Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Bacterial Bukkake

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Mike Rogers

unread,
Sep 4, 2003, 9:54:16 PM9/4/03
to
I read this article, about the "weight" of clouds
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/SciTech/clouds_krulwich030902.html
and aside from the interesting revelation of a new measurement of
weight (units of "elephant"), I was disappointed to find nobody
considered the weight of the bacteria within the clouds. Cloud
condensation nuclei can be windblown dust, sea-salt, or exhaust from
combustion... but a large fraction of the condensation nuclei are also
bacteria. In a functional sense, bacteria create clouds that produce
localised energy differentials and air currents through evaporation
and condensation heat exchange, the effect of which conveys the
bacteria enormous distances to a new locale. Whereupon the clouds
release the bacteria embedded in raindrops or mist and the bacteria
fall to the surface to find new food sources and begin multiplying
again. In a very real sense, when you see fluffy white clouds, you are
looking at bacterial migratory reproductive organs. And when it rains
you are getting a bacterial bukkake.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bukkake

Mike Rogers
www.meehawl.com

Bob

unread,
Sep 5, 2003, 12:13:18 AM9/5/03
to
On 4 Sep 2003 18:54:16 -0700, meeh...@netscape.net (Mike Rogers)
wrote:

>I read this article, about the "weight" of clouds
>http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/SciTech/clouds_krulwich030902.html
>and aside from the interesting revelation of a new measurement of
>weight (units of "elephant"), I was disappointed to find nobody
>considered the weight of the bacteria within the clouds.

Which is?

I would be quite surprised if the microbes were a significant part of
the weight. Remember, they can grow after they settle out, so it
doesn't take many.

bob

Mark Adkins

unread,
Sep 5, 2003, 4:37:50 PM9/5/03
to
Bob <xyzbb...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote in message news:<e83glv8q1tj1usheg...@4ax.com>...

The real question here, gentlemen, is not how many angels can dance
on the head of a pin, but their weight relative to the gravitational
field of Earth. Or, to that of the galactic core. Weight, therefore,
is a relative concept. Aunts or uncles -- no one knows! Still, I
have to wonder about the validity of considering only the Earth's
gravitational field in considerations of weight. Surely the
gravitational pull of the rest of the universe ought to be
considered as an offsetting effect: weight, unlike mass, being a
vector quantity.

P.S. If I could keep time in a klein bottle, could I then be described
as "out of the loop"?

P.P.S. You did post a copy of this to talk.bizarre.

R.bioson

unread,
Sep 6, 2003, 1:27:31 AM9/6/03
to
msa...@yahoo.com (Mark Adkins) wrote in message news:<b8c96e6c.03090...@posting.google.com>...

I am sorry to see that. But do you(bob)think that really the weight of
the bacteria in the cloud is that heavy to as that of elephant?
but thinking that density of the bacteria is not more than the
water,also how many bacterias reside in the clouds. did you have
investingeted the real world in the cloud? where is the convincing
report done to the science. I can not really imagine the bacterias
can build up so much bulk and weight of the cloud. there will be dark
bacterial coud be easily seen in the air, but not the transparent
water cloud we have seen.
though that there are so many bacterias in the cloud, and they
perform an important role in forming the cloud, but that can not build
so large weight ratio.

Bobby Parker

unread,
Sep 7, 2003, 11:19:24 AM9/7/03
to

> I am sorry to see that. But do you(bob)think that really the weight of
> the bacteria in the cloud is that heavy to as that of elephant?
> but thinking that density of the bacteria is not more than the
> water,also how many bacterias reside in the clouds. did you have
> investingeted the real world in the cloud? where is the convincing
> report done to the science. I can not really imagine the bacterias
> can build up so much bulk and weight of the cloud. there will be dark
> bacterial coud be easily seen in the air, but not the transparent
> water cloud we have seen.
> though that there are so many bacterias in the cloud, and they
> perform an important role in forming the cloud, but that can not build
> so large weight ratio.

I would think that it becomes a simple matter of volume * density. Even the
very air of our erstwhile planet has weight, so why is it so far-fetched
that a cloud of sufficient volume may contain enough bacteria as to equal
the weight of an elephant? It's even probably that a large enough cloud
(given that a nimbostratus cloud can be 10,000 ft high and cover a square
mile) would easily have the mass of an elephant in just mere water.

bp


0 new messages