Recent comments in /f/explainlikeimfive
JustAZeph t1_iuiir17 wrote
Reply to comment by bigmacqween in eli5 What is the energy losses from burning something? by bigmacqween
All you need to understand is that in different environments matter behaves differently.
This forms a complex web of rules we call chemistry. I do not know half of the rules, and don’t enjoy studying it, but it’s essentially a study of how these base particles can build up to form these complex geometric patterns and small forces that always want to try and follow these rules.
Pressure, temperature, mass, composition, scale, molecular structure, atomic structure, and loads of other shit all affect these rules. Like, Oxygen at x temperature will want to turn to liquid. Oxygen at x temperature will turn gas. Oxygen at x pressure will want to be liquid. Well, it gets more complicated when they interact with eachother, as temperature and pressure are related. This gets even more complicated once you factor in that you aren’t just dealing with one type of element, and that elements also have rules with how they interact with eachother. Ex:Oxygen at x temperature and hydrogen at x temperature bond together to form water, which also does different things at different temperatures.
This can get insanely complex insanely fast. But the rules all must be followed. Sometimes this sets up a row of dominoes than can get knocked over because all of the rules line up in a way that cause a lot of this matter/bond stored energy to be released.
By exposing heat to this food, you can start a reaction that sustains itself like wood on fire.
Once you get that initial starting flame to burn, and as long as you keep giving enough molecules to burn, the wood at certain temperature pulls oxygen apart to create a different compound which is a little chemical reaction. A lot of times there are many chemical compounds created as it’s not easy to get a completely pure molecular compound. Smoke, ash, infrared heat, all of it is dispersed.
The overall governing rules that explain these things are the Laws of Thermodynamics, like conservation of energy. If you want to understand this better, spend time focusing on videos explaining chemical reactions and the laws of thermodynamics. Those are your googleable terms.
skaarlaw t1_iuiio6t wrote
Reply to comment by malachi347 in ELI5 Why are airport ceiling so high? by TrShry
The resident evil demo put enough fear in to me for me to never play the entire series... I was a kid though!
stolid_agnostic t1_iuiilw2 wrote
Reply to ELI5: Why do older animated shows from the 80s/90s look darker in color than shows today? by kidwiththeglasses
Our color preferences change over time, and new ones will always seem bright and fresh to us. There are professionals with advanced degrees and lots of artistic experience who spend their careers developing these and selling them to other companies--clothing manufacturers, artists, whatever. When you look at older palettes, like from your childhood, they always seem dim and dark even though they seemed bright and fresh at the time because there has been a continuous progression of colors since then and you have experienced this passage in time, personally.
[deleted] t1_iuiii7k wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in eli5 What is gerrymandering? by Robert-Connorson
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iuiihm5 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in ELI5 why is everybody saying that an 1.5°C increase in global temperature is catastrofic? by BloodyBite1
[removed]
remarkablemayonaise t1_iuiihf4 wrote
Reply to comment by bigmacqween in eli5 What is the energy losses from burning something? by bigmacqween
Food particles is a fairly unhelpful way to look at calorimetry. If you look at respiration or combustion the products are chemically more stable than the reactants. Carbon dioxide (gas) has stronger chemical bonds than sugar (solid). A house of cards is less stable than a collapsed pile of cards. Heat energy is released in both cases when they change.
thebestnames t1_iuiigu8 wrote
Pretty hard to fetch branches in the woods at the back when -
-
There is no wood, since you live in a city and cutting down park trees would get you arrested.
-
You don't have a fireplace to begin with, so you can't legally and safely warm yourself with a fire.
malachi347 t1_iuiifpq wrote
Reply to comment by skaarlaw in ELI5 Why are airport ceiling so high? by TrShry
Game demos were the shit. Getting a new system with just a game demo disc was def not tho. At least once I got a system with a demo disc and then a gift card to buy my first game... But everything is closed on Christmas (!!!) so I'd just play the hell out of the demos all day lol. I think it was my first playstation.
toocoolforthebaroque t1_iuiicat wrote
Reply to comment by eloel- in eli5 What is gerrymandering? by Robert-Connorson
This is a great explanation!
Just to add to it: gerrymandering can be done for a certain political advantage, as well as boosting any group. Racial gerrymandering, minority-language group gerrymandering, and rural/urban gerrymandering are still too-common examples.
toocoolforthebaroque t1_iuii9qq wrote
Reply to comment by eloel- in eli5 What is gerrymandering? by Robert-Connorson
This is a great explanation!
Just to add to it: gerrymandering can be done for a certain political advantage, as well as boosting any group. Racial gerrymandering, minority-language group gerrymandering, and rural/urban gerrymandering are still too-common examples.
rzezzy1 t1_iuii80k wrote
Reply to comment by dimonium_anonimo in eli5 What is gerrymandering? by Robert-Connorson
AlphaPhoenix's video is amazing. Opened my eyes to a new perspective.
[deleted] t1_iuii5h1 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in ELI5 why is everybody saying that an 1.5°C increase in global temperature is catastrofic? by BloodyBite1
[removed]
ShankThatSnitch t1_iuii5ai wrote
Basically bacteria, fungus and oxidation are what make food go bad. Without these things, decay doesn't happen. In fact before certain bacteria and fugus existed on earth, vegetation would just pile up in massive amounts. If I am not mistaken, this is why we have oil and coal. Massive piles of vegetation built up, which allowed for those to slowly convert to fossil fuels, since they didn't get eaten by bacteria and fungus.
So basically the canning process involves a few things.
- Cooking
- Preservatives
- Air tight seal.
You cook the food until all contaminants have died, then you seal while it us hot, which removes most of the oxygen. Since the hot air is thinner, when it cools it creates a vaccum seal with minimal oxygen, and prevents anything else from entering. Canned things can have vinegar, salt, citric acid, or other preservatives also, those also prevent any bacteria growth.
You now have a sterile environment that doesn't allow for decay, at least for a very long time. It isn't 100% perfect though.
[deleted] t1_iuii4fa wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in ELI5 why is everybody saying that an 1.5°C increase in global temperature is catastrofic? by BloodyBite1
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iuii05f wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in ELI5 why is everybody saying that an 1.5°C increase in global temperature is catastrofic? by BloodyBite1
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iuihv6n wrote
Reply to comment by ShalmaneserIII in ELI5: How do doctors perform with little to no sleep? by MemeBoi0508
[deleted]
stolid_agnostic t1_iuihufl wrote
Reply to ELI5 why is everybody saying that an 1.5°C increase in global temperature is catastrofic? by BloodyBite1
Because the weather swings back and forth, hot and cold. When you put more energy into it, these swings get bigger but also trend towards hotter. This means that you get hotter summers and occasionally colder/wetter winters, but each summer will be the hottest summer of your life from now until you die. Worse: a lot of our infrastructure relies on weather patterns and ocean currents, and those are greatly influenced by the evaporation of water in hotter locations. With greater heat, you melt more glaciers, ice caps, and ice sheets. This additional water will break a lot of these patterns, and will eventually make some parts of the world (like Europe) that are very amenable to human living into places that can no longer support agriculture.
nanadoom t1_iuiho9e wrote
For the same reason we can't eat oxygen. The leaves are not designed to absorb nitrogen in its airborne form
Leucippus1 t1_iuihn2u wrote
Just remember, the force never just goes away, it doesn't disappear into nothingness. It has to go somewhere. So if I chuck a bunch of mass behind me, like if I am carrying fuel and I burn it and it leaves me by escaping as focused gasses, where does the force of the escaping molecules end up? Intuitively you probably know this, the top of the combustion chamber.
Have you every stood up in a canoe or similar boat and picked up a cooler and handed it to someone on the dock? What happens to the boat? It starts moving away from the dock a little bit. As I hand it to the person on the dock the mass that was in the boat has moved and as a result the force of my moving it is transmitted through my legs and into the bottom of the boat. The boat moves in the opposite direction of where I moved the object of mass.
The why to all of this is a deep discussion about gravity, mass, and the nature of time.
JustAZeph t1_iuihjb2 wrote
Reply to comment by dercavendar in eli5 What is the energy losses from burning something? by bigmacqween
Also defined as entropy.
JustAZeph t1_iuihil0 wrote
Reply to comment by RamTheKnife in eli5 What is the energy losses from burning something? by bigmacqween
Also defined as entropy.
[deleted] t1_iuihhll wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in ELI5 why is everybody saying that an 1.5°C increase in global temperature is catastrofic? by BloodyBite1
[removed]
Flair_Helper t1_iuih5o5 wrote
Please read this entire message
Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
- ELI5 requires that you search the ELI5 subreddit for your topic before posting. Users will often either find a thread that meets their needs or find that their question might qualify for an exception to rule 7. Please see this wiki entry for more details (Rule 7).
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.
explainlikeimfive-ModTeam t1_iuih0sl wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in eli5 What is gerrymandering? by Robert-Connorson
Please read this entire message
Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):
- Top level comments (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions (Rule 3).
Links without your own explanation or summary are not allowed. ELI5 is intended to be a subreddit where content is generated, rather than just a load of links to external content. A top-level reply should form a complete explanation in itself; please feel free to include links by way of additional context, but they should not be the only thing in your comment.
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using this form and we will review your submission.
Slypenslyde t1_iuiiryp wrote
Reply to ELI5: Representation of Non Terminating Real Numbers on the Number Line by ProfessionalAd7023
Basically, our eyes and the tools we use don't have the precision to tell the difference.
Think about it. If I draw a line on a piece of paper then draw a dot on that line, the center of the dot can't be EXACTLY any one value past a certain precision. And even if I have high precision, your eye won't be able to tell the difference between "1.33333333333333" and "1.33333333333334" unless you use highly calibrated measuring tools and microscopes.
Likewise, on a computer screen, it's hard to display things between pixels accurately, so there's always a bit of fudge too.
TL;DR: Number lines aren't 100% accurate. They're "close enough", where the definition of that word varies based on what tools are being used.