Oh, it has to be a beard in a movie? OK, here is Lazenby as Gen. Pettigrew in Gettysburg.
That’s more of a van Dyke; I was looking for a full beard.
I appreciate all the suggestions, but I had looked into this before.
I frequently listen to PBS radio on my morning commute, which means I keep hearing those “thanks t” sponsors – Davis Malm, the Doris Duke Foundation, and (for business reporting) C3AI.
I’m the kind of guy who plays with words. I’ll read license plates and try to figure out what they signify. Or read them backwards, or make anagrams out of them. So, inevitably, my mind plays with those sponsors I’ve heard of over and over. And starts toying with them.
“Our tanks to David’s Mom, and to the Daisy Duke Foundation (“Giving Short Shorts to Hot Chicks since 1979”), and to the C3PO organization (“Oh, my, Artoo! I’m sponsoring a Business Report!”).”
I happened across a delightful German word that I had never heard before today. I was on a tour bus trying to follow the guide’s German commentary ( not as hard as it sounds as it came immediately after the English) and he used a word pretty much equivalent to the English “a stone’s throw”.
Ein Katzensprung. Meaning a cat’s jump. Nice.
j
There always exists two points on the equator, exactly opposite each other, which have exactly the same temperature and pressure.
Nope. Limited to the equator there is one variable that is the same, temperature OR pressure. To have two variables that are concurrently identical, you have to open it up to two antipodal points on Earth.
Hijack!
My local PBS music station is sponsored by a business that installs countertop.
Their name is Counter Fitters
Which was a WTF moment the first time I heard the sponsorship mentioned. This music brought to you by counterfeiters
What’s the difference between what I said and what you are correcting me with? Doesn’t antipodal mean opposite?
He’s saying that they don’t necessarily have to be on the equator, as you do.
Actually, it’s not clear to me that two antipodal points anywhere are going to have the same temperature and pressure. It seems more likely to me that two points can have the same temperature, and two other points the same pressure.
I didn’t say they had to be on the equator, I just said that the equator has two points. Which I thought was true but I will research further and come back with a more definitive statement.
To quote you
Sure looks as if being on the equator was an essential part of your original assertion. Otherwise why call it out?
TIL why digital audio is commonly recorded at 44.1 kHz. Anyone who has studied signal processing will know that to reproduced any given frequency, you need to sample the signal at least twice as fast. The widely accepted upper end of human hearing response is 20 kHz, which would suggest you only need to sample digital audio at 40 kHz to provide full audio fidelity to the listener. So why 44.1 kHz instead of 40 kHz???
The short version:
Back in the early days of digital audio, the only practical medium for storage was videotapes, and 44.1 kHz was a rate that worked nicely with the NTSC video standard and also the PAL video standard. This meant you could use either type of video cassette recorder to capture digital audio, ensuring the widest possible adoption of the standard:
For a much more detailed 36-minute explanation of the history of digital audio and its dependence on videotape, you can check out this video from the Technology Connections series.
Because I understood two of the points are always on the equator, amongst possibly others.
From the wikipedia article on the Borsuk–Ulam theorem - Wikipedia
The case n = 1 can be illustrated by saying that there always exist a pair of opposite points on the Earth’s equator with the same temperature. The same is true for any circle.
However the statement finishes with the following, so perhaps it’s not always true in the real world:
This assumes the temperature varies continuously in space, which is, however, not always the case.
This sort of maths is well above my brain’s pay grade so I withdraw from this argument and cede to those of you who are much more well-versed in this sort of logical argument. I just heard someone claiming this on a podcast, so looked it up online so I could share it here, as it sounded really fascinating.
You said on the equator. I said two antipodal points on the sphere. The entire sphere is different than just the equator.
It’s the Borusk-Ulum theorem about mapping a n-sphere to n-space. That is why Fiendish_Astronaut is wrong. The equator is a 1-sphere so antipodal points would map to 1 variable. The Earth is a 2-sphere so antipodal points map to 2 variables. If we had a 3 sphere than there exists a pair of antipodal points with the same temperature, pressure and relative humidity. Etc.
But, neither temperature nor pressure are static, outside a laboratory vessel. If the temperature here is 20C and the temperature at the opposition point is also 20C, it is almost certain that if it will be 22C here in an hour, it will probably be about 15C over there at the same time, give or take. It is not meaningful to describe a temperature without including the delta.
What does that have to do with the theorem? It talks about right now and does not imply the same antipodal points have the same temperature/pressure permanently. If you want to look at temperature and pressure at a different time, you are (probably) looking at different antipodal points where the two measurements are the same.
Assuming the theory is true, you would be able to make an animation showing the antipodal points (you really only need one) moving around on the surface of the Earth.
Would it be contiguous? Would this point of equal temperature and pressure wander around continuously, or would they occasionally wink out and new ones appear someplace else?
Angel’s Flight in downtown Los Angeles is a funicular. The two cars are called Olivet and Sinai.
The case for one variable (let’s say temperature) on the equator is simple enough to prove. Pick any point you want on the equator, and compare it to its antipode. Maybe they’re the same already and you’re done, but more likely, they’re different. Let’s say, without loss of generality, that the point you’re at is warmer than the antipode. Now start moving your point around the equator. Either your point will always remain warmer, or there will come some point where the antipode overtakes it, and right at that point, the two will be equal for a moment. But your point can’t always remain warmer, because eventually you’ll travel 180º around the equator, so now your point is at the point we were originally calling the antipode, and the antipode is at your original point.
A similar argument can be used to show that, on an uneven surface, a table with four equal-length legs can always be rotated such that it’ll sit with all four legs on the ground, no wobbling.