Yes, if you take a massive amount of particles of a given substance, it makes that substance.

And when I say “a massive amount”, chemists used Avogadro’s Number, 6.022x10^23 units, to represent a mole of a substance.

The mass of Moles are generally measured in grams per mole.

So, that’s 602,200,000,000,000,000,000 units of something weighted in grams.

About 4 peas equal 1 gram.

It does depend a lot on the substance though. Like water, as a fluid. Flows together as looks very homogenous.

But if you’re talking about a mixture of various particles that may not blend it makes things very different. You’d likely see a few different substances (like when you smashed different colors of playdough together).

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

ELI5 is not for straightforward answers or facts - ELI5 is for requesting an explanation of a concept, not a simple straightforward answer.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this was removed erroneously, please use this form first. If you believe this was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

As in you stacked them in a line, like a one meter tall tower of individual molecules? You'd still see nothing except MAYBE if you were looking straight at the line.

Imagine an old house, with timber frame windows, no locks just casement stays. Night latch, single cylinder door locks. Single bolted basement hatch.

Most PCs are that house, which someone has tried to make secure by adding more locks to the places they know are weakly secured.

Phones are a modern house with triple glazed PVC multi-point locking windows and steel frame multi rod security doors.

When you take something big and complicated that was never designed to deal with modern threats and you try to secure it, you can make it pretty good, but there is always the risk of gaps. When you design something to be secure from the start it's easier to ensure no gaps... But of course neither is perfectly secure.

Still, in boxing there's a lot of avoiding the opponents punches.

Slapping sport in the other hand is almost like if you had to stay still in boxing taking the punches.

[removed]

[deleted]

[deleted]

The Merlin engine in the Spitfire initially used it's twenty-seven litre displacement to achieve...1000hp.

*sad trombone noise*

Well if they were wood particles it would look like particleboard. If they were wheat particles it would look like flour.

I wish there were a simpler way to explain where the big number comes from, but unfortunately there isn’t.

All the other methods I’ve learned for dealing with spinning things involve far more complicated math - usually matrices and reference frame conversions. This would be more of an ELI20, where v=rω is more like ELI8.

Computers has much more legacy code to support and that create a lot of vulnerabilities.

Also computers have to support much more protocols, which also create some vulnerabilities

Android and ios uses linux cores, which are more localized and have less attackable structure. But most importanly linux problems are much less known, because it became popular relatively recently and some thing maynot be found yet.

Boxing is worse imo. The whole point of boxing is to give a concussion to your opponent before he gives one to you.

[deleted]

motorcycle enthusiasts wave from road

[removed]

The London Underground would like a word

It's odd how some people don't get this. OP is basically asking, "Why can't modern people just accept a life expectancy of 40 years and an infant mortality rate of 300 death per 1000 births."

People back in the day were tough, but it's not like they were good at surviving. People have sucked at surviving right up until the 20th century.

>vᵣ=rω where v is the linear speed, r is the radius of rotation and ω is the angular speed.

>For earth, r = 3950 mi, and ω = 15°/h. This gives vᵣ= 3950×15×π÷180=1034.107666 mi/h (π÷180 is just a unit conversion) at the equator. Sound familiar?

That is not explaining like I'm 5 lol, but actually a really good answer, ty.

It's still extremely dangerous, especially long-term. Brain injuries are pretty serious, and can be cumulative. Over the course of an entire career the trauma mounts up.

But you're not wrong; it definitely used to be more dangerous, especially outwardly.

[removed]

There is so much wrong to this and miss information. First Carburetors make MORE power than fuel injection. Seems wrong but it’s not, that’s why a lot of your big power stuff uses them. Fuel injection is preferred because it doesn’t have to be adjusted as it adjusts itself and can give better fuel mileage. It’s much more convenient, but if youre looking for max power? Carbs are still king.

Not all cars run overhead cams and many of your big power vehicles dont. Look at your supercharged LS’s in your C7 ZR1 or your Dodge Demon with its Supercharged V8, bother run a single cam in the middle and make more power than people know what to do with. Having multiple overhead cams isn’t a necessity and it’s generally not even a major advantage. VVT doesn’t help for Max power and many vehicles with a single mid block cam still have it. VVT allows vehicles to adjust their cam profile to give more low end power. So rather than have a cam that makes big power from 4,000-6,500rpms they can adjust the valve timing to extend that range from 2,500-6,500 without losing maximum power.

Compression is something we’ve always had (and compression was actually pretty high in the past) and how fast an engine can spin has little to do with anything as they don’t really spin engines much faster than previously.

It all boils down to your last paragraph which is like half right honestly. So I’ll give the actual explanation down below.

Cars from the 60’s and 70’s weren’t low on power. In 1968 Chevy released the Corvette ZR1 with an L88 engine that made over 550 horsepower with 610ftlb of torque and 12.5:1 compression. A fucking monster even by today’s standards. So no power and compression was certainly not the problem. Now not all of the engines of that time were so powerful most of them were in the 300-400hp range (for performance engines) but that’s not the full story. They had lower horsepower but much more torque. Back then it was about having that low end grunt that got you moving (torque) much rather than horsepower which is what’s helpful going 150+mph. They had different goals and we don’t see vehicles today naturally aspirated that come anywhere close to those levels of torque.

So what happened? Why did we see the power levels fall from the muscle car era? The first thing people point to is emissions, and sure that played a huge part. Smog was at record levels in the 70’s and they needed to bring it down, so they cracked down on emissions. Naturally emissions control makes vehicles have less power. There was also a second aspect which isn’t as often talked about, and that’s the gasoline. Back then they ran leaded gasoline which is not a thing anymore. Lead in gasoline raises the octane by a LOT. You can still get it but it’s for off road use only because of the health risks. The thing though is cars now have to survive on unleaded 91 octane instead of like back then when it had lead in it and was basically race gas. If you modify a vehicle today (especially a turbo car) to accept leaded gasoline, you can see improvements of a hundred horsepower easily on a stock vehicle. In my race car I get 600+ horsepower switching from 91 to C16 (116 octane leaded fuel).

Between those 2 things that how we ended up with vehicles like the Mustang that went from a 428 cubic inch cobra jet engine making insane amounts of power to a 4 cylinder in the 80’s. The one thing that came out of this was vehicle weight, in order to reduce emissions cars became lighter which was the muscle cars of the 60’s and 70’s biggest downfall. Lighter cars are faster. In addition to that after a lot of technology manufacturers have increased the flow rate of cylinder heads which give more air for more power. Look at a set of stock LS3 cylinder heads and they will outflow modified big block heads right out of the box. On top of that it’s cam profiles, balancing, and finding ways to increase compression back to the glory days without detonation due to the lower quality fuel. Still to this day though those old engine designs from the 60’s mixed with the learnings over the years are still the most powerful engines. A modern engine can’t even come close to the power output of a old big block Chevy when modified.

So in short fuel quality and emissions is the downfall of engine power, and engines didn’t have as high of horsepower in the old days because they were designed to give more torque. At the end of the day the old saying still runs true which is “there is no replacement for displacement”. The bigger the engine the more power it can make. Power adders like super chargers and turbos just add artificial displacement. Vehicle manufacturers today strive for high horsepower rather than torque which is why it seems like they make more power, but in reality they don’t. Look at the Honda S2000 for an example 237 horsepower seems nice but only 162 torque compared to that L88 which made 550+ horsepower and 600+ torque. It’s all in what they are building the engine to do. The only thing they have accomplished really is making engines more fuel efficient and not use leaded gasoline.

Could it also reduce noise? Having higher ceilings makes sounds travel further before bouncing back down, for better chance of dissipating.

There’s not actually enough information here to solve this problem.

Here’s why: force is the product of mass and acceleration. It can also be defined as the derivative (or rate of change) of momentum. We’ll use the first definition here. In the metric system, force is measured in newtons, abbreviated N with base units of kg·m/s². In imperial, that unit is pounds, abbreviated lb with base units slug·ft/s². So now what we have is a stick that we know weighs 9.8N, and an applied load that we can’t use because it’s given in units of mass.

Now, if for example, the applied load were equivalent to an object that would show as 2.5Mg on a bathroom scale, then the base acceleration becomes easy to find. We sim the forces and divide by the mass of the stick: ((2500×9.81)-9.81)÷1=24515.191406 m/s²

But there’s another problem: without knowing more about the stick, we can’t really calculate drag. We’d need a wind tunnel for that. See, drag is a finicky thing that depends a lot on the surface of the object moving through the fluid. Without knowing more about the object, form drag is the best we can calculate, and even that can get fiendishly complicated.

Ted Moseby? I think I saw a couple movies with you in them!