Activity for Canina
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edit | Post #281706 |
Post edited: All questions on Scientific Speculation Codidact are expected to be based in and answers based in science, so the science-based tag is superfluous |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #281726 |
Post edited: All questions on Scientific Speculation Codidact are expected to be based in and answers based in science, so the science-based tag is superfluous |
— | over 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) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #279497 | Question closed | — | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #279500 | Question closed | — | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #279502 | Question closed | — | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #279497 |
@Green Not a problem; whether to post in standard Q&A or in Rigorous Science is your decision. (more) |
— | almost 4 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) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #279497 |
Post edited: The hard-science tag does not apply here, see https://scientific-speculation.codidact.com/help/rigorous-science |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #276482 | Post edited | — | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #279296 |
Post edited: Everything on Scientific Speculation should be based in science, by definition |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #275930 | Post edited | — | about 4 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) |
— | about 4 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) |
— | about 4 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 4 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 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #277256 | Initial revision | — | over 4 years ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Wrong category name in FAQ - "Researched Q&A" instead of "Rigorous Science" You are quite right. This has been fixed, thank you for pointing it out. (more) |
— | over 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #275930 | Post edited | — | over 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 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) |
— | over 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #276696 |
Post edited: |
— | over 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #276696 |
Post edited: |
— | over 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #276696 |
Post edited: |
— | over 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #276696 | Initial revision | — | over 4 years ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Avoiding Incidental Ion Drive damage to Following Vehicles? NASA's Fundamentals of Electric Propulsion: Ion and Hall Thrusters by Goebel and Katz, JPL, March 2008 discusses the issue of current ion drive beam focus limits (along with many other matters relevant to ion drives). Section 5.3.3, page 207: > Another significant grid issue is alignment of the... (more) |
— | over 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #206154 |
Post edited: character set |
— | over 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #230986 |
Post edited: local link |
— | over 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #276346 | Initial revision | — | over 4 years ago |
| Question | — |
Are there tags we should remove from all questions? When we did the initial import from Worldbuilding SE, we also inherited the tag set from there. This leaves us with some tags which are (should be) redundant on Scientific Speculation. I primarily have the science-based tag in mind -- after all, all posts on Scientific Speculation should be bas... (more) |
— | over 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) |
— | over 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) |
— | over 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) |
— | over 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) |
— | over 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #272187 |
Post edited: |
— | over 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) |
— | over 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) |
— | over 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #274107 |
Post edited: |
— | over 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #206147 |
Post edited: |
— | over 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #208703 |
Post edited: |
— | over 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #275788 |
Post edited: |
— | over 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #230554 |
Post edited: Rewrite from HTML to Markdown |
— | over 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #275792 | Initial revision | — | over 4 years ago |
| Question | — |
Do we want to keep the [science-based] and [reality-check] tags? When we did the initial import from Worldbuilding SE, the \[hard-science\] tag was handled specially and routed to the Researched Q&A category while removing that tag, but its siblings \[science-based\] and \[reality-check\] were left as-is and routed to the main Q&A category. My personal experien... (more) |
— | over 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #275788 |
Post edited: |
— | over 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #275788 |
Post edited: |
— | over 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #275788 |
Post edited: |
— | over 4 years ago |