fearout

Wet bulb temperature is basically converting to 100% humidity equivalent, so as you get closer to 100%, WBT approaches measured temperature. We use this metric because our bodies cool mostly via evaporation, and no evaporation is possible at 100% — the air is already fully saturated. So in general, WBT means minimum possible temperature that can be reached by evaporative cooling. Once your body loses the ability to cool, it rushes to match surrounding wet bulb temperature (or even exceed it, since we produce about 100W of heat energy by simply existing).

So 52C at 90% is about 50C WBT. Survivable for mere minutes for some, and probably for about an hour or so for most humans. Definitely not survivable for a full day.

It’s a bit different depending on your health and all that. But 35 WBT is a definite point for everyone (since our bodies run at 36–37C). Kinda like the difference between “some will die” and “most will die”.

Reposting my comment from another similar thread ‘cause I think it’s kind of important to add.

Ok, so it doesn’t mention wet bulb temperature anywhere, so I went to figure it out. The first thing I was surprised with is apparently most of online calculators don’t take in values higher than 50C.

I couldn’t find the exact data about humidity for that day, but it has been 35-40%+ at a minimum for most days in that region, sometimes even reaching 90%.

So, 52C at around 40% humidity is 37.5C in wet bulb temp. The point of survivability is around 35, and most humans should be able to withstand 37.5 for several hours, but it’s much worse for sick or elderly. 39 is often a death sentence even for healthy humans after just two hours — your body can no longer lose heat and you bake from the inside. That’s like having an unstoppable runaway fever. And with that humidity it’s reached at 54C.

We’re dangerously close to that.

Temperature reports like this always use in-the-shade measurements. You can get much higher temps when measuring in direct sunlight, like easily 100C+, depending on the material of your measuring device.

Ok, so it doesn’t mention wet bulb temperature anywhere, so I went to figure it out. The first thing I was surprised with is apparently most of online calculators don’t take in values higher than 50C.

I couldn’t find the exact data about humidity for that day, but it has been 35-40%+ at a minimum for most days in that region, sometimes even reaching 90%.

So, 52C at around 40% humidity is 37.5C in wet bulb temp. The point of survivability is around 35, and most humans should be able to withstand 37.5 for several hours, but it’s much worse for sick or elderly. 39 is often a death sentence even for healthy humans after just two hours — your body can no longer lose heat and you bake from the inside. That’s like having an unstoppable runaway fever. And with that humidity it’s reached at 54C.

We’re dangerously close to that.

We… want… Ohio

Ok, I see, thanks for answering. Good luck with your app!

There’s been a lot of discussion, but I’m not sure if anything’s truly active yet.

For example, check out this latest post from this community, or this one that is more copy-to-Lemmy-focused.

Haha, called it. Well, almost, I thought it was going to be an instance. Love the name :)
It’s great to see new clients emerge.

Btw, do you have any plans to support kbin once its api goes live?

Sure! I’m not too well-versed in this topic, but here’s a gist of it:

First, it’s a very old idea, somewhere from 1920s I think. Proposed as a possible solution way before we found out about the expansion.

One of the main issues is it violates conservation of energy, since in this hypothesis the photons lose energy en route, but there’s still no viable mechanism to absorb or account for that energy. It also doesn’t explain cosmic background radiation, while other theories explain it quite well.

Then there’s blur. If the light loses energy on interactions and all that, the photons should scatter and blur the image. That doesn’t happen.

And then there’s this time-dilation effect. When you look at supernovae at different distances, their explosions “run” at different paces, with further ones exploding slower. In LCDM model that’s easily explained by the light being stretched because of the expansion, and that’s what causes slower “runtime”. With TL’s predictions that shouldn’t happen at all, yet it’s an observable effect.

And there are probably more discrepancies that I can’t remember off the top of my head.

If you sort by newest almost every comment has been 1 star for a couple of months already. It’s just hard to break through millions of reviews throughout the years. Time-weighed rating system would be more accurate.

Covarying coupling constants is an established name, so it’s used as is. But the paper only mentions lambda, as far as I remember. There might be something else used in the equations, I haven’t delved deep into those, but nothing else should really be required for this particular discussion.