Activity for Canina
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comment | Post #290566 |
I don't have a ready answer for you, but one book you might want to check out is *A City on Mars: Can we settle space, Should we settle space, and Have we really thought this through* by Weinersmith and Weinersmith. One of the issues discussed is precisely the effects of not having the protection of ... (more) |
— | 4 months ago |
| Comment | Post #287511 |
I agree. Asking how to adapt a specific game to a new environment (such as a low-gravity environment), while somewhat broad, is still *focused* and answers can be judged with some degree of objectivity on how well they address criteria laid out in the question. However, a question simply asking "What... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287495 |
Technically, I'm pretty sure that on the surface of Earth's moon is not a microgravity environment. By any reasonable human-centric definition it's certainly a *low-gravity* environment, however. 0.02 g might be borderline. Are you actually primarily interested in microgravity environments (as the qu... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287001 |
@#8103 Well, *all else* equal, it's certainly a reasonable assumption that in the absence of one contributing factor, the probability of an event would be reduced. That said, an increase in the probability of an event (in this case, extreme weather events) over time does not necessarily mean that suc... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287001 |
This question appears to assume that climate change "paused" due to a reduced amount of aerosols in the atmosphere, but I don't see anything in it to support such an interpretation of facts. Your quote from the UK Met Office mentions air quality and visibility, but is there any reason to conclude tha... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #285985 |
I don't know about fire risk, but since you specifically mention spacecraft, it's probably worth keeping in mind that with any kind of reaction drive in space, a *major* consideration will be to reduce mass. If you can get away with even just a 1% reduction in the mass of the spacecraft hull, you're ... (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285964 |
I'm not sure 1000 km/s (1 Mm/s) really qualifies as relativistic speed. Even 30000 km/s (30 Mm/s) seems borderline. Consider the [special relativisitic colinear velocity addition formula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula#Special_relativity); the factor *c*² likely still dominat... (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284325 |
You use the word "fluid", but I think you meant "liquid". The four [fundamental phases of matter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter#Four_fundamental_states) are solid, liquid, gas, and [plasma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)). (Plasma is often overlooked.) To borrow Wikipe... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #283763 |
So identifying an individual using an attribute like "assigned name" is bureaucratic and "reducing an entire human being's history into mere technical information", but "computerized-genetic-human-identification" or "world-government-microchip-identification" somehow wouldn't be? I fail to see the lo... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #283382 |
I think that's covered by "Temperature control might be believable." in the question. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #283382 |
Here's another way to visualize how large 145 Gm² actually is, which might work better for people outside of North America. The distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million km (150 Gm). So the floor area (not land area) of such a building would be almost exactly the same as a slice of spac... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #281855 |
@#54232 I don't see why they would be categorically *off topic*, at least. As the answer says: "It stands to reason that the harder sciences will to some degree likely be easier to extrapolate from and speculate about while providing concrete reasoning, but that's about the type of answers that can b... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #281855 |
@#54232 The FAQ calls out both [faster-than-light travel and shapeshifters](https://scientific-speculation.codidact.com/help/faq) as on topic, so I would say that yes, heavily modified science is perfectly acceptable. For your particular example, it would certainly be possible to take known physics a... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #283017 |
Broadly, whether or not a particular question is on topic in one place does not depend on whether that same question is on topic or off topic somewhere else. It needs to be on topic where it's posted; that it might *also* on topic elsewhere should be immaterial. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #283017 |
@#54232 I don't think there should be a *blanket* rule to that effect, at least. Just because a question is on topic on [Linux Systems](https://linux.codidact.com/) doesn't mean it would be off topic on [Power Users](https://powerusers.codidact.com/); likewise, just because something is on topic on, ... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #283286 |
@#8046 I think at least science-based is sufficiently settled by https://scientific-speculation.codidact.com/posts/276346 and https://scientific-speculation.codidact.com/posts/275792 (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #283017 |
@#53922 At least to me, this is a different question because it asks what sets SciSpec apart from, in OP's words, "regular science Q&A", while the other question asks which scientific fields are in scope on SciSpec. There is relevance, but the answers are going to, at a minimum, have a different focu... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #283017 |
@#54114 As written in your comment, that feels way too broad, and I would probably close a question that boils down to that on that basis alone. However, suppose you narrowed it down to, say, "what would be the effect on low-growing Earth plant life if objects with property X suddenly no longer cast ... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #282048 |
I could be wrong, but the question reads to me rather like "Company X has developed a product of type Y. Are products of type Y chemically feasible?". That would seem to make the answer rather self-evident; if products of type Y *weren't* chemically feasible, then company X would have been hard press... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #282030 |
@JohnDoea For this type of question, you might want to chime in on the [*Medical science site* proposal](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/276933). (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #282030 |
How is this a question about [extrapolating from science](/help/faq)? I'm no subject matter expert, but to me, it reads like a question about how a real-world medical treatment works in the real world, with no speculative element involved. Could you please edit your question to somehow clarify, empha... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #237568 |
To anyone considering answering this, the exact same question also exists in the [Rigorous Science category](https://scientific-speculation.codidact.com/questions/279496). (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #279497 |
@Green Not a problem; whether to post in standard Q&A or in Rigorous Science is your decision. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #279497 |
Hi Green, and welcome. I see you have posted a few questions to the Rigorous Science category. Do you actually require that level of rigor in answers? See [Writing a Rigorous Science Post](https://scientific-speculation.codidact.com/help/rigorous-science). We can move your questions to the standard Q... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277102 |
@OlinLathrop *"That means conditions were drastically different recently, and will be different again shortly. Such rapid changes are not good for starting life."* Very much agreed. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277102 |
About "implausibly close together", I recalled something I saw in Nature, about a binary white dwarf system with an orbital period of 6.91 minutes. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZTF_J153932.16%2B502738.8) looks about right in putting the stars' radii at about 0.016 and 0.031 solar radii r... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277405 |
Also, 3000 kg is **huge**. For comparison, a hippopotamus is typically 1300-1500 kg (says Wikipedia), and a rhinoceros varies between 850 kg and 3200 kg depending on subspecies and gender. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277405 |
For what it's worth, about that success rate... wolves are widely considered quite successful hunters, and I would need to dig out an actual number, but as I recall, they only actually succeed in bringing down a prey animal in something like one hunt in ten or twenty. That also, of course, depends on... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277234 |
For those wishing to learn more about CTVT, check out the scientific article (open access) at https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6397/81. There are summaries at least at https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6397/27 and https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05645-5. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277084 |
A very quick Fermi estimate therefore suggests that you need about 4-5x the radiated energy to achieve a similar equilibrium temperature with (eventually) a similar atmosphere compared to Earth, which is suggested by the fact that the planet has liquid water on large portions of its surface and you w... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277084 |
Your planet has an orbital period of 34734 hours, or just about exactly four Earth years. In our solar system, Ceres (pretty close to smack in the middle of the asteroid belt) has an orbital period of 4.61 Earth years, so your planet should have an orbital circumference slightly less than that of Cer... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277102 |
Regarding the moon, the diameter is also largely irrelevant. The diameter and orbital radius (not even specified whether it's semi-minor or semi-major axis) plus the planet's radius allows deriving the angular size as viewed from the planet's surface, but that's about it. Mass and average density, al... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276696 |
@OlinLathrop @dmckee If you have what you feel is a better answer, by all means *please* post it as an answer. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275788 |
@HDE226868 Go right ahead. And I know the license on the answer says CC BY-SA 4.0, but there's no need to add explicit attribution to the help center. The whole purpose of this answer (and the question in the first place) is, after all, to figure out what criteria we want to have for that category. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275787 |
@HDE226868 Definitely understandable, and I basically agree. A clear limit is always easier to enforce than a mushy "yeah, this feels about right" one (or "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it"). On the other hand, I'd hope we don't place *higher* requirements than would be in place for pub... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275787 |
"Good enough quality for a paper" might not be a terrible metric, though of course it's not as simple to judge as simply "this link points to an article in a scientific publication". In some cases, that's going to mean citing proper scientific papers if you're going to cite anything at all; in other ... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275787 |
Does it truly need to be papers, though? Take your star mass range example; if I can point at a page at NASA's web site for that, is that *really* that much worse than a scientific paper that the latter would be acceptable but not the former? If we want to somehow discourage or even exclude content p... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275788 |
@Sigma I'm not sure what's possible with Codidact/QPixel as it is, to be honest. I would suggest that you ask that as a separate question so it can get the exposure it deserves. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275787 |
The more I think about this, the more I wonder where should we draw the line? Some things can be expected to be 'general knowledge' in a field; for example, if someone asks about space travel, do we need to dig out a scientific paper (or conference proceeding) that actually derives and defines the eq... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |