Tell Me Why...

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 5:47 am

Kitt wrote:How many different pictures must be drawn for a one minute clip of traditionally animated video? Think Disney's Little Mermaid.

It's hard to give you a good answer on that; it depends on the amount of effects in the shot, the number of characters, the amount of motion (including dialog,) etc, as typically each character will have a separate drawing done per frame of motion. These are then layered together over the backdrop and "effects" (anything moving that isn't a primary character - rain, sparkles, leaves blowing around, whatever.) In a particularly busy shot, this can lead to several thousand distinct images a minute (presuming they weren't able to reuse existing assets.)

Then you have people like Don Hertzfeld, who are basically fucking crazy, and hand-draw each and every frame in its entirety, even if there's no motion, leading to his distinctive jittery weirdness. Those are pretty explicitly 1440 drawings per minute of footage, which would be your absolute lower-bound for all traditional animation (24fps*60sec.)

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 2:15 am

What caused the decline of Islamic scholarship?

I mean, I knew the Italians came in during the Renaissance and were insufferable pricks about how smart they were, but you'd think that'd just spur further growth as the two cultures took stuff in wildly different directions before synthesizing each other's views and continuing to build on it. Instead, Islamic science seems to almost entirely die off during the same period. How come?

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 2:51 am

I actually knew something about this a few months ago, but I take crappy notes. I want to say that it was tied into the political situation at the time, specifically the rise in religious fundamentalism. I might have something in a bit.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:20 am

I mean, I knew the Italians came in during the Renaissance and were insufferable pricks about how smart they were, but you'd think that'd just spur further growth as the two cultures took stuff in wildly different directions before synthesizing each other's views and continuing to build on it. Instead, Islamic science seems to almost entirely die off during the same period. How come?

I must have a lecture series around here somewhere that covers that. I just finished a course on the early middle ages that only took me up through the breakup of Al Andalus. I should know this soon.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:23 pm

Why, after a person has eaten asparagus, does pee smell so strongly of it the next day?

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:34 pm

Marius wrote:
I mean, I knew the Italians came in during the Renaissance and were insufferable pricks about how smart they were, but you'd think that'd just spur further growth as the two cultures took stuff in wildly different directions before synthesizing each other's views and continuing to build on it. Instead, Islamic science seems to almost entirely die off during the same period. How come?
I must have a lecture series around here somewhere that covers that. I just finished a course on the early middle ages that only took me up through the breakup of Al Andalus. I should know this soon.

You're still taking courses? Aren't you already a Doctor? Slow down, you're already a winner! /sarcasm

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:40 pm

Why, after a person has eaten asparagus, does pee smell so strongly of it the next day?

Ah, this one I know. Asparagus incorporates sulfur into organic acids, and you excrete several sulfur compounds. I also know that not everyone is capable of smelling it, but if your girlfriend is capable of smelling (or tasting it) you might want to keep in mind that it doesn't just flavour the urine.

paladin2019 · Post by **paladin2019** » Sat Aug 15, 2009 3:14 am

Marius wrote:
Why, after a person has eaten asparagus, does pee smell so strongly of it the next day?
Ah, this one I know. Asparagus incorporates sulfur into organic acids, and you excrete several sulfur compounds. I also know that not everyone is capable of smelling it, but if your girlfriend is capable of smelling (or tasting it) you might want to keep in mind that it doesn't just flavour the urine.

And if she likes asparagus?

Bishop · Post by **Bishop** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:46 am

Eat more of it?

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Fri Sep 04, 2009 4:07 pm

Do plants have a natural lifecycle, where they can die, or do they live as long as their environment allows them to?

Tiny Deev · Post by **Tiny Deev** » Sat Sep 05, 2009 7:39 am

I always wanted to know that. I think they have a natural lifecycle...

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:14 am

And is it dependent on the type of plant (grass vs tree vs flower) or even the species (redwood vs bristlecone pine vs birch)?

Bonefish · Post by **Bonefish** » Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:20 pm

Salvation122 wrote:What caused the decline of Islamic scholarship?

I mean, I knew the Italians came in during the Renaissance and were insufferable pricks about how smart they were, but you'd think that'd just spur further growth as the two cultures took stuff in wildly different directions before synthesizing each other's views and continuing to build on it. Instead, Islamic science seems to almost entirely die off during the same period. How come?

Well, the Crusades really marks the end of what we can consider the highpoint of the Islamic culture. There's a number of things that probably helped to contribute: Foriegn invasion, a shift in jurispudence, economic stagnation and inter-factional rivalry.

Islamic civilization had two major centers of power: Islamic Spain and Islamic Persia/Mesopotamia. Islamic spain is the realy shining star of the Dar-al-Islam. Here, Christian, Jewish and Muslims worked together. That's going to be nipped in the bud with the Reconquista, leadign to the Inquisition. Persia and Mesopotamia would suffer the most under the invasions of the Mongols and their descendents.

Meanwhile, we've got inter-factional rivalry between the Shia Fatimids and Sunni Abbasids brewing up, whic htears apart what was a "unified" dar-al-islam. The increasing reliance on turkish Ghulams leads to Turks co-opting the Arabo-Persian aristocracy and replacing them in many areas.

This is disentigrating Islamic culture is contrasted to a European civilization that is becomign increasingly more united and strong. Combined with a major shift of trade networks, and you've got a recipe for disaster.

What's the active ingredient? I don't know. Of the five books on mideival islam I've got in my shed, none of them really answer that. Probably because the scholars involved don't really know. It's alot like the collapse of the Roman Empire in the west.

Bonefish · Post by **Bonefish** » Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:20 pm

Salvation122 wrote:What caused the decline of Islamic scholarship?

I mean, I knew the Italians came in during the Renaissance and were insufferable pricks about how smart they were, but you'd think that'd just spur further growth as the two cultures took stuff in wildly different directions before synthesizing each other's views and continuing to build on it. Instead, Islamic science seems to almost entirely die off during the same period. How come?

Well, the Crusades really marks the end of what we can consider the highpoint of the Islamic culture. There's a number of things that probably helped to contribute: Foriegn invasion, a shift in jurispudence, economic stagnation and inter-factional rivalry.

Islamic civilization had two major centers of power: Islamic Spain and Islamic Persia/Mesopotamia. Islamic spain is the realy shining star of the Dar-al-Islam. Here, Christian, Jewish and Muslims worked together. That's going to be nipped in the bud with the Reconquista, leadign to the Inquisition. Persia and Mesopotamia would suffer the most under the invasions of the Mongols and their descendents.

Meanwhile, we've got inter-factional rivalry between the Shia Fatimids and Sunni Abbasids brewing up, whic htears apart what was a "unified" dar-al-islam. The increasing reliance on turkish Ghulams leads to Turks co-opting the Arabo-Persian aristocracy and replacing them in many areas.

This is disentigrating Islamic culture is contrasted to a European civilization that is becomign increasingly more united and strong. Combined with a major shift of trade networks, and you've got a recipe for disaster.

What's the active ingredient? I don't know. Of the five books on mideival islam I've got in my shed, none of them really answer that. Probably because the scholars involved don't really know. It's alot like the collapse of the Roman Empire in the west.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:28 am

If you're traveling along at the speed of light, and you have a mirror in your hand, held out in front of you, can you see yourself in it?

Sam · Post by **Sam** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:35 pm

DV8 wrote:If you're traveling along at the speed of light, and you have a mirror in your hand, held out in front of you, can you see yourself in it?

Oooo good one!!

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:48 pm

DV8 wrote:If you're traveling along at the speed of light, and you have a mirror in your hand, held out in front of you, can you see yourself in it?

It's not actually possible to reach the speed of light.

Tiny Deev · Post by **Tiny Deev** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:17 pm

Hypothetical then.

Jeff Hauze · Post by **Jeff Hauze** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:02 am

Tiny Deev wrote:Hypothetical then.

Sure, no problem. Hypothetically, it's still impossible to reach the speed of light.

What, you want me to let a perfect set like that get away without a spike?

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:22 am

If you're traveling along at the speed of light, and you have a mirror in your hand, held out in front of you, can you see yourself in it?

Uh, yes. Perfectly. This is the whole point of special relativity.

We'll assume, of course, that you mean "very near the speed of light," to avoid that complaint about the speed of light being unreachable. And we'll assume, of course, that you're moving at uniform velocity.

Moving at any uniform velocity, everything's identical to not moving at all. The speed of light remains the same for all observers, and thus light reflecting from the mirror will seem exactly the same to you as if you weren't moving at all.

Or, rather, if you're at uniform velocity you're not moving at all. So everything works fine, and why do you care that various bits of the unverse are flying past you at near light speed?

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:09 pm

But if light moves at the same, constant speed, regardless of how fast the source is going, won't you "catch up" with the light that bounces off you and travels to the mirror to create the reflection? If you are constantly keeping the mirror out of reach of the light that would cause the reflection in the first place, would you be able to see anything?

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:10 pm

Light moves at the same speed for all observers. That is to say that if you're watching me fly past at near the speed of light you'll see light leaving my cigarette at exactly the speed of light even in the direction of my travel. I, moving along with the cigarette, will see the same light traveling away from me at the speed of light even in the direction of my travel. I can't catch up with it, because no matter how fast I'm going, it's always going light speed away from me.

Light traveling between you and the mirror travels at the speed of light relative to you just as if you are standing still, regardless of the speed at which you're moving relative to anything else. For that matter, any time you're moving at uniform speed you are standing still, so light acts as it always should. You're not moving very fast. The rest of the universe just happens to be moving really fast past you.

Bonefish · Post by **Bonefish** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:00 am

What does a singularity look like?

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:21 am

Bonefish wrote:What does a singularity look like?

I'll assume you mean a black hole, in which case the singularity itself looks like a whole lotta nuttin'; that's why they call it a black hole. The best we can do is detect approximately seven metric fucktons of X-Ray and Gamma radiation being spewed out of them.

Bonefish · Post by **Bonefish** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:12 pm

A black hole is a singularity with an event horizon. Of course, that really doesn't matter, because it was a trick question. Roger Penrose suggested the cosmic censorship rule, so "god abhors a naked singularity", and you'll never see one, because they always lie either completely in the past(big bang) or completely in the future(black hole).

Furthermore, a naked singularity, such as what would presumably exist at the beginning of the universe in General Relativity, would be be unviewable to anyone. The universe is compressed to a single point, which means any observer outside of that point is also outside of the universe. And that's just not possible.

And Black Holes don't emit X-rays or Gamma rays, that's rather a function of the matter that's falling into them. If a black hole isn't near any matter, then it's not going to have the Gamma/X-ray radiation. On the other-hand, Black holes DO radiate energy and particles in a sense, due to the Uncertainty principle. However, it depends on the mass of the black hole, with the smaller black holes being hotter and emiting more energy/particles. Any "conventional" blackhole, aka one larger than the Chandrasekhar limit is going have a temperature and emission rate that's lower than the background radio wave radiation of the universe, which means you can't see it.

On the other-hand, if there are primordial black holes, they should be easier to detect, because they have a smaller mass and therefore a higher temperature.

Bit of a d-bag move on my part to ask a trick question I already knew the answer to. OR suspect I know the answer to.

BTW, Sal: did you read my idea on the Explanation behind the end of the Islamic Golden age, and were you satisfied, or do you want me to go dig out my books on midieval islam?

Eva · Post by **Eva** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:21 pm

Is this thread also open to easily wikipedia'd questions? Because if so: how come when I stub my toe (like I did five minutes ago) it takes a few seconds for it to hurt?

('RFTM, b00n' is a perfectly acceptable answer)

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 1:34 pm

I love the fact you use the b00n instead of n00b. Very sophisticated.

Bonefish · Post by **Bonefish** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

Eva wrote:Is this thread also open to easily wikipedia'd questions? Because if so: how come when I stub my toe (like I did five minutes ago) it takes a few seconds for it to hurt?

('RFTM, b00n' is a perfectly acceptable answer)

I think it's because, as we all know, Dutch people are part of the Illuminati, and as such are really the cold-blooded descendents of Dinosaurs. Your reptilian brain doesn't process information as quickly.

Heavy_D · Post by **Heavy_D** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:33 am

Why do we yawn?

Eva · Post by **Eva** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:54 am

DV8 wrote:I love the fact you use the b00n instead of n00b. Very sophisticated.

Dat deed ik ook speciaal voor jou.

Bonefish wrote:I think it's because, as we all know, Dutch people are part of the Illuminati, and as such are really the cold-blooded descendents of Dinosaurs. Your reptilian brain doesn't process information as quickly.

This is true. So are you trying to say that when a dinosaur stubs his toe, it doesn't register until like five minutes later?

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:12 pm

Heavy_D wrote:Why do we yawn?

I thought that was just an oxygen thing. You get tired, you need more oxygen, etc. Marius?

Sam · Post by **Sam** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:31 pm

Eva wrote:This is true. So are you trying to say that when a dinosaur stubs his toe, it doesn't register until like five minutes later?

It would make sense, I mean, some of their heads are miles away from their feet. Which means it much suck to be an ant. Hrm.

Tiny Deev · Post by **Tiny Deev** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 8:16 pm

Heavy_D wrote:Why do we yawn?

Its a reflex to draw in more oxygen, caused by irregular breathing. Also, according to recent studies, people yawn when they try to stay focussed. It cools the roof of your of mouth, cooling your brain. (The cooling of the brain was some dodgy science magazine I read at the doctors place, don't be suprised if its absolute bullshit)

Also, the reason why we yawn when others yawn is herd-psychology. It used to signify that someone was tired and the herd had to slow down. So, if one person yawned someone who noticed it yawns so that someone else notices and yawn all the way through the herd.

Eva · Post by **Eva** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:29 pm

Why do rooms gather dust even if nothing happens there? I have a spare bedroom in my (temporary) apartment that is covered in dust every time I come in, even though it just sits there most of the time. How does dust come into existence?

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:45 pm

Eva wrote:Why do rooms gather dust even if nothing happens there? I have a spare bedroom in my (temporary) apartment that is covered in dust every time I come in, even though it just sits there most of the time. How does dust come into existence?

There are microscopic particles in the air that start clotting. Dust comes from all kinds of sources, most of it probably comes from erosion.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:52 pm

Most dust in the interior of homes are bits of people that have come loose.

Bonefish · Post by **Bonefish** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:20 am

There might be a market in that Eva-Dust.

Eva · Post by **Eva** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:45 am

Bonefish wrote:There might be a market in that Eva-Dust.

If you don't mind that it's been cut with cat hair, come on over. Free to a good home.

Moto42 · Post by **Moto42** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:09 am

We can claim you're one of The Cat People. It'll double sales.

________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_People_(1942_film)
In case someone is clueless.

Bonefish · Post by **Bonefish** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:14 pm

Eva wrote:
Bonefish wrote:There might be a market in that Eva-Dust.
If you don't mind that it's been cut with cat hair, come on over. Free to a good home.

It's not my bag, personally, doll. I prefer the good stuff. Cocaine!

Eva · Post by **Eva** » Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:28 pm

Not so much a why, but a what: what's the physical difference between smart people and stupid people, if there is one?

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:58 am

From what I gather, Eva, most of the research that went into the physical differences in intelligence was done in a time when there were huge class divides between various races, and as such certain ethnic groups were far more likely to be uneducated and thus, "stupid" in comparison to those with access to education. Most of that research, as a result of this, is totally worthless.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 2:44 pm

Oh, I'm not touching the eugenics question with a 20 foot pole.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:06 pm

I don't think she's asking about gross morphological differences; if she is, the answer in the vast majority of cases is, "Nothing."

I think she's asking about structural differences in brain tissue, and tiny changes in neurochemistry, and so on. In other words, not, "What is physically different between a person with a dumb brain and a person with a smart brain," but rather, "If you were holding a smart brain in one hand, and a dumb brain in the other, how would they be different from each other?"

Tiny Deev · Post by **Tiny Deev** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:32 pm

A study has shown that people who learn how to juggle, increase their brain's weight. Read it in a medical journal, and I can't remember the specifics. Something about training hand eye coordination, and the increased growth in neurological tracts making the stimulus travel from where its sent to where its headed faster. Its been speculated that people with higher IQ's have this as well, only in a slightly different way. It makes their thought process go faster, or something.

Took me a while to formulate the awnser, Eva, I read it in a Medical-Journal once at the doctors office, I seemed to have remembered parts of it.

Eva · Post by **Eva** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:11 am

3278 wrote:I think she's asking about structural differences in brain tissue, and tiny changes in neurochemistry, and so on. In other words, not, "What is physically different between a person with a dumb brain and a person with a smart brain," but rather, "If you were holding a smart brain in one hand, and a dumb brain in the other, how would they be different from each other?"

Isn't that the same question? If the brain on the left is different from the brain on the right, and the person who one brain belonged to was deemed smarter than the other, couldn't we speak of a physical difference between the smart person and the dumber person? Does a difference in neurochemistry not constitute a physical difference?

Regardless, I'm interested in the answer to the question.

As an aside, I think it's endlessly interesting when a question becomes so charged that it can't be discussed anymore. I understand this is a "delicate" issue to say the least, but you'd think that there's enough to be gained from understanding what makes smart people smart that enough research would be done to make it common knowledge by now.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:25 pm

Eva wrote:
3278 wrote:I think she's asking about structural differences in brain tissue, and tiny changes in neurochemistry, and so on. In other words, not, "What is physically different between a person with a dumb brain and a person with a smart brain," but rather, "If you were holding a smart brain in one hand, and a dumb brain in the other, how would they be different from each other?"
Isn't that the same question?

It is, or rather it should be. Some people were concerned that the emphasis might be on the traits of a person which weren't in the brain itself; in other words, "Stupid people have black skin," or, "Smart people have larger heads," neither of which, we now know, are true. You're asking about structural differences in the brain, and neurochemical properties of the brain, and not about gross morphology like skin color or arm length.

Eva wrote:Regardless, I'm interested in the answer to the question.

My decision to take these questions in order seems much more foolish since my favorite question - and thus the one I'm most self-pressured to answer well - was the second question asked.