# Sticky  Ask A Science Question



## skycloud86

In this thread, users can ask a science question, and another user who knows the answer can help them out.


----------



## Bote

What is a photon?

I need information that can not be found on wikipedia. Preferably some excerpts from genuine papers/experiments if you know of any. So far I've read Newton's and Einstein's theses and essays regarding light. Some other contributors would be appreciated.


----------



## Kilgore Trout

*


Bote said:



What is a photon?

I need information that can not be found on wikipedia. Preferably some excerpts from genuine papers/experiments if you know of any. So far I've read Newton's and Einstein's theses and essays regarding light. Some other contributors would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

"Under the photon theory of light, a photon is a discrete bundle (or quantum) of electromagnetic (or light) energy. Photons are always in motion and, in a vacuum, have a constant speed of light to all observers, at the vacuum speed of light (more commonly just called the speed of light) of c = 2.998 x 108 m/s."

Source:

Photon - What is a photon?

"Waves and particles seem to be diametrically opposed concepts: a wave fills a region in space, while an electron or ion has a well-defined location. That, at least, was the view before the discoveries of the first half of the 20th century. Those discoveries suggested that on the atomic scale, the distinction became blurred: waves had some properties of particles, and vice versa.

To find how a light wave passes through a telescope, one calculates its motion as if it filled the entire focusing mirror. Yet when that same wave gives up its energy to one individual atom, it turns out that it acts like a particle. Regardless of whether a light beam is bright or dim, its energy is always transmitted in atom-sized amounts, "photons" whose energy depends only on wavelength.

Observations have shown that such duality also existed in the opposite direction. An electron should in principle have at any time a well-defined location and velocity, yet experiments that measure them give a blurred result. Quantum physics tells us that arbitrary precision in such observations cannot be attained, but that the motion may be described by a wave.

This may be a good place for introducing new quantities and notations. An electromagnetic wave of wavelength λ (lambda, small Greek L) covers a distance of c meters each second, where c is the velocity of light in space, close to 300,000,000 meters/second. Its frequency ν (nu, small Greek N)--the number of up-and-down oscillations per second--is also the number of wave crests in that distance, and is therefore obtained by dividing c with the wavelength:

ν = c/ λ

A basic quantum law then states that the energy E in joules of a photon of light of frequency ν is


E = hν

where h = 6.624 10-34joule-sec is "Planck's constant", a universal constant that is fundamental to all quantum theory. It was introduced in 1900 by Max Planck, when he tried to explain the "black body" distribution of wavelengths in the light emitted by a solid hot object. Incidentally, it was the above formula, published by Albert Einstein in 1905, that later earned him the Nobel prize, not (as many still believe) his theory of relativity."

Source:

(S-5) Waves and Photons

Photon Model of Light*

As proposed by Einstein, light is composed of photons, a very small packets of energy. The reason that photons are able to travel at light speeds is due to the fact that they have no mass and therefore, Einstein's infamous equation - E=MC2 cannot be used. Another formula devised by Planck, is used to describe the relation between photon energy and frequency - Planck's Constant (h) - 6.63x10-34 Joule-Second.

Source:

Theory of Light

"The Question

(Submitted July 31, 1996)
Do photons have mass? Because the equations E=mc2, and E=hf, imply that m=hf/c2 . Is it so?

The Answer

No, photons do not have mass, but they do have momentum. The proper, general equation to use is E2 = m2c4 + p2c2 So in the case of a photon, m=0 so E = pc or p = E/c. On the other hand, for a particle with mass m at rest (i.e., p = 0), you get back the famous E = mc2.

This equation often enters theoretical work in X-ray and Gamma-ray astrophysics, for example in Compton scattering where photons are treated as particles colliding with electrons."

Source:

Mass of the Photon











*Feynman Diagrams:
*
Theory: Feynman Diagrams (SLAC VVC)


----------



## nameno1had

Can anyone help me with Hydrology Theory. I have a question that is tough to explain. If I could draw a picture and scan it and then diagram it I would. 

This is my best try to help give you the proper mental image: 
Imagine a tank filled with water. At the bottom of the tank there is a drain with a pipe that goes down and then turns 90 degrees and then once it reaches past the outer wall of the tank it again turns 90 degrees upward along side of the tank.After the pipe extends upward past the top of the tank it turns again 90 degrees until it reaches over the top of the tank.In essence if there was enough pressure the path of the pipe would allow water to flow out the drain and back into the top of the tank.

How much water would it take to weigh enough to cause enough pressure through a narrow enough pipe(so the weight of what is going up will be low enough) to get this flow achieved? 

It seems possible in theory for perpetual motion, but I am not a hydrologist and I don't know all of the limitations.This is similar to what happens when a toilet is flushed or a sink is drained. The water has to travel through 2 -90 degree bends and one of them actually forces the water to flow up in order for it to flow back down.

If this was feasible you would think we would already do it. I would try to add a turbine for power, if it is possible.


----------



## intjdude

nameno1had said:


> Can anyone help me with Hydrology Theory. I have a question that is tough to explain. If I could draw a picture and scan it and then diagram it I would.
> 
> This is my best try to help give you the proper mental image:
> Imagine a tank filled with water. At the bottom of the tank there is a drain with a pipe that goes down and then turns 90 degrees and then once it reaches past the outer wall of the tank it again turns 90 degrees upward along side of the tank.After the pipe extends upward past the top of the tank it turns again 90 degrees until it reaches over the top of the tank.In essence if there was enough pressure the path of the pipe would allow water to flow out the drain and back into the top of the tank.
> 
> How much water would it take to weigh enough to cause enough pressure through a narrow enough pipe(so the weight of what is going up will be low enough) to get this flow achieved?
> 
> It seems possible in theory for perpetual motion, but I am not a hydrologist and I don't know all of the limitations.This is similar to what happens when a toilet is flushed or a sink is drained. The water has to travel through 2 -90 degree bends and one of them actually forces the water to flow up in order for it to flow back down.
> 
> If this was feasible you would think we would already do it. I would try to add a turbine for power, if it is possible.


Sorry dude.. this wouldn't work. You'd have to put energy in to raise the water level in the tube above the level of the water in the tank.


----------



## nameno1had

intjdude said:


> Sorry dude.. this wouldn't work. You'd have to put energy in to raise the water level in the tube above the level of the water in the tank.


That is what my intuition was telling me but I was wanting to know why.


----------



## Monkey Fritz

Nope. Sorry.
This is more of a fluid mechanics/fluid dynamics question.
If the system is closed, either it is full and the water remains stagnant, or the water from the overhead pipe would drain and be replaced by air.
Thnk of a bendy straw in a glass. Apply suction to the straw, then release the suction. The water drains back down the straw as pressure is equalized. The same effect would happen. Gravitiy's hold on the water is uniform, it doesn't matter how you channel it the force of gravity is the same, so the water equals out it's pressure.

The way I am saying doesn't even sound like it makes very much sense. This would be much easier to demonstrate than explain, but consider syphoning:
Siphon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can use gravity to "pull" water up, but only if the end of the pipe is lower than your starting reservoir.

Actually, have you ever seen those plastic mugs with the straw built in to the handle? Same principle, the liquid pressure will always equal out. Doesn't matter how you design the base of the device, the pressure of the water will always be equal to the amount of water above. Consider fish tank design, the height of the tank is the only consideration in how thick the glass must be. If you have a three foot high tank that is only one foot by one foot and a three foot high tank that is ten feet by ten feet, the thickness of glass needed to support the pressure from the water is identical.


----------



## nameno1had

that is cool because that means you could hypothetically put the pacific ocean in a tank that technically doesn't have a sealed bottom and it would still hold the water

I am sure there is a specific name for this principle, that is something else I specifically wanted to know


----------



## Monkey Fritz

nameno1had said:


> that is cool because that means you could hypothetically put the pacific ocean in a tank that technically doesn't have a sealed bottom and it would still hold the water
> 
> I am sure there is a specific name for this principle, that is something else I specifically wanted to know


There are enough cave systems in the world, it technically doesn't have a sealed bottom.


----------



## nameno1had

That makes some sense, the last time I checked there weren't any ocean feed geysers.


----------



## Monkey Fritz

Well, it's a non existent principle, so it doesn't have a name. The principle that prevents you original thought from happening, I am not sure. Read up on fluid mechanics until you find a principle that specifically applies and there you go.

But I don't think there is any one thing that would apply, that's why I was having a hard time coming up with a conclusive answer, even though I understood the principle. The closest thing would be the principles of syphoning. They explicitly "prevent" that hypothesis from existing.

Also think, even though it is an easy conclusion to come to, it is also easy to disprove with a container and a straw, so there may never have been a specific principle applied to it. It just that other principles prevent it.


----------



## nameno1had

I was considering a beer bong for the flexible hose.


----------



## Psychosmurf

Optics question. Imagine a black spot on a white surface. What color is the line separating the spot from the background? :mellow:


----------



## nameno1had

Psychosmurf said:


> Optics question. Imagine a black spot on a white surface. What color is the line separating the spot from the background? :mellow:


With all do respect if the page is white and the only thing on it is a black spot then technically those should be the only two colors there, however when black and white are combined it creates gray. The question for me is do the graphics allow for a clean separation or do they cause an integration of the black and white. And then on a technicality,a smart ass art student would say something like black and white aren't actual colors.I personally disagree with the last statement, 1st because if you mix the colors of the visible spectrum of light you get white light.So now that you probably wish someone who has their ducks in row would have answered that instead, I'll leave you alone now.


----------



## Eylrid

Psychosmurf said:


> Optics question. Imagine a black spot on a white surface. What color is the line separating the spot from the background? :mellow:


Two possibilities:
1. At some level the black and white mix, giving a grey border.
2. There is no mixing, the empty space between the molecules is the border and therefore has no color.


----------



## Monkey Fritz

Psychosmurf said:


> Optics question. Imagine a black spot on a white surface. What color is the line separating the spot from the background? :mellow:


Since the criteria has only left room for a black dot and a white surface, I believe the answer you are looking for is that there is no spoon... I mean line.


----------



## Psychosmurf

I never said that the _only_ colors present are black and white. So far, I think @Eylrid 's second answer is the closest to the truth. :wink:


----------



## nameno1had

I think I see a pretty meadow , with some beautiful flowers, and the way the sunlight radiates through the petals makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.


----------



## perennialurker

Scientifically speaking, what is the main constraint or impediment holding back the advent of nanotechnology? Thank you.


----------



## Monkey Fritz

perennialurker said:


> Scientifically speaking, what is the main constraint or impediment holding back the advent of nanotechnology? Thank you.


Define?

Do you mean nanotechnology as in the nano robots of science fiction?
Or do you mean the use of the nanotechnology we already have?

If you mean the latter, that would be the FDA and other medical oversight commities which won't see our current technology levels in practice for another decade. By then who knows what advancements will be available, and not being used.


----------



## semloh

Sorry about that SkyCloud, I was just bumping myself up above the 14/15 post limit for URL. Much easier than doing as you suggest, and it does not work in every site. 

More Links:
Monoatomic hydrogen-fueled rocket

Rocket Fuel

Unintentional Irony: Faster

Atomic Fuels for Rocket-Powered Launch Vehicles

The funny thing is not only am I starting to answer my own question, but 
also it appears that it might be more useful as a ground based fuel, 
as the exhaust temperature is so high (mono atomic hydrogen torches 
are used now for cutting through metal). At least that would make 
it able to cool off, to do in a pulse form.


----------



## Aether

Is the following possible?








[/URL]

The thick black lines represent an electric current that crosses a gap of air. A magnetic field is directed and intensified from 0T in such a way that the Lorentz force alters the direction of the current through the air *without interrupting the circuit. *Maybe through the use of an electrically superconductive gas?


----------



## bigtex1989

Aether said:


> Is the following possible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> 
> The thick black lines represent an electric current that crosses a gap of air. A magnetic field is directed and intensified from 0T in such a way that the Lorentz force alters the direction of the current through the air *without interrupting the circuit. *Maybe through the use of an electrically superconductive gas?


An interesting question to be sure. My short answer is, in theory, it is absolutely possible. We know something similar happens with light and gravitational fields (gravitational lensing), so it is easy to surmise that this would happen with electrons and magnetic fields. In practice, I think you'll find that you'll need near unlimited power!!!!!

*enter sith lord*


----------



## Aether

Kilgore Trout said:


> If photons have little to no mass, how does gravity affect them? Is it due to the momentum of the particles?


They have no mass and I think it's something to do with how gravity changes the space-time curvature so that the path of light appears to us to be bending, but really it's the curvature that "bends".


----------



## RobynC

Is there a correlation with extraversion and a lack of concern for the way others perceive you?

As a kid I was introverted, as a teenager I was kind of ambiverted, and as an adult, mildly extraverted. Being that my childhood was a misery, and no matter how hard I tried to fit in, it never worked; I've long since stopped really caring whether people like me, and also not really trying very hard to get people to like me or approve of me.

And I kind of wonder if this reduction of concern for the way others perceive me, and the reduction of self-consciousness has resulted in me gaining more energy than expended in social interactions?


----------



## Eylrid

RobynC said:


> Is there a correlation with extraversion and a lack of concern for the way others perceive you?
> 
> As a kid I was introverted, as a teenager I was kind of ambiverted, and as an adult, mildly extraverted. Being that my childhood was a misery, and no matter how hard I tried to fit in, it never worked; I've long since stopped really caring whether people like me, and also not really trying very hard to get people to like me or approve of me.
> 
> And I kind of wonder if this reduction of concern for the way others perceive me, and the reduction of self-consciousness has resulted in me gaining more energy than expended in social interactions?


No.

Extroverts who care how they are seen tend to put on a act. Introverts who don't care what people think tend to just ignore people. Extroverts can act like introverts and introverts can act like extroverts.

Having less concern for what people think can, however, give you more confidence.

When I'm feeling confident, I can act very extroverted, but it always uses energy.


----------



## TheBeanie

This is a textbook physics question that I am stuck with, and seeing how I have no one to ask I would really appreciate any help.

The sun, to a terrestrial observer, appears to be a 32' wide luminous disk. It's distance from Earth is L = 1.50 x 10^8 Km. Find the diameter D of the sun.

_____________________


----------



## Eylrid

TheBeanie said:


> This is a textbook physics question that I am stuck with, and seeing how I have no one to ask I would really appreciate any help.
> 
> The sun, to a terrestrial observer, appears to be a 32' wide luminous disk. It's distance from Earth is L = 1.50 x 10^8 Km. Find the diameter D of the sun.
> 
> _____________________


Use trig.

32' in this use is referring to arcminutes.


----------



## Nearsification

If dinosaurs went extinct threw some sort of extinction event how did they evolve into birds like people say? Did only a rare few get the chance? If an asteroid landed and blocked out the sun and ruined the ecosystem like they say. What dinosaur would have the chance to evolve? Every single one of them should of simply died. I don't get it.

Scientifically what caused life? At one point in time there was life and at one point there was not. What event on the earth caused the first single cell organism? I heard something about thunder striking protein Frankenstein style but I never understood.


----------



## TheBeanie

@Eylrid Do you know how to find the angle the viewer's vision makes by just using the apparent size and distance?


----------



## absentminded

Nearsification said:


> If dinosaurs went extinct threw some sort of extinction event how did they evolve into birds like people say? Did only a rare few get the chance? If an asteroid landed and blocked out the sun and ruined the ecosystem like they say. What dinosaur would have the chance to evolve? Every single one of them should of simply died. I don't get it.
> 
> Scientifically what caused life? At one point in time there was life and at one point there was not. What event on the earth caused the first single cell organism? I heard something about thunder striking protein Frankenstein style but I never understood.


Dinosaurs began evolving into birds millions of years before the extinction event. By the time the extinction event came around, dinosaurs and birds were largely separate.

The answer to your second question is a little more involved so I'll link you to this article and provide a brief explanation.

Basically, energy from undersea vents and lightning catalyzed reactions that created complex molecules. Gradually, these complex molecules formed catalytic clumps that took fuel from the environment (like hydrogen sulfide) and converted it into energy. Gradually these clumps of complex molecules formed into cells.


----------



## Eylrid

TheBeanie said:


> @Eylrid Do you know how to find the angle the viewer's vision makes by just using the apparent size and distance?


You already have the angle: 32'. (In this context, that doesn't mean 32 feet, but 32 arcminutes.)

As for how to use the angle, try this list of videos:
Khan Academy


----------



## Nearsification

What was the undersea ancestor of the human. Apparently before we came to lane we were some sort of fish creature. Is there any fossil evidence of it? What was it called? How does it compare to us now?

What is the use of being black and white? Like Zebra's and white tigers? Panda's? What does it help?


----------



## absentminded

Nearsification said:


> What was the undersea ancestor of the human. Apparently before we came to lane we were some sort of fish creature. Is there any fossil evidence of it? What was it called? How does it compare to us now?


I don't understand the question. Do you mean the organism that evolved into **** sapiens, or the first creature to move up on land?



> What is the use of being black and white? Like Zebra's and white tigers? Panda's? What does it help?


Zebras' black and white stripes help confuse would-be predators. Not sure about pandas.


----------



## Beatrice

Is it possible for someone to have their own baby? Say there was a man and he gave his sperm to a doctor, then the man got a gender transfusion. So after he got turned into a woman, with woman parts, could the doctor put the sperm back inside her/him, fertilizing the egg and making a baby? 

I know, kind of a weird question.


----------



## Monkey Fritz

Nearsification said:


> W
> What is the use of being black and white? Like Zebra's and white tigers? Panda's? What does it help?


Camouflage, most predator eyes focus on movement, paying little to no attention to color. Standing still a zebra blends in with tall grass, from a predator's eyes. Tiger stripes are colored to match their environment, because the pray is often more adept at picking up colors.

As for the panda:
Kuriositas: Why the Panda is Black and White


----------



## Monkey Fritz

KnowitAll said:


> Is it possible for someone to have their own baby? Say there was a man and he gave his sperm to a doctor, then the man got a gender transfusion. So after he got turned into a woman, with woman parts, could the doctor put the sperm back inside her/him, fertilizing the egg and making a baby?
> 
> I know, kind of a weird question.


I'm not aware of any men having a gender operation which gave him a uterus. So I would say no.
A woman however, could raise a clone of herself, its just sort of experimental/illegal/dangerous and has never been achieved, so again, no.

In the future, who knows.


----------



## bigtex1989

KnowitAll said:


> Is it possible for someone to have their own baby? Say there was a man and he gave his sperm to a doctor, then the man got a gender transfusion. So after he got turned into a woman, with woman parts, could the doctor put the sperm back inside her/him, fertilizing the egg and making a baby?
> 
> I know, kind of a weird question.


No. Gender modification (at least now-a-days) is a lot of hormone therapy. When changed, the man does not produce eggs, nor would he have a uterus. As was said, a woman can clone herself.


----------



## bigtex1989

TheBeanie said:


> This is a textbook physics question that I am stuck with, and seeing how I have no one to ask I would really appreciate any help.
> 
> The sun, to a terrestrial observer, appears to be a 32' wide luminous disk. It's distance from Earth is L = 1.50 x 10^8 Km. Find the diameter D of the sun.
> 
> _____________________


Draw a picture and it will all be made clear. 

Hint: You may need to use trigonometric functions (specifically tangent! XD)


----------



## bigtex1989

Nearsification said:


> What was the undersea ancestor of the human. Apparently before we came to lane we were some sort of fish creature. Is there any fossil evidence of it? What was it called? How does it compare to us now?


Why stop at fish? The real question is, what single-celled organism did we come from? Everything else is details. I'll admit, I had to think about this one for a minute. So I think a bit of explanation of evolution is in order. Through a process of natural selection, desirable traits are kept, undesirable traits die out. So let's take a community of rabbits to start with. This community of rabbits has long legged rabbits (who are obviously faster) and short legged rabbits. The faster rabbits don't get eaten and mate more. Now the community has predominately long legged rabbits that run really fast. That is only one trait. Think about this process happening for all possibly traits simultaneously. Now if a breed of rabbit is naturally selected for long enough, it will start to get different genetics that are incompatible with the original breed. That is what causes a different species. Even more interesting, one "parent" species can get separated geographically (say by a canyon) and two completely new species will evolve. This has happened with lizard populations in California that were separated by mountains. This is also what happened to humans and apes. We share a common ancestor, but we went to the plains and they chilled in the trees. Now back to your specific question. We have a very strong suspicion of what the first mammal was (and it is on display in the Smithsonian I believe), and so we know that all mammals must have shared this singular common ancestor. Further back gets a little tricky since the whole meteor killing nearly everything puts a damper on a lot of things. Why do we theorize we came from fish? Because that's the only thing that makes sense as of right now. We know that the oldest life forms were found in water so we made a sound hypothesis that we came from fish. I don't think any DIRECT link to fish has been found, but can be easily confirmed as the most plausible solution.



Nearsification said:


> What is the use of being black and white? Like Zebra's and white tigers? Panda's? What does it help?


Zebras are black and white so they blend in with tall grass, but most importantly, each other. A group of zebras looks very intimidating to many smaller predators (although I think lions couldn't care less XD). Siberian tigers usually chill in Siberia (hence the name) where it snows a bunch. Add in the black strips and the are invisible in snowy tall grass and trees. No one knows why pandas are black and white. Two feasible ideas out right now is that 1) they stand out on the forest floor for mating purposes 2) they camouflage well in the tree tops and in bamboo


----------



## avatarphen

bigtex1989 said:


> The slope of a line is the change in y divided by the change in x. rise over run. the slope of a curve is the same idea, but requires either calculus or really imaginative algebra


Is this kind of like

y2-y1
_____
x2-x1

?


----------



## bigtex1989

avatarphen said:


> Is this kind of like
> 
> y2-y1
> _____
> x2-x1
> 
> ?


that definitely works


----------



## Desolan

Since fusion reactions can reach a point where the elements being fused would no longer produce energy. I had this thought by thinking "what if a black hole is not actually a singularity from a collapsed star, but rather is a fusion reaction that has reached the point where it is no longer producing energy, but requires more energy to continue, and thus starts absorbing light and other energy from the outside since it's mass forces it to continue"

From my understanding, the creation of a black hole is usually a fairly sudden occurrence, and my description would probably be a slow decline in energy output. So my question is: Are there any phases that a star can go through that would lead to a situation like I described above? Can a negative energy fusion reaction be forced by adding additional energy, and could the mass of a star force this reaction to the point where additional external energy is being absorbed?


----------



## bigtex1989

Desolan said:


> Since fusion reactions can reach a point where the elements being fused would no longer produce energy. I had this thought by thinking "what if a black hole is not actually a singularity from a collapsed star, but rather is a fusion reaction that has reached the point where it is no longer producing energy, but requires more energy to continue, and thus starts absorbing light and other energy from the outside since it's mass forces it to continue"
> 
> From my understanding, the creation of a black hole is usually a fairly sudden occurrence, and my description would probably be a slow decline in energy output. So my question is: Are there any phases that a star can go through that would lead to a situation like I described above? Can a negative energy fusion reaction be forced by adding additional energy, and could the mass of a star force this reaction to the point where additional external energy is being absorbed?


The short answer is no. As far as stars are understood, what happens is the atoms get so massive that they can no longer surpass the Coulomb barrier and thus, fusion no longer takes place inside the star. This allows gravitational forces to overcome radiation pressure and the star collapses into a singularity (if the star is of the right mass). There are a few different scenarios, but only one pertains to black holes., which is the one I mentioned above.

I could look for some equations in my astrophysics book if they would mean anything, but I doubt they would aid in the conceptual understanding, and I doubt it isn't anything you haven't seen before.


----------



## Mariz

if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still some of them left?


----------



## bigtex1989

Mariz said:


> if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still some of them left?


While I am not an evolutionary biologist, I believe the most accepted story is something similar to this. Some monkeys (possibly due to food restrictions) moved to the plains. Curved feet, hair, long arms, and a hunched poster, while perfect for climbing, are not desirable for plains living. Slowly but surely, these now undesirable traits were breed out. Then something happened to create a new species. That species was Cro magnon and it appeared about 35,000 years ago. Then we never looked back. 

It is important to note a few things about evolution. It is a reactionary process and the mechanism is "survival of the fittest". Note that all modern day monkeys live in heavily forested areas. Monkeys haven't evolved because they haven't needed to lol.


----------



## Kilgore Trout

Mariz said:


> if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still some of them left?


On the PBS site, listed under frequently asked questions:

*1. Did we evolve from monkeys? 
*
"Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids."

From the evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins:






Here's more information on the human-chimpanzee common ancestor.


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

Given that the composition of water is H2O, and that hydrogen ignites in air and that oxygen is the one thing you want to keep out in order to put out a fire - why is it that water is used to put out a fire. Any answers need to be ridiculously simply as I am not a scientist (pretty obvious). The bloody question popped into my mind 10 mins ago and won`t leave me alone.


----------



## Diogenes

RRRoooaaaRRR said:


> Given that the composition of water is H2O, and that hydrogen ignites in air and that oxygen is the one thing you want to keep out in order to put out a fire - why is it that water is used to put out a fire. Any answers need to be ridiculously simply as I am not a scientist (pretty obvious). The bloody question popped into my mind 10 mins ago and won`t leave me alone.


Water on fire vaporizes. Vapor rapidly expanding pushes oxygen away from fire. Fire has no oxygen. Fire dies out.


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

Thank you - much appreciated


----------



## birthday

What is outside of the universe? From my understanding the universe is time and space, and it is expanding. How is it expanding or where is it expanding to if it is what it is? Does it create more space or is it pushing something away? Does the universe have a corner or an edge?

I apologize if this is worded awkwardly. I really don't know how to word my thinking accurately. 

By the way, is time real? Or is it a mere tool invented by humans to give structure to their lives?


----------



## Diogenes

Space is expanding.
Think it like this: you have a sheet of paper and a pen. You want to write a lot of words (words=matter) but since the paper (space) is not limitless you would eventually fill all the blank spaces if it wasn't for the fact the sheet of paper is expanding as you write things on the edge.


----------



## bigtex1989

birthday said:


> What is outside of the universe? From my understanding the universe is time and space, and it is expanding. How is it expanding or where is it expanding to if it is what it is? Does it create more space or is it pushing something away? Does the universe have a corner or an edge?
> 
> I apologize if this is worded awkwardly. I really don't know how to word my thinking accurately.
> 
> By the way, is time real? Or is it a mere tool invented by humans to give structure to their lives?


There are many theories about what is outside the universe. I find that answer to be a bit moot. As far as the universe is defined, it is everything. I am all for changing the definition of the universe, but as it is, there is nothing outside. 

"Once you can accept the universe as being something expanding into an infinite nothing which is something, wearing stripes with plaid is easy." - Albert Einstein

That quote may help a bit.

It IS important to note that the universe is currently expanding from ALL points simultaneously. This means that nothing is being "pushed away" per say. As far as we know, there is no edge. Although a bit rudimentary, it may be helpful to think of the universe as more of an infinite collection of zero volume spheres. As the spheres get bigger, the overall sphere has to get bigger, then more zero volume spheres are created and repeat.

Time as we know it is not real. A "second" is a convention. Causality is a real thing though. Look up entropy (and not the most classic definition which is a bad one). The rudimentary definition is the "measure of disorder" but that is not quite accurate. A much better definition is in terms of the multiplicity of the system.


----------



## MBTI Enthusiast

This is a cool thread!

*subscribes*

*Question* (that probably won't be answered before my paper is due tomorrow): Why is PDMS used in photolithography more often than agarose?


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

MBTI Enthusiast said:


> This is a cool thread!
> 
> *subscribes*
> 
> *Question* (that probably won't be answered before my paper is due tomorrow): Why is PDMS used in photolithography more often than agarose?


Variant 1: Microfluidic channel with agarose-immobilized cells in cubic pockets
Variant 2: Microfluidic channel with cells sitting in pockets inside the channel



Final Design: Microfluidics channel with PDMS

Finally, we decided to construct our channels out of something more frequently used: PDMS (polydimethylsiloxane). To construct the channel, a technique called photolithography was used. Advantages of PDMS are that it is cheap, optically clear and permeable to several substances, including gases (air can quickly diffuse through) [1]. For the PDMS as well, as for the silicon channel we had problems with water evaporation. In order to solve this issue, in our final experimental setup we incubated the chips chontaining the channels in a petri dish full of water.
We constructed the PDMS channels ourselves, which was a very fun and interesting process. Our final design and the channel construction is explained in details here. 
Team:ETH Zurich/Process/Microfluidics - 2011.igem.org

I have no personal knowledge of this - hope it helps


----------



## MBTI Enthusiast

RRRoooaaaRRR said:


> I have no personal knowledge of this - hope it helps


Wow thanks! That's exactly what I was looking for! I knew it was the gold standard and good for imaging, but I didn't have a source telling me so. Thanks, again. :happy:


----------



## Adrift

What causes a banana peel to turn brown so much faster once it's been torn?


----------



## bigtex1989

Adrift said:


> What causes a banana peel to turn brown so much faster once it's been torn?


Good question. The short answer is, more surface area with which the oxygen may interact.

The technical answer is this. Bananas produce an enzyme called polyphenol oxidase (probably spelling errors and too lazy to look it up). This enzyme interacts with oxygen to produce the brown color. When unpeeled, the oxygen can only interact with the enzyme that is on the surface. When opened, it can interact with the enzyme on all surfaces, increasing reaction time exponentially.


----------



## luemb

This is an awesome thread. I should subscribe to this one.


----------



## luemb

bigtex1989 said:


> 1) Barring philosophical discussions, that is true. Causality (which is what time actually is) can only exist with space. Space can only exist with causality.
> 
> 2) The second part of the question is easier to deal with first. When will the astronaut pass the event horizon? To an outside observer, he never will. He will actually be stuck there forever. There will always be light signals sent coincidentally. Of course, this is assuming the event horizon doesn't get bigger or smaller. If you watch dragonball z, you can think of it like the "after image" technique...kind of. So back to the astronauts watch. It would actually stop. To explain this, lets consider a more "reasonable" case. There have been experiments done with atomic clocks and airplanes and they found the clock slows down with increased velocity. This gave credence to time dilation and the relativity of time in general. So once you hit the speed of light, time stops. This can be seen with the relativistic corrections of the Lorentz factor. So at the event horizon (where the escape velocity is exactly the speed of light), time has literally stopped. That is why you will see the astronaut forever, even though he has long passed your view.
> 
> 3) In non-relativistic mechanics, that equation is absolutely correct. However, we are dealing with relativistic mechanics so some corrections must be taken in to account. Although stuff happens to mass, it can be ignored for now. Length is also of no concern to us since we are dealing with infinite lengths (an easy way to think about this is coming up). So the last correction is time dilation.
> 
> to = t / (sqrt(1- (v/c)^2))
> 
> From here we can see that as velocity gets larger, to gets larger as well. What happens when v=c? to = t/0 = inf. So it is theorized that time stops. What happens when v>c? to must be imaginary so it holds no physical significance. This implies time literally ceases to exist. It disappears on the real plane (which we live on)
> 
> To visualize the curving of space due to gravity, it is helpful to suspend a sheet. Put something light on it and the sheet barely moves. Put something really heavy and the sheet curves quite a bit. A black hole is when you cut a hole in the sheet. Things just kind of disappear. We are dealing with mass and a singularity. That means infinite density. Infinite density kind of destroys space XD


hm... So the edge of the singularity is the event horizon? In other words, the entire inside of a black hole is a singularity?

What about the mass of a black hole? Where is it located? Is it distributed like the electrical charge on a Gaussian surface?


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

bigtex1989 said:


> There are actually three completely different (and "equally" valid) ways to look at this.
> 
> 1) Space and time are linked through a thing called "space-time". A meter can be expressed as a second by using the constant of the speed of light, and vice versa. This would imply that if space ceases to exist, time also ceases to exist. This train of thought leads you to the right conceptual paradigm but doesn't explain WHY this is so.
> 
> 2) It is necessary to look at a black hole event horizon. The event horizon is the place where light can not fall into the black hole, but can not escape. This means that the light is in equilibrium. What this means is, if an astronaut where to fly to a black hole event horizon, and you were looking at him, and he didnt die LONG before reaching the event horizon, you would see the astronaut "fall in" the black hole for as long as the Schwartzchild radius is the same. _*To the outside observer, time has stopped right there, so it is no longer a construct. It has ceased to exist as we know it.*_ If it slows and stops at the event horizon, it can be speculated what happens beyond the event horizon. This argument is pretty weak, but still serves as a good conceptual check.
> 
> 3) We can look just at the relativity of time. So if a black hole has enough force to accelerate light towards it, at some point, the speed of that light will be larger than the speed of light in a vacuum. You can think about this like accelerating down a true bottomless pit. So as the speed of the photons grows faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, the radical in the Lorentz factor becomes negative. So the entire Lorentz factor (and time) becomes imaginary. This is probably the most compelling argument imo.
> 
> I have skipped the spatial arguments because you said you understood it and I think those are actually harder to visualize and explain XD


Thanks for this - brilliant. Does the above highlighted piece mean that because time stands still once it reaches the speed of light- and that the speed of light therefore defines our experience - that we are forever restricted in our knowledge of the underlying cause of the universe, or, to put it another way, we cannot discuss or imagine the box because we are in the box, end of?


----------



## bigtex1989

listentothemountains said:


> hm... So the edge of the singularity is the event horizon? In other words, the entire inside of a black hole is a singularity?
> 
> What about the mass of a black hole? Where is it located? Is it distributed like the electrical charge on a Gaussian surface?


Not exactly. A black hole (as I understand it) is like an inverted traffic cone. The singularity itself is only at the very bottom. There is no edge to the singularity as it has exactly zero volume. No one really knows what the inside of a black hole is though lol.

The mass of the black hole is the singularity. A singularity is any object in space that has a non-zero mass and zero volume. This causes infinite density XD which is what rips space wide open. So the mass is at the very "bottom/middle" for lack of a better term.


----------



## bigtex1989

RRRoooaaaRRR said:


> Thanks for this - brilliant. Does the above highlighted piece mean that because time stands still once it reaches the speed of light- and that the speed of light therefore defines our experience - that we are forever restricted in our knowledge of the underlying cause of the universe, or, to put it another way, we cannot discuss or imagine the box because we are in the box, end of?


I'm quite hesitant to use the term "forever" for a few reasons. 
1. We have found that some stuff DOES travel faster than the speed of light (see neutrinos or quantum entanglement), but I would like to read more on it before I discuss it at length on here. 
2. Forever is a really long time XD. There are lots of things that could happen between now and forever 

So the cause (or origin) of the universe is most commonly tossed up to the big bang. I agree with the big bang theory for the most part. There is evidence for it every where. Next time you're in the car, go in between radio stations. Approximately 1% of the white noise is radiation from the big bang. I think our limitations in understanding the universe are self imposed. Imagining the scope of the galaxy is nearly impossible, and there are billions of galaxies. If you walked around earth about 22,261.5 times, you would have walked the average distance from the sun to the earth. That's how staggering the distances actually are. I think that's whats stops us from conceptualizing and discussing the box so to speak.

Now to your actual question about physical limitations 
It has been theorized that the universe is actually being "created" one plank length at a time at the speed of light. I don't believe this, but if it is true, then you're absolutely correct in your posit. The only implication I think that follows directly from time stopping to the outside observer at the event horizon, is that without a new form of data transfer, we will never know what a black hole really is XD. Note that the astronaut ACTUALLY falls into the black hole in his own frame of reference, so for example, if you were able to get the astronaut some sort of life raft, he wouldn't be able to grab it....or move at all for that matter. It's more like a stationary hologram.


----------



## Vexilla Regis

I listened in astonishment as a college instructor explained to her students how it is that our hair and fingernails grow after we are deceased. She was horrified when I explained my version, which is that our skin shrinks/contracts -- which may make it appear as if our hair and nails are longer. Who is right, wrong? This was months ago, I have yet to look for the "correct" answer.


----------



## bigtex1989

Mountain Climber said:


> I listened in astonishment as a college instructor explained to her students how it is that our hair and fingernails grow after we are deceased. She was horrified when I explained my version, which is that our skin shrinks/contracts -- which may make it appear as if our hair and nails are longer. Who is right, wrong? This was months ago, I have yet to look for the "correct" answer.


You are correct. Dead means nothing is growing anymore....that's the definition of dead lol. They look longer thanks to skin desiccation.


----------



## Vexilla Regis

I thought so. I'm bad about second guessing myself. She wasn't very appreciative.  

But, I am. Thank you!!!


----------



## Vexilla Regis

bigtex1989 said:


> I'm quite hesitant to use the term "forever" for a few reasons.
> 1. We have found that some stuff DOES travel faster than the speed of light (see neutrinos or quantum entanglement), but I would like to read more on it before I discuss it at length on here.
> 2. Forever is a really long time XD. There are lots of things that could happen between now and forever
> 
> So the cause (or origin) of the universe is most commonly tossed up to the big bang. I agree with the big bang theory for the most part. There is evidence for it every where. Next time you're in the car, go in between radio stations. Approximately 1% of the white noise is radiation from the big bang. I think our limitations in understanding the universe are self imposed. Imagining the scope of the galaxy is nearly impossible, and there are billions of galaxies. If you walked around earth about 22,261.5 times, you would have walked the average distance from the sun to the earth. That's how staggering the distances actually are. I think that's whats stops us from conceptualizing and discussing the box so to speak.
> 
> Now to your actual question about physical limitations
> It has been theorized that the universe is actually being "created" one plank length at a time at the speed of light. I don't believe this, but if it is true, then you're absolutely correct in your posit. The only implication I think that follows directly from time stopping to the outside observer at the event horizon, is that without a new form of data transfer, we will never know what a black hole really is XD. Note that the astronaut ACTUALLY falls into the black hole in his own frame of reference, so for example, if you were able to get the astronaut some sort of life raft, he wouldn't be able to grab it....or move at all for that matter. It's more like a stationary hologram.


I strongly dislike words like always, forever, all, none, etc... they are confining and I am a little bit claustrophobic.
The first rule of grammar, there is an exception to every rule.


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

> We have found that some stuff DOES travel faster than the speed of light (see neutrinos or quantum entanglement)


Yes I too have heard of these. The thing is though - if I understand it right - is that once we pass the speed of light (related to our perceptions) then all that we see as the explanation of our reality cannot be used to understand the state at which speed of light is surpassed. So therefore can we not state that: if we forever continue to look to understand what made the universe from this reality (box) then we will stay forever ignorant of what it was that big-banged initially? Personally I think the same applies to string theory which then morphs into multiple universes - still the question remains and before that!

I`m a non science person wanting to understand the Einstein speed of light theory in relation to men coming back unaged - and I am profoundly grateful to you because you have given me the key


----------



## Obsidean

What does macro-economics actually mean?


----------



## luemb

bigtex1989 said:


> Not exactly. A black hole (as I understand it) is like an inverted traffic cone. The singularity itself is only at the very bottom. There is no edge to the singularity as it has exactly zero volume. No one really knows what the inside of a black hole is though lol.
> 
> The mass of the black hole is the singularity. A singularity is any object in space that has a non-zero mass and zero volume. This causes infinite density XD which is what rips space wide open. So the mass is at the very "bottom/middle" for lack of a better term.


Thanks tex. That was the way I had understood it.


----------



## bigtex1989

Obsidean said:


> What does macro-economics actually mean?


Macro-economics is the economics of big/general things, like national GDPs and interest rates and stuff like that.

For comparison purposes, micro-economics deals only with smaller/individual things like the effects of the individual decisions.

It's all about big picture vs. details.


----------



## bigtex1989

RRRoooaaaRRR said:


> Yes I too have heard of these. The thing is though - if I understand it right - is that once we pass the speed of light (related to our perceptions) then all that we see as the explanation of our reality cannot be used to understand the state at which speed of light is surpassed. So therefore can we not state that: if we forever continue to look to understand what made the universe from this reality (box) then we will stay forever ignorant of what it was that big-banged initially? Personally I think the same applies to string theory which then morphs into multiple universes - still the question remains and before that!
> 
> I`m a non science person wanting to understand the Einstein speed of light theory in relation to men coming back unaged - and I am profoundly grateful to you because you have given me the key


So there are a few things worth noting about trying to surpass the speed of light. It is impossible to do without cheating XD. This is due to length contraction and mass variation. As you approach the speed of light, your mass approaches infinity. and your volume approaches zero. If this wasn't bad enough, it implies you'd need infinite energy to continue any motion! Strictly traveling as fast or faster than the speed of light is impossible based on how we understand the universe right now. That's why we would need short cuts (bending space like in the warp drive of star trek, hyperspace like star wars, worm holes, etc) XD. 

To understand exactly "what" big-banged, we need only look up at the night sky. The stars are moving away from us! This implies that they were closer yesterday, and the day before, and so on. Well that means at one time, they were infinitely close! Everything you could possibly see was in the big bang. Conservation of energy means that everything that exists in the universe today was in the big bang. In the first seconds of the big bang, there was an equal number of matter and antimatter. They annihilated shooting off energy, and something happened to the rest of the antimatter. That is an unsolved physics problem.

To question what happened before the big bang is interesting. What happened before the big bang could not POSSIBLY affect what happened after. So what happened before the big bang is pretty inconsequential, although the answer would surely capture the imaginations of the masses.

Coming back unaged (or the twin paradox) is a pretty cool thing. They do age, just at a slower rate. You can think about this in two ways.

1) If you are not traveling, you can use your own reference frame and use time dilation. Time goes slower for them compared to you since they are going much faster. Time dilation has been proven to exist with atomic clocks and neutrino decay rates.

2) If you are traveling, you can use your own reference frame and use length contraction. The length of the journey gets shorter compared to the measured length since you are going much faster, so you aren't gone as long XD.

Both work wonderfully and yield the exact same answer.


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

> So what happened before the big bang is pretty inconsequential, although the answer would surely capture the imaginations of the masses.


It is this that is of interest to me - not convinced I`m in the majorty here though. More like the minority. I imagine you mean not of interest to scientists as such because it doesn`t affect our reality...? But for me it is the greatest question


----------



## bigtex1989

RRRoooaaaRRR said:


> It is this that is of interest to me - not convinced I`m in the majorty here though. More like the minority. I imagine you mean not of interest to scientists as such because it doesn`t affect our reality...? But for me it is the greatest question


More or less yea. Science is used to improve our understanding of the current universe, and knowing what happened before the big bang will not improve that understanding XD. That is what I mean when I say it is inconsequential.

I will say this about it though. If I were ever to use the term "never" without a qualifier, it would be in the sentence "We will never know what happened before the big bang" XD. I am quite content with the question. I think it's much more interesting to not know this answer


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

@bigtex1989


> "We will never know what happened before the big bang" XD. I am quite content with the question. I think it's much more interesting to not know this answer


Yep, that makes a great deal of sense to me - to the extent that it is more a useful tool to prevent us being stuck and allows us to fly above current held theories and philosophies. - to play with and explore new connections.


----------



## bigtex1989

RRRoooaaaRRR said:


> @bigtex1989
> 
> Yep, that makes a great deal of sense to me - to the extent that it is more a useful tool to prevent us being stuck and allows us to fly above current held theories and philosophies. - to play with and explore new connections.


Quite so! Philosophically, I am under the notion that there is no such thing as a "single" question. So as along as there is a question on the horizon, there must be at least one more. An unanswerable question allows us more latitude than any answerable question can give. Thank goodness such questions exist. In that vain, I guess your question is the most important of all


----------



## VanVinci

RRRoooaaaRRR said:


> Given that the composition of water is H2O, and that hydrogen ignites in air and that oxygen is the one thing you want to keep out in order to put out a fire - why is it that water is used to put out a fire. Any answers need to be ridiculously simply as I am not a scientist (pretty obvious). The bloody question popped into my mind 10 mins ago and won`t leave me alone.





Diogenes said:


> Water on fire vaporizes. Vapor rapidly expanding pushes oxygen away from fire. Fire has no oxygen. Fire dies out.


 Certainly in isolated ways this is true, and many fire suppression schemes depend upon oxygen deprivation. E.g. Halon

More importantly water absorbs a lot of heat and boils @ 212f/100c (at sea level). When a water molecule vaporizes it takes all the heat it absorbed away with it. Further, because water boils @ 212f/100c, it doesn't allow a fuel source to become hot enough to ignite.

Experiment: We know paper will burn easily, but you can put water into a paper Dixie-cup and hold it over a candle and boil the water. If you were to hold it there till the water is all depleted, of course, the cup will catch fire.

Your question seem also to skirt on the notions of chemical properties. A simple way to view it is that O2 & H2 gases are highly reactive (slice an apple and within 30 minutes the O2 will have reacted with the pulp to 'rust' the surface)

A reaction that produces fire will result in very stable end products. When the Hindenburg Blimp exploded, the Hydrogen (H2) gas reacted with Oxygen (O2) in the air and the end product was water vapor (H2O)


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

VanVinci said:


> Certainly in isolated ways this is true, and many fire suppression schemes depend upon oxygen deprivation. E.g. Halon
> 
> More importantly water absorbs a lot of heat and boils @ 212f/100c (at sea level). When a water molecule vaporizes it takes all the heat it absorbed away with it. Further, because water boils @ 212f/100c, it doesn't allow a fuel source to become hot enough to ignite.
> 
> Experiment: We know paper will burn easily, but you can put water into a paper Dixie-cup and hold it over a candle and boil the water. If you were to hold it there till the water is all depleted, of course, the cup will catch fire.
> 
> Your question seem also to skirt on the notions of chemical properties. A simple way to view it is that O2 & H2 gases are highly reactive (slice an apple and within 30 minutes the O2 will have reacted with the pulp to 'rust' the surface)
> 
> A reaction that produces fire will result in very stable end products. When the Hindenburg Blimp exploded, the Hydrogen (H2) gas reacted with Oxygen (O2) in the air and the end product was water vapor (H2O)


Thank you - that is a great explanation for me, detailed enough but also simple enough (for a non scientist) to grasp ..
prob is it has now left me asking the question: oh interesting, I wonder how gills (on fish) operate to extract the oxygen from water ...


----------



## VanVinci

RRRoooaaaRRR said:


> ...
> prob is it has now left me asking the question: oh interesting, I wonder how gills (on fish) operate to extract the oxygen from water ...


 Not all that different as do our lungs.

I'm guessing off the bat that you are under the impression that the gills some how manage to crack the chemical bounds of H2O and steal the oxygen. 
Just as you can dissolve a teaspoon of salt in a glass of water, so too, gases dissolve in water from the air, and the amount that can be dissolved is a function of temperature and pressure. 

Low temp and/or high press = more gas that can be dissolved.
Under high pressure CO2 gas is infused into your favorite cola, and we all know what happens when you pop the top on a hot one. Also, shaking a soda has the same effect as higher temp.

In your lungs the tiny air sacks have a moist surface, that the O2 dissolves into this with each breath, and the cells lining the air sacks actively grab O2 and expel CO2.

The gills of a fish work much the same but they have to be super efficient because dissolved O2 in water is at a lower level than in air.

This is also why we drown trying to 'breathe' water. 

Scientist have developed fluids that are super good at transporting O2, and once you get past the choke reflex, humans have no problem surviving while 'breathing' this fluid (as long as it's kept oxygenated) 

Keeping the water oxygenated is why you have a bubble maker in your aquarium.


----------



## bigtex1989

RRRoooaaaRRR said:


> Thank you - that is a great explanation for me, detailed enough but also simple enough (for a non scientist) to grasp ..
> prob is it has now left me asking the question: oh interesting, I wonder how gills (on fish) operate to extract the oxygen from water ...


Fish gills work because of gas diffusion XD. Gas tends to flow from high concentration to low concentration. The reason we even need to breathe is to oxygenate blood (or our blood has a lower oxygen concentration than the surrounding medium). So imagine you have two circles that are touching at one point. Blood is flowing one way, water the other. At the point they meet, oxygen diffuses from the water into the blood since that's what it tends to do. Gills are actually quite fascinating!


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

@VanVinci Not all that different as do our lungs.



> I'm guessing off the bat that you are under the impression that the gills some how manage to crack the chemical bounds of H2O and steal the oxygen.
> Just as you can dissolve a teaspoon of salt in a glass of water, so too, gases dissolve in water from the air, and the amount that can be dissolved is a function of temperature and pressure.


Thank you. Yes you are right about my thought re cracking the code  
Wonderful explanation again - and done so well. It is clear that you don`t just answer the question but look at a way of conveying it to my level. Much appreciated.


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

bigtex1989 said:


> Fish gills work because of gas diffusion XD. Gas tends to flow from high concentration to low concentration. The reason we even need to breathe is to oxygenate blood (or our blood has a lower oxygen concentration than the surrounding medium). So imagine you have two circles that are touching at one point. Blood is flowing one way, water the other. At the point they meet, oxygen diffuses from the water into the blood since that's what it tends to do. Gills are actually quite fascinating!


Thank you also  A great extra dressing to the explanation. So I now see also that it is about the gas maintaining equilibrium and the lungs/or gills exploiting that fact to oxygenate the blood - and from there assume they do the double trick of getting rid of the unwanted gas from the organism too.


----------



## QueCueYew

So with our modern understanding of brain chemistry, cause and reactions, plus increase knowledge on things relating to cognitive functions, have there been any headway in explaining the supranatural occurrences relating to cognitive disorders? such as those suffering from multiple personality disorders having separate yet stable personas complete with seperate skill sets which would require years of abstract learning to master, as well as stern disciplines in foreign languages otherwise never before having been present to somehow sponge to the subconscious? 

this question is legit right?


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

I am not a scientist but I can share that I have seen a documentary that showed how a thought could be seen on a scan before the thought was verbalised. So theoretically they were saying that the scientist knew before the person spoke what the answer was. However this was just a `choice` question, so not anywhere near being able to trace complicated thought processes and cross references. Maybe what we are talking here is not just brain chemistry but what is consciousness - and that si something that science doesn`t touch. Science cannot `prove` consciousness but yet we all agree `know` it exists. That goes against the science way of thinking  consciousness cannot be bottled.

(skulks off thinking chopping board, head mumble mumble ...


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

Candid Apple said:


> So with our modern understanding of brain chemistry, cause and reactions, plus increase knowledge on things relating to cognitive functions, have there been any headway in explaining the supranatural occurrences relating to cognitive disorders? such as those suffering from multiple personality disorders having separate yet stable personas complete with seperate skill sets which would require years of abstract learning to master, as well as stern disciplines in foreign languages otherwise never before having been present to somehow sponge to the subconscious?
> 
> this question is legit right?


There is also the unconscious mind having millions of bits of data to call on - up against the conscious mind only being able to deal with a few thousand bits at any one time. So then we are looking at having access to info. we didn`t realise we picked up. The other possibility is that the individual - during a time of deep need - has synchronised with other minds. This too though is in the realm of what is consciousness. Is there a possibility that we can mind read. Some experiments have been carried out on this but the optimal situation that would allow this to happen - it is argued - cannot be easily brought about at the measurers bidding. Lyall Watson talks about this in Beyond Supernature. Now, as this is a science thread I`d better shut up.


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

Ozone Layer: with ozone it keeps out the suns radiation is what I hear. But obviously it doesn`t keep out all radiation otherwise we wouldn`t get light and heat ... er so is it more that it filters please?


----------



## luemb

RRRoooaaaRRR said:


> Ozone Layer: with ozone it keeps out the suns radiation is what I hear. But obviously it doesn`t keep out all radiation otherwise we wouldn`t get light and heat ... er so is it more that it filters please?


The ozone layer absorbs ultraviolet light. Ozone is O3, and it is formed when O2 molecules are broken apart by the energy in ultraviolet light, and then one O joins another O2. The light has to be the right wavelength (ultraviolet) to break apart the molecules. Thus, it doesn't keep out the ultraviolet, it uses up the ultraviolet. Other light is free to pass through. 

I'm not exactly sure how the O2 is broken apart, but presumably the energy from the UV light goes into breaking the bond between the two atoms, giving them enough energy to separate from each other.


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

Brilliant - thank you for that. Nice neat explanation. It is so refreshing to find on this thread that people who know the answers take the time to put it in a language non scientist can get.


----------



## Apostrophic Catastrophe

I recently read that there is a vaccine in the works for HIV. Since HIV mimics the body's immune system, isn't there a rather high risk of a vaccine becoming an autoimmune disease?


----------



## Ubuntu

I've read that prehistoric interbreeding with neanderthals in the Middle East and Europe lead to strengthened immune systems in Eurasian descended **** sapiens but this wouldn't apply to those **** sapiens (Black Africans) who do not descend from neanderthals or denisovans, would it? Is it possible that (modern) African descended people typically have weaker immune systems because of this or have other selective pressures led to equally strong immune systems among Black African descended people?

Also, what evidence is there for a genetic basis to the differences in IQ between Blacks, Whites and Asians?


----------



## VanVinci

Apostrophic Catastrophe said:


> I recently read that there is a vaccine in the works for HIV. Since HIV mimics the body's immune system, isn't there a rather high risk of a vaccine becoming an autoimmune disease?


 I don't think there is much risk in that occurring. 

HIV is kinda like a serial killer that likes ti kill cops and gets hired on as a cop where he is able to manipulate the system from the inside while continuing his spree.

An HIV Vaccine is like giving every cop a mugshot of the killer beforehand. This way, not only can't the bad guy infiltrate the force, but rather he is arrested on sight.


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR

The particles in an atom move at quantum speeds and seem to instantly warp from one place to another within the atom, any given area of ‘empty’ space has a certain probability of being occupied by a particle at any given moment.

*quantum speeds *: ? how is this measured?


----------



## luemb

RRRoooaaaRRR said:


> The particles in an atom move at quantum speeds and seem to instantly warp from one place to another within the atom, any given area of ‘empty’ space has a certain probability of being occupied by a particle at any given moment.
> 
> *quantum speeds *: ? how is this measured?


This one is a bit tricky, and I'm afraid I don't understand it well myself. I think this is the right answer. 

Due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the more precisely we know a particle's position, the less we can know about it's speed (or, to be more scientifically correct, momentum). Since the particles (electrons) around an atom exist with certain probabilities in certain locations, we cannot know very much about their speed. So, I have no idea how said quantum speed could be measured.


----------



## Ubuntu

Is it possible that reading fiction might increase oxytocin?


----------



## LotusBlossom

Ubuntu said:


> Is it possible that reading fiction might increase oxytocin?


 Why not just masturbate?


----------



## Brian1

You're in a vehicle going one way and on the opposite site there are vehicles going the other way, and even though they are moving, they look frozen, what is that called, and how does that work?


----------



## bigtex1989

Brian1 said:


> You're in a vehicle going one way and on the opposite site there are vehicles going the other way, and even though they are moving, they look frozen, what is that called, and how does that work?


It's called relativity XD if I am understanding what you are describing correctly.

All speed (or even velocity) can be looked at with certain reference frames. Usually on a road, cars settle into a cruising speed. When that happens, there is very little acceleration. So with very little to no acceleration, you can look at velocity in 3 equally valid ways.

1. You never move. Everything just moves towards you (or away from you).
2. Nothing on the planet ever moves. You are doing all the motion (which is what you are perceiving I believe)
3. Some combination of the above.


----------



## Brian1

That's what I thought. I need to crack open my Einstein article again.



bigtex1989 said:


> It's called relativity XD if I am understanding what you are describing correctly.
> 
> All speed (or even velocity) can be looked at with certain reference frames. Usually on a road, cars settle into a cruising speed. When that happens, there is very little acceleration. So with very little to no acceleration, you can look at velocity in 3 equally valid ways.
> 
> 1. You never move. Everything just moves towards you (or away from you).
> 2. Nothing on the planet ever moves. You are doing all the motion (which is what you are perceiving I believe)
> 3. Some combination of the above.


----------



## Diogenes

@Brian1 Actually it's called Galilean invariance.


----------



## Dark Mailman

Pauli exclusion principle- I've been wondering for some time, why an atom can't contain two identical electrons?


----------



## DarwinsBastard

(I apologize in advance for these questions and their stupidity)

I have a question about hydrogen as well


how, exactly does metallic hydrogen work? is it stable at earth's atmospheric pressure? if so, how/why does it not just sublimate like its solid form?


second question, what is the theoretical limit to which something can be compressed? since atoms are largely empty space, is there some point at which the electron orbits could become compromised by external pressure?


----------



## bellisaurius

DarwinsBastard said:


> (I apologize in advance for these questions and their stupidity)
> 
> I have a question about hydrogen as well
> 
> 
> how, exactly does metallic hydrogen work? is it stable at earth's atmospheric pressure? if so, how/why does it not just sublimate like its solid form?
> 
> 
> second question, what is the theoretical limit to which something can be compressed? since atoms are largely empty space, is there some point at which the electron orbits could become compromised by external pressure?


The theoretical limit is being compressed to neutronium (possibly to quark degenerate matter as well, but we actually know of neutron stars, so I'll stick with that.)

I'm not sure what would happen with the degenerate hydrogen though. I'd imagine it would sublimate, but it could just as easily turn to plasma since the electrons aren't attached like on a normal set of atoms.


----------



## DarwinsBastard

^much appreciated.

these questions just pop into my head from time to time, glad to know this thread exists.


----------



## Adrift

I remember watching a scene in which Superman squeezes a lump of charcoal, converting it into a diamond. I don't remember which series or movie it was from. Anyway, suppose we were to detonate some C4 explosives inside a really strong chamber (one that's able to withstand the blast) filled with charcoal. Would the pressure and temperature be enough to convert the charcoal into diamond?


----------



## sprinkles

Adrift said:


> I remember watching a scene in which Superman squeezes a lump of charcoal, converting it into a diamond. I don't remember which series or movie it was from. Anyway, suppose we were to detonate some C4 explosives inside a really strong chamber (one that's able to withstand the blast) filled with charcoal. Would the pressure and temperature be enough to convert the charcoal into diamond?


I don't know that you'd get one big diamond but it's possible to get a lot of tiny (like, microscopic) diamonds out of it that way.

For making bigger diamonds like that, powerful hydraulic presses are used - so it would kind of be like being squeezed the way Superman did it.


----------



## bigtex1989

Adrift said:


> I remember watching a scene in which Superman squeezes a lump of charcoal, converting it into a diamond. I don't remember which series or movie it was from. Anyway, suppose we were to detonate some C4 explosives inside a really strong chamber (one that's able to withstand the blast) filled with charcoal. Would the pressure and temperature be enough to convert the charcoal into diamond?


No lol. The first thing wrong is that diamond is not the same as charcoal. Charcoal is many things including carbon. Since charcoal is not exclusively carbon, turning it into diamonds is near impossible. Graphite on the other hand COULD feasibly be turned into diamonds so we can talk about that.

Firstly, we need to know how you could turn graphite into diamonds. Graphite structure is hexagonal sheets. Diamond structure is tetrahedral. If you blew up a piece of graphite, it would just scatter the hexagonal sheets and wouldn't restructure them in a tetrahedral pattern. That's why you need intense heat and pressure over a long period of time. There is no way to "flash freeze" a piece of graphite into a diamond. 

A funny side note, the hexagonal sheets are actually more stable on earth, so theoretically, if you cut a diamond in a vacuum on earth, it would turn into graphite XD


----------



## sprinkles

bigtex1989 said:


> No lol. The first thing wrong is that diamond is not the same as charcoal. Charcoal is many things including carbon. Since charcoal is not exclusively carbon, turning it into diamonds is near impossible. Graphite on the other hand COULD feasibly be turned into diamonds so we can talk about that.
> 
> Firstly, we need to know how you could turn graphite into diamonds. Graphite structure is hexagonal sheets. Diamond structure is tetrahedral. If you blew up a piece of graphite, it would just scatter the hexagonal sheets and wouldn't restructure them in a tetrahedral pattern. That's why you need intense heat and pressure over a long period of time. There is no way to "flash freeze" a piece of graphite into a diamond.
> 
> A funny side note, the hexagonal sheets are actually more stable on earth, so theoretically, if you cut a diamond in a vacuum on earth, it would turn into graphite XD


Well, hypothetically, if you exploded it and then rapidly cooled it, you should get an impure chunk and could extract diamond powder from it by putting it in an acid bath.


----------



## bellisaurius

bigtex1989 said:


> No lol. The first thing wrong is that diamond is not the same as charcoal. Charcoal is many things including carbon. Since charcoal is not exclusively carbon, turning it into diamonds is near impossible. Graphite on the other hand COULD feasibly be turned into diamonds so we can talk about that.
> 
> Firstly, we need to know how you could turn graphite into diamonds. Graphite structure is hexagonal sheets. Diamond structure is tetrahedral. If you blew up a piece of graphite, it would just scatter the hexagonal sheets and wouldn't restructure them in a tetrahedral pattern. That's why you need intense heat and pressure over a long period of time. There is no way to "flash freeze" a piece of graphite into a diamond.
> 
> A funny side note, the hexagonal sheets are actually more stable on earth, so theoretically, if you cut a diamond in a vacuum on earth, it would turn into graphite XD


With the explosion technique, you make diamondoids and nanodiamonds, both of which are microscopic leftovers (the rest of it would just be blown up coal or charcoal- which is more pure carbon than you might think, depending on which kind it is), and require some chemical treatment afterwards with yields up to 90%. I'm not sure if C4 is up to the task, though.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro




----------



## bigtex1989

sprinkles said:


> Well, hypothetically, if you exploded it and then rapidly cooled it, you should get an impure chunk and could extract diamond powder from it by putting it in an acid bath.


Hypothetically, you could also put it into a really powerful centrifuge and just let everything separate XD. Or instead of exploding it, liquify it, then distill it. That would be quite interesting!


----------



## bigtex1989

bellisaurius said:


> With the explosion technique, you make diamondoids and nanodiamonds, both of which are microscopic leftovers (the rest of it would just be blown up coal or charcoal- which is more pure carbon than you might think, depending on which kind it is), and require some chemical treatment afterwards with yields up to 90%. I'm not sure if C4 is up to the task, though.


Microscopic leftovers have a chance of forming with no reaction at all. There is a non-zero probability that if you look at a piece of graphite long enough, it will spontaneously turn into a big diamond. That 90% yield seems really high though. Is there a paper I could read on that? If exploding graphite can get me diamonds with a 90% yield rate, I'm in the wrong business!


----------



## bellisaurius

bigtex1989 said:


> Microscopic leftovers have a chance of forming with no reaction at all. There is a non-zero probability that if you look at a piece of graphite long enough, it will spontaneously turn into a big diamond. That 90% yield seems really high though. Is there a paper I could read on that? If exploding graphite can get me diamonds with a 90% yield rate, I'm in the wrong business!


The wiki, in this case. 

If I had my second semester senior design project notes on diamondoid synthesis, I could probably go further into it, although I should mention this method wasn't the one we chose (because I didn't see it until a couple years later). Ah, those halcyon pre-wikipedia days, when you actually had to go to a library...


----------



## bigtex1989

bellisaurius said:


> The wiki, in this case.
> 
> If I had my second semester senior design project notes on diamondoid synthesis, I could probably go further into it, although I should mention this method wasn't the one we chose (because I didn't see it until a couple years later). Ah, those halcyon pre-wikipedia days, when you actually had to go to a library...


You have given me a new topic to investigate! Although, I don't think DNDs are what the original questions was about


----------



## sprinkles

bigtex1989 said:


> Hypothetically, you could also put it into a really powerful centrifuge and just let everything separate XD. Or instead of exploding it, liquify it, then distill it. That would be quite interesting!


Or if you're lucky there might be some already in it.


----------



## Adrift

The nanodiamonds are only 5 nm. Would it be possible to supersaturate a chamber with carbon atoms by incinerating graphite samples using a laser perhaps (Doc Oc's laser beam setup)? You might get crystals larger than 5 nm that way.


----------



## bellisaurius

Apparently as large as three carats can be made synthetically: Wired 11.09: The New Diamond Age

In case you're wondering how big that is:


----------



## Stelmaria

Adrift said:


> The nanodiamonds are only 5 nm. Would it be possible to supersaturate a chamber with carbon atoms by incinerating graphite samples using a laser perhaps (Doc Oc's laser beam setup)? You might get crystals larger than 5 nm that way.


It's called laser ablation. Laser ablation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, Chemical Vapour deposition is the most common industrial technique for this sort of thing as it can give a good deal of control over the products (and it's not just diamonds). Chemical vapor deposition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I suspect this is what they're talking about in the Wired article (haven't read it).


----------



## Vox Impopuli

I was recently on Ferrari Rossa, World's "Fastest" Roller Coaster. It has the indisputable highest acceleration ; 3 g (almost 30m/s^2) ,but after the initial acceleration, it slows down drastically. There was some talk about how it does not count as the FASTEST , it just has the highest acceleration in the beginning and highest speed for a split second. I am confused. Does accelerating to the topmost-speed-possible then slowing down account as fastest, or does the speed need to be consistently high all throughout ?


----------



## bigtex1989

sysha said:


> I was recently on Ferrari Rossa, World's "Fastest" Roller Coaster. It has the highest acceleration ; 3 g (almost 30m/s^2)but after the initial acceleration, it slows down drastically. There was some talk about how it does not count as the FASTEST , it just has the highest acceleration in the beginning and highest speed for a split second. I am confused. Does accelerating to the topmost-speed-possible then slowing down account as fastest, or does the speed need to be consistently high all throughout ?


That depends solely on your definition. When talking about speed, there are 2 major types to talk about; average speed and instantaneous speed. It sounds like this coaster has the highest instantaneous speed but not the fastest average speed. I think the coasters with the fastest average speed AND instantaneous speed can both be called "fastest" but that's just me.


----------



## Vox Impopuli

bigtex1989 said:


> That depends solely on your definition. When talking about speed, there are 2 major types to talk about; average speed and instantaneous speed. It sounds like this coaster has the highest instantaneous speed but not the fastest average speed. I think the coasters with the fastest average speed AND instantaneous speed can both be called "fastest" but that's just me.


ohhh yeah. Thank you  
I tried to give my thanks but the phone app is being a dick. Lol on that note, does the thanks button not appear on the perc android app, or is it just my phone?


----------



## Rayos

geekofalltrades said:


> Huh? In science, there is _only_ disproving of things. All of science is built around testing falsifiable hypotheses. Scientists can _never_ prove things; they can only _fail to disprove_ them. The longer and harder you try to disprove something without succeeding, the more credence it gains as a theory.


Yeah, I probably could have worded that better. What I mean to say is that you can't prove or disprove anything with absolute certainty. The fact that a theory has withstood rigourous attempts to debunk it just means it hasn't been debunked. Which goes along nicely with the central theme of science. That being that all theories are merely our best guesses. That they're all open for revision. That's all I meant, sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Juggernaut

I'm very interested in going to college next year and plan on getting my prerequisites as I'm rather undecided at the moment. I'm really interested in astronomy, exobiology, and astrobiology. It seems as though commercial space travel is going to available in the near future, so it gives me a little hope that I might land a relative job after I finish. (Yes, I'm aware I wont be the captain of a rocket ship flying to Jupiter to talk to the ambassador of an alien race as soon as I get out.) I'm still doubtful, though, and would like someone's honest advice as to the likelihood of me being successful in these professions.


----------



## bigtex1989

Juggernaut said:


> I'm very interested in going to college next year and plan on getting my prerequisites as I'm rather undecided at the moment. I'm really interested in astronomy, exobiology, and astrobiology. It seems as though commercial space travel is going to available in the near future, so it gives me a little hope that I might land a relative job after I finish. (Yes, I'm aware I wont be the captain of a rocket ship flying to Jupiter to talk to the ambassador of an alien race as soon as I get out.) I'm still doubtful, though, and would like someone's honest advice as to the likelihood of me being successful in these professions.


I used to want to be an astrophysicist and I'll give you similar advice to what my dad gave me.

The average person doesn't care about space. They think it is scary and will always neglect it for earthy issues. Don't get your hopes up about space until we get some REAL change in leadership and consistent funding for NASA.


----------



## Juggernaut

bigtex1989 said:


> I used to want to be an astrophysicist and I'll give you similar advice to what my dad gave me.
> 
> The average person doesn't care about space. They think it is scary and will always neglect it for earthy issues. Don't get your hopes up about space until we get some REAL change in leadership and consistent funding for NASA.


Thank you for your honesty.

I'm seeing some development in the very near future. I can only wish it means something. In the meantime, I'll look at other options that I might enjoy!


----------



## BowserKoopa

Is there an evolutionary advantage for blue eyes? I've heard they're actually more sensitive. Is it true?


----------



## geekofalltrades

They are more sensitive, which makes sense, really. They lack melanin - the dark pigment that makes brown eyes brown (and brown skin brown) - and melanin is there to absorb light. Without the protective ring of dark pigment around the iris, more light makes it into the eye. In low light conditions, this results in better vision than someone with brown eyes, but in high light conditions (in my experience, whenever the sun is up) you get a higher instance of photophobia, or sensitivity to light. I have blue eyes, and I wear sunglasses even when it's overcast because I squint like crazy otherwise.

Whether there's any evolutionary advantage would be difficult to discern - humans haven't really been subject to natural selection for quite a while now. I'd imagine not really, though, as humans aren't generally active during the night, when more sensitive vision would be advantageous.


----------



## timeless

If I ate myself, would I grow twice as big or disappear completely?


----------



## Dauntless

Will we be able to siphon out harmful traits in the human psyche in the future? (e.g. killers, rapists, those that prey upon others....)


----------



## MangoPearls

If the Big Bang created the universe, what created the Big Bang?


----------



## dream land fantasy

what's 4th dimensional light?


----------



## Watch Key Phone

geekofalltrades said:


> They are more sensitive, which makes sense, really. They lack melanin - the dark pigment that makes brown eyes brown (and brown skin brown) - and melanin is there to absorb light. Without the protective ring of dark pigment around the iris, more light makes it into the eye. In low light conditions, this results in better vision than someone with brown eyes, but in high light conditions (in my experience, whenever the sun is up) you get a higher instance of photophobia, or sensitivity to light. I have blue eyes, and I wear sunglasses even when it's overcast because I squint like crazy otherwise.
> 
> Whether there's any evolutionary advantage would be difficult to discern - humans haven't really been subject to natural selection for quite a while now. I'd imagine not really, though, as humans aren't generally active during the night, when more sensitive vision would be advantageous.


There's actual facts behind this?! I always assumed I was just a wimp (or maybe some kind of vampire) because of how squinty I get in even moderate daylight. It makes me feel so much better to know that I can attribute it at least partially to my eye coloue.


----------



## Emtropy

Could all black holes be a part of the same black hole? Could the whole universe just be a cell on (or within) another organism? How can something come from nothing? (The Big Bang Theory) Also, can someone recommend me some good science books?

Please forgive my underdeveloped knowledge and simplistic understanding of science. I would blame it on my age, but I'll just blame it on my education instead


----------



## associative

opeth98 said:


> Could all black holes be a part of the same black hole? Could the whole universe just be a cell on (or within) another organism? How can something come from nothing? (The Big Bang Theory) Also, can someone recommend me some good science books?
> 
> Please forgive my underdeveloped knowledge and simplistic understanding of science. I would blame it on my age, but I'll just blame it on my education instead


Long story short: A black hole is a large star that has run out of fuel and collapsed in on itself. This results in a gravitational field so strong that even light cannot escape. Which is why they are called "black". The "hole" is a misnomer - there is no actual hole that leads anywhere - they're just called holes because things that fall in cannot escape. 

The rest of your questions are more metaphysics. We don't know what the laws of physics are outside of our universe, and have no way of testing them if we did. (Though there are some interesting hypotheses about universe-bubbles colliding).

Rather than a book - watch "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan. The entire series is available free on Youtube.


----------



## Sovereign

Random question:

What is the source of the noise produced when a speaker's input wire comes into contact with human skin? 

My roommates and I were messing with our sound system, which accepts a 3.5mm for sound input. When we plugged in a cable and touched the wire, the speakers began playing static, and the sound was very different depending on who was touching the wire.


----------



## dvnj22

Why do white people like Wayne Brady?


----------



## ATLeow

Okay I have a dull question.

What is Young's Modulus? I did it in physics and I forgot and I looked it up on wikipedia and there were long words.
Specifically, if an object has high or low Young's Modulus what kind of property is that?


----------



## OldManRivers

Why do mirrors show an image reversed right to left but not top to bottom?


----------



## associative

ATLeow said:


> Okay I have a dull question.
> 
> What is Young's Modulus? I did it in physics and I forgot and I looked it up on wikipedia and there were long words.
> Specifically, if an object has high or low Young's Modulus what kind of property is that?


Dull? Pffft, the cheek of it.

Young's modulus is the intrinsic stiffness of a certain material, all things being equal.
For instance, when you have a rubber band: the amount of force you need to stretch it a certain distance depends on the length of the band and the thickness of the band. Once you control for these, you get Young's modulus.

So a steel wire may be the same length and thickness as a piece of fishing line, but it will be much stiffer due to the higher Young's modulus.


----------



## Toru Okada

How does a bear know what apples is?


----------



## SA1988

opeth98 said:


> Could all black holes be a part of the same black hole? Could the whole universe just be a cell on (or within) another organism? How can something come from nothing? (The Big Bang Theory) Also, can someone recommend me some good science books?
> 
> Please forgive my underdeveloped knowledge and simplistic understanding of science. I would blame it on my age, but I'll just blame it on my education instead


Yeah a black is just a large star that has died.

However our own sun will not become a black hole because it's too small. It will just explode (supernova).

Also, a black hole is nothing to worry about either. Some people assume that it's this big vortex of doom that sucks everything up. Actually it is literally just a star that has died. So it has the same gravity as it always did. For example, if our own sun suddenly transformed into a black hole, all the planets would orbit in exactly the same way as they're doing now, only difference being that there'd be no sunlight and we'd all freeze!

A good book to help you get an idea of the most current thoughts on the Big Bang theory is 'The Cosmic Landscape'. Many theorists believe our own Big Bang was just one of many. There's no reason at all to say that our own set of galaxies is the only one. There could easily be a 'cosmic landscape' where big bangs are happening all the time.


----------



## He's a Superhero!

associative said:


> The protein in question: UCP1 (or thermogenin) is structurally similar to two other proteins (transport proteins) that are responsible for transport of molecules across lipid membranes. They use an 'active transport' process, that is to say - they use energy to do their transporting.
> A paper I found on Google seems to indicate that this was the subject of positive selection - so the mutated protein gave an advantage to the animals had it, allowing them to survive and/or breed better than their peers. So it evolved.


I'm going to have to look deeper into this. Thanx for your help.


----------



## Wellsy

When I have a bath, I find that the bottom of my legs have small bubbles all over them which is amusing to rub them off and watch them float to the surface.

My question is how do these bubbles occur and why would they seem to stick to my skin rather than simply raise to the surface?


----------



## TyDavis

I have what may seem to be a odd question. So I was watching Halloween related YouTube videos (since it was yesterday and I need to catch up on them) then I look over at my cat and wondered "Can animals feel 'creeped out.'" I don't mean like general fear, or fear for your life. I mean like "I just read the Jeff the killer creepy pasta and now I don't want to sleep" or "I just watched the 'Halloween' movies and now I don't want to go near my doors" kinda thing.


----------



## TyDavis

Wouldn't something at absolute zero(for the sake of this question lets say it stays at absolute zero) wouldn't it just pin and lock at it's location?


----------



## Raha

why a double stranded RNA takes a form like* A *form of DNA and not the other forms?


----------



## SA1988

TyDavis said:


> Wouldn't something at absolute zero(for the sake of this question lets say it stays at absolute zero) wouldn't it just pin and lock at it's location?


Not sure what you mean, but it's so far proved impossible to reach absolute zero anyway. The laws of thermodynamics mean that heat automatically transfers to cooler objects until everything in the vicinity is at an equal temperature. So to reach absolute zero, the object would have to be 100% out of contact with anything else, but that's pretty much impossible because, for example, electromagnetic waves have energy, and they can even travel through a vacuum, so it's almost impossible to isolate an object to a place where it can successfully be cooled to 0 Kelvin.

Also, 0 Kelvin means no energy at all, and no energy means no mass, because of the whole E=mc2 thing. So it's probably impossible to achieve absolute zero.

Also, some scientists did once try to do it, and they got very close indeed, but they simply could not make the object lose that last little bit of energy to hit absolute zero.

That's all I know!


----------



## OldManRivers

TyDavis said:


> I have what may seem to be a odd question. So I was watching Halloween related YouTube videos (since it was yesterday and I need to catch up on them) then I look over at my cat and wondered "Can animals feel 'creeped out.'" I don't mean like general fear, or fear for your life. I mean like "I just read the Jeff the killer creepy pasta and now I don't want to sleep" or "I just watched the 'Halloween' movies and now I don't want to go near my doors" kinda thing.


Why don't you ask the animals? If they have the cognitive processes to be "creeped out" they should be able to communicate it.
I really doubt animals have the ability to have abstracts thoughts. And some people do not either.


----------



## misterjc0612

What is the relation between dark matter and gravity?


----------



## SA1988

misterjc0612 said:


> What is the relation between dark matter and gravity?


Dark matter hasn't actually been discovered or proven yet, it simply is theorised as something that must exist because the mass of the universe isn't high enough to account for the overall gravitational attraction within it.

Or in other words.

Mass causes gravity.
Universe has overall gravitational attraction towards central point. (Think of the universe as a single planet, or a ball. Each galaxy is an atom of that ball, with an overall attraction towards the centre, just like a planet.
The current estimated mass of the universe is too low for the amount of gravity that has been recorded.
So there must be something else contributing to the gravitational attraction.

Dark matter is like other matter, but we just can't detect it.

Main point so far is that it's only been theorised.

Conclusion: Dark matter accounts for the excess of overall gravity in the universe, because matter causes gravity, and currently there isn't enough 'normal matter' to create the amount gravity we currently have.


----------



## ATLeow

Vague hypothetical question:

Picture a ball hitting a vertical wall while travelling horizontally, and bouncing off. My simplistic understanding is kinetic energy is converted to elastic strain energy (?) by compression and then becomes kinetic energy in the roughly opposite direction with some energy dissipated as heat/sound against the wall, and then there's gravity and air resistance in there somewhere.
If the ball is made of a material which is not or is barely compressible (i.e. with similar properties to the wall), can it still bounce off or will its horizontal plane of movement stop upon contact with the wall, assuming the wall doesn't get smashed?
All of this would happen with the ball exactly perpendicular incident to the wall so I don't think it would deflect in any particular direction.
(Is incident the right word or does that just apply to EM radiation?)

Thank you!


----------



## Uralian Hamster

It would just drop because all the energy would be transferred to the wall (which doesn't break, just absorbs and dissipates the energy of the impact). This would happen in a perfectly inelastic collision. 
Ex: Lead ball colliding with a steel wall. 

Incidence can be used to describe the trajectory of anything from a lead ball to a ray of light. In this case, the angle of incidence would be 0.


----------



## misterjc0612

Pessimisterious said:


> Dark matter hasn't actually been discovered or proven yet, it simply is theorised as something that must exist because the mass of the universe isn't high enough to account for the overall gravitational attraction within it......


Wow, thanks a lot for such an elaborate explanation! =D


----------



## Playful Proxy

How do rechargeable batteries work and what controls how much current they can absorb at one time for recharging?


----------



## OrdinarinessIsAFWTD

Any big implications in the hard sciences if 'twere proven tomorrow that P and NP are, in fact, the same?


----------



## jeb

What is the triple point of skin?

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Maegamikko

Metaphysics are cool huh? :3


----------



## synod

The biggest question in the science is where do you put all the carbon?


----------



## RobynC

I got a good one: Can you come up with a good definition for voltage and amperage?

Normally you get definitions that are quite circular that give you almost nothing: Something like a volt is needed to produce a watt at one amp; you look at ampere and you get: An amp is needed to produce a watt at one volt.

Things to consider: What does high amperage electrical current look like? What does high voltage current look like?


----------



## Blazkovitz

Is there any practical use for the theory of evolution? I mean, secular humanists say it's very important to teach it at school. However, it seems rather remote from our everyday experience.


----------



## Strostkovy

RobynC said:


> I got a good one: Can you come up with a good definition for voltage and amperage?
> 
> Normally you get definitions that are quite circular that give you almost nothing: Something like a volt is needed to produce a watt at one amp; you look at ampere and you get: An amp is needed to produce a watt at one volt.
> 
> Things to consider: What does high amperage electrical current look like? What does high voltage current look like?


Amperage is the amount of electron passing through per second. One amp is 6.02e18 electrons per second. 

Volts are the force pushing on the electrons. When allowed to move, this is directly proportional to their speed.


----------



## Xanthus Primus

Which area of the brain has the highest concentration of GABA receptors? Temporal lobe? Left hemisphere?


----------



## He's a Superhero!

What is the potential of finding water on Mars? (not distant future, but things we could expect to see in the near future)


----------



## Psychosmurf

Do you think any celestial bodies beyond Neptune will ever be discovered?


----------



## HAL

Psychosmurf said:


> Do you think any celestial bodies beyond Neptune will ever be discovered?


----------



## Eglis

He's a Superhero! said:


> What is the potential of finding water on Mars? (not distant future, but things we could expect to see in the near future)


I dont want to be pessimistic but i think there wont found water on Mars. You may ask why ? I think because every planet has a different thing and the difference from Earth and others is that Earth has water  Hope we will find another planet with water but it has a low chance for it


----------



## Eglis

Psychosmurf said:


> Do you think any celestial bodies beyond Neptune will ever be discovered?


What do you mean by celestial bodies beyond Neptune ?


----------



## Eglis

SalvinaZerelda said:


> How closely are mathematics and physics tied?


Math is something that you need in almost all sciences because its pure logic. You need to be good in it so you can play with the formulas in physics and normal exercises will looks very easy. Then there are hard exercises in physics that you need the logic of a physicant to solve them and it is not only math 



SalvinaZerelda said:


> How many scientists believe in the existence of aliens?


There are a lot that believe but there are a lot that dont believe its their choice to do so because we still dont have any argument that they exist or no  ( I BELIEVE THEY EXIST )


----------



## He's a Superhero!

Eglis said:


> I dont want to be pessimistic but i think there wont found water on Mars. You may ask why ? I think because every planet has a different thing and the difference from Earth and others is that Earth has water  Hope we will find another planet with water but it has a low chance for it


But what about the geological appearance that water was on Mars in the past? Even tho never near as much as is on earth.


----------



## HAL

Is it possible to have a 100% healthy body if you just have water, bread, a little bit of meat and eat vitamin tablets to make up for the lack of fruit and veg?

I ask this because I am the king of minimal eating. I would gladly live on bread, meat and multivitamins. Fancy cooking is a bore that I wish to transcend.

For the record my diet is pretty much like this anyway and I'm in good health. After a year of this shit (along with no exercise and living a year in air-polluted China!) I went for a 10k run and, although harder than it used to be, I still handled it pretty well.


----------



## zynthaxx

He's a Superhero! said:


> What is the potential of finding water on Mars? (not distant future, but things we could expect to see in the near future)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars

There are huge amounts of water on Mars. It just isn't "allowed" to stay liquid for very long nowadays.


----------



## Topple

Is the universe hackable?


----------



## HAL

Topple said:


> Is the universe hackable?


Maybe...


----------



## bigstupidgrin

Is Moore's law going to end during our lifetime? Or has it already?


----------



## g_w

bigstupidgrin said:


> Is Moore's law going to end during our lifetime? Or has it already?


Yes, then no, then yes.<p>
We're getting down to the quantum limitations on silicon chips.<p>
New materials (or optical computers, or quantum computers) will speed computers up again: but in either case there is not as much room for repeated subsequent doublings in speed.<p>
Next breakthrough (you heard it here first): artificial *stupidity* and neurotic computers. A boon to psychology.


----------



## Felipe

If I go to the "end" of our universe, pick up a shovel and try to dig more, will I find more space?


----------



## ISFJ

how warm will it be this summer


----------



## Strostkovy

Felipe said:


> If I go to the "end" of our universe, pick up a shovel and try to dig more, will I find more space?


It seems to me even space would not exist, in that the laws of the universe just stop. You could jab at it with all of your might, but anything that hits the imaginary barrier would just cease to exist.

Assuming there even is an end.


----------



## starvingautist

@Felipe

Yes.

What is space? Space is anywhere some sort of detectable field exists. When you thrust your shovel towards the edge of the universe, you (effectively) extend it, though the universe should be infinite in space, seeing as all known fields are not finite. The effective universe ends when all fields become negligible.


My question is: how do I show that the amplitude of a damped oscillation decays as e^-npi/Q?
- n is the number of the oscillation
- Q is the quality factor


----------



## Felipe

Do we really have enough nuclear power to destroy the world? (I think it's a bluff)


----------



## HAL

Felipe said:


> Do we really have enough nuclear power to destroy the world? (I think it's a bluff)


It depends on what you mean when you say 'destroy the world'.

I highly doubt there's enough to literally blow the planet into a load of space chunks.

And I don't know if there are enough nuclear bombs to wipe out life on the entire planet. I'll go with no at this point. But if all the world's nukes were fired at the same time to all the 'right' places, humanity could easily be sent back to the stone age.


----------



## Amy

Poizon said:


> Because there are various ways at looking at the issue. Politically, morally, Biologically, etc. People tend to pick a side and stick with it rather than seeing things from these multiple perspectives. People value different things. This is why you tend to have people who value either "Rights" or "Lives".


It's interesting how you wrote about the laws of a place about abortion. In some places it is a crime, in others it isn't.
But it really doesn't matter, the laws aren't necessarily moral and what is moral isn't necessarily a law.


----------



## Chris

Karla said:


> So why are there so many discussions if your answer is that simple?


Unless you mean why did Poizon have so much of a discussion/include so much information leading up to that...because that answer only comes from one person. Poizon concludes that, based on morality, abortion is murder. However, morality is an incredibly arbitrary thing; what Poizon finds immoral, I may not, and what I find immoral, you may not.

Look at the definition he gave. "One killing another for unjust reasons." Who decides what constitutes just reasons? If a woman is highly likely to die during birth, is it just to have an abortion? If she was raped and is incapable of providing an adequate life for the child (both financially and emotionally), is it just? So forth and so on.


----------



## Velcorn

Because I didn't get an answer on this in the quantum mechanics Q&A, here we go again.

First, I would like to ask if the Heisenberg uncertainty principle implies that momentum and/or position of a particle is random or if that just means we cannot possibly determine both at the same time, at least not for now?

Second, related to that, what can we say about determinism, indeterminism and free will according to quantum mechanics?


----------



## Denature

Clovdyx said:


> Unless you mean why did Poizon have so much of a discussion/include so much information leading up to that...because that answer only comes from one person. Poizon concludes that, based on morality, abortion is murder. However, morality is an incredibly arbitrary thing; what Poizon finds immoral, I may not, and what I find immoral, you may not.
> 
> Look at the definition he gave. "One killing another for unjust reasons." Who decides what constitutes just reasons? If a woman is highly likely to die during birth, is it just to have an abortion? If she was raped and is incapable of providing an adequate life for the child (both financially and emotionally), is it just? So forth and so on.


Yes, of course. Mortality is arbitrary. Killing the zygote however is killing an undeveloped human in all cases. Whether the killing is just or not is up to the individual but it's no doubt that it's killing life off.


----------



## Amy

Clovdyx said:


> Unless you mean why did Poizon have so much of a discussion/include so much information leading up to that...because that answer only comes from one person. Poizon concludes that, based on morality, abortion is murder. However, morality is an incredibly arbitrary thing; what Poizon finds immoral, I may not, and what I find immoral, you may not.
> 
> Look at the definition he gave. "One killing another for unjust reasons." Who decides what constitutes just reasons? If a woman is highly likely to die during birth, is it just to have an abortion? If she was raped and is incapable of providing an adequate life for the child (both financially and emotionally), is it just? So forth and so on.


So the problem isn't about the zygote being a human or not, right? Thanks for the information!


----------



## Chris

Karla said:


> So the problem isn't about the zygote being a human or not, right? Thanks for the information!


For _some_, that's the problem. There has been a lot of debate as to what constitutes a human being versus cells, I think. While it's basically impossible to argue that a zygote is _life_, not all life is _humanity_. 

For others, the problem can be be the reasons for the abortion. Which is probably just trying to find reasons to end life.

Does that make any sense?


----------



## Amy

Clovdyx said:


> For _some_, that's the problem. There has been a lot of debate as to what constitutes a human being versus cells, I think. While it's basically impossible to argue that a zygote is _life_, not all life is _humanity_.
> 
> For others, the problem can be be the reasons for the abortion. Which is probably just trying to find reasons to end life.
> 
> Does that make any sense?


Yeah, thanks!
So the zygote can be considered *life*, but not a *human*... wow that's really complex.


----------



## HAL

Velcorn said:


> Because I didn't get an answer on this in the quantum mechanics Q&A, here we go again.
> 
> First, I would like to ask if the Heisenberg uncertainty principle implies that momentum and/or position of a particle is random or if that just means we cannot possibly determine both at the same time, at least not for now?
> 
> Second, related to that, what can we say about determinism, indeterminism and free will according to quantum mechanics?


Can't determine position and momentum at the same time.

It's logical really. Think of it this way. To know the momentum of something, you need to know its speed. This means you need to do the distance/time calculation. But if you pinpoint its positions _exactly_, you have no distance with which to find its momentum. Hence the two - precise momentum and position - cannot be known simultaneously.

About the implication of random vs deterministic.

I think it could be argued that everything is deterministic. However in terms of human observation and prediction of events on a quantum mechanical scale, it may always have to be classed as random because of the aforementioned uncertainty principle problem. 

The uncertainty principle doesn't imply randomness, it implies an uncertainty in the way we, as human observers, are able to view events as they unfold.

So to conclude: I'd say everything is deterministic - the timeline of the universe is a chain of connected events - but _humans_ don't currently have the capacity to obtain the correct details to know those determined outcomes. Hence 'uncertainty' and the necessary use of probability, rather than concrete predictions, in quantum mechanics.


----------



## Felipe

Funny question: What happens if a put ascorbic acid in my milk?


----------



## g_w

Felipe said:


> Funny question: What happens if a put ascorbic acid in my milk?


Try it and C.


----------



## Felipe

g_w said:


> Try it and C.


I C what you did there.


----------



## Amy

Felipe said:


> Funny question: What happens if a put ascorbic acid in my milk?


You have an orange milk!


----------



## Felipe

Karla said:


> You have an orange milk!


haha, but it's not entirely orange it's with orange pieces...:bored:
Have you tasted it though?


----------



## Amy

Felipe said:


> haha, but it's not entirely orange it's with orange pieces...:bored:
> Have you tasted it though?


Have you tried it? :laughing: É o bagaço da laranja :tongue:
Actually no. I'll do it someday :crazy:


----------



## Felipe

Karla said:


> Have you tried it? :laughing: É o bagaço da laranja :tongue:
> Actually no. I'll do it someday :crazy:


Do it, now!:frustrating:

By the way, is that you in the back of the picture? (don't answer)


----------



## MisterPerfect

Bote said:


> What is a photon?
> 
> I need information that can not be found on wikipedia. Preferably some excerpts from genuine papers/experiments if you know of any. So far I've read Newton's and Einstein's theses and essays regarding light. Some other contributors would be appreciated.


Misread


----------



## MisterPerfect

What happens when an unstoppable force hits an unmovable object

Also how would you make an experiment to test this? 

What happens if you put the ultimate heat with the ultimate cold? 

Ice melts with fire, but water puts out fire, and heat drys up water becuase evaporation. A torch(Blowtorch) fire can burn under water, but does not get rid of the oceon. If there was a small amount of water would the torch dry up the water? If we had two elements which were equally cold and equally hot in the same amount which one would win?


----------



## Strostkovy

MisterPerfect said:


> What happens when an unstoppable force hits an unmovable object
> 
> Also how would you make an experiment to test this?
> 
> What happens if you put the ultimate heat with the ultimate cold?
> 
> Ice melts with fire, but water puts out fire, and heat drys up water becuase evaporation. A torch(Blowtorch) fire can burn under water, but does not get rid of the oceon. If there was a small amount of water would the torch dry up the water? If we had two elements which were equally cold and equally hot in the same amount which one would win?


I would think the unstoppable force would propagate through the immovable object. Both conditions are satisfied. 

You would never be able to test this fully.

Since you can't go below absolute zero, the ultimate heat, or any heat for that matter, would heat the ultimate cold. So you would end up with very slightly less than the ultimate heat.

A torch underwater does boil off a fair amount of water, but there is not nearly enough energy there to boil off the ocean. The torch would be able to boil a lesser amount. If you put a hot object to an equal cold object you will end up with two warm objects.


----------



## MisterPerfect

Murdock said:


> I would think the unstoppable force would propagate through the immovable object. Both conditions are satisfied.
> 
> You would never be able to test this fully.
> 
> Since you can't go below absolute zero, the ultimate heat, or any heat for that matter, would heat the ultimate cold. So you would end up with very slightly less than the ultimate heat.
> 
> A torch underwater does boil off a fair amount of water, but there is not nearly enough energy there to boil off the ocean. The torch would be able to boil a lesser amount. If you put a hot object to an equal cold object you will end up with two warm objects.


So heat wins?


----------



## Amy

Felipe said:


> Do it, now!:frustrating:
> 
> By the way, is that you in the back of the picture? (don't answer)


lol there's no "orange juice" here. I'll tell you what happens when I drink it :crazy:
Duuuuh nooo (don't see this answer)


----------



## ae1905

Tamehagane said:


> There is something I find quite baffling about the science building here
> 
> There is a small rectangular entrance-room when you first walk into the building. One door opens to the rest of the building, one opens to the outside.
> On occasion, there is some sort of strange air-pressure phenomenon. Both doors will either be difficult to shut or stay open by themselves (not electronically). Upon walking through, you are hit by an oddly powerful rush of "wind." Once you go through the other door, the air is back to normal.
> 
> Would anyone (like *cough cough* @*HAL* ) know how this could happen?





HAL said:


> Temperature difference between inside and outside.
> 
> If the whole building is fairly well sealed, any change in temperature will cause the pressure inside to be slightly higher.
> 
> So, if the heating is on, when you open the doors, air will blast through to equalise the pressure.
> 
> It's basically the land-lubber's version of when you open the door of a spaceship and all the air rushes out.
> 
> 
> In winter, if you're at a place with lots of heating turned on, try holding your hand to a crack in any outer door, or a keyhole or whatever. You might be able to feel a surprisingly strong jet of air coming through.


your explanation would make sense if air pressure was only static and if there was no air circulation within buildings, but outdoor air pressure is also dynamic--eg, wind in your face--and buildings are designed not only to circulate air but to vent and replenish it...because this air naturally rises as it is warmed by building occupants and machines, it tends to circulate from lower to higher floors...this vertical circulation creates low static pressures at the bottom which, together with the dynamic pressure ouside (wind), helps to draw air _into_ buildings when doors are opened

the effect the questioner describes is caused by the pressure surge within the building's entrance as outside air rushes in...this higher _static _pressure inside pushes against the open doors causing them to close more slowly*...this pressure also helps deccelerate the gust of air

* the gust of air also causes the static pressure immediately outside the door to fall a little...together with the higher static pressure inside, the pressure differential across the door exerts a net force that opposes its closing


----------



## HAL

ae1905 said:


> your explanation would make sense if air pressure was only static and if there was no air circulation within buildings, but outdoor air pressure is also dynamic--eg, wind in your face--and buildings are designed not only to circulate air but to vent and replenish it...because this air naturally rises as it is warmed by building occupants and machines, it tends to circulate from lower to higher floors...this vertical circulation creates low static pressures at the bottom which, together with the dynamic pressure ouside (wind), helps to draw air _into_ buildings when doors are opened
> 
> the effect the questioner describes is caused by the pressure surge within the building's entrance as outside air rushes in...this higher _static _pressure inside pushes against the open doors causing them to close more slowly*...this pressure also helps deccelerate the gust of air
> 
> * the gust of air also causes the static pressure immediately outside the door to fall a little...together with the higher static pressure inside, the pressure differential across the door exerts a net force that opposes its closing


??

Air circulation inside and outside the building aren't hugely relevant. Sure it might be just a windy day causing the doors to be held open but, given @Tamehagane 's confusion, I suspect it's something that happens even on calm days.

Here's an analogy:

Place a football over a small heat source. You'll get convection currents inside it, just like air flow in a building. The football also isn't a perfect seal, so as time passes its pressure will equalise with the outside and it'll deflate. Just like a building (though the structure is solid so it doesn't 'deflate'), which has air outlets which will allow pressure equalisation over time. So the two are analogous, the only difference is a building is a more complex model.

Now... force the ball open by driving a pin into it, and all he air rushes out of the hole. Or, with the case of a building, push the doors open and all the air rushes out.

It's all the same concept, relating to a fairly basic understanding of pressure equalisation. Internal convection currents are irrelevant. As long as the inside and outside are at a different pressure, you'll get loads of air rushing in or out if given the chance to do so.

EDIT: Hang on a minute. I've just reread what you put. You literally described the exact same thing as me, just with a load of extra stuff about internal air flow which is irrelevant.


----------



## ae1905

HAL said:


> ??
> 
> Air circulation inside and outside the building aren't hugely relevant. Sure it might be just a windy day causing the doors to be held open but, given @*Tamehagane* 's confusion, I suspect it's something that happens even on calm days.
> 
> Here's an analogy:
> 
> Place a football over a small heat source. You'll get convection currents inside it, just like air flow in a building. The football also isn't a perfect seal, so as time passes its pressure will equalise with the outside and it'll deflate. Just like a building (though the structure is solid so it doesn't 'deflate'), which has air outlets which will allow pressure equalisation over time. So the two are analogous, the only difference is a building is a more complex model.
> 
> Now... force the ball open by driving a pin into it, and all he air rushes out of the hole. Or, with the case of a building, push the doors open and all the air rushes out.
> 
> It's all the same concept, relating to a fairly basic understanding of pressure equalisation. Internal convection currents are irrelevant. As long as the inside and outside are at a different pressure, you'll get loads of air rushing in or out if given the chance to do so.
> 
> EDIT: Hang on a minute. I've just reread what you put. You literally described the exact same thing as me, just with a load of extra stuff about internal air flow which is irrelevant.


no, it's not irrelevant...the updraft produces _lower _pressures in the bottom floors that cause outdoor air to _enter _open doors, not leave

so it is not a simple static pressure problem as you surmise

think of it this way...buoyancy causes warm air to rise inside buildings...this updraft creates a slight vacuum at the bottom (because air is being pulled up out of the bottom)...this vacuum, in turn, pulls in outside air when doors are opened...as air is pulled in the pressure rises and it is this surge in pressure that pushes against open doors


----------



## ae1905

HAL said:


> ??
> 
> Air circulation inside and outside the building aren't hugely relevant. Sure it might be just a windy day causing the doors to be held open but, given @*Tamehagane* 's confusion, I suspect it's something that happens even on calm days.
> 
> Here's an analogy:
> 
> Place a football over a small heat source. You'll get convection currents inside it, just like air flow in a building. The football also isn't a perfect seal, so as time passes its pressure will equalise with the outside and it'll deflate. Just like a building (though the structure is solid so it doesn't 'deflate'), which has air outlets which will allow pressure equalisation over time. So the two are analogous, the only difference is a building is a more complex model.
> 
> Now... force the ball open by driving a pin into it, and all he air rushes out of the hole. Or, with the case of a building, push the doors open and all the air rushes out.
> 
> It's all the same concept, relating to a fairly basic understanding of pressure equalisation. Internal convection currents are irrelevant. As long as the inside and outside are at a different pressure, you'll get loads of air rushing in or out if given the chance to do so.
> 
> EDIT: Hang on a minute. I've just reread what you put. You literally described the exact same thing as me, just with a load of extra stuff about internal air flow which is irrelevant.


put anther way, a building is not a football; it isn't designed to _seal_ air...rather, it is designed to _vent_ air so that when air is heated it expands by venting outside, thereby reducing the pressure it otherwise would build up if it was sealed, like a football...in this way the indoor and outdoor static pressures are always equilibatred _at the vents_...vents are typically located on the roofs of buildings...if you think of the columns of indoor and outdoor air, the pressure at the bottom of the outdoor column will be higher than the pressure of the indoor column because the outdoor air is colder and, therefore, denser...it's this pressure differential that pulls air _into _a heated building through open doors


----------



## HAL

ae1905 said:


> no, it's not irrelevant...the updraft produces _lower _pressures in the bottom floors that cause outdoor air to _enter _open doors, not leave
> 
> so it is not a simple static pressure problem as you surmise
> 
> think of it this way...buoyancy causes warm air to rise inside buildings...this updraft creates a slight vacuum at the bottom (because air is being pulled up out of the bottom)...this vacuum, in turn, pulls in outside air when doors are opened...as air is pulled in the pressure rises and it is this surge in pressure that pushes against open doors






ae1905 said:


> put anther way, a building is not a football; it isn't designed to _seal_ air...rather, it is designed to _vent_ air so that when air is heated it expands by venting outside, thereby reducing the pressure it otherwise would build up if it was sealed, like a football...in this way the indoor and outdoor static pressures are always equilibatred _at the vents_...vents are typically located on the roofs of buildings...if you think of the columns of indoor and outdoor air, the pressure at the bottom of the outdoor column will be higher than the pressure of the indoor column because the outdoor air is colder and, therefore, denser...it's this pressure differential that pulls air _into _a heated building through open doors


Oh I see what you mean now. My bad, hah. I thought you meant airflow only inside the building, rather than through the building as a continuous exterior/interior exchange.

Found this too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_effect

@Tamehagane here's your answer.


----------



## Tamehagane

Thanks @ae1905 and @HAL

Interesting effect.
Seems to make sense, as it was much more dramatic during the winter.
I noticed it again today, but it was very weak.


----------



## The red spirit

Is it possible to start HPS bulb without ballast? If not, how to shop for ballast? I'm total noob and I'm curious how it would look indoors. I expect really bad results and I want to see how bad everything would look.

It's Osram Vialox nav(son)-e 70watt E27 bulb

BTW is there any way to start car bulbs at home? You see, I'm interested in super high temperatures of them and it's impossible to find E27 bulbs with such temperatures like 8000K.


----------



## Omg

Why a black hole can attract light?


----------



## HAL

Omg said:


> Why a black hole can attract light?


Super strong gravitational strength.

Actually everything can attract light. The only reason black holes are especially known for it is because the gravity is so strong that light can't escape once it gets too close.

Evidence and explanations for light being affected by gravity is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens


----------



## Strostkovy

Omg said:


> Why a black hole can attract light?


Light falls towards gravitational masses the same as everything else. However, it moves so fast that it isn't around long enough to be moved much, except by very large gravitational bodies over large distances.


----------



## Strostkovy

Would an air horn work in space? I know the can can handle the vacuum no problem, and the sounding mechanism would still work, but could the air being ejected carry sound given how rapidly it is expanding?


----------



## HAL

Murdock said:


> Would an air horn work in space? I know the can can handle the vacuum no problem, and the sounding mechanism would still work, but could the air being ejected carry sound given how rapidly it is expanding?


I guess it would make a sound, but it would dissipate so quickly that you might as well say it didn't make a sound at all.

The same goes for pretty much any pressure-based disturbance in a vacuum.


----------



## zynthaxx

HAL said:


> I guess it would make a sound, but it would dissipate so quickly that you might as well say it didn't make a sound at all.
> 
> The same goes for pretty much any pressure-based disturbance in a vacuum.


Then how come thrusters always make their "pscht" noises in all movies except for Kubriks 20xx ones? :shocked:


----------



## Scenario Manoeuvrer

Is it possible to transform a living cell into a electromagnetic waves ? :shocked:


----------



## He's a Superhero!

Here's some interesting news about a new planet that's been discovered: Huge Jupiter-like planet discovered by astronomers confounds theory of planetary development | The Independent


----------



## Kittens Are Awesome

I know that it is possible to travel backwards in Einsteins space-time theory, but is it possible to travel forwards in his theory?


----------



## Kittens Are Awesome

Scenario Manoeuvrer said:


> Is it possible to transform a living cell into a electromagnetic waves ? :shocked:


According to this website no... because you cannot transform something that already is. Check it out here.
Living Cells Are Electromagnetic Units


----------



## methodless madness

How much longer until the inevitable heat-death of the universe, and could human beings be around to get squished to death by it?


----------



## Kittens Are Awesome

methodless madness said:


> How much longer until the inevitable heat-death of the universe, and could human beings be around to get squished to death by it?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

I'm not sure whether it says humans will be around but if we upload our minds to a computer then maybe we'll be around


----------



## ae1905

methodless madness said:


> How much longer until the inevitable heat-death of the universe, and could human beings be around to get squished to death by it?





Kittens Are Awesome said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
> 
> I'm not sure whether it says humans will be around but if we upload our minds to a computer then maybe we'll be around


matter wouldn't exist at the heat death so neither humans nor computers would exist...this is one estimate of the timeline of the universe:










it should be noted, though, that proton decay and blackhole evaporation are theoretical predictions that have not yet been confirmed...(bh evap was actually predicted by stephen hawking)...so this version of the heat death itself is a hypothesis

if one imagines, however, that protons don't decay and blackholes don't evaporate then objects would not only continue to exist but their kinetic and gravitational energies, along with their mass, would remain sources of energy that could, in principle, be tapped to do useful work


----------



## Electra

sherlock8311 said:


> 1. Not sure on this one,
> 2. Measure feelings, for a start they are personal and although can be discussed, what you feel can never be truly experienced by someone else. Even if someone uses the same labels for feelings and emotions, there is no way of ever knowing if they actually feel the same. As far as measuring them, I guess giving them a rating on a scale is possible, on the intensity. However even then it is more of a comparison to previous experiences of that feeling or emotion.


Yes because think about ho easy it is for psychopaths to fake emotions or pretend to feel things...I think I read not so long ago that someone had managed to observe feelings/emos in some machine though...let me get back to you about that...Well at least I found this article. But this method is not so good because if you take me for example; my emotions osn't show very much in my face I've been told once, though they can be incredibly strong on the inside.(another friend of mine claimed she could see in my face what I thought about someone else though, so who knows who to trust)



> *Measuring Emotions*
> 
> *Whether emotions can be scientifically measured or not is still a controversial issue today. However, researchers have adopted the use of self-report or questionnaires as well as physiological tests in order to measure, though not exactly, the affective phenomenon of emotions usually through a person’s feelings, the subjective aspect of emotions.
> 
> *Most researchers measure emotions of people based on their affective display, that is, their emotional expressions. Affective display includes facial expressions, bodily postures and vocal expressions. To measure affective display, researchers generally use observation techniques and self-report via questionnaires. At present, they also utilize computer programs that are able to code expressive behaviour and “read” the emotion of an individual.



https://explorable.com/measuring-emotions


----------



## sherlock8311

Electra said:


> Yes because think about ho easy it is for psychopaths to fake emotions or pretend to feel things...I think I read not so long ago that someone had managed to observe feelings/emos in some machine though...let me get back to you about that...Well at least I found this article. But this method is not so good because if you take me for example; my emotions osn't show very much in my face I've been told once, though they can be incredibly strong on the inside.(another friend of mine claimed she could see in my face what I thought about someone else though, so who knows who to trust)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://explorable.com/measuring-emotions


I know of one experiment where catholics and non-believers were electrocuted and had to report on their mood and the pain intensity. It was all subjective as far as I can tell:



> Following each trial, the participants rated their subjective experience of the pain, and how the image had affected them. *They gave an average pain intensity for the trial using a visual analogue scale from 0 = not painful at all, to 100 = very painful.* They rated the effect that the image had on their *mood using a scale varying from -50 (negative mood) to +50 (positive mood)*. They also gave a rating of how much the image had helped them to cope with the pain, as well as the familiarity of the image, using a v*isual analogue scale from 0 = not at all, to 10 = very much*.


https://www.nhs.uk/news/neurology/religious-belief-and-pain-relief/

In regards to people reading my face, I can keep quite a poker face and practice meditation so my outer expressions are not always a clear indicator of the inner. Also a lot of people seem to think that because something effects them one way emotionally, that it will affect me the same. Without specifically asking how I feel, and me being arsed to answer, it can be hard to know whats going on in my inner, not that its any of their business.


----------



## Strostkovy

HAL said:


> 1. Mental disorder. To break or destroy a robot, you could probably command it to do so. For a moment I imagined robots could be programmed to ignore 'suicide' commands, but that makes no sense because robots are machines. All complex machines have methods for corrupting or destroying the internals, or at least have reset buttons.
> 
> 2. Well everything is subjective, so the only way to measure it is against the given individual's perceived sense of extremity. The mind gets used to everything eventually. It's why first love is usually much more intense than future loves, or why drug addicts find themselves needing a stronger hit each time. For this reason I would say the measurement is always down to personal experience and perception. The best you can say to a person is, "What would _you_ rate this feeling on a scale of extremity from 1 to 10?"


I disagree on the mental illness bit. Assuming conventional AI which is just a large, trained neural net, it would have the same types of issues as humans. 

For example, say you train a neural network to do a task when a certain group of things happens. Now you train it to do something when an entirely different group of things happen. However, one requirement for the second condition may have been that a certain portion of the first condition is not true, in which case it may reuse that portion of the neural network, given the mechanism that genetic algorithms learn by. Now say the first task uses that section 100 times per task, while the second only needs it once to initiate the task. If you stop using the first task, the use of that section drops by 99%, and any reasonable pruning algorithm would ax it. The issue then is that you have just lost a suppression input to the second task. This could go unnoticed or be an issue in itself. If it does go unnoticed, the neural network could use those same cells for a different task. As soon as this occurs, you have accidently interlocked two totally isolated tasks, with the following possible results:
-one task cannot be completed while the other is possible
-both tasks always complete at once
-one task always completes when the other task is possible
-one task completes even if the conditions for it's occurrence are not met.

This would be analogous to the disorder that causes loss of suppression of muscle memory in humans, in which their body will attempt to do a task without instruction from the conscious portion of the brain. 

Of course the chemical related disorders will not occur, but they absolutely could develop wrong, depending on the technology and implementation. (Neural nets are a big unregulated mess, deep learning neural nets break down problems into functional blocks but still have issues, fuzzy logic neural net hybrids offer the most control and stability, but least learning capacity (but greatest learning speed).)


----------



## HAL

Strostkovy said:


> I disagree on the mental illness bit. Assuming conventional AI which is just a large, trained neural net, it would have the same types of issues as humans.
> 
> For example, say you train a neural network


I thought about this when I made the post. My reasoning behind AI not being able to get mental illness is that a robot which is complex enough to get a mental illness is basically not a robot any more, it's a living thing. But that opens a whole new can of philosophical worms!


----------



## The red spirit

@Grandmaster Yoda

I have had 10k RPM hard drive for a while. I'm not sure if it's still interesting for you, but I could answer your questions of how it felt.

Anyway there are even faster hard drives, rated at 15 thousand revolutions per minute:





I have researched more and I looked for something even faster, but there's nothing faster than 15k yet and will probably never be. In short, yes it's possible to make 20k RPM hard drives, but they either would be too expensive, too fragile, too loud, too power hungry, too heavy or etc. 15k is the max before anything really bad starts to happen.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda

The red spirit said:


> @Grandmaster Yoda
> 
> I have had 10k RPM hard drive for a while. I'm not sure if it's still interesting for you, but I could answer your questions of how it felt.
> 
> Anyway there are even faster hard drives, rated at 15 thousand revolutions per minute:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have researched more and I looked for something even faster, but there's nothing faster than 15k yet and will probably never be. In short, yes it's possible to make 20k RPM hard drives, but they either would be too expensive, too fragile, too loud, too power hungry, too heavy or etc. 15k is the max before anything really bad starts to happen.



What was it like? 

Hopefully it didn't make as much noise at that video. I don't recall mine making much noise at all, older computers tend to be louder regardless.

The most recent thing I saw related to this was a video where this guy was testing to see how fast Windows 98 would boot on a RAMDisk, which ironically ended up being about the same time it took to boot on any other storage device. He concluded that there was some kind of limit of read speeds on the Windows 98 VM. It was probably Druaga1.

My habit has been to not use desktop/laptops recently. I prefer a fast boot time for when I need it and not much storage. I think an SSD makes more sense for my current habits.


----------



## The red spirit

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> What was it like?


At first it felt like the best of hard drive. 10k rpm and fast booting, but... Not for long. Soon it slowed down like any other hard drive and became sort of sluggish. Sure it spins fast and maybe is somewhat more agile than anything else, but it very strongly feels like hard drive. You just feel it. It maybe is bit more premium, but it was in 2003. It was when it was launched. It held up quite decently for hard drive only, but it feels like simple Seagate Barracuda with only 7200 rpm beats it or is close. It's much faster than tiny and terribly slow laptop 5400 rpm hard drives, still not by a lot. I feel like it was more of bragging rights, benchmark king of then for a while, for normal user once everything is loaded up is fine, but still anything needing access feels rather slow. Imagine it as fat monster. Slow, but powerful. It just can't be compared to SSD. Not even cheapest one. SSD is not only somewhat faster, it's totally different technology and feels totally different. SSD should be imagined as lighting fast worker. It's agile and powerful, but much greater speeds make big file copying feel a bit slow (still very far from any hard drive). Anyway, that 'slowness' is much much faster than any hard drive. Maybe faster than SATA SSD's compensate that. Well you asked about hard drive, to me it feels like hard drive. Bit more premium than others, much more externally robust and with slight external cooling and if we talk about cooling, it heats up much more than 5400 or 7200 rpm hard drives, considerably more and I think that at that point we reach not optimal efficiency. Those 15k units are server drives only, I guess due to special conditions needed. One of them is cooling, but I see other possible impracticalities. 20k rpm units would be impractical even there. For us mortals SSDs are great things and no hard drive can replace those. Maybe some insane RAID 0 setup of 8 15k drives may come close, but will cost a lot, perform only somewhat like SSD...It's a mess in short.





Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Hopefully it didn't make as much noise at that video. I don't recall mine making much noise at all, older computers tend to be louder regardless.


I had to turn up sound quite a bit to hear 15k drive, compared to Phil's voice. Maybe his editing, maybe it's just quiet. 10k drives can be heard, especially during writing, but generally don't make much noise. Still I only have experience with it in Fractal Define R4 case, which is known for best sound dampening case in the market for years. Without one side panel, I could hear 10k drives well, maybe louder than fans. I think I was fooled by them and thought that some fans may be hitting wires . Nah, it was the first time I actually heard hard drive. But really, these units were made in 2003 so they are really worn out, but as I said they are a bit more premium. In wikipedia page it was mentioned that there was something done to them to make them quieter and more durable, so generally more effort was put to make them similar to standard hard drive in terms of negative emissions. I have one very fast server grade 120 mm fan. It spins at over 3000 rpm and really it's sounds like weak vacuum cleaner (I have tried, it wasn't a pleasure, but it blew lots of air). Those Raptors don't even close to that. They are just gently bit more noisy than standard 7200 rpm units and that depends on units too. I just compare to what I have. I heard that Maxtors were loud back then and unreliable. So maybe Raptors are quieter than them. I certainly was worried about noise before ordering them, but nah there wasn't anything spectacular in that.






Grandmaster Yoda said:


> The most recent thing I saw related to this was a video where this guy was testing to see how fast Windows 98 would boot on a RAMDisk, which ironically ended up being about the same time it took to boot on any other storage device. He concluded that there was some kind of limit of read speeds on the Windows 98 VM. It was probably Druaga1.


I tried to mess with RAM cached SSD and achieved extreme speeds in benchmarks only. No practical benefits. I was disappointed.





Grandmaster Yoda said:


> My habit has been to not use desktop/laptops recently. I prefer a fast boot time for when I need it and not much storage. I think an SSD makes more sense for my current habits.


SSDs are good. They are like Mazda RX-7. Fast, but may just need rebuild and that will make you sad (I'm talking about random dying). Of course trunk is small. HDD is like big truck, it hauls a lot, reliably and slow and when it is about to fail, it shows enough signs to know that it's dying, so you are warned.

SSDs aren't expensive anymore. I got 120 GB for 30 euros only, around 32-35 USA dollars. They are like Ford Mondeo. Everyday warriors with more agility than big truck. Perfect for normal people.

Edit: Forgot to mention one thing. Processors can be bottlenecks in some loading tasks. I'm talking about low end stuff like AMD A4 6300. Processing in loading must be done and if storage is very fast and your processor is slow, then just loading itself from storage device is fast, but general speed may be held back by lack of processing power. It was very noticeable in GTA 4 loading with that AMD A4. It takes about 1 minute to get into star screen before game loading. AMD FX 6300 does that much more faster. So yeah processor can bottleneck such things or maybe I just have software problems.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda

The red spirit said:


> At first it felt like the best of hard drive. 10k rpm and fast booting, but... Not for long. Soon it slowed down like any other hard drive and became sort of sluggish. Sure it spins fast and maybe is somewhat more agile than anything else, but it very strongly feels like hard drive. You just feel it. It maybe is bit more premium, but it was in 2003. It was when it was launched. It held up quite decently for hard drive only, but it feels like simple Seagate Barracuda with only 7200 rpm beats it or is close. It's much faster than tiny and terribly slow laptop 5400 rpm hard drives, still not by a lot. I feel like it was more of bragging rights, benchmark king of then for a while, for normal user once everything is loaded up is fine, but still anything needing access feels rather slow. Imagine it as fat monster. Slow, but powerful. It just can't be compared to SSD. Not even cheapest one. SSD is not only somewhat faster, it's totally different technology and feels totally different. SSD should be imagined as lighting fast worker. It's agile and powerful, but much greater speeds make big file copying feel a bit slow (still very far from any hard drive). Anyway, that 'slowness' is much much faster than any hard drive. Maybe faster than SATA SSD's compensate that. Well you asked about hard drive, to me it feels like hard drive. Bit more premium than others, much more externally robust and with slight external cooling and if we talk about cooling, it heats up much more than 5400 or 7200 rpm hard drives, considerably more and I think that at that point we reach not optimal efficiency. Those 15k units are server drives only, I guess due to special conditions needed. One of them is cooling, but I see other possible impracticalities. 20k rpm units would be impractical even there. For us mortals SSDs are great things and no hard drive can replace those. Maybe some insane RAID 0 setup of 8 15k drives may come close, but will cost a lot, perform only somewhat like SSD...It's a mess in short.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had to turn up sound quite a bit to hear 15k drive, compared to Phil's voice. Maybe his editing, maybe it's just quiet. 10k drives can be heard, especially during writing, but generally don't make much noise. Still I only have experience with it in Fractal Define R4 case, which is known for best sound dampening case in the market for years. Without one side panel, I could hear 10k drives well, maybe louder than fans. I think I was fooled by them and thought that some fans may be hitting wires . Nah, it was the first time I actually heard hard drive. But really, these units were made in 2003 so they are really worn out, but as I said they are a bit more premium. In wikipedia page it was mentioned that there was something done to them to make them quieter and more durable, so generally more effort was put to make them similar to standard hard drive in terms of negative emissions. I have one very fast server grade 120 mm fan. It spins at over 3000 rpm and really it's sounds like weak vacuum cleaner (I have tried, it wasn't a pleasure, but it blew lots of air). Those Raptors don't even close to that. They are just gently bit more noisy than standard 7200 rpm units and that depends on units too. I just compare to what I have. I heard that Maxtors were loud back then and unreliable. So maybe Raptors are quieter than them. I certainly was worried about noise before ordering them, but nah there wasn't anything spectacular in that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tried to mess with RAM cached SSD and achieved extreme speeds in benchmarks only. No practical benefits. I was disappointed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SSDs are good. They are like Mazda RX-7. Fast, but may just need rebuild and that will make you sad (I'm talking about random dying). Of course trunk is small. HDD is like big truck, it hauls a lot, reliably and slow and when it is about to fail, it shows enough signs to know that it's dying, so you are warned.
> 
> SSDs aren't expensive anymore. I got 120 GB for 30 euros only, around 32-35 USA dollars. They are like Ford Mondeo. Everyday warriors with more agility than big truck. Perfect for normal people.
> 
> Edit: Forgot to mention one thing. Processors can be bottlenecks in some loading tasks. I'm talking about low end stuff like AMD A4 6300. Processing in loading must be done and if storage is very fast and your processor is slow, then just loading itself from storage device is fast, but general speed may be held back by lack of processing power. It was very noticeable in GTA 4 loading with that AMD A4. It takes about 1 minute to get into star screen before game loading. AMD FX 6300 does that much more faster. So yeah processor can bottleneck such things or maybe I just have software problems.


My Raptor HDD felt faster than a typical HDD, but it wasn't extremely impressive with a modern operating system. On Windows XP, it had a very quick boot which was nice. Right now I just have it in my tower as a secondary HDD for holding games.

My friend thought that my hard drive in my modern laptop (bought it in summer 2016) made weird noises and needed to be replaced. Honestly, I think that laptop is damaged because I've been carrying it in my backpack. The DVD tray gets stuck and makes noise even when I don't touch it like its trying to open sometimes. I probably had too many books in my backpack at the same time as the laptop. I never treated it well. The only thing I actually like about it is the screen calibration. Overall, it's just a gaming laptop without much else to say for itself. The battery is unimpressive and the touchpad occasionally becomes unresponsive when I'm using it heavily. I don't know if that particular problem is software or hardware, but I'm leaning toward software because using the generic mouse driver is usually better. I do need the raw power and the 16GB of RAM for my schoolwork though.

The white MacBook which is more or less "my daily driver" insofar as I actually use it, has a 120GB SSD. It boots up in 13 seconds and it is ready as soon as I log in. That's what I call a modern feeling, you turn away for a few seconds and the computer is fully booted.

I think I could survive reasonably well on a 320GB SSD. My typical usage is like 200GB. I never needed 1TB, I never stored videos or excessive photos on my computers or even too many games. Working with VMs and saving snapchats quickly eats up hard drive space.

I am laughing at the thought that I used want to buy a workstation with dual CPUs to test performance in GTA. I had a really interesting span of obsession with hardware. Now my interests are floating back to software concepts and programming.


----------



## The red spirit

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> My Raptor HDD felt faster than a typical HDD, but it wasn't extremely impressive with a modern operating system. On Windows XP, it had a very quick boot which was nice. Right now I just have it in my tower as a secondary HDD for holding games.


It never felt very quick, not even with XP.




Grandmaster Yoda said:


> My friend thought that my hard drive in my modern laptop (bought it in summer 2016) made weird noises and needed to be replaced. Honestly, I think that laptop is damaged because I've been carrying it in my backpack. The DVD tray gets stuck and makes noise even when I don't touch it like its trying to open sometimes. I probably had too many books in my backpack at the same time as the laptop. I never treated it well.


So what about books? It's nothing. Just some pressure for plastic or metal. It shouldn't cause anything bad. I don't really think that you would be able to carry enough books or fit enough books in backpack to do any real damage to laptop. Even then, first thing to break would be screen. 




Grandmaster Yoda said:


> The only thing I actually like about it is the screen calibration. Overall, it's just a gaming laptop without much else to say for itself. The battery is unimpressive and the touchpad occasionally becomes unresponsive when I'm using it heavily. I don't know if that particular problem is software or hardware, but I'm leaning toward software because using the generic mouse driver is usually better. I do need the raw power and the 16GB of RAM for my schoolwork though.


I never needed much of computer for any school work. Something like Pentium 3, 256MB RAM and 2GB HDD would be fine with low end video accelerator. That's for making slideshows. Nothing else required computer for any school work. So really what you do?




Grandmaster Yoda said:


> The white MacBook which is more or less "my daily driver" insofar as I actually use it, has a 120GB SSD. It boots up in 13 seconds and it is ready as soon as I log in. That's what I call a modern feeling, you turn away for a few seconds and the computer is fully booted.


yup





Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I think I could survive reasonably well on a 320GB SSD. My typical usage is like 200GB. I never needed 1TB, I never stored videos or excessive photos on my computers or even too many games. Working with VMs and saving snapchats quickly eats up hard drive space.


I exceeded 1TB once, but I have games, movie and uncompressed music. 1TB isn't comfortable, but enough. 4TB would be totally comfortable.




Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I am laughing at the thought that I used want to buy a workstation with dual CPUs to test performance in GTA. I had a really interesting span of obsession with hardware. Now my interests are floating back to software concepts and programming.


That's not stupid. Only stupid if you would have wanted some low end Dell or HP trash, then yeah it's stupid. Otherwise I would still want to try Quad FX platform with two AMD Athlon 64 dual core processors with huge motherboard that has lots of ports. And if we think like that, truly high end stuff can't ever be i7 or i9. It's multiprocessor motherboard with loads of ports and slots for RAM. So if you are going full out in PC building, getting those monstrosities is the only way to go. Of course with ECC memory and workstation graphics cards.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda

The red spirit said:


> It never felt very quick, not even with XP.
> 
> 
> 
> So what about books? It's nothing. Just some pressure for plastic or metal. It shouldn't cause anything bad. I don't really think that you would be able to carry enough books or fit enough books in backpack to do any real damage to laptop. Even then, first thing to break would be screen.
> 
> 
> 
> I never needed much of computer for any school work. Something like Pentium 3, 256MB RAM and 2GB HDD would be fine with low end video accelerator. That's for making slideshows. Nothing else required computer for any school work. So really what you do?
> 
> 
> 
> yup
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I exceeded 1TB once, but I have games, movie and uncompressed music. 1TB isn't comfortable, but enough. 4TB would be totally comfortable.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not stupid. Only stupid if you would have wanted some low end Dell or HP trash, then yeah it's stupid. Otherwise I would still want to try Quad FX platform with two AMD Athlon 64 dual core processors with huge motherboard that has lots of ports. And if we think like that, truly high end stuff can't ever be i7 or i9. It's multiprocessor motherboard with loads of ports and slots for RAM. So if you are going full out in PC building, getting those monstrosities is the only way to go. Of course with ECC memory and workstation graphics cards.


The books could have been a problem. My backpack used to have three or four binders inside + more. Wouldn't surprise me if it was at least slightly stressed. I used to carry around all of my books all the time, which is horribly unnecessary.

Yeah, for something general and simple all you would have to do is be able to run Wordpad in high school. In college presentation style and formatting matter more so be sure that you can run basic Microsoft Office. I didn't actually have Office on my computer until College because they give it to us for free. 

My major is in computer networking, so my courses involve running multiple VMs at the same time. Like three Windows Server 2016 instances at once. So idle my computer will use 2-3GB of RAM and then I could allocate 2-4GB to each VM. You could also get away with 8GB of RAM by just allocating less RAM to each VM but the performance won't be as good. Also, Quad-Core is usually appropriate so you can allocate a core or couple of threads to each VM. It's basically division of resources.

I really didn't know why I would need so much RAM either. That was until I took a class last semester which basically was running three OSes at the same time in virtual machines. Obviously, real life would be that Servers would be doing this not gaming laptops or workstation laptops. Why I would need a Discrete Graphics Card, that I do not know. I think it is simply because there are just two main laptop specifications for all majors. For example, Engineering and Architecture students do a lot of 3D-modeling so it makes sense for them, not for someone like me.

Or an overclocked 12-core Xeon from ten years ago. The cheapness of it all.


----------



## The red spirit

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> The books could have been a problem. My backpack used to have three or four binders inside + more. Wouldn't surprise me if it was at least slightly stressed. I used to carry around all of my books all the time, which is horribly unnecessary.


I'm very skeptical about that and I don't put anything more than needed. Less weight, less stress for back = more speed and endurance and less inertia in turning (don't ask me why I mentioned that).



Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Yeah, for something general and simple all you would have to do is be able to run Wordpad in high school.


I would have been kicked out for that. no phones, no computers in class. I have nothing against that. I only needed to take some pictures of some slides I didn't want to watch. There's no need for computer in high school, except for presentations.




Grandmaster Yoda said:


> In college presentation style and formatting matter more so be sure that you can run basic Microsoft Office. I didn't actually have Office on my computer until College because they give it to us for free.


I'm switching to Libre. Anyway I don't think there's much need for that either.





Grandmaster Yoda said:


> My major is in computer networking, so my courses involve running multiple VMs at the same time. Like three Windows Server 2016 instances at once. So idle my computer will use 2-3GB of RAM and then I could allocate 2-4GB to each VM. You could also get away with 8GB of RAM by just allocating less RAM to each VM but the performance won't be as good. Also, Quad-Core is usually appropriate so you can allocate a core or couple of threads to each VM. It's basically division of resources.


That's a special case. Generally you don't need that if you pick something else.




Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I really didn't know why I would need so much RAM either. That was until I took a class last semester which basically was running three OSes at the same time in virtual machines. Obviously, real life would be that Servers would be doing this not gaming laptops or workstation laptops. Why I would need a Discrete Graphics Card, that I do not know. I think it is simply because there are just two main laptop specifications for all majors. For example, Engineering and Architecture students do a lot of 3D-modeling so it makes sense for them, not for someone like me.


Shouldn't there be desktops in classroom? My drafting classes had them, IT classes had entire classrooms. I visited some universities and I saw several high end computers in Cooler Master Cosmos II cases. Yet again it was photography studio, but there also was 3D modeling studio. So maybe you can do that at home too if you want, but it's just lame, when there's access to almost latest i7 stuff and 4 screens. 



Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Or an overclocked 12-core Xeon from ten years ago. The cheapness of it all.


Only that? I wanted 64 core AMD Opteron build. Of course it's too expensive then and now and now it's just not so cool anymore. Now I would want 128 core Opteron build, if that's possible. If not then Epyc. Fuck Intel, I like AMD more.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda

The red spirit said:


> I'm very skeptical about that and I don't put anything more than needed. Less weight, less stress for back = more speed and endurance and less inertia in turning (don't ask me why I mentioned that).
> 
> 
> I would have been kicked out for that. no phones, no computers in class. I have nothing against that. I only needed to take some pictures of some slides I didn't want to watch. There's no need for computer in high school, except for presentations.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm switching to Libre. Anyway I don't think there's much need for that either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a special case. Generally you don't need that if you pick something else.
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't there be desktops in classroom? My drafting classes had them, IT classes had entire classrooms. I visited some universities and I saw several high end computers in Cooler Master Cosmos II cases. Yet again it was photography studio, but there also was 3D modeling studio. So maybe you can do that at home too if you want, but it's just lame, when there's access to almost latest i7 stuff and 4 screens.
> 
> 
> Only that? I wanted 64 core AMD Opteron build. Of course it's too expensive then and now and now it's just not so cool anymore. Now I would want 128 core Opteron build, if that's possible. If not then Epyc. Fuck Intel, I like AMD more.


Yeah, I'm mostly referring to outside of school when you need to write a paper and print it. Assuming you don't want to go to a library or use the school library. I printed hundreds of pages of stuff completely unrelated to schoolwork using the school printers in high school. I'm pretty sure they had no limitations on us which was kind of foolish.

You could use Google Docs if you really wanted to. A lot of papers in college were graded based on adherence to formatting rules. It reminds me of early high school English where the teacher handed out rulers to everyone to make sure that the margins of our printed pages were exactly the right width. Funny how we never had a general computer skills class during that whole time.

They have computer labs in my school. The technology varies but none of it is a decade out of date. For example, in the Business Building there are All-In-One PCs with i3s and SSDs for storage. Quick and easy. In my actual IT labs, we have relatively new hardware. Hybrid Drives, all 16GB RAM and i7-4790s. Certain classes don't give you access to these labs but you still need a computer, so you have to have your own regardless. In the IT labs you have admin rights, but regular labs your work and applications will be limited. Another limitation is that you have to save your data on your own storage or on network storage (which they only provide 2GB for basic documents and homework). You have to do this because the computers are occasionally wiped and refreshed by the school but probably not often. I would say, if I knew about hardware and I knew what I was going to do coming into school then I would have been more conservative for the laptop knowing that have computers and the bulk of my work was going to be essay writing. I really only like to go to the lab outside of class to practice or to help other people. My work style doesn't really work in that environment. I need to be alone in order to get things done.

I prefer AMD Integrated Graphics because their control panel is actually somewhat useful in my experience. But I never had anything close to a high end AMD machine. I personally don't like Nvidia Optimus or whatever it is called in my laptop. It really limits compatibility with different Operating Systems, so you have a choice of Windows 7, 8 or 10. I wish my laptop was more flexible.


----------



## The red spirit

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Yeah, I'm mostly referring to outside of school when you need to write a paper and print it. Assuming you don't want to go to a library or use the school library.


That's convenient, but not 'needed'. When you say need I assume it's absolutely essential for basic survival. Therefore in this case it's convenient, not needed. 




Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I printed hundreds of pages of stuff completely unrelated to schoolwork using the school printers in high school. I'm pretty sure they had no limitations on us which was kind of foolish.


It was fine by me. Printers are evil. It's money sucking business. Not printers themselves, but cost for printing. It's complete bullshit for mortals. Having one main printer is more practical.




Grandmaster Yoda said:


> You could use Google Docs if you really wanted to.


Never. I want to have it on my PC and full version, not some online crap.





Grandmaster Yoda said:


> A lot of papers in college were graded based on adherence to formatting rules. It reminds me of early high school English where the teacher handed out rulers to everyone to make sure that the margins of our printed pages were exactly the right width. Funny how we never had a general computer skills class during that whole time.


That's is so stupidly strict and I never seen anything like that before. Really English isn't a drafting lesson. I would have said something nasty if she got mad at me like "stick up ruler in your *** Ms.Shitface". lol. Probably a bit more appropriate version would be used for external publishing tho.





Grandmaster Yoda said:


> They have computer labs in my school. The technology varies but none of it is a decade out of date. For example, in the Business Building there are All-In-One PCs with i3s and SSDs for storage. Quick and easy. In my actual IT labs, we have relatively new hardware. Hybrid Drives, all 16GB RAM and i7-4790s.


To me i7 7490 aged horribly. It's not high end anymore, six core CPUs made it obsolete. AMD FX 6300 will probably outlive it. That's kinda sad.





Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Certain classes don't give you access to these labs but you still need a computer, so you have to have your own regardless.


What sort of classes? Living in USA must be hell if you literally need computer for school. Many things there seem to be way too strict for no reason. Thank god, I'm far away from that hell. Ink, pen and paper are the only things you should need in school. Calculators are optional, other tools are optional. To me writing with ink is like letting your soul express itself in liquid form on paper. It's just beautiful the way it is. Sometimes really touching. Computer is just cold, metal piece of garbage. No feeling, even less feeling if there's Intel inside. 




Grandmaster Yoda said:


> In the IT labs you have admin rights, but regular labs your work and applications will be limited. Another limitation is that you have to save your data on your own storage or on network storage (which they only provide 2GB for basic documents and homework). You have to do this because the computers are occasionally wiped and refreshed by the school but probably not often.


I only had like several hundred megabytes and data there stays for year or two. It's some laws and shit I don't care about. Neither I need that data. I remember I downloaded shit pic and with paint made background bright green. Since it was low res, Windows 7 has feature to tile background and it was green shitstorm on screen. XD. My teacher was asking me to change it to something else. Good times. It's technically okay to change background, so she was powerless there. I think I just modified background more. 4 times out of 4 in slideshow it will show normal Windows background and 1 out of 5 it will show that tilled shit screen. At first she thought I just got back to normal, until she noticed that haunted shit screen. lmao. I loved that class just for her reactions.






Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I would say, if I knew about hardware and I knew what I was going to do coming into school then I would have been more conservative for the laptop knowing that have computers and the bulk of my work was going to be essay writing. I really only like to go to the lab outside of class to practice or to help other people. My work style doesn't really work in that environment. I need to be alone in order to get things done.


Everyone has computer at home, so it's not a problem.





Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I prefer AMD Integrated Graphics because their control panel is actually somewhat useful in my experience. But I never had anything close to a high end AMD machine. I personally don't like Nvidia Optimus or whatever it is called in my laptop. It really limits compatibility with different Operating Systems, so you have a choice of Windows 7, 8 or 10. I wish my laptop was more flexible.


It was until some Crimson crap took over. Catalyst was good, just looked a bit dated, but it was good. RIP Catalyst, you will be missed.

AMD machines are more romantic than Intel ones. They may betray you, they may show their soul to you, but once you understood one, you will feel it, it will become extension of your own body and will be easy to work with. For me it has been the same way with Athlon 64 3200+, Athlon 64 3400+, AMD Sempron mobile 64 3400+, Turion X2 mobile TL-60, AMD FX 6300, AMD A4 6300. They all feel similar to me, despite having different architectures. Intel's are different. I used Pentium G620, Pentium P6200, I5 7400. Mostly at school, somewhat at grandparent's house. They just have different aura. Pentiums are closer to AMD, but Intel's in general have less drama and just do what they should do. I can't stand such boredom, that's cold and doesn't ask me "hey buddy, please learn about me". Those things will work in hellish heat, do stuff good enough and won't let you down. To me AMDs are more than just that, they feel more humanic. I never used agile AMD system in my life, meanwhile Intel ones felt like that, but AMD just does things anyway, even without that nice feeling of extreme agility. Anyway most of problems are always mainboard related, so yeah. AMD processor are totally find, except their boards that mortals can afford. I currently have issue with A4 6300. It crashes during Geekbench compute benchmark. Even after extensive testing, there's no reason why it should crash and not only crashes, but crashes with restart. Maxing out voltage solves problem, but there shouldn't have been any in the first place. I only know it's not heat related issue. Actually many people reported having similar stuff, but with nVidia graphics cards or phones. Also similar stuff with 3DMark benchmark suite. I get freezes and black program screen. Maybe it's just motherboard with inaccurate automatic voltage setting for graphics processing unit. Seems like it, else it's new motherboard dying fast or cheap low end no-name power supply acting up.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda

The red spirit said:


> That's convenient, but not 'needed'. When you say need I assume it's absolutely essential for basic survival. Therefore in this case it's convenient, not needed.
> 
> 
> 
> It was fine by me. Printers are evil. It's money sucking business. Not printers themselves, but cost for printing. It's complete bullshit for mortals. Having one main printer is more practical.
> 
> 
> 
> Never. I want to have it on my PC and full version, not some online crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's is so stupidly strict and I never seen anything like that before. Really English isn't a drafting lesson. I would have said something nasty if she got mad at me like "stick up ruler in your *** Ms.Shitface". lol. Probably a bit more appropriate version would be used for external publishing tho.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To me i7 7490 aged horribly. It's not high end anymore, six core CPUs made it obsolete. AMD FX 6300 will probably outlive it. That's kinda sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What sort of classes? Living in USA must be hell if you literally need computer for school. Many things there seem to be way too strict for no reason. Thank god, I'm far away from that hell. Ink, pen and paper are the only things you should need in school. Calculators are optional, other tools are optional. To me writing with ink is like letting your soul express itself in liquid form on paper. It's just beautiful the way it is. Sometimes really touching. Computer is just cold, metal piece of garbage. No feeling, even less feeling if there's Intel inside.
> 
> 
> 
> I only had like several hundred megabytes and data there stays for year or two. It's some laws and shit I don't care about. Neither I need that data. I remember I downloaded shit pic and with paint made background bright green. Since it was low res, Windows 7 has feature to tile background and it was green shitstorm on screen. XD. My teacher was asking me to change it to something else. Good times. It's technically okay to change background, so she was powerless there. I think I just modified background more. 4 times out of 4 in slideshow it will show normal Windows background and 1 out of 5 it will show that tilled shit screen. At first she thought I just got back to normal, until she noticed that haunted shit screen. lmao. I loved that class just for her reactions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone has computer at home, so it's not a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was until some Crimson crap took over. Catalyst was good, just looked a bit dated, but it was good. RIP Catalyst, you will be missed.
> 
> AMD machines are more romantic than Intel ones. They may betray you, they may show their soul to you, but once you understood one, you will feel it, it will become extension of your own body and will be easy to work with. For me it has been the same way with Athlon 64 3200+, Athlon 64 3400+, AMD Sempron mobile 64 3400+, Turion X2 mobile TL-60, AMD FX 6300, AMD A4 6300. They all feel similar to me, despite having different architectures. Intel's are different. I used Pentium G620, Pentium P6200, I5 7400. Mostly at school, somewhat at grandparent's house. They just have different aura. Pentiums are closer to AMD, but Intel's in general have less drama and just do what they should do. I can't stand such boredom, that's cold and doesn't ask me "hey buddy, please learn about me". Those things will work in hellish heat, do stuff good enough and won't let you down. To me AMDs are more than just that, they feel more humanic. I never used agile AMD system in my life, meanwhile Intel ones felt like that, but AMD just does things anyway, even without that nice feeling of extreme agility. Anyway most of problems are always mainboard related, so yeah. AMD processor are totally find, except their boards that mortals can afford. I currently have issue with A4 6300. It crashes during Geekbench compute benchmark. Even after extensive testing, there's no reason why it should crash and not only crashes, but crashes with restart. Maxing out voltage solves problem, but there shouldn't have been any in the first place. I only know it's not heat related issue. Actually many people reported having similar stuff, but with nVidia graphics cards or phones. Also similar stuff with 3DMark benchmark suite. I get freezes and black program screen. Maybe it's just motherboard with inaccurate automatic voltage setting for graphics processing unit. Seems like it, else it's new motherboard dying fast or cheap low end no-name power supply acting up.


"Printer money" isn't real money, it's just a way to keep students from doing runaway printing and wasting all school resources. I prefer it to an inkjet printer. I got a free inkjet printer with the purchase of my laptop. I printed out a couple of papers with it, then stopped using it for a couple of months. All of the sudden it is broken.

In English classes, writing is all about formatting. In foreign language class such as Spanish, the teachers read your sentence structure and use of words to see if they even make sense. They should be doing that in English as well.

Perhaps due to popularity. It seems more often that I would come across someone saying that they are still using their early 2010s AMD machine just fine.

Pre-College everything was pencil and paper (or pen if you like that). In college everything is typed up. Printing depends entirely on the teacher. A lot of my teachers just use uploads of documents. What is getting really troubling is that some teachers are using those online platforms that accept work. Basically, they scan your work and see if it is plagiarized. That's fine for like an essay writing class for the professor to see if you are using information properly and citing your sources. But I'm talking about things like, I am writing code for my programming class and I have to submit it. That's going to cause problems because not everyone is so creative with the way they program. A lot of people just love to copy each other anyway, so I don't care if that happens.

I was fortunate enough to only take statistics with a decent teacher so far. But people in College Algebra or whatever, they do their homework online. That is something I am completely against. The whole point with math is that you go through the procedure, show your work and if you are wrong it can be explained why. Multiple choice or fill-in-the-blank for a math class is horrible. At least my math teacher had use print out his worksheet and have us do it on paper.

Use of computers seems backwards sometimes. Another example is where one of my professors makes us write programs on paper. But I partially agree with that, I think relying too much on the computer to auto-fill is bad for your understanding.

In my lab, someone changed the wallpapers on some of the computers. The only reason that worked was because we had admin privileges to get into the Windows folder and replace the existing image. All computers are locked down with Group Policy so you are not authorized to do certain things. I get annoyed because I like it classic style where every time I open up a window it has its separate space on the taskbar. The school prohibited you from resizing the taskbar or doing anything to it. It's just gotten to dumb levels. The absolute dumbest thing that they do those is disable Command Prompt. They disable it, but they don't disable Powershell which can use all the same commands.

Yeah, Catalyst is what I have used.

I never had a computer where you can actually go into BIOS and change voltages or frequency. All of my PCs are generic pieces of garbage. But that's good because buying a customizable type of computer would probably involve a strong sense of buyer's remorse as I tend to get bored of things. Just like the Playstation 4 except it probably be 3 times as much money.


----------



## The red spirit

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> "Printer money" isn't real money, it's just a way to keep students from doing runaway printing and wasting all school resources. I prefer it to an inkjet printer. I got a free inkjet printer with the purchase of my laptop. I printed out a couple of papers with it, then stopped using it for a couple of months. All of the sudden it is broken.


My laser printer has almost defective fuser. It's hell. Drivers sometimes work, sometimes not. Printing in itself isn't relatively expensive, but it's way too expensive for regular printing in my mortal's psyche. Inkjets imo are much better. Maybe dot matrix ones are good too.




Grandmaster Yoda said:


> In English classes, writing is all about formatting. In foreign language class such as Spanish, the teachers read your sentence structure and use of words to see if they even make sense. They should be doing that in English as well.


Wow, that complete mes and overall bad system. In Lithuania, no matter what language you write in, almost every time your grammar, spelling, punctuation, content, structure, topic reveal, argumentation quality, word count (In English it's variable size, in Lithuanian 500 word minimum), context, style (no slang or incorrect forms) and logical mistakes. lol no one cares about page formatting as it's always already done notebooks and exam papers. Formatting is just off-topic and misses the point of studying language. In English classes I did well, but not good in Lithuanian ones. I have heard that American education system is retarded and backwards, but not to such level.




Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Perhaps due to popularity. It seems more often that I would come across someone saying that they are still using their early 2010s AMD machine just fine.


Yeah. Those held up well, but Core 2 stuff held up similarly, just that Intel can't add cores for shit, so people buy them and don't get long term longevity.




Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Pre-College everything was pencil and paper (or pen if you like that).


To me first 4 years required ink and pen as requirement for us to learn how to write nicely, not some ugly crap that no one understands. Well it helps, but I still write 'bad'. Most of my peers learned to write nicely.




Grandmaster Yoda said:


> In college everything is typed up.


My parents wen to uni and still typing was totally not needed in uni itself, only for work out of classes. Dad is engineer, mom went to economics. This concept of typing up stuff in classroom is completely new to me and in some way completely horrible. Only my dad worked as typer at uni, so he got his hands on IBM XT to write some things. 





Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Printing depends entirely on the teacher. A lot of my teachers just use uploads of documents. What is getting really troubling is that some teachers are using those online platforms that accept work. Basically, they scan your work and see if it is plagiarized. That's fine for like an essay writing class for the professor to see if you are using information properly and citing your sources. But I'm talking about things like, I am writing code for my programming class and I have to submit it. That's going to cause problems because not everyone is so creative with the way they program. A lot of people just love to copy each other anyway, so I don't care if that happens.


Yet again Murican's too strict about unimportant things. It's becoming a joke.




Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I was fortunate enough to only take statistics with a decent teacher so far. But people in College Algebra or whatever, they do their homework online. That is something I am completely against. The whole point with math is that you go through the procedure, show your work and if you are wrong it can be explained why. Multiple choice or fill-in-the-blank for a math class is horrible. At least my math teacher had use print out his worksheet and have us do it on paper.


Agreed



Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Use of computers seems backwards sometimes. Another example is where one of my professors makes us write programs on paper. But I partially agree with that, I think relying too much on the computer to auto-fill is bad for your understanding.


Certainly. Most of the time fault is in poor usage of computers and in wrong place, which is user failure and other concern is learning and your own health.




Grandmaster Yoda said:


> In my lab, someone changed the wallpapers on some of the computers. The only reason that worked was because we had admin privileges to get into the Windows folder and replace the existing image. All computers are locked down with Group Policy so you are not authorized to do certain things. I get annoyed because I like it classic style where every time I open up a window it has its separate space on the taskbar. The school prohibited you from resizing the taskbar or doing anything to it. It's just gotten to dumb levels. The absolute dumbest thing that they do those is disable Command Prompt. They disable it, but they don't disable Powershell which can use all the same commands.


Retards everywhere in your posts. It's sad and funny. I had profile without admin rights, but I could change wallpaper and I could download some porn too. You know the best benchmark for PC is classical "as long as it runs porn". lol. I never tried that, but some dudes in class left Half Life and Slenderman games installed on PC. 





Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Yeah, Catalyst is what I have used.


It was nice.




Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I never had a computer where you can actually go into BIOS and change voltages or frequency.


Poor man. All desktops I have used could do that, but none laptops. Even budget board offer that now. It feels a bit depressed to know that you are missing out on such great stuff. Get ole socket 939 board and AMD Athlon 64 FX CPU, add biggest chunk of metal you can find and overclock it. Generic crap is always crap, join PC master race.




Grandmaster Yoda said:


> All of my PCs are generic pieces of garbage. But that's good because buying a customizable type of computer would probably involve a strong sense of buyer's remorse as I tend to get bored of things. Just like the Playstation 4 except it probably be 3 times as much money.


maybe...Yes...Okay I agree, but it's stupid to be like that. After some bad investments you will learn some self-control. Now you don't have such skill, which is very useful in life. Don't be noob, raise clock speed to 5GHz, it's not hard (on AMD FX at least).


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda

The red spirit said:


> My laser printer has almost defective fuser. It's hell. Drivers sometimes work, sometimes not. Printing in itself isn't relatively expensive, but it's way too expensive for regular printing in my mortal's psyche. Inkjets imo are much better. Maybe dot matrix ones are good too.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that complete mes and overall bad system. In Lithuania, no matter what language you write in, almost every time your grammar, spelling, punctuation, content, structure, topic reveal, argumentation quality, word count (In English it's variable size, in Lithuanian 500 word minimum), context, style (no slang or incorrect forms) and logical mistakes. lol no one cares about page formatting as it's always already done notebooks and exam papers. Formatting is just off-topic and misses the point of studying language. In English classes I did well, but not good in Lithuanian ones. I have heard that American education system is retarded and backwards, but not to such level.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. Those held up well, but Core 2 stuff held up similarly, just that Intel can't add cores for shit, so people buy them and don't get long term longevity.
> 
> 
> 
> To me first 4 years required ink and pen as requirement for us to learn how to write nicely, not some ugly crap that no one understands. Well it helps, but I still write 'bad'. Most of my peers learned to write nicely.
> 
> 
> 
> My parents wen to uni and still typing was totally not needed in uni itself, only for work out of classes. Dad is engineer, mom went to economics. This concept of typing up stuff in classroom is completely new to me and in some way completely horrible. Only my dad worked as typer at uni, so he got his hands on IBM XT to write some things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet again Murican's too strict about unimportant things. It's becoming a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed
> 
> 
> Certainly. Most of the time fault is in poor usage of computers and in wrong place, which is user failure and other concern is learning and your own health.
> 
> 
> 
> Retards everywhere in your posts. It's sad and funny. I had profile without admin rights, but I could change wallpaper and I could download some porn too. You know the best benchmark for PC is classical "as long as it runs porn". lol. I never tried that, but some dudes in class left Half Life and Slenderman games installed on PC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was nice.
> 
> 
> 
> Poor man. All desktops I have used could do that, but none laptops. Even budget board offer that now. It feels a bit depressed to know that you are missing out on such great stuff. Get ole socket 939 board and AMD Athlon 64 FX CPU, add biggest chunk of metal you can find and overclock it. Generic crap is always crap, join PC master race.
> 
> 
> 
> maybe...Yes...Okay I agree, but it's stupid to be like that. After some bad investments you will learn some self-control. Now you don't have such skill, which is very useful in life. Don't be noob, raise clock speed to 5GHz, it's not hard (on AMD FX at least).


It's probably individual quality. My printer was an all-in-one with a scanner and everything. I think the whole thing was $30. I went to Best Buy a couple of weeks ago and the cheapest printer they had was $69.95.

Looking back, I really don't understand it beyond reading literature and then putting your thoughts or arguments into an essay. I didn't like the whole concept of finding the literary elements and meanings behind every story. But maybe that is good for someone interested. The Common Core thing made more sense. In my sophomore year of High School, my English class was basically testing out Common Core (if you don't know it is supposed to be an attempt to standardize education across the U.S. better.) We read articles and watch Ted Talks or whatever and then we basically "critically thought" about them and developed opinions. I think it is more sensible than trying to uncover vague metaphors in fictional novels.

If anyone wants to develop a theory of why so many employers in the U.S. wants students to have Bachelor's Degrees, here my insight: the first time that you are introduced to the topic of writing and communicating clearly is in College. But even that was kind of a failure in my opinion. In my College Class, the teacher taught us about "Grammar." 70% of that class was how to use punctuation like commas and semicolons. The intuitive thing for me and many others was "use a comma when you would take a breath when speaking." Obviously that isn't the case in that class. I know people who are retired English teachers/professors and they always talk about grammar and punctuation. Basically Grammar Nazis. But I never actually got treated to this concept until College because my high school didn't teach that stuff very much. I agree, this stuff is important (obviously I'm not really using it much now though). Here's the thing, the College English teacher basically bombarded us with how to use commas, but she never talked about logical construction or anything that we had to know. It bothers me, because it was in the books and that's really where everyone suffered. All of these concepts were glossed over in favor of punctuation nazism.

We had word counts sometimes in Spanish mainly. I think the part of Spanish that was a complete waste was that we learned to read, write and listen to Spanish but we never casually spoke Spanish. Everyone knows the best way to learn a language is to speak it with others who use it. So that was kind of pointless too. I remember a few words. I went to two different high schools because I moved, and my second high school was at like Spanish 1 levels in Spanish 3. The quality was terrible, that class made me look like a genius because I could use a complete sentence. Regular classes in English or anything usually avoided word count later in education. You use what you think is necessary to express the concepts. A lot of people I know are care too much about how many words they writing so they put in filler. "Omg, 20 words left and I am done." In one of my classes, my professor gave us a general technical writing paper every couple of weeks. All it said was basically, "Find someone related to the topic and our class and write a technical analysis paper." It was very open-ended. I learned a lot from those because I had to research and put into my own words what I was learning. It was something that he probably didn't even read throughly or anything, but I always had at least 1,000 words on each one just because I was invested into it. Plus, I'm pretty good at stringing words together in giant paragraphs.

AMD has a version of hyperthreading don't they? It goes by a different name, I am wondering if they use that with like their 6-cores or do they just leave it at 6-threads?

I have bad handwriting, it usually worsens as I stop using pencils. Given the fact that I almost never handwrite anything anymore, my handwriting is illegible to some people but apparently it was good enough for the teachers I have had throughout the years.

My friend gave someone a piece of his work for them to look or something and his professor emailed him saying that he helped someone plagiarize (online submission systems). He had to go have an academic hearing and the judges/jury basically said, "Wtf is he doing here?" And they just dismissed it because it was BS. That professor is like the nicest guy, he can laugh and tell jokes, but once you go slightly off course he turned into something else. One time I was creating a website, but I used the wrong symbol in my code so it wasn't working probably. I literally had to change a "." to a "#" and he just started lashing out for no reason. Wtf

In high school, a couple of kids booted into Safe Mode and tried to install Portal on the computer but it didn't have proper graphics support. In college people will have formatted hard drives on random computers for no reason. My friend flips all of the monitors to portrait mode and uses them like that. It's sad. There's a kid who put that he knows what "https" means on his resume. I asked him what it was and he couldn't remember. What? That's not even a skill, and he still doesn't know it. It's unbelievable and he is so delusional. "This is my field, this is what I like" and he never does any work and never learns anything. My professor one day after a test literally ranted for 20 minutes, "For those of you guys who are getting failing test grades, nobody is making you be here. This is supposed to be preparing for your career." So and so forth. This kid turns to me after class and he's like, "Did we actually learn anything or was he just rambling again?" This kid is ridiculous. When someone calls him out right to his face he sees as "That person really thinks I'm not living up to my potential." He's a special kind of special and of course he likes to get drunk as often as possible. I'm wondering how this kind of student escapes the public eye when we talk about education.


----------



## The red spirit

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> It's probably individual quality. My printer was an all-in-one with a scanner and everything. I think the whole thing was $30. I went to Best Buy a couple of weeks ago and the cheapest printer they had was $69.95.


Maybe, but it certainly doesn't make my experience any better. Driver issues are phenomenally bad.




Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Looking back, I really don't understand it beyond reading literature and then putting your thoughts or arguments into an essay. I didn't like the whole concept of finding the literary elements and meanings behind every story. But maybe that is good for someone interested. The Common Core thing made more sense. In my sophomore year of High School, my English class was basically testing out Common Core (if you don't know it is supposed to be an attempt to standardize education across the U.S. better.) We read articles and watch Ted Talks or whatever and then we basically "critically thought" about them and developed opinions. I think it is more sensible than trying to uncover vague metaphors in fictional novels.


Not sure. I found literature beautiful, teaching morality, teaching about history and etc. Felt like education, but yet again I slept in many classes, so I didn't learn everything well. Common Core tactics looks to be ignoring past and focusing on now, which is maybe okay, but past always was and is important to know. And TED talks aren't very scientific, IMO they don't fit into classroom. Classroom should always be beyond what you can find on net like that and teach us some real hard data. Make us literate in formal way rather than that.





Grandmaster Yoda said:


> If anyone wants to develop a theory of why so many employers in the U.S. wants students to have Bachelor's Degrees, here my insight


nope



Grandmaster Yoda said:


> the first time that you are introduced to the topic of writing and communicating clearly is in College. But even that was kind of a failure in my opinion. In my College Class, the teacher taught us about "Grammar." 70% of that class was how to use punctuation like commas and semicolons. The intuitive thing for me and many others was "use a comma when you would take a breath when speaking." Obviously that isn't the case in that class. I know people who are retired English teachers/professors and they always talk about grammar and punctuation. Basically Grammar Nazis. But I never actually got treated to this concept until College because my high school didn't teach that stuff very much. I agree, this stuff is important (obviously I'm not really using it much now though). Here's the thing, the College English teacher basically bombarded us with how to use commas, but she never talked about logical construction or anything that we had to know. It bothers me, because it was in the books and that's really where everyone suffered. All of these concepts were glossed over in favor of punctuation nazism.


So why there's need for degree? It looks like there's no need for one, just firing some dumb teacher should be fine (it's far more complicated than that, but I won't expand).



Grandmaster Yoda said:


> We had word counts sometimes in Spanish mainly. I think the part of Spanish that was a complete waste was that we learned to read, write and listen to Spanish but we never casually spoke Spanish. Everyone knows the best way to learn a language is to speak it with others who use it. So that was kind of pointless too. I remember a few words. I went to two different high schools because I moved, and my second high school was at like Spanish 1 levels in Spanish 3. The quality was terrible, that class made me look like a genius because I could use a complete sentence. Regular classes in English or anything usually avoided word count later in education. You use what you think is necessary to express the concepts. A lot of people I know are care too much about how many words they writing so they put in filler. "Omg, 20 words left and I am done." In one of my classes, my professor gave us a general technical writing paper every couple of weeks. All it said was basically, "Find someone related to the topic and our class and write a technical analysis paper." It was very open-ended. I learned a lot from those because I had to research and put into my own words what I was learning. It was something that he probably didn't even read throughly or anything, but I always had at least 1,000 words on each one just because I was invested into it. Plus, I'm pretty good at stringing words together in giant paragraphs.


All I know about USA is that education is uneducated education. Fail. Total Scheisse.





Grandmaster Yoda said:


> AMD has a version of hyperthreading don't they? It goes by a different name, I am wondering if they use that with like their 6-cores or do they just leave it at 6-threads?


It has no name as I know. Ryzen 1600 has 6C/12T. Low end Ryzens don't have that technology. Threadrippers, Epycs all have it. Ryzen 2800X had 8C/16T. X letter means it has advanced turbo boost. Anyway for as long as I know about AMD, they can't really make decent turbo technology and something like APM, that tries to stay within wattage, really turns on turbo irregularly, often throttles for no reason, even when thermals are exceptionally good and voltage isn't a problem. It never really works well, so I disable it. Most often it adds only like 200MHz and it means nothing for Dozers.





Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I have bad handwriting, it usually worsens as I stop using pencils. Given the fact that I almost never handwrite anything anymore, my handwriting is illegible to some people but apparently it was good enough for the teachers I have had throughout the years.


I always was known to have bad handwriting and to all teachers it was obvious.

It looks like that:













Grandmaster Yoda said:


> My friend gave someone a piece of his work for them to look or something and his professor emailed him saying that he helped someone plagiarize (online submission systems). He had to go have an academic hearing and the judges/jury basically said, "Wtf is he doing here?" And they just dismissed it because it was BS. That professor is like the nicest guy, he can laugh and tell jokes, but once you go slightly off course he turned into something else. One time I was creating a website, but I used the wrong symbol in my code so it wasn't working probably. I literally had to change a "." to a "#" and he just started lashing out for no reason. Wtf


You should go elsewhere to study. He's a moron.





Grandmaster Yoda said:


> In high school, a couple of kids booted into Safe Mode and tried to install Portal on the computer but it didn't have proper graphics support. In college people will have formatted hard drives on random computers for no reason. My friend flips all of the monitors to portrait mode and uses them like that. It's sad. There's a kid who put that he knows what "https" means on his resume. I asked him what it was and he couldn't remember. What? That's not even a skill, and he still doesn't know it. It's unbelievable and he is so delusional. "This is my field, this is what I like" and he never does any work and never learns anything. My professor one day after a test literally ranted for 20 minutes, "For those of you guys who are getting failing test grades, nobody is making you be here. This is supposed to be preparing for your career." So and so forth. This kid turns to me after class and he's like, "Did we actually learn anything or was he just rambling again?" This kid is ridiculous. When someone calls him out right to his face he sees as "That person really thinks I'm not living up to my potential." He's a special kind of special and of course he likes to get drunk as often as possible. I'm wondering how this kind of student escapes the public eye when we talk about education.


Why are you even with him? It looks like his personality is no good. I don't even know anything about web page creating, but isn't HTTPS = Hyper Text Transmission Protocol Secure? Oh wait, I only knew basics of web site creation, but we never learned such thing. We only made websites with text, pictures, simple formatting and links. They looked like HTML1 or 2 stuff.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda

The red spirit said:


> Maybe, but it certainly doesn't make my experience any better. Driver issues are phenomenally bad.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure. I found literature beautiful, teaching morality, teaching about history and etc. Felt like education, but yet again I slept in many classes, so I didn't learn everything well. Common Core tactics looks to be ignoring past and focusing on now, which is maybe okay, but past always was and is important to know. And TED talks aren't very scientific, IMO they don't fit into classroom. Classroom should always be beyond what you can find on net like that and teach us some real hard data. Make us literate in formal way rather than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nope
> 
> 
> So why there's need for degree? It looks like there's no need for one, just firing some dumb teacher should be fine (it's far more complicated than that, but I won't expand).
> 
> 
> All I know about USA is that education is uneducated education. Fail. Total Scheisse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has no name as I know. Ryzen 1600 has 6C/12T. Low end Ryzens don't have that technology. Threadrippers, Epycs all have it. Ryzen 2800X had 8C/16T. X letter means it has advanced turbo boost. Anyway for as long as I know about AMD, they can't really make decent turbo technology and something like APM, that tries to stay within wattage, really turns on turbo irregularly, often throttles for no reason, even when thermals are exceptionally good and voltage isn't a problem. It never really works well, so I disable it. Most often it adds only like 200MHz and it means nothing for Dozers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always was known to have bad handwriting and to all teachers it was obvious.
> 
> It looks like that:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should go elsewhere to study. He's a moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you even with him? It looks like his personality is no good. I don't even know anything about web page creating, but isn't HTTPS = Hyper Text Transmission Protocol Secure? Oh wait, I only knew basics of web site creation, but we never learned such thing. We only made websites with text, pictures, simple formatting and links. They looked like HTML1 or 2 stuff.


This kid has been at that school for 4 years already. A "super senior" he has the personality that will annoy anyone. Close to no social skills, will get up in your face and interrupt anything else you are doing. It's basically the worst kind of person you can meet. Ah this conversation is firm reminder of the worst parts of going to school. 

I would say roughly 2/3 of professors are useless. My early lesson in school was to not rely upon them.

Cursive/Script handwriting hasn't been taught to me since 2nd grade. Though I can certainly read it. It brings great displeasure to traditional people that kids write in print.


----------



## The red spirit

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> This kid has been at that school for 4 years already. A "super senior" he has the personality that will annoy anyone. Close to no social skills, will get up in your face and interrupt anything else you are doing. It's basically the worst kind of person you can meet. Ah this conversation is firm reminder of the worst parts of going to school.


hell




Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I would say roughly 2/3 of professors are useless. My early lesson in school was to not rely upon them.


True




Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Cursive/Script handwriting hasn't been taught to me since 2nd grade. Though I can certainly read it. It brings great displeasure to traditional people that kids write in print.


It brings huge displeasure to me too that some kids "I need computer for work", meanwhile that same kid just wastes lots of processing power just for taking notes. Not only this is very wasteful, but kid doesn't know how to write and computerized notes are inconvenient. Relying on power of electricity too much, makes society way too much dependent on one resource, which is certainly bad. Besides no power emergencies, I think that ink still has purpose among us. It's also far more fun and interesting to write with it. Modern society will see what I mean when everything will be computerized. I'm almost sure there will be massive coming back to normal living at one point. I'm not saying that new tech is bad, just overusing it is certainly bad.


----------



## Electra

1.Not sure if it is the right place to ask but why do I sometimes get kicked out of my own internet network for no apperent reason at all?


----------



## Powermetal101

why is water consider the foundation of life?


----------



## Godturtle

Try going one day without water, two days without water, three days without water......How many days will you live?


----------



## Energumen

Why does the rainbow appear as an arc?


----------



## DoIHavetohaveaUserName

1hour = 60 minutes, 1 minute = 60 s, 1s = ?

Don't Google(or any other browser ) before you have thought about it.


----------



## DoIHavetohaveaUserName

Energumen said:


> Why does the rainbow appear as an arc?


Another related question, why Doesn't rainbow appear in the night due to moonlight?


----------



## chad86tsi

DoIHavetohaveaUserName said:


> 1hour = 60 minutes, 1 minute = 60 s, 1s = ?
> 
> Don't Google(or any other browser ) before you have thought about it.


1s = 100 jiffy's.


----------



## General Lee Awesome

Powermetal101 said:


> why is water consider the foundation of life?


A lot of chemical reaction are facilitated by the unique properties of water.

Life is just a bunch of chemical reactions


----------



## DoIHavetohaveaUserName

chad86tsi said:


> 1s = 100 jiffy's.


What is 1 Jiffy = ?


----------



## chad86tsi

DoIHavetohaveaUserName said:


> What is 1 Jiffy = ?


10 ms (milli-seconds).

There are only a few more units in descending size that have actual names, rather than scaled to the scientific notation naming convention.


----------



## DoIHavetohaveaUserName

chad86tsi said:


> 10 ms (milli-seconds).
> 
> There are only a few more units in descending size that have actual names, rather than scaled to the scientific notation naming convention.


What I meant was one cannot keep on going giving names.
So time is basically measured in terms of frequency.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/atomic-clock5.htm


----------



## Dare

Energumen said:


> Why does the rainbow appear as an arc?


The ground interferes. Get high enough and you can see the full circle:










DoIHavetohaveaUserName said:


> Another related question, why Doesn't rainbow appear in the night due to moonlight?


Under the right conditions a 'moonbow' will appear (fainter than a regular rainbow due to less light):


----------



## chad86tsi

DoIHavetohaveaUserName said:


> What I meant was one cannot keep on going giving names.
> So time is basically measured in terms of frequency.
> https://science.howstuffworks.com/atomic-clock5.htm


Yah, numbers are the same. We have a naming convention that eventually just starts skipping naming of large sections of the number continuum, and then we invented (or observed) infinity to round it out. Time is time and doesn't even care about matter, molecules or their properties, any thing we use to measure and quantify time is just a construct of man. I manage multiple rubidium clocks at work so I'm familiar with them.


----------



## KSYHM

I have recently read that scientist have found out that pyramids could store energy. After doing research I found out that using a certain radio frequency, they could deflect electromagnetic fields into the pyramid’s chambers. What I don’t understand is, are they basically magnetizing the pyramids? I’m not aware of other ways to store magnetic fields. I also wonder how strong those magnetic fields are? Anyone an Idea?


----------



## chad86tsi

KSYHM said:


> I have recently read that scientist have found out that pyramids could store energy. After doing research I found out that using a certain radio frequency, they could deflect electromagnetic fields into the pyramid’s chambers. What I don’t understand is, are they basically magnetizing the pyramids? I’m not aware of other ways to store magnetic fields. I also wonder how strong those magnetic fields are? Anyone an Idea?


High frequency radios waves, especially microwave and above, are easy to deflect/steer. They can be caused to collect and overlap (constructive interference) in confined spaces and resonate. That's how your microwave oven works. It's not storing that energy, It's concentrating it, and it's not classic/basic magnetism as we commonly know it. Satellite dish's use a parabolic shape to focus the energy, it can be focused like a lens does to light. Imagine an electromagnetic prism.


----------



## Lord Thanksalot

Not entirely to the point, but I wonder why people confuse hurricanes and tornados.
It's like confusing dogs and lions, both eat meat and are mammals, but that's about it.
It just comes over as incredibly stupid to me.

Tornados are extremely local, just the funnel actually, touching the ground, forming inside a supercell storm.
Hurricanes are the huge storm systems forming over warm waters (I won't say oceans because they occasionally also form over the Mediterranean Sea, then called Medicane).

No need to go into details, as the point is that the visual aspect is already very distinct.


----------



## windking

Hurricanes are more dangerous to humans than tornadoes.


----------



## Electra

Why draw all those weird conclucions as explanations...like...the cat on the moon is probably purple because there are 7 yellow cats on earth. :thinking2::hopelessness::facepalm:
Gawd!


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Electra said:


> Why draw all those weird conclucions as explanations...like...the cat on the moon is probably purple because there are 7 yellow cats on earth. :thinking2::hopelessness::facepalm:
> Gawd!


Well, the universe may be curved like a balloon. The universe may be closed.

https://www.livescience.com/universe-may-be-curved.html


----------



## Electra

Scoobyscoob said:


> Well, the universe may be curved like a balloon. The universe may be closed.
> 
> https://www.livescience.com/universe-may-be-curved.html


:moon::star::saturn:
Errrhm. WELL! Good to know...h:
for those who get it!:eagerness:
:indecisiveness::hopelessness::thinking::confused3:
:facepalm::Smilies1::anyone:

Persoanlly I currently have a theory that the univense _might_ be endless and that some of us humans often have a challange with grasping endlessness.

:moon::star::saturn:


----------



## The red spirit

Electra said:


> :moon::star::saturn:
> Errrhm. WELL! Good to know...h:
> for those who get it!:eagerness:
> :indecisiveness::hopelessness::thinking::confused3:
> :facepalm::Smilies1::anyone:
> 
> Persoanlly I currently have a theory that the univense _might_ be endless and that some of us humans often have a challange with grasping endlessness.
> 
> :moon::star::saturn:


Then why there are planets and chemical materials. Why wouldn't they just spread into nothingness? Why they even exist?


----------



## g_w

Scoobyscoob said:


> Well, the universe may be curved like a balloon. The universe may be closed.
> 
> https://www.livescience.com/universe-may-be-curved.html


Sorry that brought to mind The Restaurant at the End of the Universe...


----------



## g_w

*Cough* Airy functions *cough*


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Electra said:


> :moon::star::saturn:
> Errrhm. WELL! Good to know...h:
> for those who get it!:eagerness:
> :indecisiveness::hopelessness::thinking::confused3:
> :facepalm::Smilies1::anyone:
> 
> Persoanlly I currently have a theory that the univense _might_ be endless and that some of us humans often have a challange with grasping endlessness.
> 
> :moon::star::saturn:


The current theory is that the universe is endless and forever expanding. There's some research based on the ESA's latest data on the cosmic microwave background (CMB) that suggests the universe may actually be curved and closed in on itself.



g_w said:


> Sorry that brought to mind The Restaurant at the End of the Universe...


I've never read that book but yeah, it's kind of a mind trip. I should re-read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe again one of these days!


----------



## Electra

The red spirit said:


> Then why there are planets and chemical materials. Why wouldn't they just spread into nothingness? Why they even exist?


So that you would get something to wonder about. :wink:


----------



## logicallogic

How does a cathode tube works?


----------



## logicallogic

Also, what's the difference between monitors and tvs?


----------



## patrick-the-real-one

logicallogic said:


> How does a cathode tube works?


u put a single electric terminal in contact with a gas and pump it to many ionizing volts as necesary to ionize gas.

then u put an anode and cathode inside the gas, with some voltage difference and heat the cathode and it will release electrons and those will get attracted to the anode and u will see a beam of electrons.

protip, make sure there is very little gas so the electrons dont hit gas and make beam shorter
protip 2, electrons hitting metal will make x rays so shield your balls with lead or smthing



logicallogic said:


> Also, what's the difference between monitors and tvs?


monitors show images or video, tv is a em wave receptor and decoder plus a monitor plus a speaker


----------



## Electra

Will earth get absorbed by the dying sun first or sucked into a black hole?


----------



## HAL

Electra said:


> Will earth get absorbed by the dying sun first or sucked into a black hole?


Well there ain't no black holes around here. So it's the dying sun for us.

That being said, black holes don't emit any light, so for all we know there's one hurtling directly toward us right now.


----------



## Crowbo

What is the primary difference between DNA and RNA?


----------



## g_w

HAL said:


> Well there ain't no black holes around here. So it's the dying sun for us.
> 
> That being said, black holes don't emit any light, so for all we know there's one hurtling directly toward us right now.


You can tell they are there by the gravitational effects on the nearby stars and gas; and if large enough, the accretion disk of stuff waiting in line to fall in.


----------



## HAL

g_w said:


> You can tell they are there by the gravitational effects on the nearby stars and gas; and if large enough, the accretion disk of stuff waiting in line to fall in.


Not if they're moving fast as fuck.





__





Black Holes on the Move? | ChandraBlog | Fresh Chandra News






www.chandra.harvard.edu







> Rapidly moving black holes that are flying solo will be essentially impossible to detect, since space is very big and they will encounter other objects only very rarely.


----------



## Electra

HAL said:


> Not if they're moving fast as fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black Holes on the Move? | ChandraBlog | Fresh Chandra News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.chandra.harvard.edu


But wont they still suck things up? Why not?


----------



## Electra

Also: How could Oumuamua have moved it the special way it it did into our galaxy? Could it be a ufo? Why and why not?


----------



## HAL

Electra said:


> But wont they still suck things up? Why not?


It depends on whether they move close to anything else or not.

Black holes don't have any more gravitational strength than the start they previously were. I think this is an important thing that most people aren't aware of - Black holes are not gargantuan entities of doom, they're just a collapsed star, and they have the same gravity as that star. The only difference is they are much smaller, so they can get a lot closer to things and therefore gravitational attraction comes into place.

If our sun were to magically become a black hole, we would still orbit it in the same way.


----------



## Ewok City

Will we ever be able to travel faster than the speed of light?

Some might say, we could do so if we can find a way to store antimatter and use it as a fuel for space travel rockets.

That is one plausible solution, but then we will be travelling so fast that it will be really dangerous to even hit a space dust.

How do we find a workaround to this?


----------



## HAL

Ewok City said:


> Will we ever be able to travel faster than the speed of light?
> 
> Some might say, we could do so if we can find a way to store antimatter and use it as a fuel for space travel rockets.
> 
> That is one plausible solution, but then we will be travelling so fast that it will be really dangerous to even hit a space dust.
> 
> How do we find a workaround to this?


I'm in the "definitely not" camp.

Lightspeed is the universal speed limit. This is demonstrated clearly in the equations for special relativity. 

I don't think anti-matter has any special properties for breaking that speed limit either. Anti-matter is just matter but with opposite properties. For example, a positron is basically an 'anti-electron' because it's a particle with a positive charge instead of a negative charge. It still has all the properties that matter is supposed to have, and is therefore restricted to the universal speed limit just like everything else is.


----------



## Ewok City

HAL said:


> I don't think anti-matter has any special properties for breaking that speed limit either. Anti-matter is just matter but with opposite properties.


Ah I see. I've read somewhere that antimatter can be used as a fuel for nuclear reactor. But I didn't do a careful research, turns out that there are various sources that denies this as well.

Which leads to another question, even if we did somehow manage to travel near the speed of light, it will still take 20000 years to get out of the Milky Way, and about 46.5 billion years to get to the edge of observable universe!

Do you think human race will ever find a way to overcome this barrier, or are we doomed to be stuck in our solar system forever?

If there is a way, which do you think is the most plausible? (Wormhole, warp gate, etc.)


----------



## HAL

Ewok City said:


> Ah I see. I've read somewhere that antimatter can be used as a fuel for nuclear reactor. But I didn't do a careful research, turns out that there are various sources that denies this as well.
> 
> Which leads to another question, even if we did somehow manage to travel near the speed of light, it will still take 20000 years to get out of the Milky Way, and about 46.5 billion years to get to the edge of observable universe!
> 
> Do you think human race will ever find a way to overcome this barrier, or are we doomed to be stuck in our solar system forever?
> 
> If there is a way, which do you think is the most plausible? (Wormhole, warp gate, etc.)


That's another no from me, sadly! Universal speed limit means there are also time limits to things too, i.e. if something is 1000 lightyears away, it means it must take more than 1000 years for any object to reach it from where we are.

I guess the only solution would be to figure out how to put a human into stasis and wake them up again after 1000 years. And I think this one _is_ possible. Just put someone into an ultra-vegetative state, like a coma, and feed them with an as-yet-un-invented machine that turns energy into food. Then you'd just need a vessel with a nuclear reactor and enough nuclear fuel to generate energy for 1000 years while they travel across the universe. 

That being said, I know nothing about biology so it may well be completely impossible too.


----------



## Ewok City

HAL said:


> I guess the only solution would be to figure out how to put a human into stasis and wake them up again after 1000 years. And I think this one _is_ possible. Just put someone into an ultra-vegetative state, like a coma, and feed them with an as-yet-un-invented machine that turns energy into food. Then you'd just need a vessel with a nuclear reactor and enough nuclear fuel to generate energy for 1000 years while they travel across the universe.
> 
> That being said, I know nothing about biology so it may well be completely impossible too.


Hahaha! 😂 

That's a wild guess, but I guess at this point not even the expert Physicists really understand Quantum Mechanics, so your proposition might not be too farfetched after all.

Even if your proposition is indeed plausible, I couldn't imagine how much energy do we need in order to make this kind of interstellar travelling method accessible for the common people.


----------



## General Lee Awesome

Crowbo said:


> What is the primary difference between DNA and RNA?


The sugar backbone is different


----------



## Ewok City

When will wooly mammoths finally be resurrected?


----------



## ChrisDecrow

As far as I know, for the ressurection of mammonths already collected $15000000.Within 6 years, scientists plan to breed embryos based on the dna of Asian elephants and the dna of the remains of woolly mammonths. It turns out they coincide by almoust 100%. It will be carried either by surrogate elephant mother or artificial wombs. Scientists want to release them to the Arctic region so that they can help to restore the tundra ecosystem


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb

Is it true that you need vitamin C to absorb iron supplement? Liquid or tablet.


----------



## islandlight

I live in a place with cold, dry winters, so I bought a humidifier and a cheap digital hygrometer. Since yesterday, the hygrometer has read either 16% or 21% (never the numbers in between). Is this what cheap hygrometers do -- report in 5% increments? The info sheet doesn't say anything about this.


----------



## CountZero

How do thorium salt reactors work? Can they actually burn existing nuclear waste? How efficiently do they "burn" waste (i.e. how much "new waste" is left over once you burn the existing waste?) Has anyone practically demonstrated any piece of the technology (e.g. liquid sodium for cooling?)


----------

