/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4509729
Um, no. Apart from the shiggy-diggy nature of "centrifugal force", you're full of shit for claiming that the centripetal force associated with a given orbit is proportional to 1/r^3. It's proportional to 1/r, fool. Remember? mv^2/r?

Is science objectively good?

>>3322859
>antimatter beams

>>3274837
You want evidence? Okay, here's something for you. Plants don't actually convert all incident light into chemical energy. And you know what? Plants convert solar energy into chemical energy, but they also put that chemical energy to use, and that means that they lose energy to heat, as most biological processes rely on making certain key reactions exergonic, often by hydrolyzing a phosphoanhydride bond.
So the effect we REALLY want to worry about is that on albedo. Because plants tend to absorb radiation so well, they greatly reduce the amount of solar radiation that is reflected directly to space. The albedo of quartz sand is about 0.4, and the albedo of vegetation is about 0.2. That means that if you have a patch of desert and a patch of forest being hit with the same irradiance (in W/m^2) of incoming solar radiation, the desert will only absorb 3/4 as much energy in a given time as will the forest. BOOSH. You done making a fool of yourself yet?

>>3153772

>>3145314
>implying that I was speaking to EK rather than making an observation to all and sundry about a characteristic of one of her posts

>not putting your future in the fridge

>>3057816

>>2777842