Jump to content

Canadian Geopub Quiz

Couparangus

By Couparangus
in Canada

Followers 16

Recommended Posts

Cedar Grove Seekers

+Cedar Grove Seekers

Posted
Posted
Okay, okay. I didn't know it was this well known. Answer the question and I'll ask something a little more challenging. <evil grin>

 

 

Oooo, ok I will take you up on that!

 

 

Ask the Twin: "Would your twin tell me that YOU are telling the truth"

 

Honest = no

 

Dishonest (and ugly mind you) = yes

 

 

I look forward to your next riddle!

 

Well, if this was your one question you still wouldn't know which path to take.

 

Wouldn't you want to ask something like "If I asked your twin if this path was the safe one (pointing to a path), what would she say?

 

No = safe one, Yes = dangerous one.

Link to comment
Cedar Grove Seekers

+Cedar Grove Seekers

Posted
Posted

How many of the 50 states in the USA are entirely or partially north of parts of Canada. In other words, how many states have their most northerly point further north of Canada's most southerly point?

 

Do we count water?

That's a good question - I'd say answer with or without counting water, but just let us know which method you used.

 

When I was counting myself, I didn't include water, but certainly counted islands.

Link to comment
stagunner

+stagunner

Posted
Posted

As a reminder, I am looking for...

 

The world's largest fresh water sand bar and dune system?

 

Its easy, but I live only a couple hours from it.

 

Binrat

 

I am guessing it as Sandbanks near Picton Ontario

for two reasons,, lots of sand, and it is not far from Binrat..

 

I have been to Picton but not Sandbanks Provincial park

Link to comment
stagunner

+stagunner

Posted
Posted

I knew what and when but had to look up how much.

 

Canso Causeway

1955

10,092,000 tons of rock

 

a new winner DF!!!!

 

Thats a lot of Rock but they did not have to go far to get it.

funny thing is that ever since it was built there has been a signifigant change in the weather, or so the old folks say

Link to comment
danoshimano

danoshimano

Posted
Posted

We visited Percé as newlyweds in 1987, and it was quite spectacular. Back then, you could walk out to the rock at low tide, and make your way out to the big arch. Many people doing this would get drenched by big waves if they were in the wrong place at the right time.

 

While picking our way over the "roots" of the rock, the seals would be bobbing in the water about 100m away, watching the silly tourists, and laughing.

 

At the arch, the power of the water was amazing. One look at the water running through that arch and you knew if you fell in you would be mercilessly sucked under and away. And if you didn't get back before the tide came in, you'd be in a little trouble, too, because the land bridge would disappear.

 

Now, it is closed off because people got hit by falling rocks.

 

New question coming soon...

Link to comment
wavector

+wavector

Posted
Posted (edited)

If you were riding on one of the GPS satellites (Slim Pickens style), time would be passing at a different rate than your friends back on the ground.

 

Name the TWO principles that cause this time effect, and whether they make time pass slower or faster.

 

In believe that one of the principles involved is relativity. Satellites move very fast relatively speaking. This increase in speed means that the satellite is actually moving at a greater percentage of the speed of light which affects the passage time for the satellite. As objects approach the speed of light the passage of time moves slower for those objects. Relativistic effects are often used in "speculative fiction" and travelers in space often inadvertantly become travelers in time as time slows down for them.

 

Charlton Heston proved this in the movie "Planet of the Apes".

It is interesting to note that Chuck did not know he was on the planet Earth until he found the cracked off head of the Statue of Liberty.

If he had a Garmin Oregon he would have figured where he was much sooner.

Some would argue that if he had Magellan Triton that might have worked as well but that is arguable. :laughing:

 

So there you go, I got half an answer for you dano.

Edited by wavector
Link to comment
ibycus

+ibycus

Posted
Posted

Yes, you got half the answer, and the other half is *very* close, relatively speaking. I'll fill in one missing word from your answer to help out with the second half.

 

Special Relativity causes time to run slower on the satellite.

 

Generally speaking, I could answer, but then I'd have to come up with another good question, and I can't think of one right now...

 

They had a whole big cover article about this in Physics Today in May 2002. Pretty cool stuff to think about.

 

Dale

Link to comment
wavector

+wavector

Posted
Posted (edited)

Yes, you got half the answer, and the other half is *very* close, relatively speaking. I'll fill in one missing word from your answer to help out with the second half.

 

Special Relativity causes time to run slower on the satellite.

 

I have been trying to guess what the other half might be.

A lucky guess would put me 3/4 of the way there.

I think another factor might be nickle metal hydride batteries. These are used a lot in satellties and there was a bad batch that didn't hold a charge well. Nobody noticed that when the satellites were brought down for re-charging the clocks were out by a few minutes. If they had twigged to that they might not have re-released them as quickly. If that is not right then "I am a Premium Member of geocaching.com"

 

Another factor to consider is that Slim Pickens died in 1983.

The load distribution programs that are applied to re-entry problems failed to consider that the removal of 200 odd pounds from the total weight of the satellite would cause them to speed up because there would be less friction between the satellite and the surrounding space. (Newton's Fifth Law).

 

Satellite rider and real cowboy extraordinaire Slim Pickens from the Wiki

 

In this months' Canadian Living magazine there was an article that had nothing to do with satellites or physics it was called "what contest?". (not really but it is a contest that has a very nice FTF prize.)

Edited by wavector
Link to comment
Diemanca

+Diemanca

Posted
Posted

Yes, you got half the answer, and the other half is *very* close, relatively speaking. I'll fill in one missing word from your answer to help out with the second half.

 

Special Relativity causes time to run slower on the satellite.

 

I have been trying to guess what the other half might be.

A lucky guess would put me 3/4 of the way there.

 

I'll go with General Relativity.

 

If this is right, because wavector wrote more words than I did, it's his win, plus I don't have a question :ph34r:

Link to comment
danoshimano

danoshimano

Posted
Posted

Yes, you got half the answer, and the other half is *very* close, relatively speaking. I'll fill in one missing word from your answer to help out with the second half.

 

Special Relativity causes time to run slower on the satellite.

 

I have been trying to guess what the other half might be.

A lucky guess would put me 3/4 of the way there.

 

I'll go with General Relativity.

 

If this is right, because wavector wrote more words than I did, it's his win, plus I don't have a question :unsure:

 

Yes, it is General Relativity. The more mass/gravity there is, the slower time runs. This effect can be measured between the top and bottom of a tower, but the clock has to be very accurate (an understatement).

 

The GPS satellite is high up from the surface of the earth, which causes time to run faster (General Relativty). But it is moving rapidly compared to a spot on earth, which causes time to run slower (Special Relativity). SR has a much greater effect than GR (in this case), so overall, time runs slower on the satellite, and has to be accounted for.

 

Even though GR is a theory of the universe at large (a theory of Gravity), it is Special Relativity that is the most mind-blowing. For example, if you are rocketing toward a distant planet at 90% of the speed of light, time will be passing way slower for you than the people you left on earth. But since everything seems normal to you, how can that be? Simple: space shrinks for you, and the star is closer than you measured from earth. :sad:

 

Egads!

 

Take it away wavector!

Link to comment
ibycus

+ibycus

Posted
Posted

Yes, it is General Relativity. The more mass/gravity there is, the slower time runs. This effect can be measured between the top and bottom of a tower, but the clock has to be very accurate (an understatement).

 

The GPS satellite is high up from the surface of the earth, which causes time to run faster (General Relativty). But it is moving rapidly compared to a spot on earth, which causes time to run slower (Special Relativity). SR has a much greater effect than GR (in this case), so overall, time runs slower on the satellite, and has to be accounted for.

 

Even though GR is a theory of the universe at large (a theory of Gravity), it is Special Relativity that is the most mind-blowing. For example, if you are rocketing toward a distant planet at 90% of the speed of light, time will be passing way slower for you than the people you left on earth. But since everything seems normal to you, how can that be? Simple: space shrinks for you, and the star is closer than you measured from earth. :lol:

 

Egads!

 

Take it away wavector!

 

I always found GR to be much more 'mind blowing' than SR. (then again, I never really did a whole lot of GR, so maybe be less mind blowing once I'd done it).

 

I would have guessed GR to be the more significant 'correction' relative to the SR correction, and the satellites are all in different (non inertial) reference frames. The Physics Today article I was talking about earlier went so far as to say that without GR, the whole GPS system would become totally unusable within a matter of days due to the 'drift'.

 

A geosynchronous satellite moves at 3070 m/sec (we'll take this as ball park because I'm too lazy to work out, or find the actual number). The speed of light is 299792458m/s. So the satellites move at 1.02 x 10^-5 c. So our (1-v^2/c^2)^.5=0.99999999995. I don't know if this how significant in terms of time corrections to satellites this is (I could work it out, but I'm feeling lazy at the moment).

 

Dale

Link to comment
wavector

+wavector

Posted
Posted

...but I'm feeling lazy at the moment).

 

Dale

 

OK, this is what I do when I am feeling lazy. :lol:

Someone is going to know this!

Two words, fill in the blanks...

 

______ ____ is an imaginary line joining places with zero declination/variation.

 

Don't ask me what it means, I only know the answer. :)

 

Let's all pitch in and recycle! :)

Link to comment
Diemanca

+Diemanca

Posted
Posted

...but I'm feeling lazy at the moment).

 

Dale

 

OK, this is what I do when I am feeling lazy. :lol:

Someone is going to know this!

Two words, fill in the blanks...

 

______ ____ is an imaginary line joining places with zero declination/variation.

 

Don't ask me what it means, I only know the answer. :laughing:

 

Let's all pitch in and recycle! :)

 

My joblist. . oh sorry, that's zero inclination :)

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
Followers 16
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...