Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sounds in Space: Silencing Misconceptions
Yahoo! News ^ | Monday, September 22, 2003 | By Robert Roy Britt, Space.com

Posted on 09/22/2003 11:51:44 PM PDT by Aracelis

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

1 posted on 09/22/2003 11:51:44 PM PDT by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic; Junior; js1138; BMCDA; CobaltBlue; ThinkPlease; PatrickHenry; ...
Ping!
2 posted on 09/22/2003 11:52:32 PM PDT by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Piltdown_Woman
If a brave and clever astronaut could safely remove her helmet and shout into the cosmos, her voice would carry.

Only if "Her" name is Hillary....

3 posted on 09/22/2003 11:54:27 PM PDT by RandallFlagg ("There are worse things than crucifixion...There are teeth.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Piltdown_Woman; Physicist; RadioAstronomer
Hey, if the vacuum is foamy, with particles & anti-particles blinking into & out of existence - couldn't they provide a medium through which waves could travel?
4 posted on 09/23/2003 1:03:09 AM PDT by jennyp (http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Piltdown_Woman
On Earth, the atmosphere works well as a sound-carrying medium, as does water. The planet itself is very adept at transmitting an earthquake (news - web sites)'s seismic waves, a form of sound.

Not to pick nits, but are earthquake waves really longitudinal/compression, rather than transverse?

5 posted on 09/23/2003 1:20:56 AM PDT by KayEyeDoubleDee (const tag& constTagPassedByReference)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Piltdown_Woman
Way cool. Which reminds me, the universe is beige.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,50930,00.html
6 posted on 09/23/2003 1:42:39 AM PDT by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg
If a brave and clever astronaut could safely remove her helmet

This is where I stopped reading. The gender of the pronoun should be determined by the likelihood of an astronaut to be one or the other. Since more than 90% of astronauts (I'm guessing) have been male, using "her" in the sentence is just political correctness.

7 posted on 09/23/2003 2:33:57 AM PDT by giotto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: giotto; RandallFlagg
"her"

I knew a male english professor cum bureaucrat who would always do that, and make a big point of casualness when he did. He worked for a woman. He was also privately alleged by several women who worked under and around him to be a serial harasser to the point of being a borderline rapist.

8 posted on 09/23/2003 3:17:45 AM PDT by Yeti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Yeti
It would help if English had a non-gender specific singular personal pronoun.
9 posted on 09/23/2003 3:29:00 AM PDT by R. Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: giotto
This is where I stopped reading. The gender of the pronoun should be determined by the likelihood of an astronaut to be one or the other. Since more than 90% of astronauts (I'm guessing) have been male, using "her" in the sentence is just political correctness.

There's a physics reason. Very few males are sufficiently shrill to do this.

10 posted on 09/23/2003 4:55:43 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott
It would help if English had a non-gender specific singular personal pronoun.

Traditionally, the masculine is generic. "Mankind" refers to all humans, not just men ;)

11 posted on 09/23/2003 5:00:16 AM PDT by general_re (SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Quitting Sarcasm Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks To Your Health.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: KayEyeDoubleDee
are earthquake waves really longitudinal/compression, rather than transverse?

Actually, there are several types of seismic waves:

P waves - Compressional waves, Primary waves, Longitudinal waves

These waves alternate compressions with dilations, and are directed in the direction of propagation (perpendicular to the wavefront). P-wave motion travels fastest in solid materials, and are the first-arriving energies on a seismogram (P-wave). P waves in liquid, gas, or air are pressure waves.

velocity = about 5 – 7 km/s in Earth’s crust; about 8 km/s in Earth’s mantle and core; about 1.5 km/s in water; 0.3 km/s in air

S waves - Shear, Secondary waves, Transverse waves

These waves oscillate in a transverse fashion perpendicular to the direction of propagation either in the vertical or horizontal plane. S-waves do not travel through fluids, air, water or molten rock. A liquid outer core has been inferred from their absence in seismic records. S-waves travel more slowly than P waves in solids, and therefore arrive after the P wave.

velocity = about 3 – 4 km/s in Earth’s crust; about 4.5 km/s in Earth’s mantle; about 2.5 - 3.0 km/s in Earth's solid inner core

L waves - Love waves, Surface waves, Long waves

L-waves display transverse horizontal motion, perpendicular to the direction of propagation and parallel to the Earth’s surface. Love waves are largest at the Earth's surface and decrease in amplitude with depth. Love waves are dispersive, with lower frequencies normally propagating at a higher velocity. Depth of penetration is also frequency-dependent, with lower frequencies penetrating to greater depths.

velocity = about 2.0 - 4.5 km/s depending upon the frequency of the propagating wave

R waves - Rayleigh waves, Surface waves, Long waves, Ground roll

R-waves move both in the direction of propagation and perpendicular to the vertical. Motion is generally elliptical. Rayleigh waves are dispersive, and amplitudes generally decrease with depth inside the Earth. Their appearance is similar to water waves.

velocity = about 2.0 - 4.5 km/s in the Earth depending upon frequency of the propagating wave

12 posted on 09/23/2003 5:04:16 AM PDT by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Traditionally, yes – and I use it that way myself. A non-gender specific pronoun would shut up the feminazis and other sexists.
13 posted on 09/23/2003 6:30:51 AM PDT by R. Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott
Yeah, but they'll just find something else to complain about anyway - complaining is their raison d'etre. Besides, all the proposed alternatives I've ever seen look kind of goofy, with the possible exception of the singular "they"...
14 posted on 09/23/2003 6:41:26 AM PDT by general_re (SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Quitting Sarcasm Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks To Your Health.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Piltdown_Woman
Thanks for the heads up!
15 posted on 09/23/2003 6:44:02 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Piltdown_Woman
Actually, there are several types of seismic waves ...

And also this kind of WAVE.

16 posted on 09/23/2003 8:55:16 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Hic amor, haec patria est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Besides, all the proposed alternatives I've ever seen look kind of goofy, with the possible exception of the singular "they"...

I cringe at the specter of gender-free language, wherein we will be forced to refer to that reknowned English soccer team as "Peoplechester United" and those round steel thingies in the sewer sytem as "personhole" covers.

Gyno-American Grammar is evil.

17 posted on 09/23/2003 9:15:15 AM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Gotta take some liquid paper up to the moon and change the plaque to read "We came in peace for all personkind". ;)
18 posted on 09/23/2003 9:25:28 AM PDT by general_re (SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Quitting Sarcasm Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks To Your Health.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Piltdown_Woman
Okay, after reading the original article, I sent the following to the author:
... I'm ... curious about the original article. Consider the introduction:

"B-flat flying through space ... 57 octaves below the keys in the middle of a piano."

Wow, 57 octaves below B-flat, eh?

Assuming we are using A-440 Hz (and not some pre-Bach value), the B-flat below middle-C vibrates a medium only 233.0818808 times per second.

57 octaves below that is roughly 1.61733e-15 vibrations per second. This means that the period of the wave is the inverse of that number, or 6.18303e+14 seconds. But, ...

6.18303e+14 seconds
equals
1.71751e+11 hours
equals
7156282833 days
equals
19606259.51 years.

Call me suspicious, but how exactly does one make a measurement of a physical process which occurs once every 19 million years? Is there something in the fossil record, perhaps scratchings on a rock thanks to an inquisitive T. Rex?

Granted, if the note in question is 57 octaves below the B-flat which is above middle C, then you only have to wait half that long.


19 posted on 09/23/2003 12:36:41 PM PDT by KayEyeDoubleDee (const tag& constTagPassedByReference)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Physicist; RadioAstronomer; SlickWillard
Any ideas on my question in #19 above, concerning actually measuring that B-flat?
20 posted on 09/23/2003 12:40:48 PM PDT by KayEyeDoubleDee (const tag& constTagPassedByReference)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson