General Discussion

snooper2

(30,151 posts)

114. I'm not sure how deep boobies actually dive

Wed Feb 19, 2014, 12:54 PM

Feb 2014

I'm sure there is some video out there somewhere

http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=527

Feeding Behavior (Ecology)

A skilled hunter in the air and on water despite its awkward gait on land, blue-footed boobies dine solely on fish. Flying over the water, generally no higher than 25 [external link] m, they keep their bill pointed downward, poised for action. When they spot a fish they break into a graceful dive, making almost no splash as they enter the water like an arrow, then popping up on the surface a few feet away with their prize. These birds are such accurate dive bombers that they have even been known to catch flying fish [external link] mid-leap. Unlike other boobies, blue-footed boobies can also dive from a floating position on the surface of the water as well.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

167 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A short rant about the Kate Upton "vomit comet" photo shoot... [View all] rrneck Feb 2014 OP

thank you. I was just thinking we need at least a dozen threads on the topic Pretzel_Warrior Feb 2014 #1

... rrneck Feb 2014 #2

You sound like an asshole.... Captain Stern Feb 2014 #84

lol. hey, I'll take your backhanded compliment Pretzel_Warrior Feb 2014 #86

You probably still will. morningfog Feb 2014 #98

I was feeling lonely Pretzel_Warrior Feb 2014 #99

I guess I missed it. nt rrneck Feb 2014 #90

Yeah, I thought there was a rule against that sort of thing. JVS Feb 2014 #106

Good for you CFLDem Feb 2014 #3

No! Jet planes are for bombing foreigners and ferrying families with kids to Orlando! JVS Feb 2014 #4

I agree it's amazing. rrneck Feb 2014 #6

That's rather subjective Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #54

Of course it's subjective. rrneck Feb 2014 #121

I don't know Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #124

Yep. There are no absolutes. rrneck Feb 2014 #126

You know what Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #127

Thanks! nt rrneck Feb 2014 #130

The method was used much, much better for filming "Apollo 13" if you ask me. arcane1 Feb 2014 #59

It got attention because of boobies, rrneck Feb 2014 #122

You do know it is a commercial service jberryhill Feb 2014 #152

Sure. That doesn't make it any less wasteful. nt rrneck Feb 2014 #154

But if you had a 727... jberryhill Feb 2014 #158

If I had a 727 rrneck Feb 2014 #160

Take a look around the zero g website jberryhill Feb 2014 #163

Yep. You're right. They do some good work. rrneck Feb 2014 #165

i figure if boobs in space is the new thing, then we will be on alpha centauri within five years loli phabay Feb 2014 #5

You could get the same effect from a trampoline and photoshop. nt rrneck Feb 2014 #7

probably already been done, loli phabay Feb 2014 #8

True that. nt rrneck Feb 2014 #10

cant wait until its kates boobs on Mars, would speed up the space race loli phabay Feb 2014 #12

Probably the oldest incentive known to man. nt rrneck Feb 2014 #21

as it works and has been proven to again and again. loli phabay Feb 2014 #22

Just wait until they start moving at speed approaching the speed of light. JVS Feb 2014 #9

She was not weightless wercal Feb 2014 #11

Hence the use of the word "concept". nt rrneck Feb 2014 #13

Might want to edit out the part about zero gravity then. wercal Feb 2014 #19

Nah, I claim the Bluto exception. rrneck Feb 2014 #23

You'd better tell NASA they don't understand the concept.... jberryhill Feb 2014 #31

You are confused wercal Feb 2014 #38

No, see my #47. What we think of as microgravity is experienced in a falling elevator. nt stevenleser Feb 2014 #48

Better yet, see my Post #49 wercal Feb 2014 #52

You don't address microgravity. That's what we think of when we discuss "weightlessness" or stevenleser Feb 2014 #53

He's dug in jberryhill Feb 2014 #58

Why would I wercal Feb 2014 #63

Because that is what is at issue. nt stevenleser Feb 2014 #65

Lol jberryhill Feb 2014 #68

You seem to think it is wercal Feb 2014 #69

Okay, will you answer a direct question? jberryhill Feb 2014 #75

No they are not weightless wercal Feb 2014 #79

Gravity is still constant at the international space station. Travis_0004 Feb 2014 #94

Then weightlessness in popular vernacular is a misnomer. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #95

I believe you are conflating weight and mass pokerfan Feb 2014 #104

"You are confusing the force that you exert on the scale with weight" jberryhill Feb 2014 #51

You are wrong wercal Feb 2014 #56

"mg" is the force exerted on you at rest on the ground by the earth jberryhill Feb 2014 #57

That is a very false statement wercal Feb 2014 #64

I believe that once you stop accelerating, you could measure your weight in the elevator. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #77

The force of gravity is constant at a given distance, regardless of your movement. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #73

Orbiting height is not a different story jberryhill Feb 2014 #76

You know what I mean. The inverse square rule becomes more significant at greater distance. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #80

Elliptical, not parabolic muriel_volestrangler Feb 2014 #87

That's actually not pedantic at all. And it is totally a big error on my part. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #91

The point being.... jberryhill Feb 2014 #93

Weightlessness is thus a misnomer. The international measure of weight is the Newton. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #96

"Weightlessness is thus a misnomer" jberryhill Feb 2014 #97

It's a word that NASA uses all the time, as it does 'zero g' muriel_volestrangler Feb 2014 #105

It is still a misnomer. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #107

What difference would you expect in the weight of an object at the equator and ... muriel_volestrangler Feb 2014 #111

Gravity is subject to an inverse square law. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #117

"The difference amounts to approximately a half of one percent" muriel_volestrangler Feb 2014 #119

I just told you that. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #120

No, you didn't say anything like that muriel_volestrangler Feb 2014 #136

You don't even understand the words you are using here. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #138

You say it's 'negligible'; I, and the scientists, say it's clearly measurable muriel_volestrangler Feb 2014 #139

Go buy a dictionary and look up the definition of negligible. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #142

A half percent is not 'negligible' muriel_volestrangler Feb 2014 #144

Jesus Christ, are you unable to even look up the definition of negligible? Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #145

I am a native speaker of English muriel_volestrangler Feb 2014 #146

As we are talking about perception of weight, a difference of half a percent is negligible. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #153

You do know why labs use balances, and not spring scales, eh? jberryhill Feb 2014 #148

"When an object is in free-fall, it does not make sense to talk about its "weight"." Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #156

Because it is offensive to talk about weight jberryhill Feb 2014 #166

Try this.... jberryhill Feb 2014 #115

I know all of that. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #118

The international definition of temperature in deg C doesn't make you hot jberryhill Feb 2014 #141

What you just typed is completely nonsensical. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #143

The point is jberryhill Feb 2014 #147

The inability to measure weight does not mean a body is weightless. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #155

Weight is the FORCE exerted on the body jberryhill Feb 2014 #159

Umm.... jberryhill Feb 2014 #17

Would that condition be described by the special theory of relativity? rrneck Feb 2014 #20

It has nothing to do with relatively jberryhill Feb 2014 #26

I'm too tired. I'll take your word for it. nt rrneck Feb 2014 #28

Unless, that is, we get into Einstein's ideas about the equivalance of a gravitational field muriel_volestrangler Feb 2014 #83

Methinks I know quite a bit about Weightlessness wercal Feb 2014 #24

I see, and what does the atmosphere have to do with it? jberryhill Feb 2014 #30

You should check the stuff you scab from wikipedia before you post it wercal Feb 2014 #33

And you should take a physics course jberryhill Feb 2014 #37

You are right but I don't think many people understand this at all. There is no zero gravity. stevenleser Feb 2014 #43

W=mg wercal Feb 2014 #49

Look at the definition in the book jberryhill Feb 2014 #55

Using that logic, all objects would become weightless when not on the ground wercal Feb 2014 #61

No, not "on earth". Every object in the universe is being tugged on by the earth toward its center. stevenleser Feb 2014 #62

In my example wercal Feb 2014 #66

No.... jberryhill Feb 2014 #67

To answer your moon question wercal Feb 2014 #72

You are always 100% of the time subject to gravity. Even if you were outside the solar system. stevenleser Feb 2014 #47

"gravity up in orbit is around 10% of what we experience here on terra firma" - a number you pulled muriel_volestrangler Feb 2014 #70

I don't think he thinks the astronauts in the ISS are "weightless" jberryhill Feb 2014 #71

My fault - I meant to say 10% less than. wercal Feb 2014 #74

Okay, so why do the astronauts float around in the ISS? jberryhill Feb 2014 #78

NO!!!!!! wercal Feb 2014 #82

What difference does the atmosphere make? jberryhill Feb 2014 #92

You're not 'schooling' anyone muriel_volestrangler Feb 2014 #81

We spent more than that to look at a flag on the moon jberryhill Feb 2014 #14

We didn't go up there just to look at a flag. nt rrneck Feb 2014 #15

why do you hate science? Botany Feb 2014 #16

LOL! rrneck Feb 2014 #18

Barbarella made real Blue_Adept Feb 2014 #45

They did the same thing for Stephen Hawking. Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #25

Hawking has a bit more gravitas. rrneck Feb 2014 #27

Being anti-decadence is overrated, in my experience. Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #29

We all need to indulge in a bit of decadence now and then. rrneck Feb 2014 #32

I think our culture will survive the Zero-G bikini shoot. Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #34

Of course it would. rrneck Feb 2014 #36

And again, there is a lot of carbon activity that you or i might consider "frivolous" Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #39

You just insist in being reasonable rrneck Feb 2014 #41

I admit, sometimes I do it just to piss people off Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #42

This message was self-deleted by its author rrneck Feb 2014 #50

The force of gravitas is constant at a given distance, regardless of your movement. Orrex Feb 2014 #161

Okay, I'm calling thread win right there. nt rrneck Feb 2014 #162

Not true. Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #167

Maybe this is the break women are looking for... boston bean Feb 2014 #35

In space, no one can hear you Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #40

Why do you care what AnalystInParadise Feb 2014 #44

It's a culture thing. rrneck Feb 2014 #46

The Taliban called, they want their talking point back... n/t bobclark86 Feb 2014 #60

They called the wrong number. rrneck Feb 2014 #88

One mans bullshit... Blue_Adept Feb 2014 #108

For the Love of God... rrneck Feb 2014 #113

Why do you care? AnalystInParadise Feb 2014 #125

It's a perfectly appropriate question. rrneck Feb 2014 #129

So shaming of women AnalystInParadise Feb 2014 #132

I don't think shaming the groups you mentioned is "cool" rrneck Feb 2014 #133

So AnalystInParadise Feb 2014 #137

So rrneck Feb 2014 #140

You are judging someone doing something you don't like AnalystInParadise Feb 2014 #149

A fine libertarian position you got there. rrneck Feb 2014 #150

Then you better not watch Barbarella.......... thelordofhell Feb 2014 #85

I've seen it. It had more redeeming value. Not a lot, but some. rrneck Feb 2014 #89

No different than spending 150 million on a movie. Correct? nt Logical Feb 2014 #100

Exactly the same rrneck Feb 2014 #102

Seems you give at least one counted fuck... Lost_Count Feb 2014 #101

Not about ogling naked women... rrneck Feb 2014 #103

Look. Sheldon Cooper Feb 2014 #109

I'm not sure how deep boobies actually dive snooper2 Feb 2014 #114

None of that was a waste....because here you are talking and ranting about it in a public forum. cbdo2007 Feb 2014 #110

That sort of thinking is a two way street and both directions lead to a dead end. rrneck Feb 2014 #116

I knew nothing about this, but will research it ......happily :) NM_Birder Feb 2014 #112

To tell the truth, I'm more offended by pictures of women with mops, Cleita Feb 2014 #123

All the effort making the video and all the controversy surrounding it made me seek it out. Bok_Tukalo Feb 2014 #128

Good. nt rrneck Feb 2014 #131

I'd like to see ole "Barbie", I mean "Kate" in about 10 years ... Peregrine Took Feb 2014 #134

Hey I'd do it if I got paid what she did. Cleita Feb 2014 #135

Huuuuhhhhh,huhhhh,huhhhh,hhhuuuuhhhhh......... Cofitachequi Feb 2014 #151

Any political squabbling aside, I can certainly agree that the "zero-G boobs" thing is inane and nomorenomore08 Feb 2014 #157

BOOBIES!!! PowerToThePeople Feb 2014 #164