The "ask a silly question, get a sensible answer" thread

Irish_Tom said:
Yes.

Also, Australia used to be part of Antarctica and is still moving north, so it will eventually crash into South East Asia.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Scary stuff to see you could "jump" to Australia if you wanted but that your future generation would likely suffer from the havoc that crash could create.
 
Judgeneo said:
First you need to define where you are placing the plug hole, as that determines the amount of water that will be drained.

Depending on the depth of the plug hole, there will be a different amount of undrained water.

water_zpsf64e06ed.png


Once the position of the plug hole is determined, you could then start to calculate the pressure as a function of water height above the plug hole, and the amount of water linked by water tension as a function of time.

Pretty darn complicated tbh
Click to expand...

OK, according to Wiki...

Its average depth is 4,028~4,188 metres (14,000 ft or 2,333 fathoms)
Click to expand...

So let's say the plug hole is right on that average depth.

EDIT: Actually, a true plug hole would be at the very bottom - or what's the point :D In which case...

The lowest known point on Earth—the Mariana Trench—lies 10,911 metres (35,797 ft or 5,966 fathoms) below sea level.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
If its going to take a few billion years 15 or 60 or whatever, whats the rate of evaporation, I mean would the oceans actually drain at all?
 
Calabi said:
If its going to take a few billion years 15 or 60 or whatever, whats the rate of evaporation, I mean would the oceans actually drain at all?
Click to expand...

We're not taking things like that into account. To boil the question down, we're basically saying "how long will it take x amount of water to pass through an aperture of x size, at a depth of x feet". It's just fun to use the Pacific as a basis for the question because it's something familiar that we can visualize. We clearly won't get a truly accurate answer, but we should be able to come with a ballpark figure that's based on solid maths.
 
Judgeneo said:
To protect them on route to target. They're even more useless if they get knocked out mid flight.
Click to expand...

To protect them from what though? They only wore bump caps, designed to stop them banging their noggin and doing damage when entering or exiting the plane.
Not gonna save them if they get shot down!
 
Dis86 said:
To protect them from what though? They only wore bump caps, designed to stop them banging their noggin and doing damage when entering or exiting the plane.
Not gonna save them if they get shot down!
Click to expand...

Turbulence, flying debris, faulty harnesses etc...

Unlikely to knock you out, but helmets are pretty cheap so why take the risk?
 
jaybee said:
I've always wondered if it was possible to die from fart inhalation.
Click to expand...

Mythbusters tested a similar thing. They found that if you were farting at the world record rate constantly while inside an air tight room that the CO2 buildup from your breathing would kill you WAY before any gasses from your farting killed you. I cant find the video but here is a useful summary:
http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/03/franklins_kite_flatulence.html

The buildup of CO2 from breathing would be problematic in 36 hours, whereas methane would be a problem in over a year and hydrogen sulphide would be a problem in 22 years

Eames said:
Why do we drive on the left in the UK?
Click to expand...

The majority of people are right handed. several hundred years ago, back when we rode on horseback and fought with swords and did jousting we rode on the left side so that right handed people had their protective sword hand between them and people coming in the other direction. This riding on the left tradition has been kept to this day.

A lot of the countries that now drive on the right changed from driving/riding on the left to show that they had moved on from those times

*edit*
I really need to learn to type faster

jackthezipper said:
So....a plane and a treadmill....
Click to expand...

So, I've got this helicopter, and I have a turntable...
 
Von Smallhausen said:
If I had a space capable Audi A4, travelling at the motorway speed limit of 70mph, how long would it take to reach Proxima Centauri at a distance of 4.24 light years ?
Click to expand...

With or without the road work delays at Jupiter?

The answer would be 40647161.121983039791258969341161 years. Or 41 millennia if you round up. That's fairly easy maths, even I can do that.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
If I had a space capable Audi A4, travelling at the motorway speed limit of 70mph, how long would it take to reach Proxima Centauri at a distance of 4.24 light years ?
Click to expand...

Assuming:
- no stops needed for fuel/repairs/food/toilet/whatever
- you reach 70mph instantly and stay at that speed until you reach proxima centurai, despite any gravitational help/hinderance

4.24 lightyears = 2.5*10^13 miles (2.49248392 × 10^13 miles actually)

at 70mph that would take 356,069,131,429 hours
or 14,836,213,809.5 days
or 40,619,339.6565 years
(including leap years, but not including the missed leap year every 100 years and included leap year every 400 years)

*edit*
i REALLY need to learn to type faster :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom