Science desk | ||
---|---|---|
< November 17 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 19 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
The article on cosmic microwave background radiation says that the radiation is isotropic except for a small blueshift because we're moving relative to the surface of last scattering. But shouldn't the side of the surface closer to the center of the universe be much warmer because there are more photons per cubic meter on the less-expanded side than on the more-expanded outer side? 71.176.180.12 ( talk) 02:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is the playing range of the theremin? I've heard it stated as just slightly higher and lower than the cello, is this true? Kenjibeast ( talk) 02:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Alright, let's talk the Moog etherwave model in particular. That one. What's that one's range. Kenjibeast ( talk) 02:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
That would take some complicated figuring, taking into account every component in the Theremin including its speaker. An easier way is it to have a very good microphone pick up the sound and supply it to an oscilloscope. The oscilloscope will show the basic frequency of the sounds. The microphone would have to respond to subsonic and supersonic audio, if you are interested in that and if the Theremin will go that low and that high. Or a good musician can match the lowest and highest frequencies of the Theremin on a musical instrument and name the pitch he is playing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.67.220 ( talk) 03:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The Etherwave's tone is produced in a circuit configuration called a beat frequency oscillator. It consists of two high-frequency oscillators, plus a detector circuit which extracts the difference frequency, or beat frequency. One of the highfrequency oscillators (called the fixed pitch oscillator) operates at about 285 kHz, while the other high-frequency oscillator (called the variable pitch oscillator) operates over a range of about 282 - 285 kHz. The difference frequency ranges from zero to about 3 kHz, which is three and a half octaves above middle C.
The pitch antenna circuit is connected to the variable pitch oscillator in such a way that increases in hand capacitance will decrease the variable pitch frequency as much as 3 kHz. This is how the pitch antenna circuit, in conjunction with the beat frequency oscillator circuit, enables the player to cover a usable pitch range of some five octaves (two octaves below to three octaves above middle C) simply by moving her right hand through a distance of two feet or so.
From here : UNDERSTANDING, CUSTOMIZING, AND HOT-RODDING YOUR ETHERWAVE ® THEREMIN. Hope this helps. APL ( talk) 03:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I just read the following:
The water vapor molecule is smaller than airs other molecules - nitrogen and oxygen. Therefore, water vapor can squeeze through smaller microscopic spaces than air.
How can this be true? It certainly isn't true in a space-filling model: If H-O-H fits through an opening, so will O-O, because the former has to be at least as wide as an O atom, and the latter can't be wider than that.
It is conceivable that the picture looks different when we regard the orbital model. However, I don't think the effect is favorable for water, which has big lobes sticking out of the O on the opposite side of the two H. Moreover, it has high van der Waals forces, which should, if anything, rather contribute to the water getting stuck in narrow openings. — Sebastian 04:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I am a recent graduate of microbiology at University of Texas at Austin. I want to plan a career in a relatively emerging and promising frontier of science, such as molecular genetics or cancer biology. However, the answer to these questions can be useful to any recent graduate.
What new and emerging field of science do you find have the biggest opportunity for future employment prospects i.e. what industry that is based on the science will always be in high demand? I personally had molecular genetics, cancer and developmental biology in mind. 70.112.163.212 ( talk) 05:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
What method of study besides job experience do you recommend for getting as up-to-date with that field as humanly possibly? 70.112.163.212 ( talk) 05:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
What books do you recommend for obtaining a deep "philosophical" and practical grasping of basic tenants of science, what is its role in our modern world, what customs exist in the profession, and how researchers carry out their methodology. For instance, what percentage of experiments are novel, and what percentage are simply an extrapolation and testing of ideas that were advanced by a single or select group of researchers? What makes a good scientist a good scientist? 70.112.163.212 ( talk) 05:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
@StuRat: You failed to take into account the government grants that go into R&D. Whenever the govt. needs to diversify (for GDP growth etc. or like the current credit crunch) it will spend more on R&D. -- Movieideas ( talk) 12:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
@OP: I would suggest you read this business article: Pharma struggles to adapt as patents expire http://www.reuters.com/article/Health08/idUSTRE4AF1QS20081117 -- Movieideas ( talk) 12:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know the resistance of outer space? Preferably as a function of distance from the Sun? I asked this as part of another question earlier. So far, the only answer I got was:
The resistance in space is pretty frigging huge. You need a series of actual atoms to transfer electrons along; and atoms are few and far between in space, so the resistance is likely, um, excuse the pun, "astronomically high". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Let me continue from there. IIRC, space contains large numbers of ions and free electrons. This would cause the Earth's charge to slowly leak. This is quite different than how electricity normally works, so I don't know if the electrical conductance in space can be modeled the same, but I'm doing it on a planetary scale, so if there's anything slowing the charge down at all, it seems like the normal model might work. In addition, I'm dealing with a huge time-frame (5.5 billion years). Put simply, making a charge of 8e17 C once, and making it once every million years to keep it from going away, make the resulting difficulty in destroying the Earth differ by over three orders of magnitude. — DanielLC 05:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed I didn't explain very well why I think space would conduct electricity. I mean that the ions of opposite charge would move towards the earth, and the ions of the same charge would move away, thus slightly increasing the amount of oppositely aligned ions entering the atmosphere, and decreasing the amount of similarly aligned ions. If there's nothing slowing the ions down, they'd just keep accelerating and causing the charge to go away faster and faster, but if they are slowed down, it would act the same as the atoms slowing down electrons in a conductor, just on a larger scale, making the normal models still work. — DanielLC 16:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
"Space" is a hard vacuum. A Vacuum tube usually has a hard vacuum. Both have immeasurably high resistance when there are no electrons or ions present in the space between electrodes. In some early (1930's) science fiction a plot gimmick was that the bad guy had broken the glass on the vacuum tubes, so the spaceman could not broadcast a warning message from his spaceship. The spaceman just donned his space suit and opened the hatch, making the interior of the ship a hard vacuum like outside, and the tubes worked fine. My point is that if you tested resistance of space by having metal surfaces some distance apart and applying a voltage between them while measuring the current, no current would be detected unless there were ionized gas atoms introduced between them, or unless electrons were emitted from the one with the negative charge.The Photoelectric effect describes how a metal piece will emit an electron when it absorbs electromagnetic radiation. As noted, there are some ions in space and there are some electrons, and these could carry a small current. The resistivity of space would depend on what ions and electrons were in it. Hot metal will emit electron via Thermionic emission. Edison ( talk) 17:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Tardis, do you know what the equation for this I-V curve is, or where I could find out? — DanielLC 06:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
In this morning's reports of the hijacking of the oil tanker Sirius Star, an American Navy official is quoted as saying that the tanker, "(is) three times the size of an aircraft carrier." The Sirius Star is 330 metres long, or 1082 feet. After some googling around, I can't find any type of aircraft carrier that is shorter than about 800 feet. It isn't too easy to compare the 'weights', as there seem to be deadweight tons, shortweight tons, metric tons, and displacement. In any case, is there any measure by which this supertanker can be fairly described as 'three times the size of an aircraft carrier'? Audacious pirates anyway... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.134.43 ( talk) 09:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
What are the pros and cons of selective breeding? is it ethical/unethical? Discuss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fas327 ( talk • contribs) 09:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
This has puzzled me since I was a kid. The Earth is a closed system (more or less). The Sun constantly heats the Earth. So shouldn't the Earth be constantly getting hotter and hotter? Heat is the vibration of atoms and space is a vacuum. So where does all the heat go? 67.184.14.87 ( talk) 14:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
So Christians think that Jesus is completely, 100% a normal human being, he can die, everything about him is normal, he's just like you and me. At the SAME time, he's 100% God Himself. He's completely God. It's not that he's 20% Human and 80% God. He's completely a mortal human and completely immortal God. Obviously, this is ridiculously illogical and anyone who would believe that is off their rockers....I was thinking.
But wait: I remembered that reality itself has such a dualty! Light is 100% a wave, it interacts in wave patterns, by any standard you could measure it's completely a wave. But it's also a particle, it comes in photons, by any standard you could measure it completely comes in particles. So it seems you don't have to be ridiculously illogical to believe that, since our physical universe ACTUALLY has such a manifestation! But I'm not a quantum physicist so, could I ask:
Is my conclusion right? If Christians believe what I said about Jesus, is it comparable to what quantum physicists believe about light? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.75.250 ( talk) 14:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
This is the science desk - not the guessing-wildly-about-the-supernatural desk. The scientific answer is that we have been given no opportunity to perform any experiments on either Jesus or God - and we actually have no evidence that either ever existed. So it's unreasonable to expect us to have an answer for you. An analogy is not a way to reason about the universe...it's a way to explain something that you already understand. SteveBaker ( talk) 19:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Can someone link me to some information on the evolution of the ear, or make a wikipedia page on it? Evolution of the nose wanted, too :) I'm curious... Also, any information on the evolution of blood (not individual blood types like A and B but the substance of blood) would be cool. Could someone compare and make a cross-section on the differences between different species' blood? Or at least groups of species (insects, mammals, fish etc.), please. Also, how do the immune systems of smaller organisms like insects work? Can someone further explain the system through which lymph is conveyed through the body, and also compare that to other organisms' lymph transportation? Some more questions about blood - I know that Red blood cells live about 120 days, and they go to the Liver to be "cleaned" (this is correct, right?), but how often do they go? How are they cleaned? Also, how does Hemoglobin work? I know that arteries move RBCs through peristalsis - does this mean that arteries are smooth muscle? How do veins keep that momentum of the blood up, especially far away from the heart? veins use valves, don't they? Are the valves cells of their own, or inanimate proteins or what? Oh, and evolution proponents say that one human chromosome is the fusion of 2 chimp ones or something like that. Without getting into a pro/anti-evolution debate, how could these have fused gradually/quickly?
Thanks for all your time. Answer as much as you can :) I really like learning and am curious about this stuff... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.102.78.170 ( talk) 16:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
_____________________ /| Flow -> / Flow Dir / Dir Closes / Opens Valve / <- Valve / |
is gama rays can break the atomic structure of water? because cosmic radiation break the water molecules in the air,bat in nuclear power station the water molecules in the steam tank dosent break down-- אזרח תמים ( talk) 17:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I recall reading at one point that the actual color of Dunkleosteus had been determined due to some kind of chemical analysis of the fossil (bear with me--I read this a few years ago so my memory's a bit sketchy). This was an amazing announcement, but I'm not sure if I'm willing to believe it, because this information was packaged along with the "Arsinoitherium had hollow horns" assertment, which we know now is incorrect. So I am not sure if the claim about Dunkleosteus is valid or not. I can't seem to find any verification online, but I'm not sure if this is because there really isn't any such evidence, because I somehow missed the optimal keywords that would have brought me the results I wanted, or if it's just due to the material being unavailable online or in my particular language (there are a few paleocritters I can't find anything on, but I don't doubt that they exist). So what's the deal with Dunkleosteus? Do we know what color it was, or is this just another baseless "fact" that shouldn't be taken seriously? 70.213.5.52 ( talk) 19:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
How far into space can the hubble telescope see? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.237.47 ( talk) 20:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Suppose that I had a 60% ethanol solution (40% water). How would I go about finding the moles of ethanol boiled off if I were to boil it for a certain period of time?
Basically what I am trying to do is boil the ethanol vapors for an experiment I am doing. I need to measure the amount of moles of ethanol in the vapors. I have access to lab equipment, so do not need to be hesitant with any suggestions if they include laboratory apparatus. Thanks. This is probably really simple but for some reason I can't think of the proper method to measure.
-- proficient ( talk) 21:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm watching Battlestar Galactica and a thought occurred to me. In the show, their solar system has 12 planets that are inhabited by mankind. It seems to me that it would be extremely unlikely, if not impossible, for a single solar system to have 12 planets that could be inhabited by humans. In fact, I'm wondering if how possible it is to have 2 planets within a solar system's habitable zone. So, theoretically speaking, how many planets can there be within a single solar system that could be habitable by man? By 'habitable' I mean that the people could live on it naturally without the need for a space suit or 'moon base' like enclosure. 67.184.14.87 ( talk) 21:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
-- Kurt Shaped Box ( talk) 22:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
67.184.14.87 ( talk) 21:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
One of the factors involved would be the "heat albedo" of Venus -- its ability to reflect incoming heat radiation from the sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.67.220 ( talk) 22:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I looked it up and Venus is actually hotter than Mercury even though Mercury's much closer to the Sun. 216.239.234.196 ( talk) 15:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering specifically one thing about Newton's Second Law.
Giving the basic summary, Issac Newton was an English physicist among many other things. He came up with the principle of Force = mass * acceleration.
The current system used in physics, even included in Newton's equation, is in the metric system. Mass is measured in kilograms, and acceleration is also measured in meters per second squared. The metric system didn't exist in Newton's time and first used the meter in 1793. This date is way after the proposed date of death of 1727 for Issac Newton, and you should even assume he published his book before his death. My main question?
When Issac Newton first wrote his book, what did he use in place of these metric units? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.4.99 ( talk) 23:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Science desk | ||
---|---|---|
< November 17 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 19 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
The article on cosmic microwave background radiation says that the radiation is isotropic except for a small blueshift because we're moving relative to the surface of last scattering. But shouldn't the side of the surface closer to the center of the universe be much warmer because there are more photons per cubic meter on the less-expanded side than on the more-expanded outer side? 71.176.180.12 ( talk) 02:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is the playing range of the theremin? I've heard it stated as just slightly higher and lower than the cello, is this true? Kenjibeast ( talk) 02:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Alright, let's talk the Moog etherwave model in particular. That one. What's that one's range. Kenjibeast ( talk) 02:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
That would take some complicated figuring, taking into account every component in the Theremin including its speaker. An easier way is it to have a very good microphone pick up the sound and supply it to an oscilloscope. The oscilloscope will show the basic frequency of the sounds. The microphone would have to respond to subsonic and supersonic audio, if you are interested in that and if the Theremin will go that low and that high. Or a good musician can match the lowest and highest frequencies of the Theremin on a musical instrument and name the pitch he is playing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.67.220 ( talk) 03:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The Etherwave's tone is produced in a circuit configuration called a beat frequency oscillator. It consists of two high-frequency oscillators, plus a detector circuit which extracts the difference frequency, or beat frequency. One of the highfrequency oscillators (called the fixed pitch oscillator) operates at about 285 kHz, while the other high-frequency oscillator (called the variable pitch oscillator) operates over a range of about 282 - 285 kHz. The difference frequency ranges from zero to about 3 kHz, which is three and a half octaves above middle C.
The pitch antenna circuit is connected to the variable pitch oscillator in such a way that increases in hand capacitance will decrease the variable pitch frequency as much as 3 kHz. This is how the pitch antenna circuit, in conjunction with the beat frequency oscillator circuit, enables the player to cover a usable pitch range of some five octaves (two octaves below to three octaves above middle C) simply by moving her right hand through a distance of two feet or so.
From here : UNDERSTANDING, CUSTOMIZING, AND HOT-RODDING YOUR ETHERWAVE ® THEREMIN. Hope this helps. APL ( talk) 03:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I just read the following:
The water vapor molecule is smaller than airs other molecules - nitrogen and oxygen. Therefore, water vapor can squeeze through smaller microscopic spaces than air.
How can this be true? It certainly isn't true in a space-filling model: If H-O-H fits through an opening, so will O-O, because the former has to be at least as wide as an O atom, and the latter can't be wider than that.
It is conceivable that the picture looks different when we regard the orbital model. However, I don't think the effect is favorable for water, which has big lobes sticking out of the O on the opposite side of the two H. Moreover, it has high van der Waals forces, which should, if anything, rather contribute to the water getting stuck in narrow openings. — Sebastian 04:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I am a recent graduate of microbiology at University of Texas at Austin. I want to plan a career in a relatively emerging and promising frontier of science, such as molecular genetics or cancer biology. However, the answer to these questions can be useful to any recent graduate.
What new and emerging field of science do you find have the biggest opportunity for future employment prospects i.e. what industry that is based on the science will always be in high demand? I personally had molecular genetics, cancer and developmental biology in mind. 70.112.163.212 ( talk) 05:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
What method of study besides job experience do you recommend for getting as up-to-date with that field as humanly possibly? 70.112.163.212 ( talk) 05:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
What books do you recommend for obtaining a deep "philosophical" and practical grasping of basic tenants of science, what is its role in our modern world, what customs exist in the profession, and how researchers carry out their methodology. For instance, what percentage of experiments are novel, and what percentage are simply an extrapolation and testing of ideas that were advanced by a single or select group of researchers? What makes a good scientist a good scientist? 70.112.163.212 ( talk) 05:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
@StuRat: You failed to take into account the government grants that go into R&D. Whenever the govt. needs to diversify (for GDP growth etc. or like the current credit crunch) it will spend more on R&D. -- Movieideas ( talk) 12:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
@OP: I would suggest you read this business article: Pharma struggles to adapt as patents expire http://www.reuters.com/article/Health08/idUSTRE4AF1QS20081117 -- Movieideas ( talk) 12:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know the resistance of outer space? Preferably as a function of distance from the Sun? I asked this as part of another question earlier. So far, the only answer I got was:
The resistance in space is pretty frigging huge. You need a series of actual atoms to transfer electrons along; and atoms are few and far between in space, so the resistance is likely, um, excuse the pun, "astronomically high". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Let me continue from there. IIRC, space contains large numbers of ions and free electrons. This would cause the Earth's charge to slowly leak. This is quite different than how electricity normally works, so I don't know if the electrical conductance in space can be modeled the same, but I'm doing it on a planetary scale, so if there's anything slowing the charge down at all, it seems like the normal model might work. In addition, I'm dealing with a huge time-frame (5.5 billion years). Put simply, making a charge of 8e17 C once, and making it once every million years to keep it from going away, make the resulting difficulty in destroying the Earth differ by over three orders of magnitude. — DanielLC 05:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed I didn't explain very well why I think space would conduct electricity. I mean that the ions of opposite charge would move towards the earth, and the ions of the same charge would move away, thus slightly increasing the amount of oppositely aligned ions entering the atmosphere, and decreasing the amount of similarly aligned ions. If there's nothing slowing the ions down, they'd just keep accelerating and causing the charge to go away faster and faster, but if they are slowed down, it would act the same as the atoms slowing down electrons in a conductor, just on a larger scale, making the normal models still work. — DanielLC 16:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
"Space" is a hard vacuum. A Vacuum tube usually has a hard vacuum. Both have immeasurably high resistance when there are no electrons or ions present in the space between electrodes. In some early (1930's) science fiction a plot gimmick was that the bad guy had broken the glass on the vacuum tubes, so the spaceman could not broadcast a warning message from his spaceship. The spaceman just donned his space suit and opened the hatch, making the interior of the ship a hard vacuum like outside, and the tubes worked fine. My point is that if you tested resistance of space by having metal surfaces some distance apart and applying a voltage between them while measuring the current, no current would be detected unless there were ionized gas atoms introduced between them, or unless electrons were emitted from the one with the negative charge.The Photoelectric effect describes how a metal piece will emit an electron when it absorbs electromagnetic radiation. As noted, there are some ions in space and there are some electrons, and these could carry a small current. The resistivity of space would depend on what ions and electrons were in it. Hot metal will emit electron via Thermionic emission. Edison ( talk) 17:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Tardis, do you know what the equation for this I-V curve is, or where I could find out? — DanielLC 06:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
In this morning's reports of the hijacking of the oil tanker Sirius Star, an American Navy official is quoted as saying that the tanker, "(is) three times the size of an aircraft carrier." The Sirius Star is 330 metres long, or 1082 feet. After some googling around, I can't find any type of aircraft carrier that is shorter than about 800 feet. It isn't too easy to compare the 'weights', as there seem to be deadweight tons, shortweight tons, metric tons, and displacement. In any case, is there any measure by which this supertanker can be fairly described as 'three times the size of an aircraft carrier'? Audacious pirates anyway... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.134.43 ( talk) 09:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
What are the pros and cons of selective breeding? is it ethical/unethical? Discuss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fas327 ( talk • contribs) 09:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
This has puzzled me since I was a kid. The Earth is a closed system (more or less). The Sun constantly heats the Earth. So shouldn't the Earth be constantly getting hotter and hotter? Heat is the vibration of atoms and space is a vacuum. So where does all the heat go? 67.184.14.87 ( talk) 14:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
So Christians think that Jesus is completely, 100% a normal human being, he can die, everything about him is normal, he's just like you and me. At the SAME time, he's 100% God Himself. He's completely God. It's not that he's 20% Human and 80% God. He's completely a mortal human and completely immortal God. Obviously, this is ridiculously illogical and anyone who would believe that is off their rockers....I was thinking.
But wait: I remembered that reality itself has such a dualty! Light is 100% a wave, it interacts in wave patterns, by any standard you could measure it's completely a wave. But it's also a particle, it comes in photons, by any standard you could measure it completely comes in particles. So it seems you don't have to be ridiculously illogical to believe that, since our physical universe ACTUALLY has such a manifestation! But I'm not a quantum physicist so, could I ask:
Is my conclusion right? If Christians believe what I said about Jesus, is it comparable to what quantum physicists believe about light? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.75.250 ( talk) 14:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
This is the science desk - not the guessing-wildly-about-the-supernatural desk. The scientific answer is that we have been given no opportunity to perform any experiments on either Jesus or God - and we actually have no evidence that either ever existed. So it's unreasonable to expect us to have an answer for you. An analogy is not a way to reason about the universe...it's a way to explain something that you already understand. SteveBaker ( talk) 19:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Can someone link me to some information on the evolution of the ear, or make a wikipedia page on it? Evolution of the nose wanted, too :) I'm curious... Also, any information on the evolution of blood (not individual blood types like A and B but the substance of blood) would be cool. Could someone compare and make a cross-section on the differences between different species' blood? Or at least groups of species (insects, mammals, fish etc.), please. Also, how do the immune systems of smaller organisms like insects work? Can someone further explain the system through which lymph is conveyed through the body, and also compare that to other organisms' lymph transportation? Some more questions about blood - I know that Red blood cells live about 120 days, and they go to the Liver to be "cleaned" (this is correct, right?), but how often do they go? How are they cleaned? Also, how does Hemoglobin work? I know that arteries move RBCs through peristalsis - does this mean that arteries are smooth muscle? How do veins keep that momentum of the blood up, especially far away from the heart? veins use valves, don't they? Are the valves cells of their own, or inanimate proteins or what? Oh, and evolution proponents say that one human chromosome is the fusion of 2 chimp ones or something like that. Without getting into a pro/anti-evolution debate, how could these have fused gradually/quickly?
Thanks for all your time. Answer as much as you can :) I really like learning and am curious about this stuff... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.102.78.170 ( talk) 16:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
_____________________ /| Flow -> / Flow Dir / Dir Closes / Opens Valve / <- Valve / |
is gama rays can break the atomic structure of water? because cosmic radiation break the water molecules in the air,bat in nuclear power station the water molecules in the steam tank dosent break down-- אזרח תמים ( talk) 17:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I recall reading at one point that the actual color of Dunkleosteus had been determined due to some kind of chemical analysis of the fossil (bear with me--I read this a few years ago so my memory's a bit sketchy). This was an amazing announcement, but I'm not sure if I'm willing to believe it, because this information was packaged along with the "Arsinoitherium had hollow horns" assertment, which we know now is incorrect. So I am not sure if the claim about Dunkleosteus is valid or not. I can't seem to find any verification online, but I'm not sure if this is because there really isn't any such evidence, because I somehow missed the optimal keywords that would have brought me the results I wanted, or if it's just due to the material being unavailable online or in my particular language (there are a few paleocritters I can't find anything on, but I don't doubt that they exist). So what's the deal with Dunkleosteus? Do we know what color it was, or is this just another baseless "fact" that shouldn't be taken seriously? 70.213.5.52 ( talk) 19:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
How far into space can the hubble telescope see? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.237.47 ( talk) 20:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Suppose that I had a 60% ethanol solution (40% water). How would I go about finding the moles of ethanol boiled off if I were to boil it for a certain period of time?
Basically what I am trying to do is boil the ethanol vapors for an experiment I am doing. I need to measure the amount of moles of ethanol in the vapors. I have access to lab equipment, so do not need to be hesitant with any suggestions if they include laboratory apparatus. Thanks. This is probably really simple but for some reason I can't think of the proper method to measure.
-- proficient ( talk) 21:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm watching Battlestar Galactica and a thought occurred to me. In the show, their solar system has 12 planets that are inhabited by mankind. It seems to me that it would be extremely unlikely, if not impossible, for a single solar system to have 12 planets that could be inhabited by humans. In fact, I'm wondering if how possible it is to have 2 planets within a solar system's habitable zone. So, theoretically speaking, how many planets can there be within a single solar system that could be habitable by man? By 'habitable' I mean that the people could live on it naturally without the need for a space suit or 'moon base' like enclosure. 67.184.14.87 ( talk) 21:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
-- Kurt Shaped Box ( talk) 22:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
67.184.14.87 ( talk) 21:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
One of the factors involved would be the "heat albedo" of Venus -- its ability to reflect incoming heat radiation from the sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.67.220 ( talk) 22:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I looked it up and Venus is actually hotter than Mercury even though Mercury's much closer to the Sun. 216.239.234.196 ( talk) 15:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering specifically one thing about Newton's Second Law.
Giving the basic summary, Issac Newton was an English physicist among many other things. He came up with the principle of Force = mass * acceleration.
The current system used in physics, even included in Newton's equation, is in the metric system. Mass is measured in kilograms, and acceleration is also measured in meters per second squared. The metric system didn't exist in Newton's time and first used the meter in 1793. This date is way after the proposed date of death of 1727 for Issac Newton, and you should even assume he published his book before his death. My main question?
When Issac Newton first wrote his book, what did he use in place of these metric units? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.4.99 ( talk) 23:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)