Sorry, but chemical warfare is a violation of the Geneva Convention.
trumpcriticizestrump?
So help me!
Haha jk jk... unless?
This was last year
Here's a short documentary about the rescue effort https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OLGq9IDpXM
Did I? I was thinking in the sense that when climbing a steep hill, gravity isn't actually any stronger, you're just fighting against it more, since you're travelling more vertically than normal. "Vertical" on a flat disk would be basically toward the edges. Falling there would be the same as tumbling down a mountain that gradually slopes to flat ground, but you'd still experience the same gravitational pull, no?
It seems he edited his comment. "Always towards the center" means the direction of gravity, not it's magnitude, absolutely would change. Most of the mass of a disk is towards the center, rather than the edge. That's why gravity would pull you that way, but not with any more force than it would push you downward against the ground at the pole. As explained in the video, standing at the pole would feel totally normal (i.e. gravity is pushing straight down). At the edge, it would feel like hanging from a vertical surface (i.e. gravity is pushing sideways). If I'm not mistaken, that's completely in line with what I said before. If anything, I suppose it's possible gravity would be slightly weaker at the edges, just like objects in LEO don't actually fall at quite 9.8m/s, it'll be just a little slower, but that wasn't covered in the first few minutes of the video, which is what the scope of my comment referred to. Without actually leaving the surface of the disk far behind, however, I'm not sure the difference would be appreciable.
I'm no physicist, so I could be wrong, but I don't think the magnitude would change, only the direction gravity pulls you in. Gravity would always want to pull you towards the center on disk-shaped planet. It might "feel" stronger the same way gravity might "feel" stronger when ascending an ever-steepening hill, though.
The answer to your question is illustrated here in the first couple minutes of this old Vsauce video
Nice additions, thanks! It's been awhile since my college nutrition class, so maybe I'm misremembering, but is the starch found in bread, potatoes, and rice not a complex carbohydrate after all? Obviously it'll be digested faster than dietary (insoluble) fiber, which doesn't digest at all, but I was under the impression starches still don't finish digesting until they'd been fermented by our gut bacteria in the small intestine.
Calories - the basic unit used to measure dietary energy. The unit used for nutrition (as opposed to Calories used in physics) are actually kilo-Calories, but they're usually just called calories (though I think many European countries list them as "kcals"). Excess calories will be converted and stored as fat.
Glucose - a simple sugar monosaccharide (just 1 sugar component). Sugars are calorie-dense. There are other basic, simple sugars like galactose and fructose. Combining two of these simple sugars yields a disaccharide, which requires breaking down into its constituent sugars before it can be digested and absorbed, but this is done quickly. Sugars, both simple and complex, are carbohydrates. Simple sugars/carbs (mono/disaccarides) are quickly digested and absorbed into the blood stream, but complex sugars take a little longer.
Complex carbohydrates - these are long strings of sugars (polysaccharides), such as starch. As a result, they are very calorie dense (provided they can be digested by humans). They're typically what is being referred to if someone is talking about "carbs". Since they are strings of sugars, they require more breaking down before they can be digested than simple sugars.
Gluten - a structural protein formed mainly of the naturally-occurring glutenin and gliaden proteins found in some grains. If you add water and knead wheat flour, like in bread dough, it will form a network of these proteins into gluten. This is what gives bread its elasticity. Around 80% of all the protein in bread is gluten. Because it's sort of a dietary buzzword, I'll add that it's typically perfectly safe to consume unless you've been directed by a doctor to avoid it; avoiding it will produce no health benefits at all for the vast majority of people. There is some debate on whether gluten sensitivity truly exists outside of celiac disease (which is autoimmune in nature). Triple-blind experiments where subjects who claimed non-celiac sensitivity were given high-gluten diets, but reported no more symptoms on average than those given low-gluten or gluten-free diets. It's possible that the true cause of intestinal discomfort for some is instead from a group of compounds called FODMAPs, which are also present in many gluten-containing grains. Follow-up experiments with diets high in FODMAPs with the same group yielded more reporting of symptoms than with the gluten.
Old.reddit just started requiring an account recently, too
Pretty easy to get out of, right? I'm sure no prosecutor would keep you if you stated plainly that you detest cops and would never trust a word that comes out of their snouts. I've also heard of people claiming to have biases against all races but their own just to get out of jury duty, although at least once, I've heard of a judge asking jurists who made such claims for proof of past statements along those lines or be slapped with contempt of court charges. Not sure proclaiming to be a racist is the direction I would go in, but to each their own, I suppose.
view more:
next ›