis swings in the same direction as my mood. And if it doesn’t, I sometimes do not believe, or more precisely, do not feel it. So it doesn’t really help quite a lot. This doesn’t make it useless, just a side note to not be to harsh on yourself if it doesn’t work.

Another thing which also helps me in such situations, is to remember these are just feelings. Sometimes you just feel worthless or dumb, but this are just your feelings, not you. And just because you feel this way, it doesn’t need to be true. Acknowledge the feeling, but try to still notice it is just a feeling.

When there is only 50% totality, photovoltaic also makes 50% less. You just do not notice it when looking around, because your eyes adjust to the changed brightness. So a photovoltaic produces less for a longer time. What I found, for the 2017 eclipse, was that around 16GW were impacted with at most a reduction of 5GW in one moment.

Yes. One place in space has different temperatures. I would assume even individual particles are not distributed by a Maxwell distribution, so the concept of temperature is hard to apply. The background radiation has one temperature. If you add the sun, however, you already have a problem as the sun radiation is not in thermal equilibrium. So depending on how you look at it, you get different temperatures. The particles have a high energy, so also a high temperature. But they are so rare, that radiation is the dominant mode of heat transfer and determines the temperature of a thermometer placed in space.

I think it is actually the other way around. You can consider the air inside the balloon to have internal energy from the heat. And additionally you have to make room for the balloon in the atmosphere, so you have removed the atmosphere from the volume the balloon takes, which also needs energy. If you consider both you arrive at the concept of enthalpy (H = U + pV), which is very useful for reactions in the atmosphere as pressure is constant. For this example it is not that useful as outside pressure changes when the balloon rises.

Another way to see it, the pressure has no “real” energy. In a ideal gas, the only energy comes from the kinetic or movement energy of the atoms. Each time a gas molecule is hits the balloon envelope it transfers some momentum. The cumulative effect of the constant collisions is the pressure of the gas. If the balloon is now expanding slowly, each collisions also tranfers some energy, in sum building the work the system has to do to the atmosphere. Leading to a decrease in internal, so “real” energy in the balloon. This corresponds to a decrease in temperature.