head full of worthless trivia

we've always had fun threads here, Sky. by posting them in General, i believe that more people see and use them. i believe they foster a coming together of the community. i enjoy having them in the first forum on PC. wakes me up in the a.m. at 3..

111,111,111 x 111,111,111 = 12,345,678,987,654,321

way cool........

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Four or five medium size oysters supply the recommended daily allowance of ....

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post"> barfing!!

Bleah!!!!

Pat this one's for you:

A “buckle bunny” is a woman who goes to rodeos with the intent of having sex with a rodeo cowboy.

emmers

Sounds good to me, why bother using any other forum, this is so much easier!

The Mockingbird (State Bird of Florida) is the only bird that can SING melodies while flying. (Other birds can whistle or squawk but not sing.) The Mockingbird (my favorite) can mock other birds' calls, and even some insects and frogs. (It's a pretty grey and white bird with a very long tail.)

yes,that's a really old one, a lot lizard is a woman who goes to a truckstop to have sex with a truck driver.

The ant always falls over on its right side when intoxicated.

All polar bears are left handed.

Tigers have striped skin, not just striped fur.

i love mockingbirds. my friend has one who keeps attacking his dog. her nest is near by. i used to watch my siamese, Cornelius Bros., try to get from the house to the barn before Marvin Mockingbird could dive bomb him.

The only two words in the English language ending in "ngry" :

Hungry and angry.

The anthropic principle as it applies to the initial conditions of the Big Bang:

Things are the way they are, because if they were different, we would not be present to observe them.

1/9 = .111...
2/9=.222...
3/9=.333...
...
7/9=.777...
8/9=.888...
9/9=?
Answer .999... and 1 are equally correct. While not a proof (I can provide one on request), it demonstrates that the sum of an infinite number of things can still equal a finite quantity, e.g. 0.9+0.09+0.009+0.0009+...=1

Not strictly trivia perhaps... but hopefully it gets ya thinkin'.

Ok, so I couldn't resist dropping in and posting to this thread. Guess I'm not quite quit of the place yet.

Which of the following are NOT real theme parks?

1. Dollywood (after Dolly Parton)
2. Twitty City (Conway Twitty)
3. Cash 'n Carry (Johnny Cash)

Answer: #3... Whether they are still open, I don't know, but Dolly Parton and Conway Twitty both opened theme parks with the aforementioned names :-)

One last mind blower:
Our solar system is currently travelling through space at approximately 500,000 miles per hour as it orbits the centre of the Milky Way galaxy. At this rate, it takes about 200 million years to go all the way around. Hope you don't miss your stop :-)

Rebound, you're killing me! I knew I liked you!

I thought this was a thread for worthless FACTUAL trivia...
not philosophical religious leanings:
Human existence is possible because the constants of physics and the parameters for the universe and for planet Earth lie within certain highly restricted ranges. John Wheeler and others interpret these amazing "coincidences" as proof that human existence somehow determines the design of the universe. Drawing an illogical parallel with delayed-choice experiments in quantum mechanics, they say that observations by humans influence the design of the universe, not only now, but back to the beginning. Such versions of what is called the "anthropic principle" reflect current philosophical and religious leanings towards the deification of man. They produce no evidence to support the notion that man's present acts can influence past events. Furthermore, their analogies with quantum mechanics break down on this point. The "coincidental" values of the constants of physics and the parameters of the universe point, rather, to a designer who transcends the dimensions and limits of the physical universe.

Bees have 5 eyes.

GET the heck out! No way!

Approximately two dozen parameters of the universe have been identified that must be carefully fixed in order for any kind of conceivable life (not just life as we know it) to exist at any time in the history of the universe. Some examples of these are given in Table 5.

Table 5: Evidence for design in the universe101 - 110

1. gravitational coupling constant

if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short stellar lifespans
if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production
2. strong nuclear force coupling constant

if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life are unstable
if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen
3. weak nuclear force coupling constant

if larger: all hydrogen is converted to helium in the big hang, hence too much heavy elements
if smaller: no helium produced from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements
4. electromagnetic coupling constant

if larger: no chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron are unstable to fission
if smaller: no chemical bonding
5. ratio of protons to electrons

if larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
6. ratio of electron to proton mass

if larger: no chemical bonding
if smaller: no chemical bonding
7. expansion rate of the universe

if larger: no galaxy formation
if smaller: universe collapses prior to star formation
8. entropy level of the universe

if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation
9. mass density of the universe

if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars bum too rapidly
if smaller: no helium from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements
10. age of the universe

if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
11. initial uniformity of radiation

if smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
12. average distance between stars

if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planet production
if smaller: planetary orbits become destabilized
13. solar luminosity

if increases too soon: runaway green house effect
if increases too late: frozen oceans
14. fine structure constant (a function of three other fundamental constants, Planck's constant, the velocity of light, and the electron charge each of which, therefore, must be fine-tuned)

if larger: no stars more than 0.7 solar masses
if smaller: no stars less than 1.8 solar masses
15. decay rate of the proton

if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life
16. 12C to 16O energy level ratio

if larger: insufficient oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon
17. decay rate of 8Be

if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible
18. mass difference between the neutron and the proton

if greater: protons would decay before stable nuclei could form
if smaller: protons would decay before stable nuclei could form
19. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons

if greater: too much radiation for planets to form
if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form
The degree of fine-tunedness for many of these parameters is utterly amazing. For example, if the strong nuclear force were even two percent stronger or two percent weaker, the universe would never be able to support life.111, 112 More astounding yet, the ground state energies for 4He, 8Be, 12C, and 16O cannot be higher or lower with respect to each other by more than four percent without yielding a universe with insufficient oxygen and/or carbon for any kind of life.110 The expansion rate of the universe is even more sensitive.113 It must be fine-tuned to an accuracy of one part in 1055!

I'm afraid to ask what "table 6" has... ;-)

Yeah, I learned it yesterday at mini golf. They throw out trivia questions over the loud speakers, and the person to answer correctly wins a fun package of golf and go-karting.

no need to fear I 'll put 6 right here:
While their analysis was a step in the right direction, it overestimated the range of permissible star types and the range of permissible planetary distances. It also ignored many other significant factors. Some sample parameters sensitive for the support of life are listed in Table 6.

Table 6: Evidence for the design of the sun-earth-moon system121 -139

1. galaxy type

if too elliptical: star formation ceases before sufficient heavy element buildup for life chemistry
if too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion is too severe and/or heavy elements for life chemistry are not available.
2. parent star distance from center of galaxy

if farther: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets.
if closer: stellar density and radiation would be too great.
3. number of stars in the planetary system

if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbits.
if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life.
4. parent star birth date

if more recent: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase.
if less recent: stellar system would not yet contain enough heavy elements.
5. parent star age

if older: luminosity of star would change too quickly.
if younger: luminosity of star would change too quickly.
6. parent star mass

if greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; star would bum too rapidly.
if less: range of distances appropriate for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the rotational period for a planet of the right distance; uv radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen.
7. parent star color

if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.
if bluer: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.
8. supernovae eruptions

if too close: life on the planet would be exterminated.
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets.
if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets.
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated.
9. white dwarf binaries

if too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed
if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated
10. surface gravity (escape velocity)

if stronger: atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane.
if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water.
11. distance from parent star

if farther: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle.
if closer: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle.
12. inclination of orbit

if too great: temperature differences on the planet would be too extreme.
13. orbital eccentricity

if too great: seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme.
14. axial tilt

if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great.
if less: surface temperature differences would be too great.
15. rotation period

if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great.
if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.
16. gravitational interaction with a moon

if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe.
if less: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities.
17. magnetic field

if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe.
if weaker: inadequate protection from hard stellar radiation.
18. thickness of crust

if thicker: too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust.
if thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great.
19. albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface)

if greater: runaway ice age would develop.
if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
20. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere

if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly.
if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly.
21. carbon dioxide level in atmosphere

if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
if less: plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis.
22. water vapor level in atmosphere

if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced life on the land.
23. ozone level in atmosphere

if greater: surface temperatures would be too low.
if less: surface temperatures would be too high; there would be too much uv radiation at the surface.
24. atmospheric electric discharge rate

if greater: too much fire destruction would occur.
if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere.
25. oxygen quantity in atmosphere

if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would bum up too easily.
if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe.
26. oceans to continents ratio

if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
if smaller: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
27. soil mineralization

if too nutrient poor: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
if too nutrient rich: diversity and complexity of life-forms would he limited.
28. seismic activity

if greater: too many life-forms would be destroyed.
if less: nutrients on ocean floors (from river runoff) would not be recycled to the continents through tectonic uplift.
Each of these 28 parameters cannot exceed certain limits without disturbing a planet's capacity to support life. For some, the limits have been measured quite precisely. This is typically the case for the stellar parameters. For others, the limits are more uncertain. This is typically the case for planetary parameters. Trillions of stars are available for study and star formation is quite well understood and observed. On the other hand, only nine planets can be studied, and though a fairly good theory of planetary formation is available, the details have yet to be worked out, nor can planetary formation be fully observed.

To get a feel for how confining these limits can be, the least confining would be parameters #1, #3, and #12 which would eliminate respectively 30%, 60%, and 20% of all candidates from contention. More confining would be parameters such as #2, #13, #15, and #19 which eliminate respectively about 80%, 90%, 90%, 90%, and 90% of all candidates from contention. Most confining of all would be parameters such as #6, #9, #11, #18, #21, and #25 which eliminate respectively about 99.9%, 99.9%, 99.9%, 99%, 99%, and 99% of all candidates from contention.

Of course, not all of the listed parameters are strictly independent of the others. Dependency factors could reduce the degree of confinement considerably. On the other hand, all these parameters must be kept within their limits for the total time spans needed for the support of life on a candidate planet. This will increase the degree of confinement.

About a dozen more parameters, such as the atmospheric transparency, atmospheric pressure, atmospheric temperature gradient, other greenhouse gases, location of different gases and minerals, and mantle and core constituents and structures, currently are being researched for their sensitivity in the support of life. However, the 28 listed in Table 6 in themselves lead safely to the conclusion that much fewer than a trillionth of a trillionth of a percent of all stars will have a planet capable of sustaining advanced life. Considering that the observable universe contains less than a trillion galaxies, each averaging a hundred billion stars,j we can see the not even one planet would be expected, by natural processes alone, to possess the necessary conditions to sustain life.k No wonder Robert Rood and James Trefil,121 among others,140 have surmised that intelligent physical life exists only on the earth.

Sky, this is REALLY cool! I think I like table 6! I can actually follow it! I can't say the same for table 5, though...

Really... 5 is a determinate table... whereas if the # (numbered) item was larger or smaller, then we couldn't exist... it's awesome. I confess I don't keep ALL of this in my head.

well I'm going to quiz you next week, so start memorizing!