nature Archive

2

A powem abt bares

Bears. Bears. Everywhere. In your backyard, in your brassiereIn your trashcan*, on your front stair. Bears. Bears. Everywhere.

 

*The trashcan bear link is really, really worth clicking. Promise.

2

Squirrel vs. Snake

I’ve never embedded a Liveleak video before, so I apologize in advance if there’s an ad or some such, but this is too good not to share. A carnivorous squirrel battles a hapless snake. And wins:

0

Timelapse of the Day

This makes me miss Oregon.

(via)

0

Unembeddable Video of the Day

Do you want to see an icicle form underwater and kill a bunch of starfish while Sir David Attenborough narrates? Of course you do.

1

What a croc

Happened across this story the other day featuring the following photo cum caption:

In this photo taken Sunday, Sept. 4, 2011, Mayor Cox Elorde of Bunawan township, Agusan del Sur Province, pretends to measure a huge crocodile which was captured by residents and crocodile farm staff along a creek in Bunawan late Saturday in southern Philippines. Elorde said Monday that dozens of villagers and experts ensnared the 21-foot (6.4-meter) male crocodile along a creek in his township after a three-week hunt. It was one of the largest crocodiles to be captured alive in the Philippines in recent years. (AP Photo)

Obviously the image is impressive enough — some serious Lake Placid shit — but after re-reading the caption, I was struck by something. This is a 21-foot long crocodile. That’s two stories, snout to tail, so it would certainly make sense to craft a sentence that included the phrase “the largest” somewhere in your article. However, preceding those two words are another two: “one of” — as in “one of the largest,” not the largest.

Well, okay, still, “one of the largest” — that’s pretty impressive, right? Sure, normally, but you gotta keep parsing, because this isn’t one of the largest crocodiles ever. It’s merely one of the largest crocodiles to be captured alive in the Philippines in recent years.

When the discovery of a one-ton, 21-foot dinosaurian relic is peppered with such weak sauce modifiers, you’ve gotta ask yourself: what the hell else is out there???

Oh, and by the way: crocodiles eat sharks for breakfast.

(And, apparently, lunch.)

Update by Ben: Wikipedia’s a bit more confident/bold:

The largest crocodile ever caught alive might be a massive estuarine crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) weighing 1,075 kilograms (2,370 lb) with 6.4 metres (21 ft) long. Caught in the Mindanao Island, Philippines in September 2011. Based on existing records the largest crocodile had been captured alive previously was 5.48 metres (18.0 ft) long.[17]

I think poor AP was a combination of lazy and terrified of fact-checkers.

(FYI: According to the same article, largest ever found dead or alive might have been 23 feet, though that’s just an estimate based on skull size.)

0

Asking Science About Circles (Updated)

Tom turned me on to r/askscience a couple months ago. It’s great and I finally thought of a question yesterday, though it didn’t take off and I’m still curious, so I thought I’d ask y’all:

Is there anything in nature that is perfectly, undistortedly circular?

Answers so far:

Ludikalo 1 point  ago(+1/-0)

The only thing I can think of that is anywhere close to a perfect sphere is an electron. I could be wrong though.

[–]RobotRollCall 2 points  ago(+2/-0)

For any observer at any point at any instant, the surface of last scattering will be a perfect sphere.

I think #1 is wrong, and #2 is pretty fascinating, but also unsatisfying since it’s so abstract — the “observer” is abstract and the sphere isn’t directly recognizable to the “observer” as a sphere without some serious conceptual work if then, and actually, that goes for #1 too which isn’t really directly observable at all, is it? Have we seen electrons?

The motive for the question was an argument I was having with someone about whether or not circles were conceptual abstractions that naturally occurring things can more or less approximate, or whether they actually are naturally occurring in nature.

Ideas?

(Above is an Apollonian Gasket. Wiki: “In mathematics, an Apollonian gasket or Apollonian net is a fractalgenerated from triples of circles, where each circle is tangent to the other two. It is named after Greek mathematician Apollonius of Perga.” Hat tip to LH for telling me about her desktop background.)

Update: The thread has developed, somewhat, jumping off from #2:

[–]RobotRollCall 3 points  ago(+3/-0)

For any observer at any point at any instant, the surface of last scattering will be a perfect sphere.

[–]discursor[S] 1 point  ago(+1/-0)

Can you elaborate a bit? You say “observer” but I get the feeling that you mean an abstraction. Not sure though. What specifically is last scattering and how is its surface experienced?

[–]RobotRollCall 1 point  ago(+1/-0)

No, I meant any observer. Pick a point in space. Around that point lies a perfect sphere. The inner surface of that sphere is called the surface of last scattering.

[–]discursor[S] 1 point  ago(+1/-0)

Extending how far? What’s the radius? And how do we experience that surface?

[–]RobotRollCall 1 point  ago(+1/-0)

I don’t know what you mean by “experience that surface.”

[–]discursor[S] 1 point  ago(+1/-0)

I guess context might help: My reason for asking this was an argument I was having over on r/phil a while ago about whether or not circles were an ontological phenomenon. I was arguing that they were theoretical concepts that things more or less approximate but never /are/, and that it’s totally conceivable that there might be some isolated society that never developed the concept of circularity and therefore can’t see the greater or lesser circle-ness of things in the world. And that devolved into a debate about whether circles exist in nature. It was dumb. Anyway, I guess I’m wondering if there are any perfect circles in the world that can be experienced as perfect circles directly and cognizantly. Sounds to me that your still talking about a theoretical construct.

[–]jacenat 2 points  ago(+2/-0)

What RRC is is talking about is a theoretical construct about the interaction between particles. It’s a 3 dimensional construction of the cross section (wiki link)). These can be perfect spheres, but please don’t mistake the cross section of a particle for it’s geometrical form. Cross sections for the same particle can vary in time an place regarding it’s state and place so they really only represent the reach of the particles ability to interact with other particles.

[–]discursor[S] 1 point  ago(+1/-0)

Thanks. So it’s still an abstraction, then? Doesn’t “exist” as a sphere in nature, even if it’s useful to describe it?

[–]jacenat 1 point  ago(+1/-0)

I would say yes, but that’s an opinion and no hard fact. What does and does not exist is a tricky business to define/declare on these levels.

 

1

The Washougal: One River, Many Uses

Industry

Read the rest of this entry »

3

Thank you Reddit, once again

Fail snake:

Seriously, though, fuck littering. That snake’s probably gonna die.

0

An Excuse to Go Outside

Are you one of those people who, in theory, enjoys spending time outdoors, communing with nature, or otherwise embracing chlorophyll-based lifeforms, and yet, more often than not, finds themselves succumbing to the insidious force of SOFA INERTIA!!! ?

Yeah, me too. But good news! Now (and by “now” I mean, “for the last decade,” but shut up) you can reap untold fame, fortune, and/or malaria while earning your daily dose of exercise and vitamin D by engaging in the inexplicably compelling pastime of Geocaching — “an outdoor sporting activity in which the participants use a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver or mobile device[2] and other navigational techniques to hide and seek containers, called “geocaches” or “caches”, anywhere in the world.”

 

Lame-ass hippy activity? Umm, well, yeah. But with the right combination of buds, bud, or Bud, I think you’ll agree that geocaching is truly the sport of kings. (Just watch out for highways. And nightfall. Because you definitely don’t want either one of those catching up to you unexpectedly.)