Lankpants

Lankpants t1_j5t28t9 wrote

Reply to comment by AlienTD5 in If I had two cups of water, one normal size and one as big as a swimming pool and stirred them both with proportionally sized spoons, would the larger pool of water keep spiraling longer than the smaller? by r3volc

In addition to what the other commenters have said there's also another effect at play. To get the pool spinning at the same RPM as the cup the outside needs to be moving several times faster. If both swirl once per second then the water at the edge of the pool needs to be covering the entire radius of the whirlpool every second.

What this means in practice is that if the two are spinning at a similar speed the energy even of one water molecule in the pool on average is higher. There are also more molecules moving. So the pool has far more energy. And remember, water is a liquid. The partials behave relatively independently and experience friction with the wall independently. So any of these particles at the edge of the pool have more energy to lose to friction. There's also a lower percentage of particles experiencing direct friction with the wall at any given time due to the square cube rule.

1

Lankpants t1_j4kwy4j wrote

Reply to comment by contractualist in Democracy is Only a Means to an End (Examining the Inherent Political Authority of Democracy) by contractualist

You'll have a hard time convincing me economic development is an inherent good. Right now we live in an age where economic development has driven overconsumption and self destructive climate change. This is why degrowth is a philosophy that exists. Economic development being an inherent good is not an opinion that is actually universally agreed upon and there's some very good arguments as to why it needs to slow or even reverse.

I'd strongly recommend the YouTube channel Our Changing Climate for more information about the links between economic growth and climate change and why infinite growth is a suicide charge.

1

Lankpants t1_j3qyvu2 wrote

Reply to comment by NorthernLight_ in Green space and greater tree coverage shown to reduce heart attacks and heart disease among those living in houses by unswsydney

If they followed the scientific method, which they did since this is a published article then it's definitionally not pseudoscience. It could be poorly carried out, biased, etc (I don't believe it is however) but not one lick of that would make it pseudoscience, it would only make it bad science.

I personally think that study into people's living conditions is incredibly valuable. It's something that impacts every facet of people's lives and better knowledge could end up generating huge improvements to people's lives.

5