/sci/ - Science & Math

fuck off brian

decent question

the similarity of the size of hte moon and the sun is fascinating

plus also the fact that the moons orbit synchronises with its rotation so we only ever see one side of it; for all we know there could be a great city built on the "dark" side and we'd never know

>>3876244

i thought /sci/ loved cox

>>3876236

A million years ago the moon was too far for solar eclipses.

In a million years it will be too big.

We happen to live in a period on earth where the two match.

This is what is known as a coincidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=istxUVBZD2s#t=2m43s
(deeplink to [2:43])
^moon doesn't fit perfectly over the sun.^

moon originally collided with the earth, so for a short time it covered ALL the night sky (from that particular collision point on earth)

moon distance doesnt affect hospitableness of the planet.

>>3876259
that tidal lock is not a coincident, its simple physics.

>>3876269

You got it the wrong way around, the moon is moving away from us.

No, it's fits perfectly because God did it.

You know, we're slowly losing the moon.

In about a billion years there will never be total solar eclipses again.

Well, it won't escape earth's orbit for several more billion years, and the sun will go red giant by then making it not a very big problem.

>>3876273
I really hate those videos. I don't see how anyone could watch that stuff beyond the age of about 14 and over the age of 13... So boring.

>>3876260
/sci/ loved cox before it was cool to love cox. Fucking science hipsters.

>>3876286
I know what you mean. Sometimes it's like eating kids' cereal, but there are sometimes some new discoveries hidden in there, and I don't mind the presentation so much. I often have Discovery on in the background while I'm reading or working.

>>3876260
Only engineers love cocks...

Crappy humor aside, Cox is pretty awesome imo, and I know many on /sci/ agree with me. But at the same time, you'll find that anyone who has ever done anything to communicate science to the masses is hated by a large portion of /sci/, be it Sagan, Dawkins, Tyson, Cox, Hawking... you'll always find some hipster faggot who hates them.

>>3876259
> for all we know there could be a great city built on the "dark" side and we'd never know
other than, you know, the Apollo missions and the vast number of missions which saw the other side of the moon.

>>3876273

I'm not a creationist, it just seemed logical to me that if the moon can move entire oceans and manipulate geological processes with its gravity from 384,400 km away then if it was much closer we would then its effects would be magnified.

>>3876304
He seems OK to me, I quite like him. His job is to get science to appeal to as many people as possible and I think he's done this job pretty well. The only show that I've ever hated was the Horizon episode about 9 months ago where they were talking about the holographic principle... it really was the most sensational bullshit I had ever seen.

>>3876350

i heard there was a dramatic increase in the number of students taking traditional sciences and math thanks to his shows

>>3876329
true, but not enough to prevent life (slightly bigger waves wouldnt be much of a problem for any species, land or sea)

>>3876312

>trusts the govt/military space program to be forthcoming

lold

>>3876329
The conditions aren't that much better for life today... in fact, they were so good millions of years ago, that huge shit like dinosaurs could evolve!

It seems like the coincidence of the moon being in the perfect spot for a solar eclipse is hard for you to grasp. The problem is, your explanation doesn't really solve this - it would still be just as much of a coincidence if intelligent life could only exist at the exact same time as we would have perfect opportunities to observe eclipses. Sorry, it really is just a coincidence. Unsatisfying answer, I know, but basically... there's a lot of shit in the universe. It makes sense that at least some of that shit is almost perfect. You just never notice the non-perfect stuff.

>>3876362
It has increased dramatically, and it is probably down to him. Tonnes of people took Chemistry A-Level at my school but I think 75% of them dropped it after the first year... I think the real interesting statistic will be how many people continue science and maths until the age of 18.

>>3876366
>yfw this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KEueJnsu80

>>3876366
US, EU, Russia, India are all in the same conspiracy, hiding the truth from us.

>>3876273
No

A Mars sized planet hit us and some of the stuff that got blasted into orbit (bits of both planets) made our moon.

>>3876432
thats what i meant when i said 'moon collided with us'
it wasnt the moon, it was Thea, but most of Thea formed the moon (and also a bit of earth, as lots of debris was left behind here)

>>3876380

OP has a point though.

What was different about the conditions on earth that made it more suitable for larger, stronger life rather than the more intelligent and distinctly warm blooded life we have today?

Is it pure coincidence? Is is something to do with the moon or the higher amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere back then?

Why did no primate like species evolve during the Cretaceous period?

>>3876447

maybe you haven't read this yet, but apparently Thea crated two moons which crashed into each other

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14391929

>>3876447
SORRY, I WAS TEXTING!!! LOL!!!

wow a non-shit tripfag thread

this is a first for /sci/

>>3876284
Actually, no.
We are currently losing the moon due to tidal forces.
The change in distance and rotation speed will brake both the earth and the moon's orbital speed.

The moon will lower towards the earth until it breaks up and we get our own debris ring.

>>3877164
Length of a day is increasing for the same reason. Before the moon was formed the earth spun around once every like four hours.

>>3876488
The last ice age you moron.

>>3876269
He's asking if it might not be simple coincidence, but if we "happen" to exist now in part thanks to these specific lunar conditions.

It's a bit silly, but you misunderstood him so I felt obligated to correct.

>>3877176
Eventually we'll have a day that lasts 4 months.
That's when the moon will finally break apart.

But that will take so long I'm not entirely sure the sun won't have gone red giant and consumed the planet by then.

Cox is the modern Layman's version of Carl Sagan.

>>3877164
>own debris ring
There was a set of pictures showing this exact thing with different cities as background(foreground?), it was beautiful.

>>3877199
So, if I understood what you are saying, there will be a point in time were a year is no longer 364 days+6 hours, correct? If so, when would this have a noticeable change?

>>3877217

No, I think Cox and Sagan are on the same level of accessibility. Cox does incorporate more things that appeal to a wider audience, but he talks about things with the same level of complexity as Sagan did.

>>3877335

The moon moves 3.8 centimetres away from the Earth every year (the SMA, not the entire orbit); in 15 billion years, the orbit will stabilize at 1.6 times it's present size, so an Earth day then will be 55 times longer than present.
Of course, the sun will have engulfed the Earth and the Moon by then, so it wouldn't even really matter.

>>3876350

no, his job is particle physics. he works at cern.