Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 2]
Discussion
Dr Jekyll said:
How can anyone possibly generalise about a group that includes, for example) Nigella Lawson, Felicity Kendal, Einstein and Bob Dylan? The idea of them getting together in an international conspiracy is like a Mitchell and Webb sketch.
Just thinking about that (possible) sketch made me laugh.
Dr Jekyll said:
That's the strange thing though. Some Jews are easily identifiable as such, but most Jews I've known have nothing in common with each other. Anti Semites must be in constant danger of liking people they shouldn't.
How can anyone possibly generalise about a group that includes, for example) Nigella Lawson, Felicity Kendal, Einstein and Bob Dylan? The idea of them getting together in an international conspiracy is like a Mitchell and Webb sketch.
Nigella Lawson is an atheist, as was Einstein (more or less). But I've always suspected Felicity & Bob were in cahoots.How can anyone possibly generalise about a group that includes, for example) Nigella Lawson, Felicity Kendal, Einstein and Bob Dylan? The idea of them getting together in an international conspiracy is like a Mitchell and Webb sketch.
thismonkeyhere said:
Dr Jekyll said:
How can anyone possibly generalise about a group that includes, for example) Nigella Lawson, Felicity Kendal, Einstein and Bob Dylan? The idea of them getting together in an international conspiracy is like a Mitchell and Webb sketch.
Just thinking about that (possible) sketch made me laugh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY
Dr Jekyll said:
How can anyone possibly generalise about a group that includes, for example) Nigella Lawson, Felicity Kendal, Einstein and Bob Dylan? The idea of them getting together in an international conspiracy is like a Mitchell and Webb sketch.
Just pop over to News, Politics & Economics and you'll see how easy it is for some posters to generalise about all Muslims (a group including Mo Farah, Malala Yousafzai, Malcolm X and Omar Sharif). It's no different.
P-Jay said:
Funkycoldribena said:
A lot of people seem to think the word "lose" is spelt "loose",what happens when they come to spell the actual word "loose"?
They probably just assume it's spelt the same way like you might "wind your clock whilst outside the wind blows" or something like that.I'm quite horribly dyslexic, really - properly diagnosed and all that. I would have spelt 'lose' as 'loose' until about my mid 20's. I didn't know 'too' existed, just assumed 'to' worked for both and spelt Weather, Weather, whether I meant whether or Weather.
;-)
SilverSixer said:
P-Jay said:
Funkycoldribena said:
A lot of people seem to think the word "lose" is spelt "loose",what happens when they come to spell the actual word "loose"?
They probably just assume it's spelt the same way like you might "wind your clock whilst outside the wind blows" or something like that.I'm quite horribly dyslexic, really - properly diagnosed and all that. I would have spelt 'lose' as 'loose' until about my mid 20's. I didn't know 'too' existed, just assumed 'to' worked for both and spelt Weather, Weather, whether I meant whether or Weather.
;-)
MarshPhantom said:
The sun is a very, very long way away so how come being very slightly closer, for example the distance between Scotland and the South of France, makes such a big difference in temperature?
The Earth is curved and tilted on its axis. A "small" change in location on the surface results in a change in surface area per unit of energy and an change in time of exposure to that energy. (i.e. as you move away from the equator, the energy is spread across a bigger area - get far enough round and most of it misses the planet and heads off into space).It also needs to pass through a "thicker" layer of atmosphere, which also prevents some of the energy getting to the surface.
Edited by marshalla on Tuesday 3rd February 19:01
MarshPhantom said:
The sun is a very, very long way away so how come being very slightly closer, for example the distance between Scotland and the South of France, makes such a big difference in temperature?
It's not the distance that matters, it's the angle.When the sun is directly overhead (equator) you get muchos toasty rays per sqft on the ground.
As you move away from the equator the sun never makes it that high in the sky any more; it's lower in the sky so the same energy is covering a bigger area.
Picture > words.
From here: http://www.hko.gov.hk/education/edu06nature/ele_sr...
ATTAK Z said:
MarshPhantom said:
The sun is a very, very long way away so how come being very slightly closer, for example the distance between Scotland and the South of France, makes such a big difference in temperature?
The angle of incidence makes up for quite a lot of the differenceMarshPhantom said:
So it's to do with the sun being at angle and not directly overhead then, thanks very much for that.
If you think about it, the Antarctic is only about 6000 miles from equatorial Africa, so it would be very odd if a measly 6000 miles difference from an object 93,000,000 miles away could make the difference between 50c and -50c. TwigtheWonderkid said:
MarshPhantom said:
So it's to do with the sun being at angle and not directly overhead then, thanks very much for that.
If you think about it, the Antarctic is only about 6000 miles from equatorial Africa, so it would be very odd if a measly 6000 miles difference from an object 93,000,000 miles away could make the difference between 50c and -50c. Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff